Those who have come from Pz's blog, aka THAT thread

[Coito ergo sum]

The problems "women" face involve things like consent to sex and rape, hiring/firing/pay disparity based on sex rather than job-related things, and the like, equal access to education, etc. These are things that have been solved.

[citation needed]

In the majority of U.S. metro areas, single women with no children in their 20s outearned their male peers, according to Time's story. In Dallas, for example, a 20-something woman makes $1.18 to a man's $1.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/2 ... 68328.html

"Women 30 and under make more money, on average, than their male counterparts in all but three of the largest cities in the U.S.,"

In a widely read piece in The Atlantic last year, entitled "The End of Men," Hanna Rosin also noted that women now comprise a majority of the workforce and more than half of all managers.

Women dominate today’s colleges and professional schools--for every two men who will receive a B.A. this year, three women will do the same. Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women.

By way of example....

Here are another few choice snippets from that article (emphasis mine):

Forget equality for women, the fairer sex is on pace to outrun men when it comes to making money.

the majority of working wives will out-earn their husbands in the next generation

Women may be outearning men at the beginning of their careers--but that story flips higher up the professional food chain. Some research has shown that there is an 40 percent pay gap between women and men with business school degrees, 10 years out from graduate school. In the end, on average, women still only make 81 cents to the dollar.

Still sounds like an ongoing problem to me.

The reason for the disparity later in life is because more women take time off work, and men work longer hours at that point. Also, folks that are in their 40s and 50s today started out in a world where there WAS ongoing job and education discrimination to a large degree. The reality is that in today's world, in the west, those problems have been solved. Women aren't facing the hurdles they previously were.

Women under 40 make just as much, and often make more, than men. Women in their teens and 20s are going to college more, and getting better jobs than men. Is that latter bit going to be considered a "problem" now to be "solved?"

"Almost 40% of working wives out-earn their husbands," noted Liza Mundy, author of "The Richer Sex"

Mundy's research shows that women are out-earning men all around. In most U.S. metro areas, for instance, single childless women in their 20s have higher median incomes than their male peers. In Dallas and Atlanta, the average young woman earns $1.18 and $1.14, respectively, for every dollar earned by a male.

Today, women make up 60% of U.S. college classes and earn more masters and doctorate degrees than men.

http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/ ... ime-mundy/

Doesn't look like rampant "discrimination" to me...

[mozg]

"Huh? What? What are those courses? Math is hard. I took Public Relations, Marketing, Media, and Intro to Journalism as an elective. I had to cram all night before the finals, which put a damper on my partying that week."

I had a lot of conversations like this over the last 15 years. A lot of 'Well, we need more women in technology.' being said to me quite often by a woman who wasn't majoring in, didn't have a degree in, and wasn't employed in a technology, science, math or engineering field. And I would ask them why they didn't take up such a pursuit and it was always that they didn't want to, but we still need more women in these fields.

What women then? Women who are interested? We had those. I'm one of those. I went to school for engineering, I do it for a living, and I want to keep doing it for the rest of my career. I was never told by the men around me that I couldn't do it, that I wasn't smart enough, that I didn't belong there. I haven't found that doors are closed to me on the basis of my gender. I worked hard to get very good at what I do and found that most of the time there's more demand for my time and work than I could fulfill if the day was 36 hours long.

So I've asked repeatedly over the years, who are these women who we 'need' to get into science and math? Where are they? It's clearly not the feminist pundits and the bloggers at Skepchick. It's not the women who told me that they flat out don't have any interest in these fields but keep telling me that there is some group of women somewhere in the western world who want to be scientists and mathematicians and engineers but they're not being allowed to be.

I still want to know... who are these women? Where are they? Point them the fuck out to me, please!

[cogwheel]

The reason for the disparity later in life is because more women take time off work, and men work longer hours at that point. Also, folks that are in their 40s and 50s today started out in a world where there WAS ongoing job and education discrimination to a large degree. The reality is that in today's world, in the west, those problems have been solved. Women aren't facing the hurdles they previously were.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... gender_gap

Doesn't look like rampant "discrimination" to me...

