Fuck Sexism

[Lord J Esq]

I will have to decline Thought's thoughtful olive branch of reconciliation. For me, "discrimination" and "oppression" are not the same thing, and both are evidently present in our society. There seems to be general agreement on the former point. As for oppression, consider some of the variables that probably should be present in order for the condition of oppression to apply:

• The discrimination must extend to a society's institutions. (Check: Women are underrepresented in large swaths of society, especially the highest-paying and most professional sectors--and are outright prohibited in some cases--and are also overrepresented in other areas, such as in menial factory labor and clerical jobs, in ways that cannot be explained by their physiology.)
   
• The discrimination must permeate a society's cultures. (Check: Women are treated completely differently from men, especially in pop culture, but all throughout the avenues of our society as well. They are judged by different standards and they are held to different expectations.)
   
• The discrimination must create economic barriers. (Check: Women make less money than men for equal work, and are hired and fired more often on the basis of irrelevant factors often pertaining to their personality and looks.)
   
• The discrimination must create intellectual and artistic barriers. (Check: Women are routinely conditioned from a young age to develop a certain way and adhere to the gender roles laid out for them, greatly skewing their intellectual and artistic development.)
   
• The discrimination must feature prominently in the lives of many of those in group in question. (Check: Women routinely have to spend time and energy worrying about their looks in ways that men do not; worrying about the "balance" between family and career in ways that men do not; and so forth.)
   
• The discrimination must threaten their physical safety. (Check: A significant minority of all women will have been raped in their lifetimes, and the majority of women have been sexually abused or harassed at a level lower than rape. Domestic abuse rates are higher against women than they are men, and the abuse is more severe.)
   
• The discrimination must interfere with, or infringe upon, the civil liberties and human rights of the group in question. (Check: Even today, we're still treating women as if they should not be "allowed" to control their own bodies, or judging them negatively for it even when they make the "wrong" choice for themselves.)
   
• The discrimination must hinder relations between the group in question and society at large--or, in the case of women, between women and men. (Check: Men routinely do not take women seriously. They behave dismissively toward a women's expertise. They disregard women's opinions and counsel. They refuse to accept the authority of women when placed in junior positions, or accept the authority but resent it for no good reason. Many men have grown up to believe they are inherently superior, and as adults they act as if it were true.)
   
• The oppression must create a level of social ignorance in which the group in question largely does not even recognize that it is oppressed. (Check, a sad and miserable check.)
   

Not all of these qualifications must be met in order for oppression to exist, and yet in this case every single one of them is met. Women are oppressed in this country, Truthordeal, and your denigration of the term "social justice" sets you up as a fool at best and a bigot at worst. Your ignorant denial is an ugly thing to behold for someone like me who has worked far more in-depth in this issue than you ever have--and ever will. Just because women are not literally tied up in chains does not mean that they are not still oppressed. Every time a woman is treated differently because she's a woman, that's discrimination. Every time a woman is held back because of the different treatment, that's oppression. And when it's not just one woman, but millions, then it ceases to be a problem of misbehaving individuals, and becomes the failure of an entire society.

You really need to stop, right now, Truthordeal, and grapple with the implications of the possibility that I am correct and you are mistaken. Because if it's the other around, you have nothing to lose by abiding the work of people like me, as I am not advocating that men be tied up either. The only thing I am advocating is that people not be treated differently based on their sex (except where human anatomy directly applies, such as with health and hygiene). But, if you're wrong, then, by maintaining your current stance, you are--whether you know it or not--choosing to act as an agent of oppression yourself. You are choosing to become a part of the problem.

I've told this to so many people, and they never seem to realize it until years later, if ever, but: It's okay to admit when you don't know something. You don't have to be an expert on everything. In fact, you shouldn't. And there are two things here you don't know: You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't know the consequences that come when you join millions of people like you in denying the existence of these problems which hinder or even ruin countless lives.

There are four kinds of people when it comes to the struggle for sexual equality. There are the ones who work to advance it; there are the ones who do not; there are the ones who work against it; and there are the ones who do not even know that the struggle exists. Right now you're in camp number three. I suggest you find for yourself a place in one of the adjacent camps, because the company in your camp is pretty damn ugly, and I'd like to think that you're not willing to put up with it.

