"In this statement we witness the radical feminist incapacity for abstract thought along with their complete lack of education."

But but but but how come we don't have an education? Isn't that because we're oppressed? Because, y'know, if we weren't oppressed we'd be the vice chancellors of every single higher education establishment IN THE WORLD, surely?

I thought feminists were supposed to be over-educated and obsessed with abstract theory instead of practical, real-world solutions. Now we lack education and can't think abstractly? Get your stereotypes straight, Bernard!

I'd like to laugh, but really it makes me want to cry. The reason Ms. Dombrowski left class wasn't because she couldn't handle an opposing view, it's because the opposing view seems so frustratingly ignorant. It's one thing to clear up some misunderstandings about a shared belief, but to be faced with just a complete blindness to the situation can render a person inarticulately frustrated.

I should know, because I find myself inarticulately frustrated a lot, and leaving the room is actually a lot more mature and polite than say, throwing pencils, which is what I am often tempted to do.

And it makes me want to cry because he is not the only one who thinks like this, and the people who do believe that feminists are concerned about problems that are no longer problems are just everywhere. Up until recently, I was dating one of them, and you can guess how well that went over.

Every opinion is not valid.

Pot, meet kettle!

Their logo is a lithe and sleek silhouette of a woman with evolutionarily correct dimensions that will be sure to result in a loss of self-esteem among the scale-challenged...

Notice the distinct lack of ironic quotes around "evolutionarily correct?" I wonder how this phrase translates to a dude's physique? How about, "lack of visible beer belly and big-in-the-pants?"

If you ever feel down in the dumps after reading misogynist garbage, check out the past few days of Gawker.com's coverage of Eric Schaeffer. The snarkiness of the comments will delight you thoroughly and give you hope for humanity...although the 5 or so posts might take a while to ingest, it's so totally worth the time.

I've noticed something about that horrid little man. It would seem he likes to use big words to make himself sound smart and important. If I possessed my boyfriend's knowledge of psychology, I could probably analyze what kind of person he is.

But narcissistic comes to mind...

And insecure.

Wow. I've just seen the light. We've got 2 television stations (and, let's face it, though those Lifetime movies are like crack and will suck a person in on a Sunday afternoon, it's not the best in entertainment)! Two whole television stations! I hadn't stopped to think that two whole stations meant that women all over the world were now in an amazingly equal place. Thank you so much, Mr. Chapin, for educating me. Now, I'm off to tell my black friends that they've got a television station (BET) so they can no longer feel that they're in any way oppressed. I know they'll be happy to know that Dr. King's dream has finally been realized through the wonderful world of television.
/sarcasm

This is just SAD. It's just like when white people b*tch to me about why there has to be a "Black Entertainment Channel" for only black people when we're not discriminated against "anymore". I love the, "What's wrong with all the other channels?" Ugh.

I love the Gremlins reference but I believe that that's what happens when you pour water on them, feeding them just makes them multiply;)

BTW: I'm popping in on another computer because for some reason mine refuses to allow me to log onto this site through Typekey, hopefully no anti-feminists have hacked my 'puter. :P

ceezee:

I often get frustrated with others' ignorance about feminism and sexism in our society. Everyone in my immediate family fully supports segregating schools according to sex (public schools!) and they think I'm nuts for suggesting the radical idea that maybe boys and girls shouldn't be separated.

It can be very infuriating to be the lone feminist with two very sexist brothers (who both have wives who do all the cleaning, cooking, and chores, naturally). And being told all the time to not do stuff because it's not "ladylike" or that I should do something "because you're a girl".

I think there is a legitimate need for a "men's rights" movement, but almost everything I've seen from that side has been appalling.

Feminists and masculinists (or whatever they want to call themselves) shouldn't be enemies. Women have a long list of very legitimate grievances, but so do men -- from custody of children to restrictive gender roles.

Women are often told to be "ladylike" or to do things "because you're a girl," but men are very often told (by men and women) to "be a man" or to "grow a pair" and called all kinds of slurs for being perceived as womanly or gay. Even certain colors are off-limits to men. I know many men would like to keep it this way, but many women would like to do nothing but stay at home and please her husband as well.

I'm all for supporting this movement, but as long as its proponents are people like "Bernard Chapin"... it's hard to get any sympathy from me.

No, no, Ultramagnus, it's feeding them that makes them change, water that makes them multiply. Every drop is a new Gremlin or ugly little fuzzball that isn't that much better looking than the gremlins. Remember at the end of the first movie, when all of the Gremlins except Stripe have been destroyed, but Stripe jumps into an indoor swimming pool, and the whole thing turns green and starts churning and we know that we're seconds away from a Gremlin Apocalypse until Our Hero pulls the curtain and lets the sunshine in?

Reference was hilarious, incidentally.

By the way, does the existence of Spike TV dilute the liberating effects of Oxygen and Lifetime at all?