Just a reminder of where I'm coming from:

I agree we've gotten mostly past *conscious* discrimination, i.e. people knowingly holding women back for the fact that they're women. But there is still a huge problem with subtle, hard-to-detect sexism

"Rampant 'discrimination'" is certainly not what I had in mind when I was responding to you.

[Wumbologist]

Sexism like what? If you're talking about employment, education and that sort of thing -- already addressed.

"Addressed" through legislation is not the same as solved.

What specific areas are you referring to?

Dating? - Yes, women and men should be able to date on equal footing without one party or the other having to worry about their safety, and there shouldn't be a societal double standard about how many men a women has dated vs how many women a man has dated.

Jokes? - No, as long as they are just that, jokes, there isn't really a problem needing to be addressed. I think we had a small conversation on this topic here on this forum recently.

Conversation? - To some extent, yes. One should be able to talk to people of the opposite gender without the gender difference being an issue in the conversation.

Cigar bars? Strip clubs? - No, but women should equally have their own sort of "refuge" that is at least mostly meant for them.

Sexual violence against women is illegal. I'm all for increasing the enforcement of that, as is almost everyone, I suspect. There really isn't a pro-sexual violence against women lobby.

Right, but as with many other things in our society, the lobby against it is a necessary and important part of the fight against it, even if we all might agree on the topic. Somebody's got to do the hard work part of it, too.

[Coito ergo sum]

The reason for the disparity later in life is because more women take time off work, and men work longer hours at that point. Also, folks that are in their 40s and 50s today started out in a world where there WAS ongoing job and education discrimination to a large degree. The reality is that in today's world, in the west, those problems have been solved. Women aren't facing the hurdles they previously were.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... gender_gap

Doesn't look like rampant "discrimination" to me...

Just a reminder of where I'm coming from:

I agree we've gotten mostly past *conscious* discrimination, i.e. people knowingly holding women back for the fact that they're women. But there is still a huge problem with subtle, hard-to-detect sexism

"Rampant 'discrimination'" is certainly not what I had in mind when I was responding to you.

Well, if we're down to the "subtle" and "hard to detect" (i.e. difficult to distinguish whether it's sexism or not sexism), then I submit that the problem is basically solved.

And, also, a good deal of disparity now appears to be that women are dominating some fields -- like veterinarians and such - and some demographics of women are out earning men by almost 18% (see above). So, are we going to start going after those "problems" too?

At some point, when the playing field is basically level, and the legal system has pretty much eliminated invidious distinctions, well, that's pretty much it. I don't view the fact that most veterinarians are women, or that most tow truck drivers are men to be problems that need solving.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sexism like what? If you're talking about employment, education and that sort of thing -- already addressed.

"Addressed" through legislation is not the same as solved.

When you look at the stats, the problem has been basically solved. See above.

Rape, of course, is still a "problem," but other than making it illegal and prosecuting it, there's not much more to be done. Murder and theft still happen too.

What specific areas are you referring to?

Dating? - Yes, women and men should be able to date on equal footing without one party or the other having to worry about their safety, and there shouldn't be a societal double standard about how many men a women has dated vs how many women a man has dated.

They are. But, if you're suggesting that there is something "we" can do to stop criminals hurting people, besides make it illegal and prosecute crimes, you'll have to explain.

As for double standards -- there aren't just double standards, there are bazillions of standards. You can't regulate "societal double standards." There is a double standard that it is generally acceptable for women to wear skirts, but not men. Big deal. If a person is concerned about how many people another person has dated, what are you going to do about that?

Jokes? - No, as long as they are just that, jokes, there isn't really a problem needing to be addressed. I think we had a small conversation on this topic here on this forum recently.

Conversation? - To some extent, yes. One should be able to talk to people of the opposite gender without the gender difference being an issue in the conversation.