One last thing: Your talk of "feminazis" is straight out of the right-wing talking points memo. Never more clearly on display is your ignorance of these issues than when you invoke such a phrase. I will tell you this myself, from the horse's mouth: Some others in the sexual equality movement are not so well-intentioned. In their passion to end misogyny, they would take our society in the other direction, to misandry. There never was a movement in human history that didn't have some bad eggs, or some misguided people, or some mooks, or fools, in its ranks.

There are plenty of overbearing, domineering, overreaching people in the sexual equality movement. Some of them are among the aforementioned misandrists. But most of them--I'd daresay the vast majority of them--are well-intentioned, and simply have difficult personalities. Quite honestly, Truthordeal, these are the most important people. They're the first ones to recognize the existence of an injustice, and they're the leaders of the struggle against it. Their personal abrasiveness is soon forgotten by history, but their accomplishments are long remembered. They are the ones who the word "feminazi" describes, but they are not "feminazis." They are feminists, and you need to accept that their work inherently entails making most of us uncomfortable from time to time. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their job, because their job is to identify the sexism in our society and advocate change. Change is seldom easy, because it means people will have to look at the world in a different way. Maybe they'll have to behave differently. And most of them will resent it, make no mistake. People don't like being told that their behaviors or views are in need of improvement. That's only human. But it needs to happen. The people who make it happen are often the most difficult, the most intrusive, the most activist among us. They're the leaders...the movers and shakers. They are the ones whose extremism fights against the invisible extremes of today.

So it is that you use the ugliest word to describe the greatest people.

There are two kinds of people who use the word "feminazi." There is your kind, whose understanding of feminism is a stupid caricature, and then there are the kinds of people who created the word and gave it currency: Those who are themselves misogynists. They're not against misandrists, per se. They're against feminism itself. Oh, they usually say otherwise. But it's a subterfuge: The only kind of "feminist" they're willing to accept is the kind who lived a hundred years ago.

Did you ever stop to think, Truthordeal, that you are probably in favor of women having the right to vote, or having the right to own their own bank accounts, or having the right to accept or refuse or even instigate marriage proposals, or having the right to go to college, or having the right to serve their country in uniform and in political office? With a smattering of individual exceptions, when America began, none of those rights existed. None of them. Many people suffered and died to win each one of those rights. But that's not all: Countless more people opposed them at every step of the way. Why? Because change is hard. Traditionalism is easy. Every generation has its own idea of what society "should" be, and too often there is no concern for justice in these deliberations. People's perspectives are narrow and their wisdom is scant. You, Truthordeal, are not a wise person. You are a product of this society's biases, and you don't even know it. You're a mook. You would believe whatever you were told; if your parents had raised you differently, you would have grown up believing differently. Maybe you should try to think for yourself someday. But in the meantime, take it from me:

How can you be in favor of all the feminist accomplishments we have already made, and yet be against all of the feminist accomplishments we have yet to make? In every age, that's how it goes: People think we've come far enough, perhaps too far...and every single time they are wrong. The people who opposed feminism a hundred years ago were wrong. You're just as wrong today. Your word "feminazi" is a coarse and offensive cudgel that does not pertain to misandrists but to the leaders of progress itself...the very best people in our cause, the ones who are tackling the biggest and worst citadels of sexism...the stuff that, for change to happen, is going to have to run over a lot of people's toes. "Feminazi"...it's a word that I can't even bring myself to let out of quotation marks, because the whole concept is so ridiculous. In your decision to use it, you align yourself with an ugly group of people, and you open yourself up to being judged along with them. This is especially true now, because for all I know today is the first time anyone has told you this stuff. From this moment on, you're not as ignorant as you were. You've been given the opportunity to grow your mind. I hope you take it.

[Samopoznanie]

men are disproportionately rewarded for it on their resumes than Girl Scouts; few people even know what their top rank is.

This is getting ridiculous...  Sounds like somebody needs to call the...

[FaustWolf]

FW, I've heard you mention it a few times, and I probably should have researched it, but all I came up with were alien sites. What exactly do you mean by birth pod? Is that like a test tube baby?