Ha! Or, does the fact that I'd much prefer to watch Spike or F/X over Oxygen and Lifetime make me a bad feminist?

Of course, Ms. Dombrowski is totally wrong because such a law is already on the books. In this statement we witness the radical feminist incapacity for abstract thought along with their complete lack of education. The Equal Rights Amendment wasn’t passed for a variety of reasons, but none was more convincing than the fact that it was completely superfluous. Discrimination based on sex has been prohibited for over 40 years due to the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It states repeatedly throughout its provisions that it is unlawful to discriminate based on an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…�

Oh my God. Clearly this man has no understanding of how U.S. law operates. I would have thought that any average American (even laypersons) would understand the difference between a STATUTE, which can be undone by the whim of any given Congress or the Supreme Court, and an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, which therefore becomes a part of the Constitution, and which therefore requires a SECOND Constitutional Amendment to overturn it (see Amendments 18 and 21 -- interestingly, it was while the US was sober that women got the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote...). And amendments are damn near impossible to get, as we can see from the difficulty of getting the ERA ratified.

Further, even if he meant that the Constitutional Amendment would make the statute superfluous, he's still wrong. A Constitutional Amendment making equality mandatory says nothing about HOW to enact its purposes. It thereby gives Congress the authority to enact laws ensuring substantive equality, while prohibiting it from making laws that injure substantive equality. Therefore, NEITHER would make the other superfluous.

But hell, what do I know. I mean, look at his glowing credentials: Mr. Chapin is "a writer living in Chicago." Oh, geez, if only I had written anything while I lived there!

/sarcasm

Ha! Or, does the fact that I'd much prefer to watch Spike or F/X over Oxygen and Lifetime make me a bad feminist?

Oh my God, Jane, sooooo with you. Dirt and Nip/Tuck are two of my favorite TV shows, and I'm thrilled now that Spike has started airing Voyager in syndication :)

I don't think I've ever watched an entire show or movie on Oxygen or Lifetime.

So much for gender stereotypes! Now if only the channels I *actually* watch (including Comedy Central) would pretend to care that a lot of their viewers are women and not air misogynist commercials...

Well, he starts off okay:

If you want to find truth and persuade others then you should study and vigorously refute the works of your opponents.

I agree with that. But it's all downhill from there, because he doesn't follow his own advice. So much of the anti-feminism ranting comes from reacting to the word "feminism." I have wondered if the term "feminism" sets up a binary in which We (women) are always opposed to Them (men). To me, feminism encompasses women, men, and other genders. But it's like the "pro-life" thing. If I call myself pro-life, I'm setting up my opponent to be pro-death. And feminism is about breaking down those binaries, not perpetuating them. Just a thought.

NOT that I'm excusing his idiocy. According to his advice, he should already know that about feminism since he should have read actual feminist theory.

Also, pornography is not the same as erotica. Asshat.

"Now if only the channels I *actually* watch (including Comedy Central) would pretend to care that a lot of their viewers are women and not air misogynist commercials..."

Law Fairy, I'm so with you there! I hate going to sleep watching something and waking up to a freaking Girls Gone Wild commercial (By the way, ever watch those things? They're like 30 minutes of repetition. Seriously. The same clips over and over and over.).

"Oh my God, Jane, sooooo with you. Dirt and Nip/Tuck are two of my favorite TV shows,"

Make that three. Is it ironic that the last name of a guy who doesn't seem to shut up reminds me of the silent film star?

I think it is.

And I know it's a bit off topic, but I also love Grey's Anatomy. The last episode was crazy!

Dang! I have failed in my geekness. *smacks hand*

Shows me for commenting on a movie I haven't seen in years:).

I love Nip/Tuck too! Dirt I have not seen yet.

I much, much prefer Spike to any Lifetime type channel. (I'm a woman by the way)

I agree with magpie - I thought feminists were supposed to be over-educated, that's why I went to medical school.

I've been seeing this same baseless remark about "dumb uneducated feminists" in so many anti's comments/articles lately. Doesn't it seem like children's immature playground banter?

I absolutely loved the Gremlins reference, but I'm too tired to write much else

"Ha! Or, does the fact that I'd much prefer to watch Spike or F/X over Oxygen and Lifetime make me a bad feminist?"

No, of course not! It makes you an average one because everyone knows that we really want to become men!

*rolls eyes*

And more Kudos for Jenny's maturity in handling the situation. I would love to calmly walk out of a asinine discussion but that takes the utmost patience and commitment to intellectual pursuit (in her case).

What an idiot. Everyone knows that the Gremlin thing only happens when we have our periods. DUH!

