|
|
Post by Kiddo on Oct 6, 2004 21:03:25 GMT -5
This really should go on the banter board. I'm irritated. But there's a debate on this and frankly, I'm very curious as to why this happened.
Today in my computer science class we were talking about the job fair. One of the guys was complaining about how a company that was advertising internship positions in IT didn't take his resume, telling him that they weren't accepting applications.
At which point I go, "What?! They took mine."
The first assumption of those around me is that it's because I'm a girl. Not that I got there earlier or they found some people that really impressed them before he showed up or even that I had a better resume (I don't know) - no, I'm female and that apparently has some magic effect. Now note that those around me are all guys - there's only two other girls in the class and I don't talk to them. I like the guys better. They're fun.
Why would their immediate reaction be "oh, it's cause you're a girl so you're getting special treatment"? I believe it's because the feminists efforts to gain equality have backfired. There's a resentment now - because there ARE things like quotas and female only scholarships (I'll be eligible for one next year). The general opinion I've gathered is that the playing field is not being evened - it's being tilted in favor of the females.
Whether or not this is true is irrelevant in my mind. The main thing that irritates me is the assumption that I am getting help or special treatment because I am a female. When I do get a job, will people assume that it's because I'm a girl and not on my abilities? I don't think that's helping me achieve equality at all - if anything, it's hurting me as I am once again being judged on my gender rather than my abilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 7, 2004 3:24:44 GMT -5
Well, from a certain point of view, I like having that gender gap.
Lemme explain. We have this thing called National Service here. An equal amount of guys and girls will be selected at random to go for it, and it lasts three months.
Now, Singapore has the exact same thing, with two differences. One: It's a year long. Two: Guys only. Yesh. Guys only.
I would LOVE to have un-equality in this situation. I DON'T want to go for a three-month camp, away from my family, my books, my computer, just before my second year of college. I don't want to bathe in a common room with ten other girls sharing the same tub while having my period.
In some situations I'd go unequality any day.
I was going to say stuff about equality, but my mom would murder me - I'm in school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadyy on Oct 7, 2004 10:46:09 GMT -5
Myeah,
At a time I'm sure the femenist movement had it's use, but today I think it's getting out of hand. I mean anything (really anything) becomes repression of the woman, and companies of every kind tiptoe to make sure they don't offend women.
You probably don't know this comic: 'Astérix, le gaulois' (it's setting is about 52 B.C. in Gallia.) and in that comic the men clearly hold the largest share. Now they recently made a movie about an album where they go to Cleopatra; everywhere in the movie they inserted women where there originally weren't. it's really strange because in the end it collides with history and it just kills the whole magic of those stories.
Of course I believe that there still is and probably always will be some sort of sexism. Some sort of favoritism to so-called 'pretty-people', who in my opinion are most of the time very vulgar people as they gladly accept this.
But really in this day and age the femenist movement is pushing it. there's no way men and women can be exactly the same. Not as long as men don't get pregnant and women don't...
Bah, there are differences, proven differences but those are general, (cliché differences) and they depend on the person; such as: Men have a better sense of orienation, women can do several things at a time, Men ahve a straight-forwards sight while women see more (now this is true for most people I've met)
and the list goes on...
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 7, 2004 17:25:24 GMT -5
Bah, there are differences, proven differences but those are general, (clichEdifferences) and they depend on the person; such as: Men have a better sense of orienation, women can do several things at a time, Men ahve a straight-forwards sight while women see more (now this is true for most people I've met) and the list goes on... These are proven? When, and by whom? I've heard than men and women navigate using different techniques, but I haven't heard about orientation. Many men navigate with direction (North, South..) while women used landmarks. While I've heard that said, I navigate with landmarks, but my mother uses directions, so we're never on the same page. Men can do several things at a time. I've met guys who's multitasking rivals even mine. On the computer, or in real life. I think that kind of thing is based on the false assumption that men are 'single minded' or that they can only focus on one things at a time. What do you mean by 'men have straight forward sight and women see more'? Are you refering to periphial vision? My friend Wes was a look out for the navy, he has fantastic periphial vision. Anything you could say about a man (aside from reproduction or organs) you can find a woman it applies to, and vice versa. "...a good cook" "...very nurturing" "...has good business skills" "...has really good aim" "...is always thinking about sex" "...is very untidy" "...is overly concerned about looks" "...doesn't have many friends, but their friends are close" "...gets along well with everyone, very talkative" It's sort of like the old joke "All generalizations are false" |
|
|
|
Post by Ajenn on Oct 7, 2004 21:33:34 GMT -5
I definitely believe in equal rights. Just because women bear children means they aren't entitled to whatever men are entitled to? I don't think so. I'm so glad I live in a time period when women are actually viewed as equals (for the most part).
