>
I recently ran across this picture online, which is evidently from a feminist protest in Mexico City in 1991; it was part of an exhibition of photos tracing the history of the feminist movement in Mexico City. (Here’s a link to a Google Translated version of a web page on the exhibition,.)
I think the slogan is a pretty good description of how most feminists would like women to be regarded: Not as saints, not as whores, but just as women.
Or, in language more understandable to a lot of the MRAs/MGTOWers out there: “Not as pretty princesses, not as Ameriskanks, but just as women.”
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>@ BeeBee said: ". . .It's just when it comes to pesky, trivial, basically worthless jobs–like educator–that women workers are seen to "cluster in less lucrative fields." Hey, you don't suppose that's because women's labor is traditionally valued less than manly labor, do you?"No. It's because educating children doesn't give one's shareholders a shit load of money.Bee continues: "Or do you think that fields that are harder for women to break into are just several times more important than jobs that have traditionally been seen as acceptable for women to fill?"This isn't 1920. If you want a high paying job, stop teaching and go where the money is. Again, for clairty, if you wan't to make money, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS! Instead you want jobs that pay next to no money to be forced to pay more. There's a reason that a fourth grade teacher doesn't get paid as much as a CEO and that isn't going to change any time soon.Bee said: "Oh well, it hardly matters that we reach a nuanced understanding of how sex roles, expectations, and values play into employment and wages, since MRAs can just point to the "part-time, more sick days" thing as their catchall explanation for the wage gap."We who? You have put forth rad fem theory, the rest of the world goes on making money. Bee: "(And for the love of god, DO NOT pay attention to child care and division of labor in the home!!!)"Your home life is not your employers problem. If you want to not be held back by the childcare issue, marry a househusband/boyfriend and climb your way to the top as he takes care of your kids. It's not your boss resposibility to worry about your child care.Bee said: "I think it was O'Connor who said that the more men enter the field of nursing, the more we can expect nurses' pay to rise overall. Surely that's not because employers still, to this day, find reasons to pay their women employees less. Ah, but what does O'Connor know? She's a girl."In other words, I want to make just as much as the person who spends 70 hours on the job, and makes his/her bosses millions, for teaching Suzie to finger paint while working 30 hours a week on flex time. Stop demanding the world bend to your whims, and go out there and work for your money. Teaching Suzie to finger paint isn't going to cut it. Random Brother
>@ nicko81mWhat I love is that when women without kids earn more than men it's equality. When women who have kids and work less get paid less than men it's evil males plotting against women. Amazing.Random Brother
>@ richard, I linked in the 2nd laura logan thread how to deal with that, if you would like me to link it here as well I will be more than happy to do so.
>If men were to make such a ridiculous accusation against women or an accusation in the same level of ridiculousness, we would get laughed at and called misogynists as it's impossible for all these women to be so evil.It's not that it's impossible, it's just that, systemically speaking, it doesn't really comport with reality. Women don't have the power or social ranking to oppress men. Men do have the power and social ranking to oppress women. It really is that simple.Would women do the same thing if the roles were reversed? I don't fucking know.
>This isn't 1920. If you want a high paying job, stop teaching and go where the money is. Again, for clairty, if you wan't to make money, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS! Instead you want jobs that pay next to no money to be forced to pay more. There's a reason that a fourth grade teacher doesn't get paid as much as a CEO and that isn't going to change any time soon.In your imaginary universe where it's exactly as easy for women as it is for men to enter into those lucrative career fields, this might be good advice.
>@richard:"In other words the opportunity cost of children is less money." Why doesn't the opportunity cost of children mean less money for men? Shouldn't that cost be spread equally?
>@ triplanetaryHow are single childless women getting paid more than men if they are NOT getting into lucrative career fields? Clearly they are. You claim some conspiracy to keep women from making as much as men, but more and more single childless women are making more than men. So is this male conspiracy only focussed at married women? If so why?And since you seem to be dealing in conspiracy and not facts, is Tupac alive?Random Brother
>@ brigetI looked at the links you posted. One doesn't show what fields the people work in.The other is the ridiculous idea that a stay at home mom should earn 120,000 per year. This study is so false it is laughable. To equate a stay at home mom, with a chef, chaufer, and CEO, is a gross stretch of logic and reality. Random Brother
>@ Hide and SeekThe opportunity cost can be spread equally if a couple works it that way. If both husband and wife take an equal share in dealing with the children (esp activities that take one parent away from work and advancement) that would not stop the opportunity cost but it would spread it among the couple keeping the wife's salary and earning potential higher than if she were the primary caretaker in the relationship. A woman who wants kids and wants to rise the corporate ladder with the least amount of negative from the child raising issue should marry a house husband type.However, none of this is your employer's problem.Random Brother
>Feminists want their cake and eat it too or else it's oppression against women
>"However, none of this is your employer's problem."Try telling that to feminists. They are never accountable for their problems. One way or the other, it's the fault of men.