Howdy, I was going to send this over to you folks but now see I don't have to. I have a bit of response which I'll post as well once I proof it too. Anyway, glad you took the time to read the article even if you hated it. I will say:
1. With Lifetime and Oxygen channels, they are but one of my many points. However, no country that was oppressive in any meaningful way would allow the people they are supposedly oppressing to have their own TV stations. That would be unheard of historically, but you folks are great lovers of history I admit. The state also wouldn't sponsor Women's Studies programs either but you probably already know that.
2. That the OP could feel dirty by having someone look at their picture online is rather telling. a. You should not post a picture to a public site if you wish to control who looks at it.
b. I'll empower you here by offering a solution by which you can solve your dilemma. Take a picture of yourself in a balaclava or a burlap bag which would prevent people from seeing what you look like. Problem solved!
c. That the OP fears being called young and fit is rather odd as it is not a sexual description or demeaning to anyone. If one is put off by such comments then they have led a life of luxury and privilege. Congratulations to you. If only we all had such a simple path through life.
3. I am an equity feminist and not a radical feminist. Women should have EXACTLY the same rights as men, period. No privilege, no affirmative action, no slaughters in divorce court. I believe in equality as do most men I know. That this is forgotten shows how skewed and pathological the situation has become.
4. Radical feminists have terrible educations. Their schooling teaches them to hate and feel superior to half the population. They hear propaganda in school and cannot handle diversity of opinion. They walk out rather than stand to be disagreed with like the posters admitted they did here. In college, did any of you read much in the way of conservative viewpoints? If you didn't then you knew more before you entered school. Will you post this or is it too much diversity for you?

Hi what's up (Mr. Chapin?).

I have a question for you. You state that women should have "EXACTLY the same rights as men, period." Does this include the right not to have to physically bear an unwanted child? Because men have this legal right, but many conservatives would deny this legal right to women.

Does this mean women should have the right to the same respect that men get? The right to be valued for qualifications other than beauty? The right to make the same minor, unimportant mistakes that men commonly make, without being thought of as particularly for them (at least, no more so than any man making the same mistake)? Because women don't currently have these rights. We aren't valued the same way by society. So, really, radical feminists are also equality feminists. I think we just define equality differently. It seems to me that saying simply that you care about "equality," without defining it further, doesn't add much to the discussion. Please bear in mind that black people were considered "equal under the law" before desegregation, or before they were allowed to ride in the front of buses. "Equality" without more is just a word.

And if you are for equality, why are you against the ERA, as you seem to be? Or, if we already have equality, why don't we have the ERA?

As for your assertion that radical feminists have "terrible" educations, let's test that theory. My undergraduate education was at a perfectly respectable state university (Colorado - Colorado Springs, a bastion of conservatism, by the way). I double majored in political science and philosophy with a minor in economics. My overall GPA was nearly 4.0 (my GPA in the economics minor was 4.0). I eschewed any form of women's studies classes because I was an anti-feminist. My senior thesis in philosophy was a critique of feminist epistemology, heavily drenched in a helping of MacKinnon and Dworkin (and my counter-arguments). I was a staunch anti-feminist at the time I graduated.

While still anti-feminist, I matriculated at the University of Chicago Law School. I presume you've heard of it? U.S. News and World Report ranks it 6th among all US law schools (ABA-approved; non-ABA schools are not ranked and, presumably, are inferior to first-tier schools), and Brian Leiter ranks it 2nd. By the time I earned my juris doctor at the ripe old age of 23 (in the top 30% of my class), I had been transformed into a radical feminist. Not due to any classes I took (the U of C -- the birthing-place of law and economics theory and modern libertarianism -- is quite possibly the most right-leaning law school in the nation). But due to, for the first time, experiencing oppression because of my sex. Never before had this happened to me. Now that I was competing with my intellectual equals, I realized that I would have to work much harder than a male my equal to earn the same rights and respect he had. I learned this from no class. I learned this from life itself.

But clearly my feminism must be due to my "terrible education," hmmm?

The ole glass ceiling will do it every time. TLF, I love your long posts!

Radical simply means to "go to the root" of a problem so radical feminism argues for a comprehensive equality between men and women. Radicals similarly go to the roots of problems and tend to be inclusive.

Hi, I'll answer this now and check back tomorrow morning for anything else.
1. I'm pro-choice on just about everything at this point. Do as you please and yes I believe in complete equality.
2. There is no legal right or test for respect. I respect those who respect me. I suggest that everyone else do the same, but, again, that's only a suggestion they may do as they please.
3. You have every right already that men possess. If you're not valued by an individual for a mistake you make you'll have to talk to them.
4. Society values women far more than men. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is see every mainstream media article ever published for proof of us.
5. It's callous to compare the current era to something like Jim Crow where one group truly was disadvantaged. You are in no way disadvantaged. Avoid self-pity and work, study, and labor. You'll be happy if you do but again it's only a suggestion. Do as you please.
6. Oh, totally opposed to ERA. The civil rights legislation already offered the same thing. The ERA Amendment is all about attention and self-obsession. That's the last thing we need any more of.
7. You went to law school and you think there's a legal right to "respect?" Well, I believe you but that's rather fantastic isn't it? You should earn respect and not ask it to be legislated by government. Perhaps people would respect you more if were grateful for what you've been given. Gratefulness is something that all of us respect--at least the people I know. My recommendation would be more effort, less absorption and less government. Now that's a winning platform indeed. Okay, so you were so oppressed in law school that you graduated from the University of Chicago in the top 30 percent! Ah, yeah. Well, better tell those women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that they haven't suffered at all compared to what happened to you. What do you make now? 100K? My deepest sympathies. You have been given everything in life so why then complain? Perhaps the affirmation of perpetual complaining is why you chose to become a rad fem? Something to consider at least. Oh well, good luck though.