On a side-note, at my school it's pretty funny with the gender gap. In my science-tech class, a girl taught a guy how to solder, another guy is talking about his feelings all the time, and another girl is beating most of the guys at arm wrestling. Most of my school is like that; I love it because I'm viewed as an equal all the time. =D
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadyy on Oct 8, 2004 10:55:16 GMT -5
These are proven? When, and by whom? I've heard than men and women navigate using different techniques, but I haven't heard about orientation. Many men navigate with direction (North, South..) while women used landmarks. While I've heard that said, I navigate with landmarks, but my mother uses directions, so we're never on the same page. Men can do several things at a time. I've met guys who's multitasking rivals even mine. On the computer, or in real life. I think that kind of thing is based on the false assumption that men are 'single minded' or that they can only focus on one things at a time. What do you mean by 'men have straight forward sight and women see more'? Are you refering to periphial vision? My friend Wes was a look out for the navy, he has fantastic periphial vision. Anything you could say about a man (aside from reproduction or organs) you can find a woman it applies to, and vice versa. "...a good cook" "...very nurturing" "...has good business skills" "...has really good aim" "...is always thinking about sex" "...is very untidy" "...is overly concerned about looks" "...doesn't have many friends, but their friends are close" "...gets along well with everyone, very talkative" It's sort of like the old joke "All generalizations are false" I did say that these differences can't be true for everybody, everybody's different, those are just generalizations. I'm trying to remember the names from the people who wrote those books...but I haven't got them here with me, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Plus like the orientation thing that's proven, it's according to the positions and importance of areals in the hemispheres of the brain. ANd these 'generalizations' are true for over 50% of the worlds population. Of course that doesn't necessarily imply that the people you might happen to know apply to this. The thing is that society made clichés of certain truths of difference between the two sexes, blah.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Kiddo on Oct 11, 2004 14:42:52 GMT -5
I'm going to try my best to offend a lot of people right now. My arguement is going to be from a Biblical standpoint as well, I kinda love the Bible.
There are many beautiful passages in the Bible that regard the roles of women and men. I've studied them and they are some of my favorite passages.
Basically, they state that men and women have two different roles in both marriage and leadership. Women should submit to their husbands and be leaders to other women and children - basically play a nurturing role. Men should be the leaders of the household and in all things. Now, this leadership is lay out very specifically: the man is to cherish his wife above himself, protecting, caring for her needs, and loving her above even his own life. He is to be the head of the household as Christ is the head of the church. The wife's submission is not a "bring me a beer woman," it's a recognition of the fact that men were created to be the leaders.
Now, I personally agree that this is true. Altough I have the capabilities to lead and have done so in the past, I strongly dislike it. I prefer to step back and let the men lead, helping them as needed. That isn't to say I'm a wallflower. I run the 5.19 webpage and listproc and may be teaching some of the studies this year. However, I am still under the guidance of a male and I wouldn't want it any either way.
It seems to me that the majority of people want to believe that women and men are inherently equal. However, if this is true, then why do we have the gender differences to begin with? What IF there are inherent differences that make men more suited for a leadership role? After all, this is a problem that spans history. If we are indeed equal, then why has it taken us this long to recognize that?
When God cursed Adam and Eve, he told the woman that she would want to usurp her husband and have dominace over him, which is a perversion of the roles God created. Now, do you think that we are seeing more and more of Eve's curse in the modern era, which in turn is creating the gender problems we have between male and female? In our efforts to be equal (or like) men, are we just perverting what makes us as women beautiful? Are we in essence ruining the glory of our gender?
