Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back on topic.... Just saw this on my FB feed, and thought it'd go nicely into this topic, as it pertains:





Anyone know how accurate it is, or how true it still is? (I know that some job categories have sort of "evened out" over the years)

 Janthkin wrote:
And that will do for the digression into 7th grade SexEd, thanks.

But Pa. We talking about condoms now.

In all honesty really people?

Sexism is a common occuence on the internet. A girl reveals her identity everyone rushes over to greet her and try to sext her up.

I've been in many online games where that happens.

Always asking for pictures etc.

Its kind of despicable really.

Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.

Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.

That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.

Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.

That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!

You are right. I think it is common in my area, because it is small town, and we are not known for having long relationships among my generation.

 jasper76 wrote:
So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.

You know what's a great way of preventing injury during a car crash? Don't go driving.
The best way to prevent drowning whilst doing watersports? Don't go near water.
The best way to prevent head injuries whilst cycling? Walking.
The best way to prevent injury if you fall out of a plane? Don't get on planes.

Seriously, that argument is stupid.

Plain facts are stupid? As the world turns...

Anyways, the MOD told me to stop, so I'm gonna stop!

 Goliath wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.

You know what's a great way of preventing injury during a car crash? Don't go driving.
The best way to prevent drowning whilst doing watersports? Don't go near water.
The best way to prevent head injuries whilst cycling? Walking.
The best way to prevent injury if you fall out of a plane? Don't get on planes.

Seriously, that argument is stupid.

Actually all of those arguments are 100% correct. Everything listed can be prevented by NOT participating.

 Goliath wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.

You know what's a great way of preventing injury during a car crash? Don't go driving.
The best way to prevent drowning whilst doing watersports? Don't go near water.
The best way to prevent head injuries whilst cycling? Walking.
The best way to prevent injury if you fall out of a plane? Don't get on planes.

Seriously, that argument is stupid.

Dying mitigates risk of all of those things happening. Including the STDs. You could always get an infection from a blood transfusion or accident.

Dying is the only entirely safe way to live.

You guys are conveniently removing the context of the statement to which I was replying. Which was that condoms are the best way to keep yourself from getting an STD (not that condoms are the best way to keep yourself from getting an STD during intercourse).

MOD I promise this is the last from me OT OT.

Personally I despise sexism, but a lot of what's been brought up in this thread isn't sexism IMO, ''that ass'' is rude but not really sexist, which is a problem because then people who actually suffer from sexism get branded under this new 'diluted' sexism label. One things that's always annoyed me is how sexism towards men is largely ignored accepted.

There's also the 'Lost Girl' approach to sexism in general, non professional life. - Objectify everyone equally.

Well, that's a rather flippant and dismissive quip about real issues but still, is it worth thinking about? As in, having a page 3 girl and a page 5 guy?

In any case, instead of my hamfisted ramblings, this might be a good read.

Of course, it doesn't really deal with the 'hard stuff' but it's an interesting sidetrack.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Personally I despise sexism, but a lot of what's been brought up in this thread isn't sexism IMO, ''that ass'' is rude but not really sexist, which is a problem because then people who actually suffer from sexism get branded under this new 'diluted' sexism label.

It's only "not sexist" if you ignore the fact that this kind of thing happens much more frequently to women than to men. If a male politician gives a speech about tax policy the comments on it will be almost entirely about their political activities. If a female politician gives the same speech you can almost guarantee that there will be a lot of discussion about how attractive she is, often to the point that her political arguments aren't even the focus anymore. And this isn't just coincidence, there's a sexist attitude that it's appropriate to comment on how attractive a woman is, regardless of context. The result is that their professional/artistic/etc accomplishments are neglected in favor of how hot they are, something a lot more damaging than an occasional bit of rudeness.

 Compel wrote:
Well, that's a rather flippant and dismissive quip about real issues but still, is it worth thinking about? As in, having a page 3 girl and a page 5 guy?

Not really. The solution to objectification isn't more objectification, it's to stop objectifying people in a context where it isn't appropriate.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's only "not sexist" if you ignore the fact that this kind of thing happens much more frequently to women than to men. If a male politician gives a speech about tax policy the comments on it will be almost entirely about their political activities. If a female politician gives the same speech you can almost guarantee that there will be a lot of discussion about how attractive she is, often to the point that her political arguments aren't even the focus anymore. And this isn't just coincidence, there's a sexist attitude that it's appropriate to comment on how attractive a woman is, regardless of context. The result is that their professional/artistic/etc accomplishments are neglected in favor of how hot they are, something a lot more damaging than an occasional bit of rudeness.