Wow, you're an idiot.

There's no point arguing with idiots.

Goodbye.

You are in no way disadvantaged.

You are in no way reality-based (in case you can't access JSTOR, it's a study showing that upscale restaurants severely discriminate against women in hiring).

You went to law school and you think there's a legal right to "respect?"

Mr. Chapin,

I was not the one who stated that "rights" must mean "legal rights." Certainly if you wish to limit "rights" to "legal rights" you may do so, but you did not make this clear from your earlier post. I did not say anyone has a legal right to respect. I do not believe women should have more legal rights than men, and I don't think (m)any radical feminists advocate for this. However, we do maintain that our cultural rights are less than men's and that's the sort of equality we fight for. There are more sorts of "rights" than merely legal ones.

Doing well in school does not mean one's aptitude is later reflected in how that aptitude is respected and treated. You may recall that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor performed quite well in her class at Stanford Law School, and yet was not offered a single law firm job. During her sole interview with a law firm, a partner insultingly insinuated that the best she could hope for was a job as a legal secretary, as his firm had never hired a woman as an attorney. We've come a long way since then but we're far from perfect. Women can do exceedingly well at something and yet not receive the same treatment as men for their success. This is a problem.

Your Saudi Arabia point is a red herring. Since when does arguing for one set of rights, mean you are opposed to absolutely every other struggle for rights in the world? This is preposterous. I support ALL women's struggle for equality, including Saudi and Afghani women's. If you would bother to peruse other comments I've made on this site you would note that I often admit, readily, that I'm vastly privileged in comparison to many, many people in the world. This is because I'm white, I come from an upper-class background, and I'm American. The effects of my privilege are somewhat dampened by sex oppression -- but I am not so deluded to sit around thinking "poor me." I simply point out that sex inequality exists at every level of society, including mine, and including that of people much less fortunate than me. I've never pretended that I somehow "earned" the right to be an American (and all the attendant privileges that entails). I've never pretended I "derserved" my good parents, or the many, many things they've given me over the years. It would be nice to see that kind of candor from more men such as yourself.

I'm unaware of any rule that says that, because I am privileged, I cannot point out oppression where it exists, and I'm not sure where you got the notion that a person's being more privileged than others precludes her from pointing out that inequalities exist in a society. Further, you are aware, are you not, that this is an ad hominem argument (and therefore not much of an argument at all)?

These "but it could be so much worse!" arguments always remind me of telling someone that was robbed that they shouldn't complain or attempt to seek justice, because other poeple get stabbed and shot when thier things are stolen.

In other words, pretty ridiculous.

TLF, sometimes I feel that you are the even-tempered, eloquent champion for all of us, so thank you for that.

You know, the "you have it so much better than women in Saudi Arabia (or wherever)" arguments always feel to me to be vaguely threatening, as if the man who is making them is indulging in some sort of sadistic fantasy while simultaneously admonishing those wicked feminists not to push men too hard, because look what they'd do to us if they weren't so civilized.

And of course, it's simply not a valid argument. If someone breaks me leg, I of course would acknowledge that someone with two broken legs, a broken arm, and gangrene is in worse straits than I. Nonetheless, I still need my leg seen to.

It is an easy argument to turn around, though. Look at the years and years of white male dominance and privilege. Look how cushy their lives are. Look how the world practically caters to their desires. Look how much worse off almost everybody else is. And yet they expect us to shut up and count our blessings?

God, how depressing. It's the same crud I had to put up with back in school 15 years ago, back when I had more energy to argue. Any solidarity among women equates to oppression of men. Any popularity of anything of interest to any females, no matter how dumb, is evidence we've won the battle. He sounds like one of those twits who argues that because men want to have sex with us, we're the ones in "power." Ah, but at least we ladies have Lifetime now!

I did my best to argue with Mr. Chopin

here:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/26/women-are-not-oppressed#comment-28630

to which he posted a rebuttle, and I replied here:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/27/the-myth-of-women%e2%80%99s-oppression/#comment-28692

I'm not a men's rights nutjob, but one can disagree with Ms. Dombrowski's argument without being an idiot.

"Every two minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in America."

I'm not sure how this proves women are oppressed. It proves that 262,800 women were sexually assaulted last year. There are approximately 160 million women in the United States.

"And women still make 74 cents for every $1 a man makes, according to news reports."