Food for thought. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 11, 2004 21:56:50 GMT -5
Myeah, At a time I'm sure the femenist movement had it's use, but today I think it's getting out of hand. I mean anything (really anything) becomes repression of the woman, and companies of every kind tiptoe to make sure they don't offend women. You probably don't know this comic: 'Astérix, le gaulois' (it's setting is about 52 B.C. in Gallia.) and in that comic the men clearly hold the largest share. Now they recently made a movie about an album where they go to Cleopatra; everywhere in the movie they inserted women where there originally weren't. it's really strange because in the end it collides with history and it just kills the whole magic of those stories. Of course I believe that there still is and probably always will be some sort of sexism. Some sort of favoritism to so-called 'pretty-people', who in my opinion are most of the time very vulgar people as they gladly accept this. But really in this day and age the femenist movement is pushing it. there's no way men and women can be exactly the same. Not as long as men don't get pregnant and women don't... Bah, there are differences, proven differences but those are general, (cliché differences) and they depend on the person; such as: Men have a better sense of orienation, women can do several things at a time, Men ahve a straight-forwards sight while women see more (now this is true for most people I've met) and the list goes on... Asterix! OMG I love that comic. ^____________^ I actually named my dog 'Dogmatix'. I watched that show, I think. I didn't like it very much. |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 12, 2004 8:29:18 GMT -5
I'm going to try my best to offend a lot of people right now. My arguement is going to be from a Biblical standpoint as well, I kinda love the Bible. I don't have a problem with that. I don't find that true in all cases. Sure, I will probably admit that about 65% of all males in this country are born with the instincts to be leaders, but many (And I've met many) just don't have what it takes. Also, probably about 65% of women would rather not lead/can't lead, but there are many (Again, I've met a number) that have fantastic leadership skills. In my college, every class president has been female for the past five years and they've done nothing short of impeccable work. Not one problem, not one complaint. And it must be taken into consideration that the bible was written during the household of ancient times. It was written back when a man could have a wife and five slaves/concubines as long as he could care for them all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2004 9:27:37 GMT -5
I'm not touching the religious aspect of this, but I wanted to mention something here.
I wanted to mention an entirely different trend that I see right now. I am a stay at home mother with a three year old son. I have about a semester and a half left of college when my son goes off to school in a couple years. I also had a career at an international insurance company, so I've tried the "climbing the career ladder" scene, and am now doing the domestic thing. Here's my point. At college, people looked down on me for staying home with my son, as if I were personally setting pack women's rights a decade. What really bothers me about this is the fact that women fought to give us the RIGHT to choose whether we wanted to stay home with our children or to join the work force. The point was NOT to force women out of the home, but to give them the freedom to have a career if that's what they wanted. Now a lot of ultra liberal women believe it's a horrible thing if women choose to stay at home. Drives me nuts. The thing is, my son was developmentally behind for his age group when I decided to stay home with him. Now he's ahead. That's worth more to me than a career, or even college.
The other side of this is that my sister's husband is a stay at home dad for his three kids. He does all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, homework help...the works. My sister is in the computer industry. You would think it was an insult to the masculinity of men everywhere that he stays home with the kids and she brings in the income. It's insulting. I love my sister, but she's not very...nurturing or domestic. These roles work better for them, and for a lot of people.
Just wanted to flip the coin for a second. So not only are women in the workplace looked down upon, but so are those who choose the more "traditional" route. Men also face the same thing in certain environments. Bias exists everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 12, 2004 12:27:48 GMT -5
I'm not touching the religious aspect of this, but I wanted to mention something here. I wanted to mention an entirely different trend that I see right now. I am a stay at home mother with a three year old son. I have about a semester and a half left of college when my son goes off to school in a couple years. I also had a career at an international insurance company, so I've tried the "climbing the career ladder" scene, and am now doing the domestic thing. Here's my point. At college, people looked down on me for staying home with my son, as if I were personally setting pack women's rights a decade. What really bothers me about this is the fact that women fought to give us the RIGHT to choose whether we wanted to stay home with our children or to join the work force. The point was NOT to force women out of the home, but to give them the freedom to have a career if that's what they wanted. Now a lot of ultra liberal women believe it's a horrible thing if women choose to stay at home. Drives me nuts. The thing is, my son was developmentally behind for his age group when I decided to stay home with him. Now he's ahead. That's worth more to me than a career, or even college. The other side of this is that my sister's husband is a stay at home dad for his three kids. He does all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, homework help...the works. My sister is in the computer industry. You would think it was an insult to the masculinity of men everywhere that he stays home with the kids and she brings in the income. It's insulting. I love my sister, but she's not very...nurturing or domestic. These roles work better for them, and for a lot of people. Just wanted to flip the coin for a second. So not only are women in the workplace looked down upon, but so are those who choose the more "traditional" route. Men also face the same thing in certain environments. Bias exists everywhere. That's exactly what I meant when I said: Just to point out I didn't forget that aspect. I totally understand and respect you for that. It takes almost as much guts nowadays to be a stay-at-home mother as it did eighty years ago to be a career woman, which I think is sad. No one should be looked down upon for their decisions in life. It's nobody's buisiness but your own. My mom was a housewife until about five years ago when she was forced to get a job because my dad's work was going to the pits. Before her job, she used to get picked on too. I can't imagine why anyone would do that though. People are so weird. |
|