>richard, while in my younger years I was homeschooled by my single mother who worked full time. It was my responsibility to take care of my younger brother and sister and the entirety of the house on top of my school work. For all intents and purposes I was a stay at home mom. My tasks each day included a full house cleaning (this is completely necessary with two small children) full day of child care, cooking three meals, getting my brother and sister to their playdates, doctor's appointments (my brother has asperger's and my sister has a speech impediment so we had doctor's appointments at least 4 days a week), swimming lessons if it was that time of year, etc., doing laundry, taking what I couldn't launder at home to the dry cleaner, and grocery shopping. It takes as long to clean one's house when you have to watch a two year old and make sure that he doesn't smash his blocks into his three month old sister's head. I also had to make sure that there was lunch for my mom to take and that dinner was on the table by the time she got home at 6 every night. Now if the people who do these things all day long were not there, then someone would have to fill in for them. Why shouldn't the stay at home parent's work be compensated in the same way that any other worker would be? Oh and because it's ludicris is not an answer. I want a legitimate response as to why stay at home parents shouldn't be compensated properly for that work.
>You claim some conspiracy to keep women from making as much as men, but more and more single childless women are making more than men.It's not a conspiracy, it's ingrained social biases.It was my responsibility to take care of my younger brother and sister and the entirety of the house on top of my school work. For all intents and purposes I was a stay at home mom. My tasks each day included a full house cleaning (this is completely necessary with two small children) full day of child care, cooking three meals, getting my brother and sister to their playdates, doctor's appointments (my brother has asperger's and my sister has a speech impediment so we had doctor's appointments at least 4 days a week), swimming lessons if it was that time of year, etc., doing laundry, taking what I couldn't launder at home to the dry cleaner, and grocery shopping. It takes as long to clean one's house when you have to watch a two year old and make sure that he doesn't smash his blocks into his three month old sister's head. I also had to make sure that there was lunch for my mom to take and that dinner was on the table by the time she got home at 6 every night.This is an MRA's idea of retirement.
>wytch, cool it with the personal insults. I'll let the last one stand because it is completely ridiculous, but in the future I'll delete.
>Oh, Random Brother, it’s absolutely adorable that you're pretending I've written anything about my own life, so you can attack me personally."No. It's because educating children doesn't give one's shareholders a shit load of money."Oh, you think making money for shareholders is reflected in employees' paychecks? BRB, lolling forever. You know who makes a lot of money when shareholders make money? The CEO. You know how CEOs make money? By cutting salaries. It's a lot more complicated than that, but trust me as the former employee of a CEO of the only profitable company in its industry, who makes 5000 times what his best-paid non-managerial employee makes: Employees of profitable companies are not reaping the rewards of those companies."This isn't 1920. If you want a high paying job, stop teaching and go where the money is. Again, for clairty, if you wan't to make money, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS! Instead you want jobs that pay next to no money to be forced to pay more. There's a reason that a fourth grade teacher doesn't get paid as much as a CEO and that isn't going to change any time soon."I don't remember saying that I'm a teacher. Perhaps that's because I'm not. But I do admire teachers. It's an important job, and it's a damn hard job. I'm not going to argue that a person who wants to make a huge paycheck should, given the choice, become a CEO rather than a teacher. But saying everyone should be a CEO isn't a satisfactory answer. What I was getting at, and what you've entirely missed, is that traditional fields for women generally are underpaid in comparison to traditional fields for men. And the difficulty, importance, and training involved don't really seem to account for those wage differences. The only thing that does is that women are seen to be less valuable than men. Women's labor is seen to be less valuable than men's labor.This too: There remain to this very day offices that would rather hire straight white men so the rest of the investment bankers have someone to shoot the shit with. There remain to this day union shops where the environment is so uncomfortably pro-male, pro-rape, and anti-woman that very few women stay. It's no longer the 1920s; but you wouldn't know that looking around, sometimes.