Only around 6 cents of the gap is a result of discrimination. The rest of the gap reflects productivity, willingness to take certain risks, and certain work/life preferences. For example, working on a pipeline in Alaska pays quite well in part because you're living in Alaska and the pipeline you're working on might explode, but very few women even apply for such jobs.

The article also complains about the prevalence of porn (presumably depicting consensual adult sex). I suppose you can dislike porn if you like, but plenty of women genuinely like porn and use it as a marital aid or source of ideas. It also seems rather inconsistent to oppose oppression and yet believe we should censor speech and the expression of ideas.

Also, the Lifetime/Oxygen argument isn't entirely ridiculous. Consumer behavior drives ad dollars and ad dollars drive programming. It's rather hard to make the argument that evil, insensitive male-run corporations ignore the interests of women when they fund t.v. stations that are marketed directly to women and are directly responsive to what women want to see, want to buy, etc. Lots of single women with disposable income watch those networks; the same demographic that skews liberal and votes Democratic and Hillary Clinton is appealing to these days.

By contrast, most blacks who watch BET are preteens who can't vote. It's a music video station. The analogy is both annoying and false.

Only around 6 cents of the gap is a result of discrimination.

When you control for things that aren't obviously discrimination, like experience, occupation, and working hours, the gap shrinks to 8-9%. That gap is steady: it's been 9% in the US since 1990, and 8% in Sweden since at latest 1995 (I think).

For example, working on a pipeline in Alaska pays quite well in part because you're living in Alaska and the pipeline you're working on might explode, but very few women even apply for such jobs.

Actually, the wage gap at that level is quite low. In the US, these jobs have seen prolonged wage stagnation; as Betty Friedan noted around 1999, two thirds of the decline in the US wage gap had been due to a fall in men's wages rather than a rise in women's.

In contrast, professionals have a very large wage gap. In Sweden, the gap among business professionals is 25%, compared to a national gap of 15% among full-time workers and an occupation-controlled gap of 8%. In the US, the gap among people with postgraduate degrees is about 25% as well.

Part of that gap is due to women's working fewer hours in order to raise children; but another part is due to managers' and professors' being sexist. Not coincidentally, switches to gender-blind admissions or hiring - e.g. reviewing papers without knowing the author's name, or conducting musical auditions while being able to hear but not see the candidates - have uniformly seen sharp rises in the representation of women. When a certain Classics conference switched to anonymous submissions in the 1970s, its share of women doubled within two years.

but another part is due to managers' and professors' being sexist. Not coincidentally, switches to gender-blind admissions or hiring - e.g. reviewing papers without knowing the author's name, or conducting musical auditions while being able to hear but not see the candidates - have uniformly seen sharp rises in the representation of women. When a certain Classics conference switched to anonymous submissions in the 1970s, its share of women doubled within two years.

No offense, but this is crap. I am familiar with the study you are referring to, and it only deals with academic papers submitted to academic fora. You are stretching. That study has nothing to do with the marketplace in general or the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers that are used to generate the wage gap. If you look at the sexual harassment statistics, you'll find that quo pro quo harassment essentially no longer exists. The suits brought these days are generally hostile work environment suits with statutes of limitations that stretch back decades. In other words, there is NO proof that sexual discrimination in the "I will pay you less because you are a woman" is ongoing in the present.

Also, it is not just that women choose to raise children; non-pregnant women in equal positions to men generally choose time off instead of cash bonuses. Women also choose to work indoors in safe environments, which means no risk pay. Women choose careers that do not involve risk of death or burdensome travel, which is smart. They earn less and they live longer! You need to face the fact that women do not work as much, benefit as a result, and the labor stats reflect that. Period. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not being short-changed.

But you refuse to believe it because you have an agenda to push. That said, why don't you have a picture on your website? Not providing a picture seems fundamentally dishonest.

I'm not sure how this proves women are oppressed. It proves that 262,800 women were sexually assaulted last year. There are approximately 160 million women in the United States.

Often men who sexually assault women do so not necessarily out of desire, but it's more about having power over a woman....that does seem a little oppressive doesn't it, especially when it's happeneding to over 200,000 women. Just because when compared to the 160 million currently living in the US does nothing to negate the severity of the problem.

that does seem a little oppressive doesn't it, especially when it's happeneding to over 200,000 women.

Hmm, this is just a half-clever attempt to restate what was a fallacy. That some women are abused doesn't mean that all women are oppressed or that we live in an oppressive system that is rigged against women. It just means that some women are sexually abused. No one here is arguing that sexual abuse is good, but when it only happens to 0.125% of women, it doesn't qualify as systemic, societal oppression.

"Only around 6 cents of the gap is a result of discrimination. The rest of the gap reflects productivity, willingness to take certain risks, and certain work/life preferences."