Gender differences will always be an issue between men and women because they are different, and since most people are heterosexual there will often be sexual issues arising between them.

Cigar bars? Strip clubs? - No, but women should equally have their own sort of "refuge" that is at least mostly meant for them.

They have whatever refuges they want to create. There is no impediment besides desire or lack of a market to stop them.

Sexual violence against women is illegal. I'm all for increasing the enforcement of that, as is almost everyone, I suspect. There really isn't a pro-sexual violence against women lobby.

Right, but as with many other things in our society, the lobby against it is a necessary and important part of the fight against it, even if we all might agree on the topic. Somebody's got to do the hard work part of it, too.

Saying one is against violence isn't the hard work. that's the easy part. The hard work is investigating the crime, arresting criminals and prosecuting them. That's the thing with all this Skepchick style "activism." That ISN'T the hard work. That's the easy part. Saying "women need to be more represented in science" is NOT the hard work. Going to college and getting a degree in a scientific discipline - THAT is the hard work.

[cogwheel]

The reason for the disparity later in life is because more women take time off work, and men work longer hours at that point. Also, folks that are in their 40s and 50s today started out in a world where there WAS ongoing job and education discrimination to a large degree. The reality is that in today's world, in the west, those problems have been solved. Women aren't facing the hurdles they previously were.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... gender_gap

Doesn't look like rampant "discrimination" to me...

Just a reminder of where I'm coming from:

I agree we've gotten mostly past *conscious* discrimination, i.e. people knowingly holding women back for the fact that they're women. But there is still a huge problem with subtle, hard-to-detect sexism

"Rampant 'discrimination'" is certainly not what I had in mind when I was responding to you.

Well, if we're down to the "subtle" and "hard to detect" (i.e. difficult to distinguish whether it's sexism or not sexism), then I submit that the problem is basically solved.

Nope. Wrong "i.e." I wasn't being technical with my use of "detect," though I could have made that clearer. Think "hard to notice" or "not overt" or basically any other similar concept to "subtle."

My point was that the people "doing" sexism these days don't even realize they're doing it. People are remarkably unaware of the motivations for their own decisions.

Besides, even if I had used "hard to detect" in the technical sense, that still doesn't support your point. That an effect is hard to detect doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And, also, a good deal of disparity now appears to be that women are dominating some fields -- like veterinarians and such - and some demographics of women are out earning men by almost 18% (see above). So, are we going to start going after those "problems" too?

At some point, when the playing field is basically level, and the legal system has pretty much eliminated invidious distinctions, well, that's pretty much it. I don't view the fact that most veterinarians are women, or that most tow truck drivers are men to be problems that need solving.

I agree with that statement completely. I simply don't believe we've reached that point.

[Coito ergo sum]

The reason for the disparity later in life is because more women take time off work, and men work longer hours at that point. Also, folks that are in their 40s and 50s today started out in a world where there WAS ongoing job and education discrimination to a large degree. The reality is that in today's world, in the west, those problems have been solved. Women aren't facing the hurdles they previously were.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... gender_gap

Doesn't look like rampant "discrimination" to me...

Just a reminder of where I'm coming from:

I agree we've gotten mostly past *conscious* discrimination, i.e. people knowingly holding women back for the fact that they're women. But there is still a huge problem with subtle, hard-to-detect sexism

"Rampant 'discrimination'" is certainly not what I had in mind when I was responding to you.

Well, if we're down to the "subtle" and "hard to detect" (i.e. difficult to distinguish whether it's sexism or not sexism), then I submit that the problem is basically solved.

Nope. Wrong "i.e." I wasn't being technical with my use of "detect," though I could have made that clearer. Think "hard to notice" or "not overt" or basically any other similar concept to "subtle."

My point was that the people "doing" sexism these days don't even realize they're doing it. People are remarkably unaware of the motivations for their own decisions.

