General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre women in the 2012 United States a minority group?
Why or why not?
1.
a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
b. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.
2.
a. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
c. A member of one of these groups.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)moot in terms of the actual legal and societal treatment of women as a class in the United States, 2012?
Why or why not?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Arkansas Granny
(31,516 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
racaulk
(11,550 posts)Where there no female victims?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)How is your daily experience like them?
racaulk
(11,550 posts)I'm quite certain that, in many ways, my life experiences are quite different than what theirs were under that regime.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to make metrics measuring the oppression that 'counts' is something Mandela opposed.
The point of my question is that the numerical head count is not pertinent. . So the question in your OP is as I said, moot. The actual questions are far more specific and important. You ask 'are they a minority' and I asked 'what's that got to do with the facts of the matter?' And apparently, your answer is they are not in prison like Nelson was. Nelson, majority citizen, imprisoned at the hands of the minority population. Did majority help Nelson? Did minority mitigate the white South African's actions? So again, what's the head count got to do with that which is right and that which is wrong?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Numerical head count is irrelevant? How can the collective power of the dominant voting group not be relevant?
Majority didn't help Nelson because he and his supporters couldn't vote.
Arkansas Granny
(31,516 posts)Analogous: Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared.
FTR, the experience of Nelson Mandela is in no way similar to mine, but that was not your original question.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If your intent wasn't to use South Africa as an example of comparable oppression of a majority population, then what was your intent?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)[img]
[/img]
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I would be intrigued to hear of any example where the dominant voting group is a minority.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The British in virtually every country they colonized were the dominant Christian group overlords to their majority native populations (India, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt etc. etc.) The lingering scars of colonialism reverberate to this day. Of course we could point out the Spanish domination of the native populations in Central and South America as well.
The population of Hawaii is overwhelmingly Asian and native Hawaiian but they are indisputably governed by the minority "white" US government.
The Tutsi minority governed in Rwanda - an unhappy fact that ultimately exploded. Perhaps you've heard of that genocide?
There are so many examples of the "minority" being in power and the "majority" of the population being disenfranchised all throughout history, it's amazing you couldn't think of even one example yourself!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I asked how the treatment of women in the USA circa 2012 is similar to/comparable with/like any of them.
Of the examples you used, none of them could elect the leadership.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And your request (as I understood it) was for examples of "minority" rule over majority populations.
You asked if women were a "minority"? The obvious segue you asked for was for other situations where there were "oppressed majorities". This wasn't about voting afaic. Are you changing the goalposts now?
There are many, many other similar situations happening in the workforce (sweatshops for example are usually staffed by females with male overseers) if you don't like political systems. Or how about female infanticide in China? Culturally oppressive enough towards females enough for you?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The fact that women are most of the voters begs the obvious question; "being oppressed by whom?"
Sex selection occurs in this country too, but it's not girls who are being rejected.
http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/#SexSelection
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You've been educated countless times (from what I can tell) about the cultural oppression of women in patriarchal societies. Clearly you choose not to believe it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It's about their minority status as defined by sociology and your own definitions as provided in your own OP.
But you knew that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I guess they don't have to be a numerical minority for that to have happened.
But women have made great strides forward. So in 2012 America, there has been great progress - women are not looked on as people who need men for protection and can't do anything but have children and cook. It is no longer 1812. So that's a good thing.
Future progress might include - having equal kind of sexuality - the birth control revolution did a lot for that, and women are on more equal terms. Still not totally there, so that future progress would involve women not having a market for selling sex or having equal access to the market for it- I'd prefer the market go away from this intimate human endeavor, but that may not be in human nature.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Women did not vote. They did not go into any profession. They did not get an education. Over the centuries, this relaxed one by one until women gained more and more equality.
The question of educating, at least upper class women, came up in the Renaissance. I would say there had been slow and steady progress. Today, we are practically equal - we have women on the US Supreme Court (in the late 1800, there would only have been a few women lawyers) and that would have been unthinkable in 1812.
Men could have affairs and not pay any price, women were "ruined" in 1812. Now not so much. Technological and medical advance has helped a lot (and men have contributed to that - coming up with the medical procedures and pharmaceutical advances that led to the pill or other birth control, or freeing women from high odds of dying in child birth).
We have had advances. Maybe we need some more, but those will happen.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
his arguments run out of steam fairly quickly.
sadly, his energy is unflagging when devoted to making it seem like women are
1) oppressing to men and boys
2) not victims in any greater amount of discrimination or the other negatives of society than are men
EOTE
(13,409 posts)to the market for it"
Why is this necessary? So either the demand for sex by men from women needs to go down or the demand for sex by women for men needs to increase? I don't understand that at all. Why do things need to change in that regard? Not that it would be a problem if it did, but I don't understand why the desires of men and women have to be the same. Will we not see true gender equality until men have the same love for shoes overall as women do? I don't see any logic to this line of reasoning.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Either we should be able to buy it, too, or we should not have to sell it. I would take the latter - I really don't think any woman would sell it if she could make as much money doing something far easier and less dangerous. It would be good to have a world where such intimacy is not based on supply and demand or money.
Why should women love shoes more than men do? That only relates back to our having to worry more about our appearance. If we were equal, we wouldn't worry about or have interest in shoes any more than men do. We certainly would not wear high heels.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)The reason that women prostitutes outnumber male prostitutes is because there is FAR greater demand for female prostitutes than male prostitutes. Surely you have the ability to solicit a male prostitute as well, but they're far less common because demand is so low. Women have by far the upper hand in this regard because she doesn't NEED to solicit a male prostitute. Most women could walk up to most single men, ask them if they want to have sex and they're good to go.
What you're really saying here is that for women and men to have equality, we need to like the same things in the same intensity. And that's absolutely ludicrous.
treestar
(82,383 posts)My point is that if we were equal, presumably we would not find that we had this "advantage" in being able to sell sex to men.
Interest in sex seems like something that should not be something one sex likes better than the other. You're in essence saying that men are more interested. Why is that? Why aren't we so interested we go out and buy a young man (we would have to pay for an attractive man - if we weigh too much or are too old - it is not true that we can "always" find sex).
We do like a lot of the same things - we have tons in common. We might have equal interest in careers or hobbies. But if we were totally equal, wouldn't our interest in sex be equal? That would seem something nature allowed for both sexes. So someday if we have equal interest, we won't be able to sell it, I guess. It seems a thing that if truly enjoyed, you don't charge for.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Because it's the difference in those desires that leads there to being far more female prostitutes than male ones.
It has been my experience that men desire sex more than women do, but that might not be true universally. However, what is undeniably true is that women are by far in the better market position when it comes to sex. The point is that men are far more likely to be in a position of wanting sex, while not having a willing partner to have it with. THAT is why there are far more women prostitutes. Women can generally afford to be picky when it comes to selecting a partner and there's a reason for that pickiness. Women have the risk of pregnancy when it comes to sex, that's a pretty huge factor.