None of which has anything to do with institutionalized sexism, of course. "Preferences" is a fancy word for "someone has to take care of the kids and the aging parents, and caretaking is women's work." There's nothing inherently equitable about a system that penalizes a certain class of people for doing work that needs to be done. The women I know who've taken time off to take care of their kids did so at least in part because the amount of money they were earning would not have been equal to how much they would have had to lay out in childcare--that's one of the ways the inequitable system reinforces itself. Also, most recent studies have controlled for those "preferences."

"I'm not sure how this proves women are oppressed. It proves that 262,800 women were sexually assaulted last year. There are approximately 160 million women in the United States."

The relevant comparison is not to how many women were not assaulted, but to how many men were.

That study has nothing to do with the marketplace in general or the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers that are used to generate the wage gap.

Curiously, you only acknowledge the study about academics. The most detailed studies are about the academia because gender researchers tend to be academics, so it's easiest for them to measure their own industry. However, the same patterns of discrimination in wages, employment, and promotion are the same in other professional fields.

In addition, the study I actually linked to is about upscale restaurants, which is very much about wages. The same study also shows discrimination against men at downscale restaurants, although to a smaller extent than the discrimination against women at upscale restaurants. This is part of what drives the wage gap: even when men and women are paid equally at the same workplace, employers that pay more discriminate in hiring.

You need to face the fact that women do not work as much, benefit as a result, and the labor stats reflect that. Period. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not being short-changed.

Actually, in many countries they measure the wage gap in pay per hour rather than year in order to control for that. In Britain and France that gap is about 20%; in Canada, it's 25%.

As for risk pay, you're still ignoring the fact that the best paying jobs, and the greatest gaps, have nothing to do with physical risks. What you say about physical risks could explain things like why relatively few women hold blue-collar union jobs, but has nothing to do with the occupation- and experience-controlled 8-9% gap. Doctors, lawyers, and bankers don't have any physical risk, except perhaps stress, and yet a female lawyer who works 80 hours a week will get paid and promoted less than a male lawyer who works 80 hours a week.

That said, why don't you have a picture on your website? Not providing a picture seems fundamentally dishonest.

I do have a picture on my website. You just have to sift through the archives to see it.

"Actually, in many countries they measure the wage gap in pay per hour rather than year in order to control for that. In Britain and France that gap is about 20%; in Canada, it's 25%."

Absolutely, Alon. And that's not even getting into the unpaid labor that women are responsible for, aka domestic labor.

"Hmm, this is just a half-clever attempt to restate what was a fallacy. That some women are abused doesn't mean that all women are oppressed or that we live in an oppressive system that is rigged against women. It just means that some women are sexually abused. No one here is arguing that sexual abuse is good, but when it only happens to 0.125% of women, it doesn't qualify as systemic, societal oppression.

Well let me ask you this, how many men are sexually assaulted? How many men are sexally harrassed on the street? (believe me, street harrassment DOES happen.) When I see a man carry Mace and not have to watch their cocktail like a hawk so they don't have to worry about god knows what being slipped into it, then I will consider agreeing with you.

If you're a male, then you have no idea what it is like to be a woman. I've had a pretty good run so far barring a few negative experiences with sexual harrassment, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the general notion behind feminism

Well let me ask you this, how many men are sexually assaulted?

In the US, about 20,000 every year outside prison. Within the prison system, nobody knows.

Yes, but if we count men inside the prison system, then we need to count women inside the prison system too, who are often guarded by men, and there's a similar lack of info.

you're still ignoring the fact that the best paying jobs ... Doctors, lawyers, and bankers don't have any physical risk, except perhaps stress, and yet a female lawyer who works 80 hours a week will get paid and promoted less than a male lawyer who works 80 hours a week.

Ironically enough, your argument tends to prove my point. Women tend to think that being a doctor or a lawyer is better than being a construction worker or a dentist, even though construction workers and dentists make lots of cash. You see very few female construction workers and dentists and it has nothing to do with discriminatory hiring.

As for doctors, female medical students generally want to make cash and have a good work/life balance. So they opt for fields like dermatology. They earn less in raw dollars, but when you look at the hours they are working in comparison to surgeons, who are on-call 24/7, they're earning more dollars per hour. The medical school students who become surgeons are primarily male. It has nothing to do with discriminatory hiring.

As for promotions in law firms, law firms don't work they way you suggest. No one works 80 hours, punches a time card, and then goes home. And there are no "promotions" unless you mean becoming a partner, which is hard to do for anyone and takes on average 8 years. The attrition rates at law firms are horrendous -- the vast majority of all lawyers, regardless of sex, leave their first law firm without making partner. You could only possibly be talking about bonuses, which is the only way attorneys are singled out for different levels of compensation, and bonuses are usually a straight reflection of your commitment to the firm, i.e., hours worked over a certain minimum. If you put 2300 hours of good work, you get the bonus. Period. The differential in the averages is due to women taking more vacations, taking time off to marry (because women are often younger when they go to law school rather than making a mid-career transition), deciding to have children, and not going to big law firms in the first place. Public interest attorneys like Legal Aid attorneys and public defenders and so forth are far more likely to be female than male.