Besides, even if I had used "hard to detect" in the technical sense, that still doesn't support your point. That an effect is hard to detect doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, but it's difficult to do much about that which one has a hard time even detecting. How do you stop someone from doing something that you can't detect? And, if we're down to things that people are unaware they're doing, we've pretty much solved the problem, especially where it is pretty clear that discrimination in employment, education and income is pretty much statistically gone or being handed its hat.

And, also, a good deal of disparity now appears to be that women are dominating some fields -- like veterinarians and such - and some demographics of women are out earning men by almost 18% (see above). So, are we going to start going after those "problems" too?

At some point, when the playing field is basically level, and the legal system has pretty much eliminated invidious distinctions, well, that's pretty much it. I don't view the fact that most veterinarians are women, or that most tow truck drivers are men to be problems that need solving.

I agree with that statement completely. I simply don't believe we've reached that point.

Well, then we draw different conclusions, I guess. I don't see a field women can't get into if they don't want to. I think mozg's statement above is right on target. If women want to be engineers and such, all they have to do is go to school. They are certainly not being kept out of school, or even advised against it (like used to be the case).

[Wumbologist]

When you look at the stats, the problem has been basically solved. See above.

I'll leave the discussion of employment and wage equality to you and cogwheel.

Rape, of course, is still a "problem," but other than making it illegal and prosecuting it, there's not much more to be done. Murder and theft still happen too.

There is more to be done. There are still people who think that a woman dressing a certain way is "asking" to be raped, and there are still many cases of rape reports not being taken seriously enough by law enforcement. Those sort of things are improving but that improvement is coming about because of people advocating for it.

They are. But, if you're suggesting that there is something "we" can do to stop criminals hurting people, besides make it illegal and prosecute crimes, you'll have to explain.

Again, you do your best to make it clear that as a society we don't accept or tolerate it. It's not going to stop it altogether, but we can aspire to be a society where less people are going out and hurting people.

As for double standards -- there aren't just double standards, there are bazillions of standards. You can't regulate "societal double standards." There is a double standard that it is generally acceptable for women to wear skirts, but not men. Big deal. If a person is concerned about how many people another person has dated, what are you going to do about that?

Reason with them.

Gender differences will always be an issue between men and women because they are different, and since most people are heterosexual there will often be sexual issues arising between them.

Of course. Doesn't mean we shouldn't want to "bridge the gap" as much as possible, so to speak.

They have whatever refuges they want to create. There is no impediment besides desire or lack of a market to stop them.

I agree, and that's why I don't see it as a problem.

Saying one is against violence isn't the hard work. that's the easy part. The hard work is investigating the crime, arresting criminals and prosecuting them. That's the thing with all this Skepchick style "activism." That ISN'T the hard work. That's the easy part. Saying "women need to be more represented in science" is NOT the hard work. Going to college and getting a degree in a scientific discipline - THAT is the hard work.

Law enforcement isn't the only hard work aspect of fighting violence against women. There's also the creation and allocation of resources for victims, which often falls outside the scope of what law enforcement does. Counseling and support groups for rape victims, shelters for battered women with nowhere to go, advocacy groups, legal aid, etc.

[Brian Peacock]

The problems "women" face involve things like consent to sex and rape, hiring/firing/pay disparity based on sex rather than job-related things, and the like, equal access to education, etc. These are things that have been solved.

[citation needed]

Just try wearing a dress for a day.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problems "women" face involve things like consent to sex and rape, hiring/firing/pay disparity based on sex rather than job-related things, and the like, equal access to education, etc. These are things that have been solved.

[citation needed]

Just try wearing a dress for a day.

They're less restrictive and cooler than pants.

[cogwheel]

Nope. Wrong "i.e." I wasn't being technical with my use of "detect," though I could have made that clearer. Think "hard to notice" or "not overt" or basically any other similar concept to "subtle."

My point was that the people "doing" sexism these days don't even realize they're doing it. People are remarkably unaware of the motivations for their own decisions.

