Post

Are Women Really Treated Equally?

I saw a few people on the Experience Project saying that men and women are already equal. Well, check these facts out and see what you think:

1.Data on women’s/girls struggle for equality has gone missing in the Bush Administration. The current administration continues to engage in a pattern of omission, distortion, and spin when it comes to information about women and girls. Data on the Department of Labor website has gone missing and the FDA continues to block approval of Emergency Contraception despite research findings that support its use.

2.Women are still underpaid. Women earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by men. (Former MA democratic Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy is doin great things to shake this up…check out www.womenaregettingeven.org) Also, can 1 million women against WalMart be hallucinating? This is serious!

3. Women are still massively underrepresented in the sciences. Despite substantial gains in the number of women pursuing graduate degrees in the sciences, women currently earn only 20% of all PhDs in computer science, less than 27% in physics, and only 17% in engineering. Studies show that women in science experience discrimination and double standards (sorry Larry Summers, but its really true.)

4. There are too few female tenured professors. Despite the fact that women have been at least half of all college undergraduates since 1978, women represent only 36% of all tenured faculty nationwide, and only 13% of doctoral granting universities boast women presidents. Many women in academic settings report discrimination.

5. Women are underrepresented in corporate leadership. Women have made up more than 40% of the workforce since 1977, and are currently almost 50%, yet only 9 women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Too few women lawyers make partner. Women have been 40% of all law school students since 1995, and over half since 2001, but are only 15% of partners in law firms nationwide. Many female lawyers attest to double standards and discrimination.

6.: Stereotypes Abound!
Men still dominate the airwaves, music industry, film industry, etc, and are most decisionmakers and critics (often with a silent or not so silent male perspective.) Women make up only 11% of the national experts on Sunday morning political talk shows, and only 6% to 7% of the repeat guests. No major record label is headed by a woman. Most major film studios are headed by men, and nine out of ten music videos are produced by men. For the most part, women need to be sex objects and to be young to be successful in music and to some extent, films, TV. (Men,not so much…can you say Sean Connery? Harrison Ford? Woody Allen? David Letterman? Larry King?.) Women are chosen/allowed to direct only 5 - 7 % of major Hollywood films, and rarely are nominated for or win major awards for directing (despite nsome very talented female directors out there.) This is not just Hollywood insanity….it’s workplace discrimination.

7. Women are poorer. Women constitute about 70% of the world’s absolute poor – those living on less than a dollar a day. In the United States in 2004, there were 20.1 million women living below the poverty level. Worldwide, women’s access to resources and education still lags behind boys/men due to double standards.

8. Slavery still exists! Women and girls are the majority of the 800,000 to nearly 4 million people trafficked (bought and sold as property) internationally every year.
CallipygianVenus CallipygianVenus 21-25, F 48 Responses Feb 11, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

In any case, all this is quite irrelevant. My original point was about equal OPPORTUNITIES, not some kind of perfect, utopian, <i>enforced</i> equality. It's a fact that there are 8 men for every one woman with an IQ greater than 145. The statistical spread of intelligence levels in males is much flatter, spread throughout the spectrum (which also means, of course that there are far more dumb men than dumb women). The spread for women is concentrated at the average. An enforced equality is neither necessary, nor desirable. There will probably always be more male Nobel prize winners than women in Physics. I should remind you here, though, that in the overwhelming majority of jobs, a five point difference in raw IQ is completely insignificant in comparison to other factors, such as multitasking skills, diligence, communication skills and so forth. <br />
<br />
What I am talking about here is that every child needs to be given an equal <b>opportunity</b>. In my country and many others, such opportunities are often denied to women. Or sometimes, they are subtly discouraged from particular careers. That is what I'm against. If opportunities are equal and equally talented people from both genders recieve similar rewards, my purpose would be achieved. Once that happens, I don't care how many women CHOOSE to become lawyers and how many want to be hairdressers. Individuals are not statistics. People must be judged by <b>their</b> abilities and not that of their whole gender.

Your IQ facts are wrong. No such statistics.

