[thechat] outburst
Tara Cleveland
tara at taracleveland.com
Thu Jan 20 17:49:10 CST 2005
Deacon, and all,
I'm tempted to not reply at all. Your email was so disgusting to me I'd
really rather ignore it. But I'm not sure I can. To me, it's like a
stinking pile of crap left in the room, and although I'd like to
pretend it's not there, it smells like shit.
On 19-Jan-05, at 3:06 PM, deacon wrote:
> Well, no, actually, I meant women's oppression of men.
Okay... Let's see where this is going...
> Traditionally, the master has worn silk and jewels, while the slave
> does
> heavy, dirty, dangerous and unpleasant work. The reason why women,
> as a rule, earn 70 cents on the dollar for men is because, as a rule,
> you don't get paid for what you do, you get paid for what you put up
> with.
Um... and what exactly is that meant to mean? It doesn't make a hell of
a lot of sense really. Who puts up with what? Are you saying women put
up with less and so they get paid less? Cause' that would be funny if
it weren't so idiotic. You want a breakdown of top jobs by gender and
their average wages and then we can see who "puts up" with more.
Top Jobs US 2000
(from http://www.detnews.com/2003/careers/0305/07/a05-155382.htm) I'm
not sure how accurate is - since I wouldn't necessarily rate the
Detroit News as an authoritative source - but it's a good example
anyway.
Eliminated duplicates in the top ten list for men and women. Median
salaries (according to salary.com) are in brackets.
**Women**
Secretaries, typists, stenographers ($33,071. - Level II Administrative
Assistant)
Bookkeepers ($32,489)
Registered Nurses ($55,270)
Elementary school teachers ($45,221)
Nursing Aides, orderlies, attendants ($22,196 - Nursing assistant)
Bookkeeping, Accounting, auditing ($32,489)
Waitresses ($17,974 - Room Service Server - Casino)
Receptionists ($25,653)
**Men**
Truck drivers ($33,848 - heavy truck driver)
Janitors and cleaners ($22,650)
Carpenters ($39,475 - level two carpenter)
Computer systems analysts and scientists ($61,741 Applications Systems
Analyst II)
Laborers, not construction ($25,229)
Sales representatives, not retail ($64,912 Sales Representative II)
Construction laborers (Helper- Brick and Stone Mason $23,936)
Auto mechanics ($38,698)
I don't see any correlation between putting up with stuff and good pay
here. I'm not sure which one is worse - the men's jobs or the women's.
They all have to "put-up" with shit - although Nurses and orderlies and
Elementary Teachers probably put up with more actual excrement than
others.
> In the 18th century, men and women had similar lifespans; she tended
> to die in childbirth and he died in industrial accidents. We've made
> childbirth pretty safe, but ignored his working conditions.
So what you're saying is that childbirth has been made safe, while
there has been no significant improvement in the mortality rate in
industrial accidents in the last 200 years. Also that a significant
number of women no longer die in childbirth while a significant number
of men die in industrial accidents - significant enough to make up the
difference between male and female lifespans. I always thought that
heart disease and/or cancer (depending on where you're from) was the
leading cause of death (see
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_16t1.pdf "Deaths: Leading
Causes for 2000, table 1" from the CDC), and the major differences
between men and women's lifespans were lifestyle differences (like more
men smoked more for longer and therefore died of smoking-related
illnesses) but I could be wrong, although all the studies I've read
indicates that I'm right. Care to back up your assertion with some
sources?
> When a man and a woman commit crimes together, you often hear
> that the prosecutor offers to let the woman get off scot-free if the
> man
> pleads guilty and takes a prison term. I've never heard of a deal being
> offered where she goes to prison for him; have you?
I don't remember ever hearing of a guilty women getting of "scot-free"
and the man taking the prison term if he pleads guilty. I have heard of
women ratting men out and getting lighter prison sentences. 'Course
I've heard of men ratting out men and getting lighter prison sentences
too. Got any sources?