Sarah Palin comes to mind. I am conflicted here because, quite frankly, her low intelligence combined with her belief that she is highly intelligent made and still makes for good 'guilty-pleasure' entertainment. But I recall when she was picked by John McCain, before most people really knew anything about her, there were sexists comments coming in from both the left (she only got picked because she's good-looking) and the right (I'd tap that, they got my vote!).

 Peregrine wrote:

Depends on the context. If it's a context where the compliment is relevant then sure, as long as it's done respectfully then it's probably not sexist. But in a context where the compliment isn't relevant and you wouldn't make a similar comment about a person of the opposite gender it's probably sexism. For example, it's sexism when half the comments on a woman doing something entirely unrelated to her appearance are "wow she's hot".

Attractiveness is not entirely dependent upon appearance. It is a factor, of course, but not the only one. A relevant matter given that the majority of prolific internet commentators are male.

Additionally, I have a hard time calling "sexism" when people are commenting on a person they'll never actually meet. In that instance the relevant person is little more than an object.

 jasper76 wrote:

Sarah Palin comes to mind. I am conflicted here because, quite frankly, her low intelligence combined with her belief that she is highly intelligent made and still makes for good 'guilty-pleasure' entertainment. But I recall when she was picked by John McCain, before most people really knew anything about her, there were sexists comments coming in from both the left (she only got picked because she's good-looking) and the right (I'd tap that, they got my vote!).

Don't forget the people who used her sex as a shield regarding her lack of knowledge.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Back on topic.... Just saw this on my FB feed, and thought it'd go nicely into this topic, as it pertains:

Spoiler:

Anyone know how accurate it is, or how true it still is? (I know that some job categories have sort of "evened out" over the years)

There was a test where the same company was sent the same resume, and all they changed was the name (and of course other gender indentifiers) and the resume named John was offered $4000 more for the same job, apparently anyway, I'll see if I can find something concrete on that.

Also, I recently started watching the videos on youtube "Analog with Lisa Foiles" and on evey video there are guys commenting stuff like " I fornicated through this entire video" (didnt say that exactly but I have to watch my language of course) and "next video be naked" or just "boobs" and one guy saying she was a porn star, and when ever challanged their reations are "this is the internet what do you think girls are gonna get"

Apparently our society thinks its obvious to watch a video about game recommendations from an admitedly good looking female (although tbh I am more intrested in her jewellery then her chest) and instead of commenting about the games and the content instead say how her lipstick gave them boners and the like...disgusting.

EDIT: http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ is about the pay gap, although I dont know how trust worthy the site is or if its all unresearched nonsense

 DukeBadham wrote:


EDIT: http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ is about the pay gap, although I dont know how trust worthy the site is or if its all unresearched nonsense

Yeah, I dunno, this link just reads a lot like the political talking points, and doesn't really sound all that well researched.... As with the picture that I posted, they at least say that men work an average of X hours more per month/week than women.... I've seen other magazine articles and the like that state that men who are married, with children are almost double as likely to work overtime as their single, or TWINK male counterparts... IF it is true that men, in general work more hours per week/month than women, then that will obviously create a "gap" in pay in my eyes, because one group of people is simply working more paid hours than another, it's simple math there.

I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...

Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything

 dogma wrote:
Additionally, I have a hard time calling "sexism" when people are commenting on a person they'll never actually meet. In that instance the relevant person is little more than an object.

Personhood is not inversely proportional to degrees of separation.

 DukeBadham wrote:
I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...

Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything

Lol, I think there are definitely places where it could still be an issue, but from looking at things the way I've been recently (moving from one career, into school for another) here in the State of Washington they treat people such as Teachers, like military people; basically, a 1st year teacher makes X money per year, it doesn't matter what school you go to, etc. The only thing that can affect that, is whether the teacher has a masters or not.

About the only way that I can think of that Federal/State employees would have any kind of gender gap, is if Janitor A is hired on the 4th step of his paygrade, while Janitor B is hired on the 2nd of hers, and they are both the same "grade"

 Pendix wrote:

Personhood is not inversely proportional to degrees of separation.

Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.

I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.

 dogma wrote:
Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.

I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.

So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?

 Pendix wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.

I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.

So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?

she'll always be an object, but then again, aren't we all.

Object: 1. a material thing that can be seen and touched.

 Pendix wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.

I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.

So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?