Architecture isn't hard science.<br />
<br />
"Look at the engineers..."<br />
My own girlfriend is a better engineering student than me. Better grade point average, better GPA, better everything. She's no "exceptional" woman. I bet there are hundreds of thousands like her. <br />
<br />
You're begging the question. I told you to provide me evidence that equal ability is "PC bullshit" and you provide me with a long rant, the crux of which is that there are more men in hard sciences, therefore men must be more capable in the field. Really? Is that it? There are far more women in home economics. Does that mean men can't sew and cook as well as women? If women are so bad at science and if feminists were so wrong all along, then please explain to me why the percentage of female engineers and doctors has drastically increased and continues to increase from what it used to be. Why hasn't it remained the same as say, the 1940s, when there were few feminists and the separated gender roles you advocate were in full flourish? How about Victorian times? How about the Medieval era?<br />
<br />
You make a lot of assertions but provide no facts to back up those assertions.<br />
<br />
I have already explained to you why women's sports are separate - it's scientifically demonstrable that the large majority of women have lower muscle strength than men and therefore, they are at a distinct disadvantage. Nothing of the sort can be said of scientific ability, of legal competence, of artistic merit and in general, of any skill-ba<x>sed field. <br />
<br />
In any case, the women's category in sports is hardly "equal" to the men's category, either in terms of profile or cashflows. <br />
<br />
Do you know what is irrational? When you take one fact and try to make a generalized claim by extrapolating it to everything else, that is irrational. Yes, women are physically weaker (in general). No, that does not mean that many of them cannot meet the military's required standards of fitness. That doesn't mean they can't make good lawyers. That doesn't mean that female directors are rubbish. And it certainly doesn't mean that most of us would hesitate to trust a neurosurgeon with our lives just because she happens to have an extra X chromosome.

@fourier ... You, like most others, have fallen for the feminist PC claptrap that passes for intelectual enlightenment ... Put away your PC rulebook and shelve your desire that everyone is equal ... That is a socialist utopian dream, not ba<x>sed in reality. Look at the engineers, physicists, mathmaticians, architects ... Males dominate the "Hard" science degrees and careers. That is not to say there are no exceptional women ... but .logical evidence has to be disgarded or at least painted over by PC paint to deny the truth. Milions of people fell for the femininist lie that boys and girls are equal, and only the discriminitaory way patriarchal society raised girls and boys differently accounted for the difference in the mindsets of the genders. Yes they exclaimed ... give boys dolls and tea sets, and giver girls toy trucks and ba<x>seball bats and toy guns, and females would be the dominate gender and males the submissive gender... Millions of liberal parents fell for it ... and gave ther children gender "neutral" toys ... and despite their efforts .. just couldn't change the differences we were natuarally born with. The femininists were shown to be SO wrong ... and yet their voices are still given credibility in our Liberal halls of higher learning. It is BUNK .. Women could not handle equality .. Let's do away with WOMEN"S sports .. why must women be protected from male competition? Why do we even have a woman winner in a marathn race where she is directly competing with men ... yet when the first woman crosses the finish line after 20 men have finished ahead of her .. she is declared a winner? How is it equality when only females are given the option of when and where they get to compete, and when and where they get to exclude male competition? How is that equal? How can anyone give credence to those who claim women must be protected from male competition on the tennis court, but then claim women can compete with men on the battlefield? It is irrational.

Of course everyone isn't equal, some people are born ugly, frail and dumb while others are smart, strong and beautiful, life has a genetic lottery, some do ok, some win, some lose. The point of feminism ( and w/e anti-racism groups are called ) is that everyone be judged on their actual worth, or at least that's what it is to me. But honestly I don't see that happening anywhere soon, because it's not discouraged, if anything it's the opposite. It's human nature to shun differences; that may have been useful about 20 000 something years ago but now that makes people detestable.

Dear, equality doesn't mean we all are the same. No one ever said women are the same as men in sports-that's why we have our own category. Boxing is a perfect example; the smaller men compete with each other, and the heavyweights with other heavyweights. You wouldn't see a heavyweight fight a bantamweight, because evryone knows what would happen. With men and women, no one has ever pretended they are physically equal. If they were, men could give birth, but they lack the capability. No one expects them to-no one thinks less of them because they lack a uterus.
For the fastest female runner to be considered a loser because other men beat her, would be like saying a man is useless because he can't have babies. Or, a bantamweight boxing champion really isn't a champion because a middleweight could beat him. We all compete in our own arenas.