Besides, even if I had used "hard to detect" in the technical sense, that still doesn't support your point. That an effect is hard to detect doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, but it's difficult to do much about that which one has a hard time even detecting. How do you stop someone from doing something that you can't detect? And, if we're down to things that people are unaware they're doing, we've pretty much solved the problem, especially where it is pretty clear that discrimination in employment, education and income is pretty much statistically gone or being handed its hat.

It's extremely frustrating to have a conversation with someone who keeps turning my very deliberately qualified statements into absolutes. Just sayin...

But as to the substance of you're point, we're now back to "It's hard to keep people from murdering, so we shouldn't do any more to try." Should we just give up on every problem that's "difficult to do much about?"

And, also, a good deal of disparity now appears to be that women are dominating some fields -- like veterinarians and such - and some demographics of women are out earning men by almost 18% (see above). So, are we going to start going after those "problems" too?

At some point, when the playing field is basically level, and the legal system has pretty much eliminated invidious distinctions, well, that's pretty much it. I don't view the fact that most veterinarians are women, or that most tow truck drivers are men to be problems that need solving.

I agree with that statement completely. I simply don't believe we've reached that point.

Well, then we draw different conclusions, I guess. I don't see a field women can't get into if they don't want to.

I never said anything to the contrary. I'm not making statements about what women are physically/legally capable of doing. I'm talking about a society that prevents them from reaching their goals in much more insidious, and subtle ways that are completely ignored by people who think it's a solved problem.

I think mozg's statement above is right on target. If women want to be engineers and such, all they have to do is go to school. They are certainly not being kept out of school, or even advised against it (like used to be the case).

For certain definitions of "kept." Authority figures denying advancement isn't the only way women are "kept" out of engineering.

[mozg]

The problems "women" face involve things like consent to sex and rape, hiring/firing/pay disparity based on sex rather than job-related things, and the like, equal access to education, etc. These are things that have been solved.

[citation needed]

Just try wearing a dress for a day.

They're less restrictive and cooler than pants.

I find that it is easier to ride my bike and climb over logs and things in pants.

For certain definitions of "kept." Authority figures denying advancement isn't the only way women are "kept" out of engineering.

Who are these women who are being 'kept' out of engineering?

Where are they?

How are they being kept out?

Please, be specific, because I've been hearing this same refrain for fifteen fucking years and it is in direct contradiction to my experience in engineering.

[cogwheel]

For certain definitions of "kept." Authority figures denying advancement isn't the only way women are "kept" out of engineering.

Who are these women who are being 'kept' out of engineering?

Where are they?

How are they being kept out?

Please, be specific, because I've been hearing this same refrain for fifteen fucking years and it is in direct contradiction to my experience in engineering.

Work environment is one: http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/May/ ... eering.asp

The study asked women why they had left their engineering careers, and the answers came as a surprise. "The common perception is that women are leaving for taking care of their families," says Fouad. "But that's clearly not true. They left the profession for organizational culture reasons."

School environment is another: http://www.asanet.org/press/engineering_and_women.cfm

“It stems from very subtle differences in the way that men and women are treated in engineering programs and from cultural ideologies about what it means to be a competent engineer,” Cech said. “Often, competence in engineering is associated in people’s minds with men and masculinity more than it is with women and femininity. So, there are these micro-biases that happen, and when they add up, they result in women being less confident in their expertise and their career fit.”

[Wumbologist]

Who are these women who are being 'kept' out of engineering?

Where are they?

How are they being kept out?

Please, be specific, because I've been hearing this same refrain for fifteen fucking years and it is in direct contradiction to my experience in engineering.

I would say it's likely more an issue of gender roles, which you may have hinted at yourself in your critique of people who say that certain fields "need" more women but can't find them. It doesn't matter if there is a fantastic level of equality afforded to female engineers in the workplace, if females aren't becoming engineers because they don't register it as a career option for whatever reason.