What's so difficult to understand about that?
treestar
(82,383 posts)You woman aren't interested in jobs. You aren't interested in going into professions. You aren't naturally suited to that. Whatever it is, men have all the fun.
We don't have to worry about pregnancy any more - we can control that.
So maybe we'll start spending more time at Chippendales. This should be a good thing for you. If women wanted sex as much as you did, why would that be a problem? Seems like an improvement. I'm just thinking ahead, and some day we may well have that fun, too. We still get attitude - as far as those who really like it, they get called unpleasant names. But they have the same right as men to go looking for sex. They can want it more than men or as much if they choose.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Unlike the prohibitionists who want to tell others what they should do with their own bodies. And great, women can want sex all they want. "Why would that be a problem?" Ummm, it wouldn't. Where the hell did I suggest it would be a problem? I have no problem with sex or people of either gender desiring sex. I have no issue with that whatsoever, I'm not quite sure why you seem to be suggesting I would.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe I misunderstood. You seemed to be supporting the idea there should be "differences" and that we should not have the same interests.
So I was merely arguing that we really do, since women over time have insisted on getting in on whatever it was they were told they didn't like so much.
No one is saying that dancers can't do what they like with their bodies - that doesn't mean we can't point to the fact that it's sexism that leads to that "opportunity" and that another way would not be better.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)But I'm not going to try and influence anyone to feel differently, especially about something as personal as sexual desire.
I don't think that there SHOULD be differences, I just think that differences are OK. And I certainly don't think that those differences suggest any sort of inequality.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which is why we are forever trying and succeeding in gaining more of men's privileges.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)(Ask me how I know.)
Men are wired for it, which doesn't mean they can't be trained to control their desires.
I was fascinated that Chaz Bono -- who is undergoing gender change and now living as male -- said that testosterone definitely makes one want sex more. I'll take his word for it, having seen both sides.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If we women were finally liberated.
We did liberate ourselves on issues of jobs, careers, being in office, etc.
Eventually we will liberate ourselves on this.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)I think you're ignoring basic biology, for one thing.
And for another, I question the GOAL of even wanting to be "equal" on this. Seems pointless and trivial to me. I don't wish to denigrate YOUR choice, if that's what you're expressing -- just don't expect too buy in on this from other women. I think they'd see that as somewhat counterproductive.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It seems like nature would have made us more or less equal?
We've never before bought that we "don't want" this or that part of life. Why shouldn't we get as much out of sex as men do? Especially now that we are freed from fears of pregnancy.
What's threatening about that?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)This is not a contradiction in terms. It happens often in societies that a majority element is still discriminated against. Say, the Shi'ites in previously Suni-ruled Iraq.
We are still paid less than the men who do the same work.
We are charged more at the dry cleaner's for a blouse than a man's shirt.
We are discriminated against in hiring and promotion, because it is thought that we might be on some sort of "mommy track" (as opposed to men, who might be on a "daddy track"
.
A woman's haircut costs more than a man's, even though it is no more complicated.
We get called bitchy or bossy for acting the same way a man does who is considered strong and self-assured.
The list could go on.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'm trying not to be snarky here, but does the injustice reflected in the price of dry cleaning rise to the level of the barriers faced by, say, Native Americans?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I said we're a majority that is discriminated against. Is there something not to get about that?
ON EDIT: Perhaps unintentionally, without knowing you are doing so, you are pushing a right-wing meme. I just want to let you know so that you can correct your outlook on this point.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If the majority of people in this country are experiencing conditions similar to, as a poster upthread suggested, blacks in apartheid South Africa, it's a problem which needs fixing.
On the other hand, if people are throwing around words like "minority" in an indiscriminate way, it diminishes the injustice faced by actual minority groups.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)oppressed at the hands of a minority, nothing other than that. Your OP uses the word 'minority' as the definition of 'people who face injustice'. I asked you if history shows us that the minority can oppress a majority makes the head count of the groups a meaningless statistic. You asked for examples. Someone offered SA as the minority oppressed the majority there.
To pretend otherwise is just not honest discussion. No one came near to saying what you claim was said. Just so naff. Your post is a sort of slander and it is told against a specific DU and it is utterly false. Just so we are clear on that.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'll ask you the question again. Do you have any historical examples of oppressed majorities comparable to the experience of american women?
And slander is when I say something that isn't true. The posts in question are right up there for all to read.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)You don't get to discount our very real oppression -- even though things ARE better than where they started out -- on the basis that "some" groups have it worse.
if people are throwing around words like "minority" in an indiscriminate way, it diminishes the injustice faced by actual minority groups.
We've been told this for hundreds of years -- for ALL the time we've been asking for what should be o ur rights, for what we shouldh't have to ASK for. It's wrong. Rights are called RIGHTS because they don't have to be asked for.
We've also been told, along with every other group which has insisted on equality (e.g., black, gays):
* There are more important things going on right now. (Not to me. And learn to multitask.)
* Be nice, don't make waves. You'll get farther if you're nice. (Simply demonstrably wrong!)
* There are people in the world who have it far worse. (So? That's no reason to continue to deny OURS.)
* You're alienating the very people who would be on your side if you weren't so strident. (Lie)
And now you're trying to figure out some way to deny our rights on the basis of the fact that we VOTE?? What the fuck is that all about? Yes, we are a slight majority in numbers. And, we are consistently UNDER-REPRESENTED everywhere you look where there is power (which means except the low-paying jobs), which only bears testimony to our OPPRESSED MINORITY status (option 2b in the OP). And yes, some women vote the wrong damned way, just like some blacks do and some LGBTs do. SO WHAT? They are living with what's referred to as "internalized oppression." Deep inside they feel as unworthy, weak, incompetent or whatever as the culture they live in says they are, so therefore side with the Patriarchy which they expect (wrongly) will protect them and definitely think very poorly of their peers.
As you yourself demonstrate so well, Patriarchy's lies are very convincing, especially to those in the class which benefits the most.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's also women oppressing women.
Don't confuse "disagreement about what you want" with "lack of representation". Get your own house in order.
And those barriers are in no way comparable to the democratic powerlessness which results from being an actual minority, in which it doesn't matter what you want, only what you can persuade others to do for you.
You're ranting. But I can wade through the all caps and multiple punctuation to make this observation. No one is trying to "figure out some way to deny your rights", unless you consider the barriers and problems that men face to be among them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Dry cleaning isn't a great example.
An American woman does have far less to complain about than women in some other countries, or men in some other countries.
But it doesn't mean we can't advance further or imagine a world in which we don't "sell" sexuality, or have equal ability to age without being put on the shelf (some of that is happening now) sexually, or don't have opportunities to put it up for sale - or have equal opportunity and ability to "buy" what we'd want.