>Continuing my response to Random Brother (sorry):Your home life is not your employers problem. If you want to not be held back by the childcare issue, marry a househusband/boyfriend and climb your way to the top as he takes care of your kids. It's not your boss resposibility to worry about your child care."No, it's not. But I was actually addressing arguments that MRAs on this very site were making about how women make out like thieves if they get married and work part time. If a woman is working part time out of the home and more than full time inside the home, I fail to see how that equals retirement.Responding to my O'Connor quote: "In other words, I want to make just as much as the person who spends 70 hours on the job, and makes his/her bosses millions, for teaching Suzie to finger paint while working 30 hours a week on flex time."No. In other words, it's very telling that once men enter a field, employers in that field start paying their employees more. Also, what you've said about employees who make their bosses millions seems to come from the viewpoint of a person who's spent very little time in the workforce in the last 30 years. You know how most employees are rewarded for making their bosses millions of dollars? In this economy, they aren’t."Stop demanding the world bend to your whims, and go out there and work for your money. Teaching Suzie to finger paint isn't going to cut it."Again, this isn't about me. But I'm surprised that a member of a group whose biggest substantive complaint is that father's rights aren't what they might be is telling me that educating children is not important. Very interesting.
>"but more and more single childless women are making more than men." And this couldn't possibly have anything to do with women's much higher rates of earning high school diplomas and university degrees. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US's massive primarily male prison population does not earn wages. If you look within fields, the wage gap holds even for single, childless women, though they have an edge on women with children.
>"However, none of this is your employer's problem."@Richard:I'm not sure that is true. In my experience, if one is employed to do knowledge work, as opposed to stamping out widgets on a widget-stamping machine, the idea of a bright line between home and work life is a myth. The employees I supervise, male and female, seem to be able to contribute the most to their positions if they aren't stressed about how they will pay their rent and who will be watching their children. Our willingness to be flexible benefits us and them. Do we have to? No, but if we don't we have higher turnover, spend more time hiring and training new people, and the workers who stay don't enjoy this work but rather cannot find work anywhere else. "Stop demanding the world bend to your whims," I know that you said this in response to another commenter, but I hope no one takes this advice, ever. What good does it do to stop demanding that the world be the world we would like to live in? That's how things get changed. If humans, generally, took this advice, we'd still be freezing all winter and eating food we had fertilized with our own feces.
>@ brigetI need to clarify something here. Do you believe that soceity should be taxed in order to pay stay at home mothers and that stay at home mothers should earn approximatly $100,000 per year? And you do know that 75% of people in this country earn less than 50,000 per year, right?Random Brother
>@ triplanetarytriplanetary: "It's not a conspiracy, it's ingrained social biases."You're going to have to prove this to me.Random Brother
>@ BeeBee said: "Oh, Random Brother, it’s absolutely adorable that you're pretending I've written anything about my own life, so you can attack me personally."Oh, Bee babe, it's so sexy when we're passive aggressvie with each other, hawt! Anywho, I wasn't attacking you personally, I was referring to the meme of teachers being so important they need to be paid more than CEO's and the like.Bee said: "Oh, you think making money for shareholders is reflected in employees' paychecks? BRB, lolling forever."OMFG!!! Like lulz fore eva!!!!Bee said: "You know who makes a lot of money when shareholders make money? The CEO. You know how CEOs make money? By cutting salaries."Which gives there share holders a shit load of money like I said.Bee said: "It's a lot more complicated than that, but trust me as the former employee of a CEO of the only profitable company in its industry, who makes 5000 times what his best-paid non-managerial employee makes: Employees of profitable companies are not reaping the rewards of those companies."Are they making more than teachers? If so you have your answer there.Bee said: "I don't remember saying that I'm a teacher."I was making a point.Bee said: "Perhaps that's because I'm not. But I do admire teachers. It's an important job, and it's a damn hard job. I'm not going to argue that a person who wants to make a huge paycheck should, given the choice, become a CEO rather than a teacher. But saying everyone should be a CEO isn't a satisfactory answer."The answer is go to where the money is. That's the answer. There's no way you should sit there and arrogantly demand that the fields you happen to like are the most lucrative. If you want money, go and get money. It's that simple. Bee said: "What I was getting at, and what you've entirely missed, is that traditional fields for women generally are underpaid in comparison to traditional fields for men. And the difficulty, importance, and training involved don't really seem to account for those wage differences. The only thing that does is that women are seen to be less valuable than men. Women's labor is seen to be less valuable than men's labor."Fields are not magically male or female. If you enter an underpaid field you'll be