In this context, presumably when Dogma has some sort of personal relationship with her, such as if they become friends or coworkers and similar.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
And that will do for the digression into 7th grade SexEd, thanks.

But Pa. We talking about condoms now.

In all honesty really people?

Sexism is a common occuence on the internet. A girl reveals her identity everyone rushes over to greet her and try to sext her up.

I've been in many online games where that happens.

Always asking for pictures etc.

Its kind of despicable really.

I personally find that behaviour disturbing. When I'm not participating in that crap like 80% of the guys I often wonder have I accidentally chemically castrated myself by easting too much raw soybean.

 Pendix wrote:

So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?

When the person is someone I interact with on a level that extends beyond remote observation, or common courtesy. Or, as Krellnus said, when I have a personal relationship with the individual.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
And that will do for the digression into 7th grade SexEd, thanks.

But Pa. We talking about condoms now.

In all honesty really people?

Sexism is a common occuence on the internet. A girl reveals her identity everyone rushes over to greet her and try to sext her up.

I've been in many online games where that happens.

Always asking for pictures etc.

Its kind of despicable really.

I personally find that behaviour disturbing. When I'm not participating in that crap like 80% of the guys I often wonder have I accidentally chemically castrated myself by easting too much raw soybean.

I watch Call of Duty videos made by Msheartattack, and the sexual talk she gets her way is both funny and baffling. Although in Japan Sexism is rampart, the online game community here is more civil , no one bats an eye when a girl is in the lobby.

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.

Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.

That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!

Id like to know where all these people who "high five" studs that sleeps around are? Why would I like a person thats hoggin all the ladies? So where are all these Studbeibers?

 DukeBadham wrote:
I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...

Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything

There are several aspects to the pay gap.

One is the fact that women often work shorter hours weekly or over their lifetime. This can be because they are doing unpaid household work such as child rearing, or because businesses prefer to hire women workers on short hours contracts because it enables the business to pay less and give fewer employment rights. (The same happens to men, but it happens more to women, due to sexism.)

Another is when women are paid less than men for the same job. This clearly is unjust and in most modern countries is illegal but it still happens quite widely.

A third is when women advance in their careers slower than men, because of taking career breaks for child-bearing, and end up on a lower pay grade than they would have reached
if their husband had taken a few years out instead of them. Essentially this is a variation of point 1.

Finally, because of points one, two and three, women often end up with much smaller pensions than men.

Whether all this is fair or not is a debate to be had. I would not rely on one source of information partly because internet sites are often very biased.

 dogma wrote:
When the person is someone I interact with on a level that extends beyond remote observation, or common courtesy. Or, as Krellnus said, when I have a personal relationship with the individual.

Ok. Perhaps I'm trying to understand this from the wrong direction.

How does your attitude/response change between dealing with a 'close interaction' person vs 'remote observation' person. Say, (to use a particular example from this thread) how does your response differ if you saw people discussing a picture of a movie star you don't know vs people discussing a picture of a co-worker? Is it ok to comment on the attractiveness of one but not the other? Is "I'd tap that" and similar comments more acceptable for the one you don't know personally?

Further, if there is no difference, why the distinction?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DukeBadham wrote:
I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...

Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything

There are several aspects to the pay gap.

One is the fact that women often work shorter hours weekly or over their lifetime. This can be because they are doing unpaid household work such as child rearing, or because businesses prefer to hire women workers on short hours contracts because it enables the business to pay less and give fewer employment rights. (The same happens to men, but it happens more to women, due to sexism.)

Another is when women are paid less than men for the same job. This clearly is unjust and in most modern countries is illegal but it still happens quite widely.

A third is when women advance in their careers slower than men, because of taking career breaks for child-bearing, and end up on a lower pay grade than they would have reached
if their husband had taken a few years out instead of them. Essentially this is a variation of point 1.

Finally, because of points one, two and three, women often end up with much smaller pensions than men.

Whether all this is fair or not is a debate to be had. I would not rely on one source of information partly because internet sites are often very biased.

Equally men are far more likely to work unpaid overtime and when they do work more of it. Women are also far more likely to be given part time or flexible working when they ask and are far more likely to ask for it, which is one of the reasons women are more likely to take time off for children. Men are also not supported in the same way women are if they chose to be the main carer for children. There are issues that need to be addressed for men as well as women.

It is a very complex issue, and IMO research is too quick to select the reason that fits their view and we get nowhere. In the UK at least we need more support for men with childcare and more input in to good management that treats everyone equally with time off, overtime, leave, flexible working, regardless of gender or children.