And I'm also unsure what you mean by experiential equality. Do you mean something like having equal experiences between men and women?

Yeah, I get only the alien results on searching "birth pods" too. I'm clueless as to what the topic should actually be called (I've only considered it since this thread's inception), and whether it's even been described as a hypothetical process in scientific literature. But what I'm imagining is essentially fetal development outside the human body entirely. Uboa brought up a good point with the breast milk/baby formula debate, inasmuch as it would be difficult to set all the environmental conditions correctly. However, plenty of pregnant women smoke or unintentionally subject themselves and their child-to-be to vitamin imbalances as it is. It'll probably be longer than I imagined at first before it's considered and openly debated within the scientific community, seeing as I can't find a single bit of info on how it might happen hypothetically.

As for experiential equality, I defaulted to that term to describe a kind of equality far above and beyond what the typical feminist/gender equality advocate is probably willing to entertain. While outlandish, I think it's a useful idea to examine from the standpoint that as long as our experiences differ greatly, there's a sense of "the other" that comes into play that opens the door to things like sexism and racism. For example, a man who isn't used to having periods might misjudge the amount that this taxes the woman's system, and either think women are fundamentally weaker for it or plain fail to be sensitive to the situation. Either remove women's periods or re-engineer men to have them, and the sense of "otherness" and alienness disappears. Again, certainly outlandish, but hopefully a useful concept when considering the situation as it now exists.

Lord J, that's a good ideal, but due chiefly to sexual compatibility, we're probably not going to have a completely equal treatment of both sexes by members of one sex. I'd almost like to say that both genders act more civilly around the opposite gender and feel somewhat uncomfortable acting the way they would around  a group of only their gender. For instance, add a female to an all-male football party, and you'll see men being much more civil and quiet since a woman is in their midst.

It's not the best example, but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Its certainly interesting from a sociological perspective, anyway.

This is an interesting observation, and its truth probably varies according to personal factors and levels of self control. Men committing the act of gang rape are obviously not acting on their best behavior in front of a woman (even if mores installed in their environment contextually advocate such action, as is the case in certain societies or subcultures). But when the situation as Truthordeal presents it holds true, should we consider it objectively good? Objectively bad?

[Vehek]

Yeah, I get only the alien results on searching "birth pods" too. I'm clueless as to what the topic should actually be called (I've only considered it since this thread's inception), and whether it's even been described as a hypothetical process in scientific literature.

Don't people refer to those things as "artifical wombs"?

[Truthordeal]

Thank God, Lord J. you finally answered my question. I would've been more than happy to consider that you were right, but damn it no one would give me a reason to without being a complete and utter asshole.

I will tell you this myself, from the horse's mouth: Some others in the sexual equality movement are not so well-intentioned. In their passion to end misogyny, they would take our society in the other direction, to misandry. There never was a movement in human history that didn't have some bad eggs, or some misguided people, or some mooks, or fools, in its ranks.

And in one word these people can be described as feminazis. Just because that moron Rush Limbaugh created it doesn't mean its not true. Sure, most aren't like that, but the ones who are misandrynous can aptly be labeled as such in same sense that men who hate women are called misogynists. Feminazi just rolls off the tongue better.

But if its that offensive to you, because you actually took the time to answer the question, I'll stop using it. I've been trying to stop here recently, since it seems as immature as calling someone a Nazi during an Internet debate, but for some reason, being patronized does not bring out the best in me.  

You, Truthordeal, are not a wise person

I, Truthordeal, am 18 and came right out of the public school system. There are certain things they refuse to teach us(intelligent design) and things they suppressed from us knowing(the other side of the man made global warming debate). That is systematic, and happening even in the most conservative parts of SC as well as the most liberal parts of California. And the weird thing is, its taught the same way in both parts of the country. I've just now realized, coming out of high school, that there are several things that I have not been taught, but rather been indoctrinated about.

There's a lot of stuff I need to relearn to figure out how I feel about certain issues, and quite frankly, before now all I've ever gotten from this thread were insults, Zeality and the "durrr, no, just no, durrr" arguments. Those merely antagonized me away from your point. If you want to teach someone, its probably best not to be condescending to that person.