LoZo put up a thread about the only male prostitute having no customers - that's true - there's less demand in that vein - so if we had equality, it would be sort of equal.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)gets to pay more for her dry cleaning.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... why do they go to college and live longer than their male peers? This phenomenon holds true for EVERY racial minority group.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)I'm a white gal who's lived on several Indian reservations and who lives on one now and I can tell you that the women here, like most native american women nationwide, face not just a double dose of oppression but a TRIPLE dose of it. One in three suffer horrendous domestic violence in which the kind of grinding poverty so endemic here makes it especially difficult to escape; many don't even have and can't afford cars and, if they do have a beat-up car, they often can't afford gas for it.
The rates of sexual abuse and rape are far higher for them than any other group in the country. Then they face tremendous racism and discrimination in education and attempting to find employment. I could go on and on, but you don't really give a damn, you're too intent on discrediting women, all women, so that you can continue your crusade to make men victims of us evil women and the society we allegedly, supposedly dominate. Oh, and btw, there aren't even any fucking dry cleaners anywhere near most reservations and they would go out of business if there were.
Look, you and your compatriot DUer who believes all child support is "male enslavement" really, really need to get a grip on your hatred of women, you're not even hiding it anymore. Get some help. Seriously. You both really need it. You'll feel better when you've joined the 21st century, I promise.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)They can get a simple haircut at the same price men pay. But not many women choose to dp this. My wife goes to a place that takes her about five times as long as my haircut takes, for about five times the price, which seems fair.
And my drycleaner charges the same for women's blouses as for men's shirts.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)to be somewhat flip, and then appearing to dismiss the idea of women's inequality altogether by finding me a barbershop and non-discriminatory dry cleaner's. This is how men dismiss women's issues entirely.
I can't believe we're even having this discussion on a supposedly liberal board. Anyone who cannot accept the fact that women still face unequal and at times discriminatory situations in this country--and sometimes face tragic violence simply because of their gender--is not a liberal. It's just a given that women's issues are still (after all these years), like race and sexual orientation, are part of the liberal agenda.
Would anyone dare ask on this board if black people or gays consider themselves discriminated against? Yet women (and this includes black and gay women) are consistently dismissed.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)if you did not want people to discuss them?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)take up a feminist argument of being "humorless." It's not that those two things aren't true; it's that I wanted to inject the lighter side of how women get screwed into the picture so as not to be called another of those dour feminists.
But that isn't the question: why did you choose not to acknowledge the other points?
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)here and they're getting more and more brazen about it to the point of not even hiding it anymore. The OP is one of them. It's really, truly disgusting and I really do not understand why it's even allowed here. They even believe that all child support is "male enslavement." Like women get pregnant all on their own and therefore should be the only one responsible for the care of children. Men should be able to have all the fun without any of the responsibility, it should all be on the woman.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)If you look at the workplace, a great area to show inequalities, you'll see that though we aren't experiencing the same types of inequality we were, say 30 years ago, we are still the minority. Compare women to men in US national politics, compare women to men as CEOs. Look at any position of power and you will see that men still dominate and hold the majority.
If you look at advertising and see how women are used, yes used, to sell products you'll see the means of which we are held back (and I know some will argue that women are complicit in this but that doesn't negate that fact that women are used to make us seem less serious). By many, we aren't considered serious individuals but something there for the entertainment of men.
Heck, look at actresses if you want to take the shallow track, and see what they have to do to stay relevant in their craft. Men are allowed to "age gracefully" but the moment a woman gets a few wrinkles or puts on a few pounds (often bringing the actress to a normal weight instead of looking as though she's starved), people criticize her and put her out to pasture. She is still the same great actress of 10 years ago, she just doesn't look as "fresh" so she has to play mom roles or Margaret Thatcher...
I firmly believe that the reason that Hillary lost the nomination, wasn't that she was any less qualified to run the United States than Obama but because she was a woman. People, still, rather vote for a man (even if it's a black man -- and you know there are people who made that argument) than a woman. Heck, I saw a post here earlier today saying it's a good thing Hillary didn't get elected because she'd be too scared to be surrounded by the Pentagon brass.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)How can the largest voting bloc within the country, who obtain superior educations, who get the lion's share of healthcare and social welfare spending, who suffer less unemployment and injury in the workplace, be considered "powerless" and "unrepresented"?
If being the dominant voting bloc equals "powerless", and disproportionate benefit of social spending and legal protection equals "unrepresented", then what has to occur to make women not a minority?
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I farm. By myself, out in a rural area.
A neighbor about a year ago began shooting his dad's rifle down the road at imaginary people. I called the sheriff. When the three carloads of deputies arrived an hour later- the whole time the nut was shooting- thank goodness no one really drove up the road- they became furious at me- at me- not him- because what was I doing out here all by myself without a man to protect me. I kid you not.
What most men do not see is how prevalent the image of subservient women is in all cultures worldwide. We think we have made huge strides here because a man can go to prison for killing his wife. Big strides compared to lots of places where it is OK to burn the wife alive or beat her to death or shoot her.
We do not have anything close to equality here.
Girls are raised with constant images of beauty and attractiveness as being the primary means to power, not brains. To get any kind of respect girls have to have a much higher level of education- which costs a lot of money. Motherhood is greatly devalued, unpaid and unsupported.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I don't think that's the same thing as equality.
The cops who behaved so protectively weren't doing it because they thought of you as inferior. They do it for the same reason that you didn't have to register for the draft, for the same reason that you're not expected to accept dangerous jobs, and for the same reason why congress proposes laws such as Homeless Veterans and Other Veterans Health Care Authorities Act.
Social protectiveness is the reason that girls get higher levels of education.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and I disagree with your dismissal of stereotyping behavior.
Women are not treated equally yet, and perhaps one must be a woman to be able to perceive that.
I do not understand this comment from you:
Social protectiveness is the reason that girls get higher levels of education.
Can you explain what you mean?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The social protection which is implied by programs such as "the women, infants and children program" or social norms such as "women and children first", or the oft-recurring theme that women who choose certain careers are not qualfied to make their own decisions, reinforces that privilege.
If I choose to be a drug dealer, "I knew what I was getting myself into". If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, society and her evil customers are at fault.
Women go to college in greater numbers because society generally thinks that college is more important for women because they shouldn't have to take dangerous work.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)there were plenty of women police officers and firefighters. Hell, there are some within my own family. There are women miners, construction workers, military members, etc., etc., and there are even women who've lost their lives in the line of duty.
"Social protectiveness" has shit-all to do with the higher levels of education. That's only been the case within the past few decades, before that women were lucky if they were permitted to darken the doors of many colleges, or endured bullshit quotas. They're still being steered away from science and math fields, even though they're just as capable in them. What's causing the higher levels of education is greater recognition of the capabilities of women and that they shouldn't be expected to be confined to the kitchen, laundry, nursery and bedroom like they were for so long. I don't recall any of this "panic" that's ensued over more women being in college now than men when it was men who outnumbered women greatly in education due to social and cultural strictures.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)It happens. Numbers don't matter, treatment matters.