@missjulie<br />
That's a straw man, all right.<br />
No one's saying men and women have to be equal in each and every respect. They should be equal in places where they both have equal capabilities. <br />
<br />
It's a recognized fact that men tend to have greater muscular strength than women. If you can prove that men make better lawyers and movie directors, then your argument would have some substance.

In my neck of the woods, sadly, we're several decades away from achieving even this much.<br />
<br />
I come from a society where a significant percentage of marriages are still ba<x>sed on the fact that the woman can cook well, clean better, and is basically content being a glorified maid. <br />
<br />
Patriarchy cannot be eliminated overnight. It takes time, effort and will. Talking about gender inequality is not just political correctness either. Sexism is not a salary difference. Sexism is an attitude. Most countries have effective laws which protect women from discrimination at the workplace. But you cannot legislate against an attitude. You cannot legislate against parents who instill these attitudes in their daughters and sons. Even in the liberal West, sexist attitudes are hardly uncommon and are, in many circles, considered quite acceptable. <br />
<br />
I personally believe in what Mahatma Gandhi once said - "men and women should be seen as equal, but not identical". There is no point in pretending that men and women are identical, because they simply aren't. There are physical differences, possibly psychological differences. That's a fact. The discrimination starts when one starts using this fact to make broad generalizations and then acts ba<x>sed on these generalizations. People need to be considered on a case-to-case basis, not on the basis of their gender or ethnicity or whatever. If a particular person fits the profile for a job and has the required skills/abilities, I fail to see why the gender should be considered relevant. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man but that doesn't mean that the woman sitting in front of you HAS to be unfit for any kind of physically demanding job. An average is an average - it's not an all encompassing, blanket figure that describes every single person in the group.

To nato84:<br />
<br />
You are the exact reason why webpages like this are published. Reread what you have written and tell me you were not just assuming that women have jobs like being secretary and complain to their husbands. Umm, that would be stereotyping buddy . You are trying to argue against this page when you are actually proving it correct. <br />
<br />
The following does not regard nato84:<br />
<br />
Being a high school student, I do see a lot of this: when ever a girl shows the slightest sign of promiscuity, she is automaticaly labled as a "*****" or a "****", even by her fellow females. But, when a guy does this, he is praised by other males and girls act as though there is nothing wrong with this. Equality? I think not. See, female discrimination presents itself even in the most insignificant ways. Just had to say that

It is PC nonsense .... Are women capable of being equal or not? Why is it women are given the option of when and where they can compete? What the hell is that? ... If women think they can compete with men ... then drop all barriers to male competition... if you can't or won't drop barriers to male competiton ... then just drop the pretense that women and men are equal .... Stop the lies.

I agree with giggelets. That is a good portion of why dressing fem (for a male) is considered demeaning. Bias in many forms still exists. And it is often unspoken (but just as real). Some strides have been made ,but equality is still not prevelant. Although it was many years ago,my step-sister ,although a brilliant chemist could not progress as far a male in her career. Sadly,it drove her to kill herself. Sadly like civil rights,it has gone underground. Still exists ,but not admitted. We have a long way to go to treat others (as sc<x>ripture states) to treating everyone equaly,fairly and without bias or self-interest. But the fight to correct this must go on.

Simple ... women should drop all barriers to male competiton if they think they are equal. Why should women be protected from male competiton? Why do we even have women's tennis ... women's track and field? ... If you think you can run and jump and comptete with men ... then stop this nonsense of protecting yourself from male competition. They won't ... because they can't ... it is all BS ... end of story.

