Sexism, god help us (1 Viewer)

[nooleen]

another thing is that parental encouragement and self-belief and gumption or moxy or whatever are all well and good but there are real, widespread, societal inequalities that no amount of women just pulling their socks up and joining a soccer club is going to change unless we talk about it and change the prevailing attitude by maybe, for example, talking about it

 

[Mormon Nailer]

That's a fair point.
And probably true to some extent.
But so what? Do you force people to cover things that people aren't interested in just so they will become interetsed?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

another thing is that parental encouragement and self-belief and gumption or moxy or whatever are all well and good but there are real, widespread, societal inequalities that no amount of women just pulling their socks up and joining a soccer club is going to change unless we talk about it and change the prevailing attitude by maybe, for example, talking about it

There aren't actually many societal inequalities.
There structural differences that are the legacy of old inequalities.
ie
If there is inequality, it not because you can do something you brother can't, its the legacy of your uncle being able to do things that your mother couldn't.
How do you fix that?

 

[Squiggle]

Patriarchy ftw!

Depends on what you mean by patriarchy

1. a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.
   "the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy"
   • a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
     "the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
   • a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.
     plural noun: patriarchies
     "we live in a patriarchy"

But far from any of them really. I'm the eldest, and not male, but my father sees me as the head of the others (though two of them are male and one only a year younger than me). My dad believes in Meritocracy, where jobs are assigned on the basis of who can best do them.

My Mum, on the other hand, is a poster woman for patriarchy. She fully believes in it, mostly because she has zero self confidence and would much prefer to let someone else take all the responsibility (and therefore blame).

Left up to her I'd have only been fit to get married young and be a housewife and my brothers still wouldn't be able to tie their own shoelaces. As it was she's the reason one of my brothers can't even boil an egg, she did everything for the boys, and taught them to expect me and my sister to look after them if she wasn't there. They were never asked to help with household chores, while I was often expected to vacuum or cook meals after spending a long day working on the farm. But at least I got to do both.

 

[nooleen]

That's a fair point.
And probably true to some extent.
But so what? Do you force people to cover things that people aren't interested in just so they will become interetsed?

if something is generating massive interest on the internet, news sites will pick it up
what might be dismissed as 'facebook activism' is leaking through more and more into news websites with all these feminist articles people are noticing

 

[nooleen]

There aren't actually many societal inequalities.
There structural differences that are the legacy of old inequalities.
ie
If there is inequality, it not because you can do something you brother can't, its the legacy of your uncle being able to do things that your mother couldn't.
How do you fix that?

i don't understand what differentiation you're making between 'structural differences' and inequalities

 

[billygannon]

When it comes to coverage, I can’t find fault with the article. What’s covered on TV and in newspapers is what sells TV and newspapers.

Guys like tits so therefore Page 3 of the Sun should just be accepted. It's economics.

 

[hugh]

If there was genuine interest in women’s soccer, LOI soccer or any number of “minority” sports, then they would be better attended and would warrant more prominent coverage. That’s not sexism – it’s economics.

This is really the crux of a lot of the argument. I would say that while the above is undoubtedly "true" in one sense, it also overly simplifies the relationship between the media and the public ("the public wants what the public gets" and all that). Not to mention assuming that it's perfectly fine that economics would trump any other sorts of considerations.

But even leaving all that aside, and accepting the basic premise of it (i.e. well, if people were actually interested, there would be more attention given to it ... which is essentially the basic premise of yer mans original article, right?), surely then the most, eh, "interesting" thing to think about is why are people (in general) not as interested? Is it because it's just not as good? Or is it because we value the achievements of men more than women?

I completely take the point about tennis but there seems to me to be something about big-ticket team sports like soccer and rugby that goes far beyond just appreciation of sport and veers into stuff about how people, societies, nations define themselves, and these are the ones that are all dominated by men.

I also take the point that many people (myself included) here don't actually pay much attention to sport but hey ... I don't go to mass either and that doesn't mean I can't have views on the Catholic Church.

 

[hugh]

That's a fair point.
And probably true to some extent.
But so what? Do you force people to cover things that people aren't interested in just so they will become interetsed?

No, I don't think so, but as I said, the reasons that people might be interested in some things more than others might be indicative of broader attitudes and issues.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

i don't understand what differentiation you're making between 'structural differences' and inequalities

I'm not 100% sure myself
Let's say
Inequality = A woman can't be CEO
Difference = There are fewer women CEO's

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Is it because it's just not as good? Or is it because we value the achievements of men more than women?

I completely take the point about tennis but there seems to me to be something about big-ticket team sports like soccer and rugby that goes far beyond just appreciation of sport and veers into stuff about how people, societies, nations define themselves, and these are the ones that are all dominated by men.

I think the hysteria over Katie Taylor and the women's win over the All Blacks shows that we are very happy to define ourselves based on the performance of women. Sure there will be people who for historical (or being an asshole) reason value achievement in men's sports more, but in the majority of cases I think it's just what's available all the time and what's biggest gets the attention.

 

[Cormcolash]

Sometimes I'm not sure which I hate more, men or women.
Then I remember: Children.

 

[billygannon]

For the purposes of Thumped, I'm a woman and I'm also a sportsman.

 

[billygannon]

Sometimes I'm not sure which I hate more, men or women.
Then I remember: Children.

Operation Yewtree says you're quite fond of children.

 

[nooleen]

I'm not 100% sure myself
Let's say
Inequality = A woman can't be CEO
Difference = There are fewer women CEO's

if the real result on the ground is fewer women CEO's then isn't the distinction totally academic?
because there isn't one big inequality ('WOMEN CANNOT DO THIS') spelled out in neon lights but a systemic series of hurdles to achieving equality - discrimination in hiring, hostile work environments, discrimination in promotions, dismissal of female contributions/opinions, etc.

being shouted down in discussions of these issues is another hurdle (not directed at you but a fairly relevant example here)

 

[Cormcolash]

Pfft, of course women can't be the Chairman, etc etc

 

[Unicron]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[GO]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That settles it.Men are fucking dopes.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

That settles it.Men are fucking dopes.

We do these things and then watch them on the internet and laugh like monkeys.

 

[nooleen]