> If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of a baby, she can give the
> baby up for adoption. If a man doesn't want responsibility, he can go
> fish.
I hate to point out the obvious, but women don't have the choice of
whether or not it's *them* that gets pregnant. Boy, I'd love to have a
kid and my hubbie be the one to carry it, breastfeed, and do the
majority of the child rearing. However, I do know several men that have
walked out on their children, and not even come close to paying their
fair share of the child rearing costs. Needless to say... you should
know by now that if you don't want the risk of pregnancy and/or
children you shouldn't have sex - whether you are a woman or a man.
Having said all that, what you said is just simply not true. In most
places (obviously I can't check out all jurisdictions), both parents of
the child you must give consent for adoption. If you aren't recognized
as the father (on the birth certificate etc) you can still petition the
court to prove paternity and get your parental rights and stop the
adoption. So women can't just give up the baby for adoption. Both
parents have legal rights and responsibilities when a child is born.
> When a neighbor calls the cops on a domestic dispute, two times out
> of three, the cops find a woman attacking a man.
I think the statistics will contradict you very sharply. In my own
experience, witnessing domestic violence, it has been the opposite -
and stats will back that up.
In the US, women are 5 to 8 times more likely to be the victims of
violence by an intimate partner than men.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf
In Canada, 85% of the victims of spousal assault were women.
http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/dates/dec6/facts_e.html#a2
And quite interestingly, "The BCS [British Crime Survey] estimates that
there were 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2001/2 (514,000
against women and 122,00 against men)... results from the 1996 BCS
self-completion module on domestic violence were published in Home
Office Research Study No.191. This more confidential approach to
measurement revealed that the proportion of women that were victims in
the last year of domestic assault was over three times higher than in
the main BCS. "
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/dv03a.htm
>> Well, it could be because there is a history of *very* strong
>> discrimination in the fields of science and engineering.
>
> I can testify to that. When I was in Chemical Engineering at UD, there
> were six fellas and one womanl. She not only got the *highest* offer,
> but she got seventeen of them; the six guys combined had eleven
> offers. The previous year, there were seven men and one woman. The
> highest offer that year went to a woman, too.
Well it's not discrimination unless you can prove that those two women
were unworthy of such offers and the men were worthy. I also don't know
what affirmative action laws you have in place in your jurisdiction so
I can't comment upon that.
>> See
>> http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-398/disasters_tragedies/
>> montreal_massacre/ for an extreme example of this attitude.
>
> That too. Once in a while, you find a slave revolt.
That is a disgusting and abhorrent comment. It crossed the line for me
both from a personal and a general outrage perspective. I'd like an
apology for that comment.
Mark Lepine was a mass murderer that brutally killed 9 female
engineering students because they were women that had the audacity to
succeed in a field he considered the realm of men. He hated women and
wanted to kill them for being uppity. One of my very close family
friends was on his "hit list" of prominent Canadian women he was
planning to kill. It traumatised women (and men) across the entire
nation.
Male engineering students are as far from slaves as I can possibly
imagine. To call them slaves trivializes the incredibly tragic and
terrible reality of current and historic slavery.
In all ways I can think of to call the Montreal Massacre a slave revolt
is just simply... revolting.
>> It could be that I've heard totally sexist and demeaning things said
>> to me in the course of my work countless times
>
> No doubt. Everyone seems to get assaulted in that manner, male or
> female. So why is it different when offensive sexual jibes are made to
> women than to men? I don't think *anyone* should have to "shut up
> and take it like a man."
Well I'm not humourless or against sexual jibes of a friendly nature
between *friends*. And that wasn't specifically what I was talking
about. I am against a workplace where sexual jibes have a tinge of
nastiness to them and are constant and unfriendly. I've just never
heard any going the other way - women saying nasty and intimidating
things to men - although I'm sure it happens.
