this is an interesting point, although mathematically inaccurate: assuming the women:men, 0.78:1 ratio is correct, men make $1.28 for every woman’s $1
White people are still the ~standard so that’s not so revolutionary.
A white man makes $1.34 for every dollar that a black man makes
A white man makes $1.52 for every dollar that a latino man makes
A white man makes $1.24 for every dollar that a white woman makes
A white man makes $1.44 for every dollar that a black woman makes
A white man makes $1.67 for every dollar that a latina woman makes
That’s some bullshit right there.
I get “fake geek girl” BS in job interviews. I have skipped applying for programming jobs because the ads promote the “bro-centric company culture,” where it is common to drink beer and no one complains about your naughty sense of humor. I have applied at companies that won’t interview me for the position that I’m qualified for because the type of programming that I do is more typical for guys and this other type over here that I don’t do is more typical for girls; in order to show how inclusive of women they are, they strongly encourage me to apply for [girl job] despite me being grossly overqualified for [boy job that I can’t be interviewed for]. I have gone to interviews where it is made clear to me that I’m the affirmative action candidate, that they were intrigued by my claim to play video games [which I was tested on], and then had the technical interviewer act astounded because during my whiteboarding exercise, I followed a coding standard that prevents a security breach and no other applicants did—and then not gotten the job. I have had jobs where my opinion was dismissed by my superiors who were less qualified than me, who repeatedly interrupted me during demos to tell me that I’m doing the demo wrong on a product that the interrupter has never used—and then gotten fired for calmly standing up to him.
So let me tell you why there are so few games with strong female protagonists and so few games with characters that women can identify with as idealized heroes: games are made by men for themselves.
PetticoatDespot (Click for full comment on an also great article)
Yeah but WHY aren’t there more women in the tech center? Must be because of their genetically weird lady brains AMIRITE?!
Nowadays the princesses all know kung fu, and yet they’re still the same princesses. They’re still love interests, still the one girl in a team of five boys, and they’re all kind of the same. They march on screen, punch someone to show how they don’t take no shit, throw around a couple of one-liners or forcibly kiss someone because getting consent is for wimps, and then with ladylike discretion they back out of the narrative’s way.
On the posters they’re posed way in the back of the shot behind the men, in the trailers they may pout or smile or kick things, but they remain silent. Their strength lets them, briefly, dominate bystanders but never dominate the plot. It’s an anodyne, a sop, a Trojan Horse - it’s there to distract and confuse you, so you forget to ask for more.
Sophia McDougall (via albinwonderland)
This is something that’s bugged me for so long, the idea that as long as they have the girl beat up 3 thugs first, it’s okay if the 4th one overpowers her and she ends up being captured for the hero to rescue anyway (this happened constantly on Smallville). It’s cynical executives and producers going “this will shut those feminists up”, and not actually listening to what the complaints are saying. It’s well-meaning writers thinking that they really are writing something different, but not thinking any more deeply about how ingrained the sexism in how they see writing stories is. It’s promotional material and interviews for the movies going “she’s not your typical damsel in distress”, as if we’re asking for damsels in distress just not ones that get kidnapped right away. And it’s ultimately just the same old same old where women are just objects for men to capture, hurt, win, rescue, and have sex with, except they’re a little more feisty so PROGRESS amirite?
I rang the literary editors of a few ‘respected’ papers and asked them how much space they were giving to women writers in their ‘review’ sections. Perfectly predictable response. They all said the allocation was fair. One said it was equal, and one prominent editor went so far as to say women are dominating the reviews!
… What happened when I asked who was doing the talking in mixed sex conversations? Well, it was the women of course. And then when you get to measure it you find that women get to talk about 10-20% of the time in conversations with men. A woman who talks about a third of the time is seen to be dominating the talk.
And what happened when I asked teachers who got their attention in class? Well, it was all equal, wasn’t it? No preferences there. And you measure it and find that girls get about 10-20% of the teacher’s attention. Any more, and the boys think it unfair - and go into revolt.
So what do you think I found with the reviews?
I would have predicted about 10-20% of the space went to women’s books. Well, it is less than 6% of the column inches. And the reasonable editor who thinks that women are getting more than their share is one of the worst offenders. Poor boys! It really tells you something when they think only 94% of the review section is not enough, doesn’t it? When 6% for women is too much you get some idea how much men think they are entitled to - as a fair deal.
(TW: rape, sexual assault.)
Two weeks ago a man in France was arrested for raping his daughter. She’d gone to her school counselor and then the police, but they needed “hard evidence.” So, she videotaped her next assault. Her father was eventually arrested. His attorney explained, “There was a period when he was unemployed and in the middle of a divorce. He insists that these acts did not stretch back further than three or four months. His daughter says longer. But everyone should be very careful in what they say.” Because, really, even despite her seeking help, her testimony, her bravery in setting up a webcam to film her father raping her, you really can’t believe what the girl says, can you?