With all due respect, Lord J, as smart and knowledgeable as you are on the topic, you're not the person whom I should learn from, because you expect way too much to happen way too quickly.

My views on the world cannot change in the time of one forum post. As much as I respect the Internet as a medium in which we can exchange our ideas, something more substantive than words on a computer screen is needed to change my whole belief system and that you simply cannot provide.

Futhermore, Lord J, you and just about everyone else is expecting me to take y'all's words and whatever comes out of Zeality's mouth as sacrosanct truth. That there are thousands of other people in this country, much better educated, and much smarter and experienced than you and I, that disagree with you one way or another. What's to say that they are wrong and you are right? Not much, but considering the total tone of the argument against me, its as if there was no other side. Every issue is a two-sided coin, except that in most cases it can easily end up like a 20-sided die.

What I need is education; not further indoctrination, and that's something you cannot provide.

I'm conceding this point. I'm not changing my views, but I will admit that this discussion has made me more sensitive to the female rights movement. But for the time being, there are more important things to me as an individual than women's rights. I say this not as a sexist or misogynist, but as a human that only has 18 hours a day free from work, and is trying to prioritize what's important to him, rather than becoming a blind activist to something he has no experience in.

Furthermore, feminism can take a backseat to getting myself stabilized. Its rather hard to be sympathetic to someone when you've life to deal with, and moreso when there are things that are far more important because they affect your immediate life.

BTW...

There are plenty of overbearing, domineering, overreaching people in the religious movement. Some of them are among the aforementioned bigots. But most of them--I'd daresay the vast majority of them--are well-intentioned, and simply have difficult personalities. Quite honestly, these are the most important people. They're the first ones to recognize the existence of an injustice, and they're the leaders of the struggle against it. Their personal abrasiveness is soon forgotten by history, but their accomplishments are long remembered. They are the ones who the word "bigot" describes, but they are not "bigots." They are religious people, and you need to accept that their work inherently entails making most of us uncomfortable from time to time. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their job, because their job is to identify the moral faults in our society and advocate change. Change is seldom easy, because it means people will have to look at the world in a different way. Maybe they'll have to behave differently. And most of them will resent it, make no mistake. People don't like being told that their behaviors or views are in need of improvement. That's only human. But it needs to happen. The people who make it happen are often the most difficult, the most intrusive, the most activist among us. They're the leaders...the movers and shakers. They are the ones whose extremism fights against the invisible extremes of today.

All of the words in bold have been altered by me. I hope this makes some of you realize the odd similarities between the two subject matters and the two sided-coin thing I mentioned earlier.

[FaustWolf]

Don't people refer to those things as "artifical wombs"?

I'll be damned, Wikipedia's even got an article on it. Thanks.

Truth, if you're worried about certain info being withheld from you in the public schools by some liberal conspiracy, you may feel that college will provide you with a more open environment. Contrary to my belief going into it, college profs are not one big liberal monolith. I've had profs who believe the universe is a sound 3000 years old and that T-Rexes were on Noah's Ark; econ and stats professors seem to be the most questioning of global warming on average, given that I've encountered two at different schools.

Maybe it's just Ohio?

[Truthordeal]

Not so much a liberal conspiracy, FW, as much as a politically correct, "Please don't sue us," type of dealie.

[Lord J Esq]

I will tell you this myself, from the horse's mouth: Some others in the sexual equality movement are not so well-intentioned. In their passion to end misogyny, they would take our society in the other direction, to misandry. There never was a movement in human history that didn't have some bad eggs, or some misguided people, or some mooks, or fools, in its ranks.

And in one word these people can be described as feminazis. Just because that moron Rush Limbaugh created it doesn't mean its not true. Sure, most aren't like that, but the ones who are misandrynous can aptly be labeled as such in same sense that men who hate women are called misogynists. Feminazi just rolls off the tongue better.

I should know as well as anyone that people can have different meanings when using a common word, but I honestly have yet to meet a person who persisted in calling anyone a "feminazi" on the grounds you are describing. There is always a sexist component to the usage of the word, when the word is used seriously.