The same study also shows discrimination against men at downscale restaurants, although to a smaller extent than the discrimination against women at upscale restaurants. This is part of what drives the wage gap: even when men and women are paid equally at the same workplace, employers that pay more discriminate in hiring.

I don't think the particularities of the restaurant industry are generalizable to the rest of the marketplace. I would also note that people with agendas to push see discriminatory hiring where the statistics imply self-selection.

The most detailed studies are about the academia because gender researchers tend to be academics, so it's easiest for them to measure their own industry.

No opportunities for bias there!

The women I know who've taken time off to take care of their kids did so at least in part because the amount of money they were earning would not have been equal to how much they would have had to lay out in childcare--that's one of the ways the inequitable system reinforces itself.

Uh, so you're saying these women are sensible! Why would you work if it isn't profitable? You're saying these women decided not to work because it would have been unprofitable! Gee whiz! The point of working is to make profit! Are you saying that child care should be free? Why? The child care provider has to earn a living, too! Or perhaps you're saying it should be subsidized by the government. Newsflash! It already is!

But none of that proves there is systemic oppression of women.

As for doctors, female medical students generally want to make cash and have a good work/life balance. The differential in the averages is due to women taking more vacations, taking time off to marry because women are often younger when they go to law school rather than making a mid-career transition, deciding to have children, and not going to big law firms in the first place. Public interest attorneys like Legal Aid attorneys and public defenders and so forth are far more likely to be female than male.

Jacques, life/work balance, having children, public interest law are important to women because the private sphere has not been equalized like the public sphere. Women are expected to care for children and the elderly whereas men don't continually ask themselves how they'll balance work and a family. Women may take on public interest careers because of their experiences as women which is also related to systemic discrimination.

Women tend to think that being a doctor or a lawyer is better than being a construction worker or a dentist, even though construction workers and dentists make lots of cash. You see very few female construction workers and dentists and it has nothing to do with discriminatory hiring.

Construction workers don't get paid like doctors and lawyers. At least not in the US, where a doctor's starting salary is in the six figures, and a corporate lawyer can easily rake in $250,000 a year. In Sweden, where the gender gap among construction workers is almost zero, construction workers get paid far below professionals.

I don't think the particularities of the restaurant industry are generalizable to the rest of the marketplace. I would also note that people with agendas to push see discriminatory hiring where the statistics imply self-selection.

You haven't clicked the link, have you? The study involved people matched for qualifications. A woman who applies for a waiting job at an upscale restaurant has a lower chance of getting hired than an equally qualified man.

And your points about people with an agenda detract from your argument more than they add to it. There are people with an anti-feminist agenda, who would publish research showing that equally qualified people get hired regardless of gender if they could find industries where it were true. That no such studies exist is a good indication that what's true for every industry that has been so researched is also true for all other industries.

Public interest attorneys like Legal Aid attorneys and public defenders and so forth are far more likely to be female than male.

And Jacques, it doesn't strike you that these fields are valued lower than corporate law? Take a look at the damages available in a corporate dispute, versus, say, a violation of a "little guy"'s constitutional rights. Having worked as a business litigator at a large firm for a year and a half, I've become jaded to the point that a million-dollar lawsuit is small potatoes. If someone hurts a business, that business recovers more money than I've ever sneezed at. If the government virtually destroys a person's life, that person is lucky to get an injunction preventing the government from ever doing it again. Why the differential social valuation?

As for women leaving work, you're correct. I see far more female than male attorneys take time off to care for young children. The person who isn't interested in progress or social improvement accepts this fact at face value. The person who cares about justice and equality questions why it is that women and not men opt for this -- is it due to a feeling by female but not male parents that they are less "welcome" at the firm now that they are parents? Is it because women are encouraged to stay home with the children because that's a "woman's job" (interesting how low we value childcare (economically speaking), as well)? Is it because men are discouraged from taking advantage of part-time leave policies that women are allowed to take advantage of more easily? I know of at least one man at my firm who wanted to take advantage of the firm's part-time options. He was not allowed to; the firm would let virtually any woman who asks, to take advantage of this. If this isn't sex discrimination, then what is it?

And, to be clear, I'm of the opinion that sex discrimination hurts men and women, and I am for equality across the board -- so to short-circuit your too-obvious rejoinder, I bring up the point about men having a harder time taking leave because I consider this to be a feminist issue as well. Feminism stands for equality for everyone.

I may have mentioned this further upthread, but companies that adopt flex-time policies see both an increase in productivity and a decrease in sexism. When company policy isn't prejudiced against women who leave at 3 to pick up their kids from school and then come back to work at 5, as long as they finish the work they need to do, people discriminate against women less.

And Jacques, it doesn't strike you that these fields are valued lower than corporate law?

But they aren't. The competition to get into both career paths is equally intense. Corporate law drones are paid more but have a lower quality of life; public interest attorneys are paid less but have a higher quality of life. I would think that the value is the same, but the preferences are different.