Everyone “knows” this. Even children.
Three years ago, in fly-on-the-wall fashion of parent drivers everywhere, I listened while a 14-year-old girl in the back seat of my car described how angry she was that her parents had stopped allowing her to walk home alone just because a girl in her neighborhood “claimed she was raped.” When I asked her if there was any reason to think the girl’s story was not true, she said, “Girls lie about rape all the time.”
She didn’t know the person, she just assumed she was lying.
No one says, “You can’t trust women,” but distrust them we do. College students surveyed revealed that they think up to 50% of their female peers lie when they accuse someone of rape, despite wide-scale evidence and multi-country studies that show the incident of false rape reports to be in the 2%-8% range, pretty much the same as false claims for other crimes. As late as 2003, people jokingly (wink, wink) referred to Philadelphia’s sex crimes unit as “the lying bitch unit.” If an 11-year-old girl told an adult that her father took out a Craigslist ad to find someone to beat and rape her while he watched, as recently actually occurred, what do you think the response would be? Would she need to provide a videotape after the fact?
It goes way beyond sexual assault as well. That’s just the most likely and obvious demonstration of “women are born to lie” myths. Women’s credibility is questioned in the workplace, in courts, by law enforcement, indoctors’ offices, and in our political system. People don’t trust women to be bosses, or pilots, or employees. Pakistan’s controversial Hudood Ordinance still requires a female rape victim to procure four male witnesses to her rape or risk prosecution for adultery. In August, a survey of managers in the United States revealed that they overwhelmingly distrust women who request flextime. It’s notable, of course, that women are trusted to be mothers—the largest pool of undervalued, unpaid, economically crucial labor.
Pop culture and art are just the cherry on the top of the icing on a huge cake. The United States is among the most religious of all countries in the industrialized world. So, while some people wring their hands over hip hop, I’m more worried about how men like Rick Santorum and Ken Cuccinelli explain to their daughters why they can’t be priests. I know that there is hip hop that exceeds the bounds of taste and is sodden with misogyny. But, people seem to think that those manifestations of hatred are outside of the mainstream when, in reality, it’s just more of the same set to great beats. Hip hop has nothing on religious misogyny and its political expression.
An entire political party’s “social policy” agenda is being pursued under a rubric that insists women need “permission slips” and “waiting periods.” The recent shutdown? Conservatives holding the country hostage because they want to add anti-abortion “conscience clause” language to legislation. Whose consciences are we talking about? All the morally incompetent and untrustworthy men who need abortions?
It’s no exaggeration to say that distrust of women is the driving force of the “social issues” agenda of the Republican Party. From food stamps and “legitimate rape,” to violence against women and immigration policy. “We need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that’s the way nature made it,” explained the man who penned Arizona’s immigration law. “Men don’t drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do.” I could do this ad infinitum.
"Also, women are not interested in the STEM fields because they run antagonistic to female psychology. Women do not deal with logic and abstract thinking as much as they deal with emotion sensuality and consensus. You cannot force women into fields that they are fundamentally not interested in."
Is this real life
and people say that this thought pattern ended 60 years ago. no, it’s very much still alive. which is why women in STEM have such a rough time. because their professors and their peers often do not think they should be there.
It’s interesting to see fluctuations in gendered divisions of labor. In the 60s when computer science wasn’t yet a gendered field, many women participated in it and the number of women in this particular field has actually decreased since then and is just starting to rise again:
And NASA writes about young women doing engineering and programming work for them in the 50s and 60s:
These articles seem to focus on white women (though the NASA one mentions a woman who is Asian), but it’s funny to see so-called logical men deduce through “science” that women are somehow inherently inferior when it comes to capability in STEM fields.
even my female friends who make a high hourly wage still usually have less money than the men I know, mostly because they often can’t work consistently, mostly because they
a) have other responsibilities or commitments, mostly caring related, often unrecognised or
b) are in industries where you move from contract to contract rather than having salaried positions (like the arts) or
c) have disabilities inc. mental illness issues or
d) are doing sex work or another stigmatised trade, don’t necessarily see themselves doing that forever, don’t want a huge hole in their resume if going for non-sex work later, and thus need to take on other jobs or projects or study
plus we usually have more expenses — one big thing I’ve noticed is that women with mental health issues tend to eventually start seeing a counselor or psychologist, which is incredibly expensive, whereas men are more likely to refuse to seek paid help for their mental health issues, which incidentally also always always adds to the emotional labour the women in their lives need to do
also we mostly have more student debt — this is a thing, it’s related to the fact that traditionally female-dominated low-to-medium paid jobs like community work or teaching or nursing now usually require tertiary qualifications at a bachelor’s degree level or higher, whereas male-dominated trades at a similar pay scale don’t usually require such qualifications (think the trades or being a cop)
it’s almost like there are a number of social factors pushing women into a subordinate economic position
Natasha Walter, Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, pages 69-70, 2010. (via bitemebeautiful)
Bringing this back as people have started reblogging this again and EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THIS.