In the United States, the term majority refers to a group that is larger in population size and controls economic, political, and social resources. Given the shift of people of color growing in size that trends indicate will make them a majority, some argue that Caucasian-Americans should no longer be considered the majority.
*emphasis mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
Women demonstrate four out of five characteristics of minority status.
I mean, really, look at it in this sense... If women really were a majority group in the United States, then by all rights we should now be living in a matriarchal society instead of patriarchal.
Matriarchy:
A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership and moral authority.
It is quite obvious that isn't going to happen, no matter how many more percentage points we outnumber males.
If you want a truer understanding, maybe you should read some feminist texts:
Men and Feminism: Seal Studies
He's a Stud, She's a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It goes well with red wine, red meat, and the "Hillary's primary voters are racists" meme.
Ah, brings me back to early 2008.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)you're naive. Sexism exists (on both sides, as does racism), full stop. You can joke about it, you can deny it but it still exists.
I had a female friend who supported Hillary, when Obama won the primary she then supported McCain because of Palin.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)isn't the same as saying that THOSE voter were the difference in the race. Based on your friend, I wonder if Hillary came out ahead or behind on those who voted based on gender. It's possible she got more votes because she was a female than she lost.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)a female as president. And that doesn't rest solely on mens shoulders. I think there are women who feel a woman isn't capable of running the nation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)All women.
Gender in an elected official is not relevant to me, the policies they promote are.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)if it tried.
Honestly, it creates a downright unfriendly environment at times.
pampango
(24,692 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)that the dominant voting block lacks power? or that the interests of the recipients of the lions share of social, health and education spending are unrepresented?
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)Yes, both.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Really?
It's been explained many times already, and yet somehow you still don't get it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I hear exactly what you are saying. I think you are wrong.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)You disagree with an entire field of study.
Very mavericky of you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And I'm willing to consider that it was true at that time.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Try checking up on current studies and see if that helps.
Hint: Sociologists haven't changed their minds about women being a minority group. I know that that doesn't fit with the MRA narrative, but there it is.
a simple pattern
(608 posts)Pure intellectual laziness. And he wonders why women do better in school.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)!!!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Remember Me
(1,532 posts)From your link:
the American Association of University Women published a report in 1992 indicating that females receive less attention from teachers and the attention that female students do receive is often more negative than attention received by boys. (Bailey, 1992) In fact, examination of the socialization of gender within schools and evidence of a gender biased hidden curriculum demonstrates that girls are shortchanged in the classroom. Furthermore, there is significant research indicating steps that can be taken to minimize or eliminate the gender bias currently present in our education system.
The socialization of gender within our schools assures that girls are made aware that they are unequal to boys. Every time students are seated or lined up by gender, teachers are affirming that girls and boys should be treated differently. When an administrator ignores an act of sexual harassment, he or she is allowing the degradation of girls. When different behaviors are tolerated for boys than for girls because 'boys will be boys', schools are perpetuating the oppression of females. There is some evidence that girls are becoming more academically successful than boys, however examination of the classroom shows that girls and boys continue to be socialized in ways that work against gender equity.
Teachers socialize girls towards a feminine ideal. Girls are praised for being neat, quiet, and calm, whereas boys are encouraged to think independently, be active and speak up. Girls are socialized in schools to recognize popularity as being important, and learn that educational performance and ability are not as important. "Girls in grades six and seven rate being popular and well-liked as more important than being perceived as competent or independent. Boys, on the other hand, are more likely to rank independence and competence as more important." (Bailey, 1992)
And it goes on from there!!
Thanks, Jeff.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Get the boys out of girls classrooms and the number of girls who test as proficient goes up 27%
Get the girls out of boys classrooms and the number of boys who test as proficient goes up 137%
http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html
Women run education primarily for the benefit of girls.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)I grew up with teacher parents, was surrounded by teachers (primarily male), sub at the local schools and continue to be involved in education and this is unutterably, completely, totally BULLSHIT. In too many areas, like my rural one, it's often the other way around. But that's okay with you, isn't it? You'd much rather have us all back chained to the kitchen, laundry, nursery and bedroom and under your complete economic and social control, the way it was not too long ago and the way it still is for too many women.
I imagine you have no problem with all the many decades, nay centuries, of only a very small number of women being permitted to attend college and/or even work outside the home, when men dominated both secondary and higher education and subordinated women to be socialized to their supportive, lesser role. I imagine you long for the days when unmarried women had a very hard time finding and maintaining employment and when there were actually laws, in existence in many places even into the fifties and sixties, where married women could not be employed if their husbands did not have a job. I'm sorry that you were born in the wrong century.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I feel as though he is behaving in this manner to get certain people upset enough so they say something to get themselves in trouble with the admins.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)But I fear you're not. The entire MRA movement is based on this kind of idiocy. They're not trolling, they're just as deluded as any white rights group.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)at his many other posts on many other threads. He's part of the very vocal, screeching DU women-hating contingent and they're getting more and more vocal and brazenly open about it. Why they're still here, I really don't know. If they were this way about blacks, hispanics, jews, Indians, gays, etc., they'd have been long gone. They even believe that all child support is "male enslavement", as disgusting as that is and they've made no bones about it.
racaulk
(11,550 posts)Part 2b in the definition you posted explains exactly why.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)if there were 12 more women than men, would this make you go away with this utter nonsense?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)this type of thread would stop appearing.
If you want to claim that women are underpaid, or underrepresented, or treated unfairly in some other way, that's fine, go ahead and make your case. But people who deny the dictionary and solemnly proclaim that women are "a minority" risk seeming ridiculous.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Maybe after they stop teaching facts you don't like, you'll have a point.
I swear this is like wingers claiming global warming isn't real cause it's snowing so much.
Sweet Jesus.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)one does not need to be a genius to look a word up in a dictionary.
Thanks, though. 
obamanut2012
(26,071 posts)3
a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b : a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minority
Or maybe this one:
A minority is a sociological category within a demographic. Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would indicate, the term refers to a category that is differentiated and defined by the social majority, that is, those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including, for example, ethnicity, race, gender, wealth or sexual orientation. Usage of the term is applied to various situations and civilizations within history, despite its popular mis-association with a numerical, statistical minority. In the social sciences, the term "minority" is used to refer to categories of persons who hold few positions of social power.
The term "minority group" often occurs alongside a discourse of civil rights and collective rights which gained prominence in the 20th century. Members of minority groups are prone to different treatment in the countries and societies in which they live. This discrimination may be directly based on an individual's perceived membership of a minority group, without consideration of that individual's personal achievement. It may also occur indirectly, due to social structures that are not equally accessible to all. Activists campaigning on a range of issues may use the language of minority rights, including student rights, consumer rights and animal rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
********************************************
We are know what you're doing here, fellas, I just don't know why you're doing it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in that they "differ from others in some characteristics" and are "subject to differential treatment". In fact, that definition would make pretty much everyone a minority.