It is true that corporate clients pay more for representation than taxpayers are willing to pay for public interest attorneys. But that is because public interest attorneys (and this includes prosecutors) are a part of a law enforcement structure that has many more components and costs. If you add in corrections and the police, the cost of both is probably comparable. It is also the case that a given taxpayer doesn't think he's likely to go to jail, but a corporate client has a pressing legal issue that requires representation right now. The increased willingness to pay is just a reflection of the likelihood of need.

If this isn't sex discrimination, then what is it?

That's a nice anecdote, but as I have tried to point out multiple times upthread, that doesn't mean it is generalizable to the entire marketplace or that it is representative of it.

When company policy isn't prejudiced against women who leave at 3 to pick up their kids from school and then come back to work at 5, as long as they finish the work they need to do, people discriminate against women less.

While white shoe law firms have such flexible policies, downscale resturants do not. That is not a reflection of sexism. Period.

Is it because women are encouraged to stay home with the children because that's a "woman's job" (interesting how low we value childcare (economically speaking), as well)?

This isn't true at all. Childcare is subsidized in the tax code and married couples with a stay at home parent receive all sorts of economic benefits. The reason childcare is of "low value" to you is that you are segregating out childcare from the bundle of benefits that is conferred by marriage. That is not how the tax code treats things. Nor is it how most women conceptualize the family.

That no such studies exist is a good indication that what's true for every industry that has been so researched is also true for all other industries.

This is a fallacy.

Women may take on public interest careers because of their experiences as women which is also related to systemic discrimination.

No. They want to do the same work but don't want to work in a "slave factory". So they go to the DA's office instead of do white collar defense at a corporate firm. We're not talking about harried victims. We're talking about educated professionals making rational choices.

Feminism stands for equality for everyone.

Yes, but not everyone shares your conception of "equality," which is why you falsely anticipate that I would call you a supporter of pro-female tyranny, which I have not done.

While white shoe law firms have such flexible policies, downscale resturants do not. That is not a reflection of sexism. Period.

I'd be thrilled if you could explain to me what the hell this means and how it is relevant to what I said.

I'd be thrilled if you could explain to me what the hell this means and how it is relevant to what I said.

I could say the same thing to your copious references to foreign labor markets in a discussion about systemic oppression in the United States.

In other words, that sentence was meaningless.

I understand.

If my calculations are right, Jacques has spent well over an hour--and, from the looks of things, several hours--over the past day or so repeating the same old tired, monotonous MRA drivel, and getting skewered each time by TLF, Alon, et. al.

Which leads me to wonder: Jacques, don't you have anything better to do with your time than argue with us? Aren't there Arnold movies to watch, Maxims to read, Russian mail order bride catalogs to drool over, eh, what? How many new armpit sounds or football metaphors could you have come up with by way of all this time and effort?

I mean, if you're enjoying yourself, I suppose it's all worthwhile. But I don't see how you possibly could be, because you sound more ridiculous by the paragraph.

Cheers,

TH

Exactly Tom. Its the kind of 'lalala I can't hear you' that most people with privilege will effect in order to defend the status quo.

I honestly believe that unless you are a woman, you cannot understand the pervasiveness of sexism- just as unless you are a person of colour, you cannot understand the pervasiveness of racism, and on and on etc. Of course there are plenty within those groups who chose to ignore (its a kind of stockholm syndrome/ survival mechanism), and plenty outside those groups who have opened their eyes and seen the ugly truth.

Frankly the gall of someone to suggest that we women in the western world should be GRATEFUL for what we've got? My eyes are bugging out.

And just to be clear, this comment:

"Women also choose to work indoors in safe environments, which means no risk pay. Women choose careers that do not involve risk of death or burdensome travel, which is smart."

Well thanks for the weird insult/compliment!?
I don't know about other women, but here's a little bit of info about me.

I am a woman. I am also practically-minded, ever since I was a child when I spent hours constructing Lego buildings and playing with my toy tool set. My mother suggested, after high school, that I think about becoming an engineer. My father suggested I become a joiner's apprentice, since I enjoy woodwork. Both of these options appealed to me immensely when I was younger. However I didn't do either of these for one reason only. Not because they involve risk/outdoor work or carrying heavy things (which I also enjoy, sue me I guess).

But because I enjoy working in environments where there are equal numbers of men and women. I am not prepared to work in an environment where my ability to do the job is constantly under question simply because of my gender and I have to put up with a hostile atmostphere towards women. You would not believe some of the things I've heard while training on site. It's too much. Ask yourself if, at the next construction site you see on the street, would you be comfortable walking in there to work if you were a woman? I doubt it.

IMO that's why there aren't hardly any women in the construction industry- and NOT the work itself. It's the atmostphere.

pro-female tyranny?! dear lord i stay awat from the computer for the weekend and the thread turns into a debate on whether sexism exists?! sorry jacques, we don't do that here.