Joyce Roche, Avon’s first African-American female vice president
Here are ten ways to overcome imposter syndrome (ShriverReport.org)
Wow, I didn’t know there was a name for it.
This this this this! It’s taken me years and years to get over, and I’m still not totally over it.
Wow! Someone put this into words for me wayyyy long before I ever even felt it. Crazy to think about this but I mean, it’s real.
This feeling is too real. I’m trying to shake it but it’s hard.
Me literally every time some jerk on the train tries to spread his (and it is always ‘his’) legs across 3 seats.
Yo, you can pack a bag and take this train all the way to the Men’s Rights headquarters. I’m sick of some dinky high school boy trying to nudge me out of the way so he can take up both arm rests.
As half the human race, women and girls hereby claim exactly one half of the space in the world - no less - and the unconditional right to occupy it.
Also, the moon is ours, has been since ancient times. Stay off our moon. You are welcome to visit the sun if you like.
That’s right bitches.
THE MOON IS OURS.
I’ve had a lot of men stop dead in the sidewalk and dance awkwardly out of the way at the last minute, giving me bewildered glances because I moved exactly halfway over when walking towards them and they expected me to flatten myself to the wall. I’ve watched uncomfortable knee-flinches when my legs obstinately refuse to be primly squeezed together to allow him the maximum possible spread on public transportation. I’ve received uncertain side-eyes on the plane because no, actually, I am using the armrest on this side, you can have the one on the aisle/window.
It’s always the exact same expression, too; this startled, confused uncertainty, like they’ve never before considered the fact that I might demand the space courtesy grants as my due - followed by an uncomfortable yielding when they face the fact that there’s nothing they can say without being an overt jackass.
The best expressions are when it’s a clump of men in the middle of the way, blocking everything but a wee strip and you chirrup “EXCUSE ME” in an unignorable voice.
Also screw the moon, I don’t want the moon. I want the sun.
I shoulder-check a lot more dudes than I used to, consciously not getting out of the way. It’s great.
A patriarchal policy at a prestigious women’s college
by George Joseph
This fall, when students shuffled back into their dorms at Barnard College, one of the nation’s premier all women’s universities, many were surprised to hear that they would only be allowed to have guests sleep over no more than six times a month.
The arbitrary sleep-over limit, which even applies to students living alone, is a bizarre ruling to many Barnard students, who pride their school as a feminist institution and might not have even come if they knew this was part of the deal. According to the new rule, which most students were not even notified of, a guest may not sleep over “for no more than three consecutive nights and no more than six nights total in any 30-day period.” The mechanism of the process is even more intrusive as desk attendants have been “given new log books,” according to the Columbia Daily Spectator, to track the names of those sleeping over.
The school is known for its thoroughly feminist pedagogy, women’s leadership programs, and good faith initiatives like “Take Back the Night,” providing a safe space for the larger Barnard-Columbia University community to discuss sexual violence. Yet this new measure evokes a Barnard of old-the kind of pre-60s all women’s college focused on churning out “respectable” ladies, not exactly in line with the college’s claim to inspire “Bold, Beautiful, Barnard Women.”
“For years, the administration has been cracking down on all these small aspects of our lives-trying to control tiny personal areas,” said Emilie Segura, a senior at Barnard. “It’s just very invasive when they ask now you for all this information – and they didn’t even tell us they were doing it! They act like a condescending parent in monitoring our lives and preventing us from actually maturing into the women that we hope to become.”
Seemingly stripped out of a dusty Victorian era court docket, the rule not only regulates students sex lives, but it also imposes an absurd criteria for the “normal” amount of times women should enjoy sex – in effect codifying slut shaming.
According to Lizzy Wolozin, a sophomore at Barnard, “Six doesn’t even encompass all the weekends in a month. Why would I not be allowed to have an overnight guest every night of the weekend unless it had to do with my sex life? In like a very literal sense, the doorman is going to have to tell me I can’t have a guest over because I’ve had a person over too many times.”
If a young woman in middle school or high school hangs up a poster of Barack Obama in her room, this is seen as acceptable. It’s fine for women to admire men and want to be like them.
If a young man (the same age) hangs up a poster of Hillary Clinton in his room, this is seen as odd (maybe even troubling, is he gay? Oh no!).
Society tells us young men can’t think of women as role models, unless they’re a family member, whereas young women can admire and seek to emulate anyone, regardless of gender.
If you’re a young man, and if you have a poster on your wall with a woman, she had better be half-naked in a bikini, even if the Ronald Reagan or Gen. Patton poster next to it obviously features the man fully-clothed.
Young men are not to taught to think of women as role models. They are taught to think of them as either family members or sexual objects. There is no other category presented.
THIS IS SO TRUE!