Of course most people would use the first definition (which you edited out of your Merriam Webster excerpt).
obamanut2012
(26,071 posts)The OP had already posted that, which you know.
What is it about women being a social minority that irritates all of you so much?
Actually, I don't really care. We all know why you and your tag teamer OP are posting this. I have better things to do. Everyone knows you're wrong and has showed you're wrong, and you know you are. Play your games with someone else.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)many cases. Sociologically speaking, women ARE considered a minority. In social science terms, minority status has little or nothing to do with actual numbers, it has to do with power and equality in the society. Which is the way it should be.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)why would this make you and the OP happier, sadder, or whatever you are after? What is the point of this number crunching?
I don't know what to make of it except this guess:
Women, being the Majority could then mean it's our own damn fault we have to pay more for drycleaners all the way to the other end of being targets for sexual assault. it's women's fault because we let it happen - why because there's more of us and majority always rulezzzzz.
wtf.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Your "hypothetical" is in fact the truth!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)What percentage of college degrees are enough to mitigate the impact of the oppression? Should men be prevented from seeking public office until women represent equal numbers? Or are all possible mitigation methods to fix this problem impractical, and the problem is simply a hammer to be prominently displayed polished periodically?
I find it amusing when people disparage "number crunching" because "equality" apparently has nothing to do with numbers... except numbers of elected officials, the price of dry cleaning, and number of CEO's apparently.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I think you're built too low
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The Nelson Mandela +10 protective cloak conceals their own privilege.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)outnumber men in the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, federal and state courts and state legislatures.
Thanks for playing, you'll have to try again sometime. On second thought, please don't. Go back to 1941, where you obviously belong.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)eShirl
(18,491 posts)I would add state Governors to that list too: there are currently only six women serving in that role throughout the U.S.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)are women to blame for this? If they comprise more than 50% of the voters, they can fix this in just a few short years. At least for the elected officials, anyway.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)All those women who like to hold women back? Who think a woman's place is in the home and that men who are stay at home dads are defective losers?
They are upholding the patriarchy.
So no, women are not to blame. Neither are men. The patriarchy is to blame and men need to stop getting all butt hurt and crying like little babies when the patriarchy is attacked.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)so when the patriarchy is attacked why are only men crying like babies? Do the women who uphold it also cheer for it's demise? You say it's not a battle of the sexes, but you make it very much sound like it's men alone keeping women down. The patriarchy isn't the real problem, the problem is those upholding it and if no one were doing that, it would be gone.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)they just roll their eyes and join in with the men in asserting that there's nothing wrong with whatever issue of the patriarchy is being attacked.
If I'm being perceived as 'making it sound' like it's men alone maintaining the patriarchy, that's on the listener, because I've never once claimed such a thing. Their defensive kneejerking is not my problem.
The myriad problems caused by the patriarchy aren't new, and decades of 'let's all be careful not to upset or alienate the menz' behavior has resulted in women losing ground in elected office in this country for the first time in 30 years. I'm done with the 'be nice!' behavior. IMO it's time to call it out in no uncertain terms.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)"Menz" have a problem when the patriarchy is attacked, the women just go along with whatever the men says. I'm not sure exactly how you don't get "MEN are the problem" out of that. That you've never once claimed such a thing is because you're smart enough to know that actually saying outright, "MEN are the problem" is the beginning of a bad argument. Starting any argument with a negative blanket statement about a large group of diverse people has never been a springboard for a winning argument or one that will bring anyone over to your point of view. Well okay, it works fine in the repuke primaries to their base, but I've never seen it work on the DU.
The patriarchy is an obstacle, I agree, but THE problem isn't the obstacle, it's those who keep it from being removed.
Women who subscribe to and support the patriarchy are following men. That's kind of intuitive, I thought. Men as bosses, as the dominant class... any women signing on to that are following men, right? Maybe I'm missing something.
There are lots of MEN (not menz, the easily butt-hurt whiners, sorry for my snarkiness today but I've had it after three days of being called sexually repressed pearl clutching church lady moralist man-hating anti-sex and whatever the hell else) who do NOT subscribe to the patriarchy and THEY are not the problem. They are MEN, and NOT the problem. Therefore MEN are not the problem.
Clearer?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)So your not blaming ALL men for upholding the patriarchy, just some men. But it seems somewhat clear that specifically men (again, some men) are the problem. The women supporting the patriarchy sort of get a "just following orders" kind of pass on it, they're not REALLY responsible for their actions.
I don't disagree with much of this argument, but I am less willing to give anyone a pass because they're just following someone else. Regardless of how the obstacle got there, ALL who hold it up are part of the problem and bear responsibility for it.
To remove the obstacle, you have to convert those who are currently enforcing it, and if those people are doing this (and for women, against their own self interests) to protect these men, it seems like the worst possible to tactic to try to convert them with the argument "the men ARE the problem". If they're already willing to support the men despite their own common sense, why would this sway them? Now I'm not suggesting your goal on THIS thread is specifically to do that (convert anyone), but in general, it would seem to be a better tactic.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)That's another misinterpretation. I'll go further and say it's word twisting. I never said women who support the patriarchy were 'just following orders'... that was your line of argument. It isn't 100% inaccurate but it is misleading in that it conveys the idea that women who support the patriarchy couldn't possibly have any other choice but to do so. They do have a choice, and as such it is THEIR responsibility. Not the menz'.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)but to suggest that those who go along with this are just following men seems, to me, an attempt to mitigate their culpability in the matter.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I simply agreed that it was technically accurate, in that the patriarchy is the male-dominated society. They're not literally 'following men'.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine we often fail to see institutionalized disadvantages against a particular demographic when it better suits our own biases.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But not like you mean.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)you're totally not like people who claim whites have it so bad because of affirmative action or anything. Not at all.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Remember Me
(1,532 posts)What the hell DO you mean?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The person to whom I was talking knows what I meant.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I have little doubt you believe you know what I mean.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Such as "institutional disadvantage"
Examples of this would be government scholarships that you can't apply for because of your gender. Or the fact that a violent crime against you will be punished less severely because of your gender. Or the fact that social services are unavailable to you because of your gender. Or the fact that you are legally obliged to pay more for health insurance to subsidize the health care of individuals of the other gender.
Like that.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)Examples of this would be government scholarships that you can't apply for because of your gender. Or the fact that a violent crime against you will be punished less severely because of your gender. Or the fact that social services are unavailable to you because of your gender. Or the fact that you are legally obliged to pay more for health insurance to subsidize the health care of individuals of the other gender.
So you resent that there are government scholarships that benefit women? What are they?
Women have routinely been punished MORE severely -- more time in prison, harsher sentences otherwise -- than men. Please show me where they get off easy based on gender.
Sorry, if you want free materniity counseling, you'll have to get pregnant.
Okay, just what services are you resenting not getting now?