I was also referring to people who made comments about women being less
capable, being the ones who were meant to clean up, being expected to
be social directors or "secretaries" (and not in a nice way), women
being less assertive, women being bitchy, power-hungry whores when they
*are* being assertive, women having less smarts, strength and chutzpah,
women being lazier, etc. etc.
> But men are taught at their mother's knees that their only reason to
> exist is to support and serve.
Oh, so I expect that you were taught that it was your duty to cook,
clean, do laundry, change diapers, feed babies, etc. etc. And you were
told that that was your reason for existing? To create and serve your
family. To reproduce. To honour and obey. You know, we are all taught
to support and serve in one way or another. The question is who ends up
with more autonomy and power resulting from their service?
> It starts with sexual mutilation at birth,
> something that's considered barbaric when it happens to females,
Some people consider circumcision barbaric. I'm not sure I'd call it
barbaric, but I certainly wouldn't circumcise a child of mine.
But lets not compare the two... because the equivalent would be
chopping off the *head* of the penis and perhaps other parts of the
genitals of a 4-8 year old boy, not cutting the foreskin off of a small
baby.
"The girl is immobilized, held, usually by older women, with her legs
open. Mutilation may be carried out using broken glass, a tin lid,
scissors, a razor blade or some other cutting instrument."
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a1
I'd have said that was barbaric if it was happening to a male child as
well. Unfortunately, this extreme version of genital mutilation happens
to females and rather than being about hygiene (which is what many use
as a reason for circumcision) it's about eliminating sexual pleasure
and preserving "virginity".
> and
> as he grows up he learns that it's not proper to hit back when girls
> hit
> him.
I was told it was improper to hit *anyone*. I was also taught it was
improper to hit anyone back. I'm sorry if some of your childhood
playmates were told it was okay to hit you - boys or girls. But if
you'd like to extrapolate that to a general statement and to adult
behaviour... well, see the crime stats above. The vast majority of
violent crime is committed by men. In the vast majority of male/female
violent crime, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.
> As as adult, he learns that "if you play, you pay" - but only if you're
> male; females get a tax-free income stream for 18 years if the joy of
> sex turns fruitful.
What are you talking about? Tax-free income stream? I don't know where
you are (I'm assuming the US) but here in Canada women don't
automatically get a "tax free income stream". I'm guessing you're
talking about some kind of baby bonus? Baby bonuses and tax credits
here are claimed by either parent - usually a custodial parent or if
custody is shared, whichever one it benefits most.
Baby bonuses/child tax credits are meant to offset the enormous costs
of raising a child. If you are going to count that as an income stream
you should also count the costs of a child as an income drain. I think
the income drain would far outweigh the tax relief - considering that
raising a child, on average, costs between 6 and 12 thousand dollars a
year (in the US and depending on your income level). Those tax bonuses
are meant to encourage people to have children and to help people who
already do have children (especially lower-income families).
Or are you talking about child support payments? Which on average are
inadequate and don't cover the cost of raising children
(http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/FENR%20V11N1&2/fenrv11n1&2p29.pdf). Child
support payments are there to support the *child* in the same way you'd
pay if you were the custodial parent for these items. It's a transfer
of funds from the non-custodial parent to the child. However, since
most children are not capable of that responsibility the money is given
to the custodial parent in order to provide for the child. So why would
the custodial parent pay income tax on it?
>> When we get rid of all that discrimination, sexism and nastiness,
>> well,
>> maybe then you can start telling women it's all in their heads.
>
> Actually, he was saying it was structural, rather than psychological.
Yes I know. That was kinda the point. It was a little bit of irony
about how women have been told it's "in their heads" for years meaning
psychologically, now they are being told it's *really* in their heads
biologically - with the same results in discrimination. But I guess
that was a bit too subtle for you.
Yah, I know this was a long email. Thanks for reading to the end.
Tara
--
Tara Cleveland
Web Design
http://www.taracleveland.com
More information about the thechat
mailing list