I've been trying to stop here recently, since it seems as immature as calling someone a Nazi during an Internet debate, but for some reason, being patronized does not bring out the best in me.  

I wouldn't patronize you.

There's a lot of stuff I need to relearn to figure out how I feel about certain issues, and quite frankly, before now all I've ever gotten from this thread were insults, Zeality and the "durrr, no, just no, durrr" arguments. Those merely antagonized me away from your point. If you want to teach someone, its probably best not to be condescending to that person.

You consistently ignored what other people were saying. I'm not surprised that some of us got fed up with it. I even had to talk ZeaLitY out of locking the topic last night (your silent champion of free speech at work). You're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to a lot, in fact. You're entitled to be wrong, even offensively so. You're entitled to call others out for being wrong. You're entitled to take an unpopular position. But the price of admission to this carnival is that you respect the terms of debate. If your behavior would spur other people to "durr" at you, then consider that you brought it upon yourself. You are allowed to be imperfect. You are allowed to ask questions. It would help immeasurably, however, if you would do so open-mindedly rather than for the purpose of trying to defend a hardline point of view.

I'll accept that I was condescending to you. I'll spare you the energy of making further accusations by apologizing here on the spot for making you feel uncomfortable or belittled. Those are unpleasant emotions and nobody likes to experience them. I apologize. Here's a good lesson for the rest of your life: Concern yourself with people's substance more than their conduct. Sexists and racists can be some of the most affable people in the world. That doesn't make their bigotry any less disgusting. By the same token, you may realize someday that sexism in this country is not dead after all, and that oppression survives. If that day comes, you'll feel silly for having failed to separate my substance and conduct.

With all due respect, Lord J, as smart and knowledgeable as you are on the topic, you're not the person whom I should learn from, because you expect way too much to happen way too quickly. My views on the world cannot change in the time of one forum post. As much as I respect the Internet as a medium in which we can exchange our ideas, something more substantive than words on a computer screen is needed to change my whole belief system and that you simply cannot provide.

I don't want your loyalty, and I didn't ask to be your personal guru. You made a claim and I responded to it, and you can make of that what you will, on your own terms, in your own time. If you have the presence of mind to recognize that a person can seldom change their worldview in a single day, then you're already one step ahead of the pack.

Futhermore, Lord J, you and just about everyone else is expecting me to take y'all's words and whatever comes out of Zeality's mouth as sacrosanct truth. That there are thousands of other people in this country, much better educated, and much smarter and experienced than you and I, that disagree with you one way or another. What's to say that they are wrong and you are right? Not much, but considering the total tone of the argument against me, its as if there was no other side. Every issue is a two-sided coin, except that in most cases it can easily end up like a 20-sided die.

I can't speak for the rest of the people who might be reading this topic, but for myself...I try to avoid asking people to "trust me" or to "take my word for it." Maybe it slips out sometime in rhetoric, but in principle I like what LeVar Burton always said at the end of his Reading Rainbow book reviews: "Don't take my word for it."

In other words: Read it for yourself.

You can check and double check every claim I make. If you do, you will be the better for it. I know that I'm usually right, because I don't make arguments when I don't have a case. Most of the arguments I would have lost...I never began in the first place. But you have no way of knowing any of that for sure. Maybe I'm just a machine that spits out random opinions, eh? So by all means, explore it for yourself.

You're wrong about every issue having two (valid) sides, by the way. The "Us versus Them" dichotomy of our tribal past is not an asset to critical thinking nor to sensitivity, and most of the time you will find--if you look--that issues either have one side or many sides. In the case of sexism, there's only one side that's valid: People get treated on the basis of their sex in ways that a person's sex cannot account for, and which are frequently inconsistent with their individual character. That's illogical, and it also happens to be harmful--to the individuals, and to society.

End of story.

What I need is education; not further indoctrination, and that's something you cannot provide.

"Further indoctrination," eh? 

You need some education, all right. Go get it.

I'm conceding this point. I'm not changing my views, but I will admit that this discussion has made me more sensitive to the female rights movement.

Good.

But for the time being, there are more important things to me as an individual than women's rights. I say this not as a sexist or misogynist, but as a human that only has 18 hours a day free from work, and is trying to prioritize what's important to him, rather than becoming a blind activist to something he has no experience in.