Not meaning to offend, but men and women are different after all. Can you say a woman coal miner? There's just roughly 4.5 percent of women workers in coal mining industry(http://women-minorities-business.findthebest.com/directory/d/Coal-Mining), with most of them probably in office postion or something like that, cause I really doubt a woman would go into a mine herself (If a woman who is a coal miner is reading this, I'm sorry if I offended you, it was just a mere example and I meant no offence). That's a "Man's job" simply because men are more suited to jobs like that. <br />
<br />
Therefore, saying a woman earns only 77 cents per dollar without looking to context might distort the view. I bet that a coal miner, welder, construction worker etc. earns more than a till worker at a shopping center or a receptionist not because one is male and the other is female, but simply because male part of the population tend to do the more dangerous job that are also higher paying. Plus, an equal share of male population might go for "coal miner" and "shopping center" jobs, while women would probably prefer the "shopping center" over "coal miner", thus providing an increased supply of workers in one area, allowing employers to pay less. (No offence meant with the examples, they're just to illustrate my point). Expand the coal miner/till worker example to the economy, where the first represents more physically demanding/more dangerous jobs, while second one shows the rest. WIth a 50/50 share of male workers in both sectors and 5/95 share of female workers, it is rather natural that the second group would probably get lower wages. (Well, that's an oversimplified theory with random numbers off my head)<br />
<br />
Now, I do agree with your point about women in sciences though, this are might need more improvement, but still, women are slowly gaining respect in these areas and it is improving compared to past.<br />
<br />
As for stereotypes, this is a very double edged sword. It's easy for women to shout "Stereotyping!" on all these occasions, but if you are demanding for equality, you should get rid of the stereotypes you have for men. Allow me to give you example:<br />
-Fathers are worse parents than mothers.<br />
-Men always stereotype women and treat them worse.<br />
-Men only want one thing from a woman<br />
-Men are dirty pigs<br />
etc etc etc.<br />
<br />
Well, these are just some of my points. I'm not against women being treated equally, I'm just saying that equal treatment should go both ways.

you keep saying no offence, whis isn't even a word. and the whole time you are offending.
btw it's offense.

Actually, "Offence" IS a word. Which means the same thing as offense, unless you are implying that dictionary is wrong. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offence

Also, care to elaborate "Whole time you are offending?"
I reread my post again now after some time, and I don't see anything offending, I took a great care not to imply that people following a certain career are worse than anyone else, if anything I overdid the apologies.

Oh, and yeah, and guess what, pay gap? BS. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Equality for women is hundreds of years away. The bias is so deeply ingrained into society that, as you notice, most people (some including women themselves) cannot even see it.

There is no equality between men and women. I lived in a family like this and it hurts alot.

I agree.. Need to see more progress here for Women. I reckon that symbolically Michelle's Obama's raised the consciousness of black women about their potential.

This is a great post, and I totally agree that women should be treated more fairly. However, some of the points you mentioned have the potential to be ba<x>sed on personal decisions rather than discrimination. Women may be underrepresented in certain careers such as CEO's and professors, but that doesn't mean that women CAN'T be CEO's or professors. Maybe they just choose not to be.<br />
<br />
Also, while I question this theory, there was an interesting idea brought up in my social psychology class by my (female) professor about the salary gap between men and women. She said that it's possible that women get paid less than men statistically because women are statistically less likely to ask for a raise or promotion from their boss. I don't know if there's any research supporting that, but it is an interesting theory.

My resource is history good measure.
Can't compare because men don't have babies.

What does having babies have to do with the pay gap?

I don't really have much knowledge on this topic so this is a somewhat limited perspective. I've taken a women's study class in college and learned that as far as descriminition goes it's as follows:<br />
<br />
White Men<br />
White Women<br />
Minority Men<br />
Minority Women<br />
<br />
So it may be innacurate to assume that all women have it worse off than men. As far as women in the workplace, I think that motherhood can skew the statistics. In many cases highly educated/affluent women choose to become stay-at-home moms, take extended period of time off following child birth, or sacrafice career advancement in favor of having more time to spend with children. I'm not saying that this is always true, but I think that this should be considered when looking at the statistics that you posted. And in response to the your initial question, "Are men and women equal", No, I dont think that we've got there yet.

i believe that this is a load of BULLSHIT !<br />
Women are just as good as men but men have a more physical advantage

If women are not still devalued, openly and/or subliminaly, why is it, that there is still a stigma attached to boys who want to be girls, and males who prefer to be expressive as feminine? Think about it !?

'women are still underpaid.' <br />
<br />
my mom charges 75.00 for a full set of fingernails....thats far from underpaid. to me thats a bit ridiculous, but she has a full clientele more than willing to pay for her skill. i would also like to add, most of my moms female clients are high paid lawyers, doctors, realestate agents, financial advisors, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
'women are poorer'<br />
<br />
i dont know all the statistics...but i can say statistics are not always accurate. real people lie, cheat, and steal....those actions affect an annual census. i'm not saying you're wrong though, just sharing my point of view.