As for larger health insurance premiums, that's something to take up with the predatory health insurance companies. We live longer. Sorry. Help us overthrow the patriarchy and you can live longer too.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Look them up.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)That was easy!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I just think of it in terms of needing SPF 15. I hadn't really thought through the wider socioeconomic implications.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine your sunburn explains your historical pay disparity.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine a handful of counter-examples may be found within a general and historical trend. There was a southern senator in 1861 whop was against the expansion of slavery too.
obamanut2012
(26,071 posts)Because they are. Anyone claiming they are not are either woefully uneducated or being disingenuous.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)obamanut2012
(26,071 posts)But you know that already.
"3a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b : a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities."
LB left that out of his OP, didn't he? I wonder why?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Not every subpopulation different from the others is a minority. Whites are not a minority, despite differing from the rest.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)obamanut2012
(26,071 posts)HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
3a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b : a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities>
Isn't that special.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)FWIW I don't think that amplifies the discussion in any meaningful way. It borders on gibberish.
e.g. White people differ from others in the population, and are subjected to differential treatment.
obamanut2012
(26,071 posts)And, of course you would think the definition of "minority" re: minority group is gibberish.
I pulled my definition from Merriam-Webster's. I'm sure wherever you pulled your definition from also had the "minority group" definition, unless it was some special MRA dictionary.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)2.b and 2.c answer the question you seem to be unable to answer for yourself because it would require you to change your mind.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)In terms of physical numbers - women are a majority.
But for all of our numbers? We're second class citizens who deserve every "rotten thing that comes our way" . . . at least that's what the White Male and Privileged that run this country believe, think and MOST Important? Impose on women.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)L-J, I get that what you're really trying to say is that you feel men are more victimized than women. Perhaps you are even trying to say you feel victimized BY women.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)As if co-opting the term "patriot" from those who truly did remarkable acts of patriotic heroism will serve as a shield protecting their unjust activities.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Quoted from my prior post:
^ this is what it sounds like your underlying perception is. Is this what you are getting at?
As if co-opting the term "patriot" from those who truly did remarkable acts of patriotic heroism will serve as a shield protecting their unjust activities.
-----You're introducing another topic here, which begs a different set of questions.
Before muddying the waters with another argument, please respond to my question here so that we can clarify issues in a logical, linear fashion.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)When my every request is met with servile acquiescence, I'm pretty sure I'm not asking for enough.
So it goes with gender politics. My sons are more likely to die on the job or in public service, less likely to get medical care, will pay more in taxes and get less in services, are less likely to get a decent education, are more likely to be unemployed, are more likely to commit suicide or be the victim of a violent crime. The fact that they're the minority voting bloc is partly to blame for this.
Despite this, when poked with the "you violent oppressor" stick, progressive men meekly say "yes dear." Naturally, this leads the stick wielder to the conclusion that she's righteous in her cause and should poke harder next time.
I'm saying that as individuals we all face victimization and exploitation, and the political system is dilatory in correcting them. I'm also saying that men as a class have some very serious, very legitimate gripes, many of them institutional (and not just cultural) in nature. The aformentioned stick-poking isn't victimization so much as advocacy. The problem is there's no countering message. Talking about "equality" is valued, provided we don't talk about anything on the other side of the equal sign.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)So it goes with gender politics. My sons are
more likely to die on the job or in public service, -- than women? Really? How? Source?
less likely to get medical care, -- than women? Again, source, please.
will pay more in taxes and get less in services, -- than women? That's preposterous. Source, please.
are less likely to get a decent education, -- than women? Why? How? Source, please.
are more likely to be unemployed, -- at the moment, I'll give you that one -- barely. But it has a lot more to do with lower wages and lower opportunities and the fact that women will take those jobs, or are typically only hired for those jobs (housekeeper in a hotel, nurses' aides, fast food, other service work)
are more likely to commit suicide or be the victim of a violent crime. -- again, Sources.
The fact that they're the minority voting bloc is partly to blame for this. = ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. Absolute, full and complete BULLSHIT.
Or if it's not, what are you doing here at DU? Because the "gender gap" goes to the Democrats. If you think it's women VOTING that causes all these woes, then your beef is with the Democratic Party, and all Democrats.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)busy day today, no time to give this appropriate time.
Thanks for being courteous and giving me a better idea of your viewpoint here.
Will reply later this evening
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)the stick poking from women IS a cry for advocacy, particularly since I (and many women) feel like we have few advocates, at least in certain respects. I also agree with you that there is no countering message, advocating for men's rights, dignity and humanity. Though I do often see women here speak very definitely in support of men and boys, of the need for them to have safe haven, when the subject is rape committed against men or boys.
There are also women here on DU who regularly make it clear that the gender divisive society we live in is not only harmful to women/girls, but also to men/boys.
.......
I am disappointed to hear you characterize women's outcry for awareness and understanding like this: "when poked with the "you violent oppressor" stick, progressive men meekly say "yes dear." " This is like saying that there is something meek and unmasculine about men who support and advocate with women against the cultural/social/institutional forces of misogyny. I strongly disagree with a notion such as that.
I would venture to say that "Naturally, this leads the stick wielder to the conclusion that she's righteous in her cause and should poke harder next time. " is more apt when the poke-ee responds with deprecation---THAT is what leads to harder poking the next time.
With regard to your comment,
So it goes with gender politics. My sons are more likely to die on the job or in public service, less likely to get medical care, will pay more in taxes and get less in services, are less likely to get a decent education, are more likely to be unemployed, are more likely to commit suicide or be the victim of a violent crime. The fact that they're the minority voting bloc is partly to blame for this....
I have some misgivings about that statement:
Men are a minority voting bloc? I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me a little more info on that?
It's my impression that regarding jobs...jobs that are inherently life-threatening are male dominated fields. They are also paid far better than generally safe, female dominated jobs.
Less likely to get medical care----my understanding is that men are less likely to SEEK medical care, but not that they are denied it when seeking it. Women have historically been dismissed and disbelieved when seeking medical help. In fact, women's lives and health care--not men's-- is threatened now by the Right-Wing.
Men do pay more for auto insurance than women, or at least younger men do--insurance companies consider males to be more likely to be involved in accidents (dangerous driving habits, risk-taking). Women are charged higher rates for health insurance, and we have more health issues. Many quite serious.
I don't happen to know about paying more in taxes, though men EARN more than women--therefore they would pay more taxes; they also benefit more from what they paid over their career when it comes time to retire, as pensions/Soc. Security are a percentage of money earned.
Elderly women are at highest risk of poverty because of social factors such as this (women earn less, women leave to bear children, women tend to be the ones who take time off to tend sick children. They are also statistically more likely to be the ones to curtail work in order to care for elderly parents. As I mentioned, this cuts earnings, which then come back to bite women when it is time to collect Soc. Sec.
Unemployment--yes, I believe that you're right...men are in greater danger of being laid off.