I'm not ordering you to become a feminist. I would only note that you certainly had the time to come here and state your anti-feminist views on numerous occasions. Obviously, that was important enough to you--or perhaps entertaining enough to you--to be worth your time. Well, hopefully now it won't be worth your time anymore. And, since this time has been freed up...well! Consider it your opportunity to make amends. You won't lose any time you weren't already spending, and in exchange you'll get smarter on the issue.

BTW...

There are plenty of overbearing, domineering, overreaching people in the religious movement. Some of them are among the aforementioned bigots. But most of them--I'd daresay the vast majority of them--are well-intentioned, and simply have difficult personalities. Quite honestly, these are the most important people. They're the first ones to recognize the existence of an injustice, and they're the leaders of the struggle against it. Their personal abrasiveness is soon forgotten by history, but their accomplishments are long remembered. They are the ones who the word "bigot" describes, but they are not "bigots." They are religious people, and you need to accept that their work inherently entails making most of us uncomfortable from time to time. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their job, because their job is to identify the moral faults in our society and advocate change. Change is seldom easy, because it means people will have to look at the world in a different way. Maybe they'll have to behave differently. And most of them will resent it, make no mistake. People don't like being told that their behaviors or views are in need of improvement. That's only human. But it needs to happen. The people who make it happen are often the most difficult, the most intrusive, the most activist among us. They're the leaders...the movers and shakers. They are the ones whose extremism fights against the invisible extremes of today.

All of the words in bold have been altered by me. I hope this makes some of you realize the odd similarities between the two subject matters and the two sided-coin thing I mentioned earlier.

Your comparison is cute, but overly simplistic, as religiosity and feminism are two very different subjects. Both groups have their bad eggs, it's true, but the similarities end there. I'd elaborate, but I have a feeling that would open up an entirely new debate, and this is the Sexism thread and not the Religion thread. Suffice it to say first that the legitimacy of feminism is obvious in logical terms whereas the legitimacy of religion is not, and suffice it to say last that religion is an institution which has given us many of the problems now being confronted by feminism.

[Thought]

As for oppression, consider some of the variables that probably should be present in order for the condition of oppression to apply:

The great nation of Thoughtopia applauds the venerable representative of Joshualvania's proposal and we move that this resolution be approved by the general assembly and sent to the security council for ratification.

Wha? We're not the U.N.? Huh, with something like that I just sort of assumed...

Anywho, that aside, it would seem that your definition of oppression, J, is one of degrees. What separates "oppression" from discrimination is merely that oppression is widespread discrimination. An interesting take, and certainly a useful list of indicators. However it seems like it might be prudent to include, if not in the definition of "oppression" then at least in the definition of some concept, organized and institutionalized attacks.

For example; there is a conceptual difference between a nation not allowing women to vote through legislation and a nation where women don't vote out of fear of domestic abuse. Neither is good, but neither are they the same.

Truth, if you're worried about certain info being withheld from you in the public schools by some liberal conspiracy...

While I'm not sure if ToD was referring to a liberal conspiracy, a lot of levels of American education do engage in what could be termed indoctrination. This is specifically because critical thinking is deemphasized while route memorization is encouraged. Consider a math class: when was the last time a class was given a chance to develop their own formula for something, rather than being told to memorize a formula? Consider a history class: when was the last time a class was given the raw source documents for the 100 Years War and told to figure out what really happened? How many English classes are you aware of in which students are allowed to determine what constitutes a classic, rather than being told to read x y and z classics?

[Lord J Esq]

Anywho, that aside, it would seem that your definition of oppression, J, is one of degrees. What separates "oppression" from discrimination is merely that oppression is widespread discrimination.

That wasn't my characterization. I consider the two to be distinct concepts. This is what I wrote in my earlier post:

Every time a woman is treated differently because she's a woman, that's discrimination. Every time a woman is held back because of the different treatment, that's oppression.