underpaid. Get the education, flood male fields, and make money. How hard is that? Bee said: "This too: There remain to this very day offices that would rather hire straight white men so the rest of the investment bankers have someone to shoot the shit with. There remain to this day union shops where the environment is so uncomfortably pro-male, pro-rape, and anti-woman that very few women stay."Will refusing to join these offices and challenging them to hire you change this? If not again, you have your answer. Bee said: "It's no longer the 1920s; but you wouldn't know that looking around, sometimes."No one guarantees you a good salary. No one guarntees you a good job. No one guarntees you cash. You have to go and fight for it. If you're too lazy to fight, that's on you.Lets look at what you want to do logically. Lets say tommorrow the government decides that evil males earning money in male dominated fields MUST BE STOPPED. And they now force all female dominated jobs to pay equal or higher than male dominated jobs. Wouldn't men then try and flood into the female dominated jobs? So what happens a large number of people are all clamoring for jobs in a specific field? The wages go down, right? You got a solution for this? In the end the same jobs would likely have lower wages, unless women then kept men out of those jobs. Which is a whole 'nother can of worms. Random Brother
>@ BeeBee said: ". . . But I was actually addressing arguments that MRAs on this very site were making about how women make out like thieves if they get married and work part time. If a woman is working part time out of the home and more than full time inside the home, I fail to see how that equals retirement."Some do make out like bandits some don't. The difference between say what briget went through and say a wealthy stay at home mom with nannies and maids and the like can be staggering.Bee said: "No. In other words, it's very telling that once men enter a field, employers in that field start paying their employees more."Do you ever think it's because that field becomes more profitable? Have you any studies on that?Bee said: "Also, what you've said about employees who make their bosses millions seems to come from the viewpoint of a person who's spent very little time in the workforce in the last 30 years. You know how most employees are rewarded for making their bosses millions of dollars? In this economy, they aren’t."I'll try again. In jobs where you have the opportunity to make your boss money, you are more likely to make money. Certain jobs are more prone to higher pay. Jobs like teaching, nursing and the like have little to no opportunity to make you bosses or business more money. Don't go into those jobs if you want a lot of money unless there is a shorage of workers for those jobs.Bee: " Again, this isn't about me. But I'm surprised that a member of a group whose biggest substantive complaint is that father's rights aren't what they might be is telling me that educating children is not important. Very interesting."I didn't say educating children wasn't important. It's not half a million a year, CEO important to the society or else teachers would be paid that way.Random Brother
>@ darksidecat:Darksidecat said: And this couldn't possibly have anything to do with women's much higher rates of earning high school diplomas and university degrees. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US's massive primarily male prison population does not earn wages. If you look within fields, the wage gap holds even for single, childless women, though they have an edge on women with children."Proof please.Random Brother
>@ hide and seek: hide and seek said: "@Richard:I'm not sure that is true. In my experience, if one is employed to do knowledge work, as opposed to stamping out widgets on a widget-stamping machine, the idea of a bright line between home and work life is a myth. The employees I supervise, male and female, seem to be able to contribute the most to their positions if they aren't stressed about how they will pay their rent and who will be watching their children. Our willingness to be flexible benefits us and them. "The questions then are should the government force you to be flexible? How flexible? How does this pan out over differing types of jobs? For example you may be able to give flex time to a talented women in your department with no ill effects, but what if another less talented woman demands to only be on site 8 hours a week and cites personal child care issues? What if the government forces you to accept this and there are negative consequences? If your organization does it on it's own, I assume for that organization it works, but when it comes top down from a government agent who may not know whats best for your business it may be very different.hide and seek: "Do we have to? No, but if we don't we have higher turnover, spend more time hiring and training new people, and the workers who stay don't enjoy this work but rather cannot find work anywhere else."This sounds like a solution for one individual business, but it may be an awful situation for another. hide and seek: "I know that you said this in response to another commenter, but I hope no one takes this advice, ever. What good does it do to stop demanding that the world be the world we would like to live in? That's how things get changed. If humans, generally, took this advice, we'd still be freezing all winter and eating food we had fertilized with our own feces."There is no way that we can accomdate everyone's whims in regard to employment. Attempting to do so, IMHO, is a waste of time, and someone will get screwed.Random Brother
>"wytch, cool it with the personal insults. I'll let the last one stand because it is completely ridiculous, but in the future I'll delete."—DavidHey, it's all good . . . only when feminists slam anyone else, yo?