Violent crime and suicide--As far as suicide, women attempt it more often than men, but men succeed more often. I don't think it's beneficial to blame women for that. It's a result of men's higher involvement in violence, higher risk-taking, and higher aggression levels. The same applies to their likelihood of being the victim of violent crime. Men are inherently more aggressive, seek excitement, take more risks, and tend to turn rage outward against others. They are more likely to seek out violent solutions and situations; therefore, it is no surprise that they are likely to fall victim to violent crime.
Thanks for your attention
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:07 PM - Edit history (2)
There is something either meek and servile OR condescending and willfully ignorant about those who don't take seriously many of the very unfair and unequal messages of modern feminism.
I hope I am neither, but especially not the latter.
Men are a minority of voters. In 2004, 74% of women were registered to vote compared to 71% of men. The population ratio of adults is about 0.9:1 (men/women) Thus, only 46% of those eligible to vote in any given election are men. (men are a minority voting bloc.)
Your impression is correct. Dangerous jobs are held by men. 92% of workplace fatalities are men. More male truck drivers die on the job each year than women of all professions. The safe jobs do pay less (because there's more competition, and less turnover in them) this largely explains the pay differential. 98% of fatalities in Iraq were men, 3965 vs 64. ("... are more likely to die on the job or in public service"
Due to HCR and the removal of gender as a rating criteria, the costs of women's healthcare is shifted onto men. They not only get less health care, but during their shorter lives they will subsidize the costs of their female peers.
You might be right about receiving more from Social security... if men lived as long. At birth, under current SS retirement age, a male child can expect to live 8 years in retirement. A woman, 13. ("pay more in taxes and get less in services"
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10127.html
I've been doing a lot of thinking about privilege today, and your last paragraph ("it is no surprise that they are likely to fall victim to violent crime" reminds me of it. I have realized that there is one big area in which men do have a privilege. When we take risks, or dangerous jobs, or break the law, people say "Whatcha gonna do? He knew what he was getting himself into." Men are understood to be... well, men. We have agency of our own decisions and are thus fully adults.
When a woman takes a risk, or a dangerous or illlegal job, we blame society (prostitution is violence/porn desensitizes, etc) The woman didn't really know what she was getting into, and to suggest otherwise is blaming the victim.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Truly amazing what people choose to got worked up about. There are more important issues in the USA than semantics.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and there you go.
genius. 
Lex
(34,108 posts)smdh . . . it's right there
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) 
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Are the 99% (b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society), non-whites and women in the 2012 United States a minority group?
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)and when trying to identify various population categories, perhaps rather than fixating on the word, "minority", it would be more understandable if we identified groups by referring to the "privileged" / "underprivileged" or "powerful"/"disempowered"
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Some disempowered, like minor heirs to billionaires, are privileged but really have no power until they come of age.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I would like to see that change. That's one reason OWS is so exciting.
Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have.
--Margaret Mead
Of course, it takes that and unified effort!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The third distinguishing feature of the Global Gender Gap
Index is that it ranks countries according to their proximity
to gender equality rather than to women’s empowerment.
Our aim is to focus on whether the gap between
women and men in the chosen variables has declined,
rather than whether women are “winning” the “battle of
the sexes”. Hence, the Index rewards countries that reach
the point where outcomes for women equal those for
men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which
women are outperforming men in particular variables.
Did you catch that?
Two couples, (Bill & Sue, Joe & Mary) are surveyed to identify gender inequality. Bill and Mary each make $200,000 annually. Sue and Joe each make $100,000 annually. At first glance this would seem pretty equitable, right?
Not so fast. Using the methodology of the "global gender gap report of the World Economic Forum", Bill and Sue have an inequality ranking of grade of .5 due to Bill outearning Sue. Mary and Joe, on the other hand have a ranking of 1.0 or a perfect score *because* she makes twice as much as him.
The community to which the two couples belong is thus ranked .75 despite the women making exactly what the men do.
A perfect score of "100% equality" in any of the countries subject to the study, would be a country in which women have clear superiority in every single indicator measured. For purposes of this topic, that's the goal. The working definition of equality.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)let me get back to you on this tomorrow
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The victim industry hasn't every gotten any pushback, so the benchmark of "equality" has crept ever forward.
At the micro-scale, in their methodology, a family is unfair if there is one task or one benchmark out of hundreds on which the woman can't demonstrate clear superiority.
Put another way; If we order a 100 slice pizza, and I eat more than half of any of those slices, the distribution was thus from a woman's perspective, inequitable. The fact that you ate the other 99 pieces by yourself doesn't matter.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Are the 99% a minority?
Accepting this as yes mangles language and logic to meaninglessness.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Are the 99% a minority? "
"A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. " (key word-- relative-- not in the family way either)
Context certainly helps. Dogma certainly hinders. As my eleven year old niece would benignly say, "duh-doi!".
However, I have no doubt you will further rationalize (read: resort to almost-clever one liners in place of substantive points) the conclusion your reached based on feelings and independent of facts.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I believe it too, cause if the minority in numbers runs over and rules the majority in numbers, then they are the majority who holds the power and controls the money. The rest of us are just peasants and really a minority. Like in the Middle Ages, only the minority in numbers the nobility got to enjoy a quality of life. The rest of the serfs had a hand to mouth existence and no power to change their circumstances. They were the minority when it came to power.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)'nuff said
musette_sf
(10,200 posts)mi·nor·i·ty
2.
a. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
c. A member of one of these groups.
Absolutely YES.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)where slaves roughly equaled or outnumbered the white population. Were conditions equal? No. Were they a minority group by sociological standards? Yes.
Consider, as an extreme example, the FLDS. Who in that group has the numbers, and yet who has the power? Consider Bachmann's statement that she'd be "submissive to her husband" as President. Consider Coulter's belief that women shouldn't vote. Or Sensenbrenner's remark about the FLOTUS and her butt. Newt Gingritch is running for President with Stepford Model #3 and yet take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Koch
Amy T. Koch (born October 8, 1971) is a member of the Minnesota Senate and its former Majority Leader.[2] Koch represents District 19, which includes portions of Hennepin and Wright counties in the northwestern Twin Cities metropolitan area. She is a woman of loose morals who cheated her husband and hence violated Minnesota statute 609.36 which states: "When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both." [3]"
Seem equal to you? Hell, look at the recent prostitution threads HERE and what some of the women themselves think of other women who do not fit the monogamy mold. Yes, we've made advances but we aren't all the way there. Yet.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Clearly first two examples are oppressed majorities, for a simple reason; Those living under the thumb of the antebellum south and FLDS church don't get to elect the leaders. In order to perpetuate the oppression, you must prohibit their participation in democracy. Once the oppressed can vote, the oppression will soon end - certainly within the subsequent century.
Saying that someone's butt is fat may be rude, but it's not oppression.
The law you cite is ridiculous. No prosecutor is going to touch that, however If Amy Koch were a man, he'd be justifiably canned and likely prosecuted for sexually harassing his staff.