[Truthordeal]

I think that besides our differences in use of the word "oppression," we have plenty of common ground on this matter. I'm not so naive as to think that things are perfect the way they are, and there are a lot of blatantly unfair things going on that need to be changed. What happens after that is none of my concern at the moment. Lord J and the others can deal with the more subtle forms of social inequality, but I'll fight for the big picture projects, such as:

-Getting rid of the wage gap between the two genders. This can be easily solved with almost no additional interference by the government, by reinstated and passing the Equal Rights Amendment. This way, women who go through this injustice can sue for their equal rights, as well as men who have been subject to this.

-Drastically reducing sexual harassment. Ideally, we'll be able to eliminate it, but I'll settle for it occurring in isolated incidents, since eliminating it completely is probably impossible. To do this, prosecutors should start handling sexual harassment cases differently, since the statute is very lenient on people who commit it. On the books there are two types of sexual harassment:

i. Quid pro quo, which as it's name implies is doing sexual favors in return for raises, promotions, not getting fired, etc. These should be prosecuted as extortion.

ii. Hostile Work Environment, which interferes with the victims work life. These should be prosecuted as sexual assault.

I'd like both to be prosecuted as sexual assault, but the elements for quid pro quo don't fit the elements for sexual assault, unfortunately.

-Domestic violence needs to be stopped. The way to do this is punishing every person who commits it, regardless of the victim's feelings. We've all seen the cycle of violence at work here, where the victim will forgive their assailant who will in turn assault them again, until the entire affair ends up like Lorena Bobbitt's case.

Rapists should either be put to death or, as they're doing in Louisiana now, chemically castrated as part of their sentence. Either way, there is a 0% recidivism rate and a huge deterrent against future offenders.

The one hitch to all of these programs is that women themselves need to start standing up for themselves again. The problem with the feminist movement in America is that it will achieve something, then disappear for 50 years.

Its the same with women in positions of power or in government. They have to do it themselves. If we start handing out those positions using our government, then its not a true victory for equality.

If blacks, who comprise 20% of the population, can march and protest to the point where the racists in Washington had to listen, then so can women who make up a slight majority.

This leads me to another point, and that is the image of the feminist movement as a whole. According to a scientific poll done by the Granddaughters of Feminism, more than 90% of women support the feminist causes, while only a quarter are willing to accept the feminist title. This indicates a PR problem, to say the least, with the feminist movement right now.

Someone on this forum once said that people are more likely to take advice from a person they can share a steak with rather than a person that is constantly criticizing their lifestyle. And that is true. If the feminist movement does not soften its image, then more people will start straying away before the job is done. Unless you're willing to accept the status quo, that's not a good thing.

Here's the point: the government can do a few things to further the protection of women, but without changing its structure entirely, it cannot ensure equality. That part is up to the women and feminists themselves. Their "oppression" is not so great that they cannot change the social structure or acquire positions of power. The proof of this is that many women already have gained positions of power and many women have used that power to make their changes. It has been done before and it can happen again, but it is up for them to do and not for the government to provide for.

[Thought]

This way, women who go through this injustice can sue for their equal rights, as well as men who have been subject to this.

They have to be aware of it first, which requires that salary and benefit information be widely posted, which employers are against for a variety of reasons.

[IAmSerge]

This way, women who go through this injustice can sue for their equal rights, as well as men who have been subject to this.

They have to be aware of it first, which requires that salary and benefit information be widely posted, which employers are against for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I think salary information should be posted widely within the company's own.  Not outside of it, of course.  Keep it privately public...

...that is, under the circumstance that they even post it.

You say that employers are against it for many reasons.  I'm sure some of those reasons are for bad purposes, but, not to off all the reasons as bad, do you think you could expand upon your statement, please?  I wish to know the reasoning behind these things.

[ZeaLitY]

Simple business policy. You don't disclose your secret formulas. You don't disclose your marketing strategies. And you especially don't disclose your expenses, because in many industries, profit comes from low cost, not differentiation. Supply chain management, quality management, cost reduction, etc. have all become important competitive advantages in their own right, independent of whatever a firm's actually providing in the way of goods and services.

[Thought]

It's also simple bargening power. If Employee A knows that Employee B is paid $2000 for the same job, they'll want more money as well. It means that employees at the same level have to (gasp) be paid the same. But if employee A is willing to accept $2000 less than employee B, why should the business pay them more?