And I'm having a hard time with the concept that women are a minority that is being oppressed in part by the other women they elect.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)throughout history. Why would it confuse you that modern women are just like the rest of humanity? Women aren't superhuman.
The law whoever wrote that blurb cited is *unenforceable*, both because it's a protected private consensual act and because the law is gender specific and therefore discriminatory. My point was, the woman was run out of office for this and is considered a woman of "loose morals", and then we have Newt. Running for president. After doing the same to two wives. Do you see the double standard?
If Amy Koch were a man, she'd be prosecuted for harassing her staff... like say, Herman Cain was? Or Clarence Thomas? Right. Gotcha. Sued, maybe, but prosecuted? No.
The fact that we are able to vote for candidates chosen for us by others is not that much different from not choosing at all. This is a condition that covers all Americans, not just women; but among those that DO have enough money, power and influence to get elected, the deck is still heavily stacked toward wealthy, white men. And they're allowed to have big butts. And cankles. Without the media batting an eyelash or writing a single insulting line.
When was the last time men's vasectomies were the subject of a possible ban? Have your state politicians introduced bills to halt Medicaid funding to your local urology clinic? Have they debated lately on whether a procedure that might save men's lives should be allowed or banned?
We've come a long way in the right direction but there are still definite inequalities. You seem to have limited your scope of definition to the ability to participate in government; minority treatment is cultural, not just limited to voting rights, and goes beyond that standard.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She doesn't get a pass because she's a woman. The senate ethics committee cited her for a breach of ethics and she resigned. I see nothing wrong here.
I've run for office 5 times and won 3. The extent to which we are governed by people chosen by others is overstated. By a large margin, the people who seek local office in city councils and school boards are men. I don't know why women choose not to run for these offices, but they don't.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)No. I pointed out that in order to be treated equally with men, she would HAVE to be given a pass. With male elected officials this is generally left to civil courts, not criminal.
And I think I just explained to you why women don't choose to run in the same numbers: because inequality goes beyond government and exists in many aspects of life. For some reason you have chosen to limit the scope of your conversation to voting and elected office. I have tried to keep the discussion within your set lines, but now you're moving out of it.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:52 PM - Edit history (2)
A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.
A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
Let's look at all three branches of government for starters:
Percentage of women in Congress: 16.8% (73 of the 435 seats in the 112th US Congress)
Percentage of women in the Senate: 17.0% (17 of the 100 seats in the Senate)
Percentage of women on the Supreme Court: 33.3% (3 of 9 Justices )
Number of women to EVER serve on the Supreme Court: FOUR
Number of Presidents (or Vice Presidents) in US history: ZERO
This OBVIOUSLY falls far short of representing the 51% of the population who are women.
And this is just the important area of legislation. One could also look at the depressing ratio of women to men in all sorts of areas of power and influence, such as media and business.
(edited for spelling)
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Liquorice
(2,066 posts)as "having 'minority status' as far as the law is concerned." They are not a minority in terms of numbers, but they have been systematically oppressed by the dominant ruling population (men) and therefore are given minority status. It seems like anyone living in the US would already know something so obvious. ????
http://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Is a relevant bit. It's the sentence immediately preceding the fragment you posted.
Liquorice
(2,066 posts)That's the relevant part. I assumed you already knew that women are not a minority in terms of population. I didn't realize you were actually asking whether women were a minority within the population! To answer that question for you, no women are slightly more than 50% of the population. I hope that clears things up for you!
Response to Liquorice (Reply #143)
Bunny This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"It should be noted that the moon is not made of green cheese. However, because when you look at from a distance, it is kind of round-ish. Thus, it is considered having food status as far as the law is concerned."
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)want to hear it. He prefers non sequiters, red herrings and tearing down the messenger to actual engagement on the facts. Must be that horrible women-centered edumacation he's complaining about.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)referred to as minorities. in fact, every refererence to them was usually along the lines of the "oppressed black majority" and their oppressors as the "ruling white minority." so calling women in the us minorities is just not correct.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It's perfectly fine to raise and debate issues where you believe women are unfairly treated. And I am the first to agree that the female majority in the United States has some legitimate issues to complain about.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)a minority. in the south african case it was completely inverted from the norm when a relatively small white minority lorded over a fairly large black majority. nobody would have even thought o calling the south african blacks minorities.
i don't begrudge anyone mistakenly calling u.s. women minorities. what is baffling here is that people insist on defending that mistaken assertion, vehemently.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I think it depends on whether the discussion is about the numbers or about the legalities.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non-white' inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I think the best thing that could happen is for more men to recognize their disadvantages for being male. It would make it easier to recognize their privileges by at least recognizing that society promotes certian inequalities.
Recognizing one's privileges, no matter where they come from, is generally harder to do than one's underprivilege or disadvantage.
I think anyone who says that males cannot be underprivileged or disadvantaged as a group are not only wrong, but being counterproductive by sort of encouraging men to be in the dark about privilege. (This goes for other groups as well, like whites)
And women (as well as men) need to be more aware of their privileges.
Males generally have the most privileges in most situations in the US at this time between genders, though not always and not in all areas. Some of them are even aware of the disadvantages of being male. Instead of telling males that they have no disadvantages, which isn't true, it should be embraced by others that they have disadvantages, then used as a way to explain that many other groups (like women) face even greater disadvantages, things that they don't have to, things, which in fact, are privileges.
If their disadvantages aren't aknowledged or are dismissed out of hand, you're going to have a hard time having them recognize your disadvantages, or even the whole system of inequality and privilege.
Hell, it's bad enough that many people are too proud in the US to even admit that our society has privileges and disadvantaged groups.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I think your approach is counterproductive to trying to get others to recognize privilege.
In a way, you are actually promoting what many conservative males already think. That is to say, any sort of complaints about disadvantages or privileges is simply whining, because we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. A veritable perfect meritocracy. If a conservative guy complains he didn't get what he wanted because he's male, he's liable to be made fun of by his conservative friends as a "wimp" (or usually worse).
And they would definitely call you a whiner for talking about privilege. So why emulate them?
Indeed, if a guy complains about male disadvantages he faces, that's already a sign he has a small inkling that perhaps society is not a perfect meritocracy. That's a perfect opportunity to not only aknowledge and commisserate, but to then use it to point out privilege and disadvantages elsewhere.
Many men have a hard time understanding privilege because they are rejected out of hand by some that see privilege. It's ironic I suppose, if not sad. They are told to recognize privilege and at the same time stop their whining. What a horrible mixed message to be giving.
varelse
(4,062 posts)thanks for asking.
spooky3
(34,451 posts)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)Easy peasy.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)
REP
(21,691 posts)Women are not the minority nor a minority as that word has come be used (ie, of a smaller racial/ethnic subset of the population). By using "minority" to describe women, it reinforces the marginalization of all women. Women are still treated as 'less than,' but that does make it so.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Just ask any female corporate executive or politician.
One of my greatest disappointments last election was to realize that sexism was just as rampant on the left as it was on the right.
