Are we all..sexist?
Replies
-
i worked tickets at the entrance to a parking lot years ago... i let several guys park their bikes for free... was it because they were guys? nope... it was because they were riding harleys...
0 -
Motorcyclist!i worked tickets at the entrance to a parking lot years ago... i let several guys park their bikes for free... was it because they were guys? nope... it was because they were riding harleys...0 -
i worked tickets at the entrance to a parking lot years ago... i let several guys park their bikes for free... was it because they were guys? nope... it was because they were riding harleys...
Haha that made me smile. Thank you! :flowerforyou:0 -
i worked tickets at the entrance to a parking lot years ago... i let several guys park their bikes for free... was it because they were guys? nope... it was because they were riding harleys...
Great, now all I can think about it going for a ride...... and it's snowing out... thanks a lot!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
So one of my guy friends is starting to hate women because he thinks that everyone treats women so much better than guys. What do you guys think?
I have a couple examples that he gave me..
1. He's been going on job interviews as well, they were about to hire him until a lesser qualified piece of eye candy came into the picture and got the job instead..this happened to him twice.
2. We were at a Spanish deli and we both ordered chicken, rice, and beans. They asked me what part of the chicken I wanted and they didn't ask him. Afterwards he points it out. I told him he should've let them know..he said he was being quiet to prove a point that women are always treated better than men. (Side note a third friend who usually goes to that deli says that they treat you better of you're a woman or speak Spanish so maybe it's based on the place..)
Do you think we as a society are sexist???
I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.
And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.
Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.0 -
I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.
And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.
Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.
I wouldn't say it is sexist since it does happen: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf
OP said her friend had one year experience and her none. His assumption is probable, but without better evidence impossible to determine. Maybe the company has a gender quota. lol0 -
I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.
And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.
Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.
I wouldn't say it is sexist since it does happen: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf
OP said her friend had one year experience and her none. His assumption is probable, but without better evidence impossible to determine. Maybe the company has a gender quota. lol
Maybe it's a question of disposition. One year of experience isn't much -- and easily overlooked if somebody has a chip on their shoulder or went to a less prestigious school.
What the other person looks like wouldn't even be an issue if a man had got the position over the OP's friend. That speaks to the type of sexism women face. You are not taken seriously and you are reduced to your look. But LOL she must have got it because her company has a quote. LOL.
No.
Stop.
No.0 -
The women probably got hired because they could pay them less.
Really?
Don't u have equal opportunity laws and award wages that a qualified person has to be paid the same regardless of gender?
Not in the US. Women generally get paid 77 cents to a man's dollar even if they're working the same position, pulling the same hours, outputting the same amount of work, etc. You get the idea. Men get paid more, the end. It's 2014 and yet it hasn't been changed. You'd think we were a developed nation...oh, wait.
Ok.
I am surprised at that.
Is taken for granted in Australia that the same position gets paid the same amount, regardless of gender - is illegal to do otherwise.
Yes, I know average male earnings are still higher than average female earning but this correlates to a range of factors - more women take time out from the workforce to raise children, more women work part time, more women go into lower paid industries etc.
But Women don't get paid less if they are equally qualified and work the same hours in the same job.
Our Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to report that women still make less, even holding the same jobs (full time and year round). While the reasons you listed are accountable for 60% of the difference there is a good 40% that is unaccounted for and wholly unreasonable. It's also statically proven that the wage gap is higher for women of color (69c for African American women and 58c for Latinas/Hispanics, and again, this is for full-time, year round work). In the USA anyway-- I can't speak for other places.
There are other interesting statistics I've come across (such as that women with children get paid 2.5% less while men with children get paid 2% more (GAO) as some convoluted "boost" and that after our lovely (/sarcasm) recession men were re-employed more frequently (an increase of one million between 2011-2012, whereas the re-employment rate for women remained the same) leaving many women to resort to finding part-time work) but I'd need to check the reports/numbers again before I can officially add those.
Just to quickly add, I hear a lot of people justify the wage gap by pointing out the differences in male-dominant and female-dominant careers, but I never hear anyone mention anything about the fact that female-dominant jobs/careers are underpaid and undervalued which is a problem on its own and only contributes to the gap. Just some food for thought.
This is an interesting video on the wage gap myth, it's amazing that even Obama fell victim to this canard:
http://youtu.be/vyFjPHwF6To
Check your facts. The wage gap is a real, documented phenomena, not just some made up *kitten*.
No one is contesting that, they are contesting the myth that it is the result of discrimination.0 -
Your friend sounds like he has too much entitlement. Too much privilege.0
-
I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.
And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.
Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.
I wouldn't say it is sexist since it does happen: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf
OP said her friend had one year experience and her none. His assumption is probable, but without better evidence impossible to determine. Maybe the company has a gender quota. lol
Maybe it's a question of disposition. One year of experience isn't much -- and easily overlooked if somebody has a chip on their shoulder or went to a less prestigious school.
What the other person looks like wouldn't even be an issue if a man had got the position over the OP's friend. That speaks to the type of sexism women face. You are not taken seriously and you are reduced to your look. But LOL she must have got it because her company has a quote. LOL.
No.
Stop.
No.
Hiring because of beauty is benevolent sexism that hurts men more than women in this scenario, but discriminating because of beauty or lack thereof may not be as gender specific as it seems.0 -
I think about all the *kitten* women through out history and even still today have had to deal with and I don't worry too much if one or two guys are cranky because they think they're not being treated special enough.0
-
I think the takeaway here should be that this friend of yours is sexist. Assuming a woman got hired because she's "eye candy"? How is THAT not sexist? Reducing women to objects and reducing their achievements so flippantly is just... erhhghg. And how does he know her exact qualifications, anyway? Finally, a lot of the hiring process is decided by the interview, where the interviewer will assess your working style, your energy, etc, and see if you'd be a good fit to their team. It's not all about looking good on paper.
And finally, if these women were hired because they're "eye candy," that's still sexist against women. That means the employer is sexually objectifying them and is not taking them seriously. And it opens a door for some potential sexual harassment down the line.
Just because some guy at a restaurant was courteous to a woman once doesn't mean that we live in some MRA nightmare world.
I wouldn't say it is sexist since it does happen: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf
OP said her friend had one year experience and her none. His assumption is probable, but without better evidence impossible to determine. Maybe the company has a gender quota. lol
Maybe it's a question of disposition. One year of experience isn't much -- and easily overlooked if somebody has a chip on their shoulder or went to a less prestigious school.
What the other person looks like wouldn't even be an issue if a man had got the position over the OP's friend. That speaks to the type of sexism women face. You are not taken seriously and you are reduced to your look. But LOL she must have got it because her company has a quote. LOL.
No.
Stop.
No.
Hiring because of beauty is benevolent sexism that hurts men more than women in this scenario, but discriminating because of beauty or lack thereof may not be as gender specific as it seems.
Um, you 100% missed the point.
Attractive people in general get preferential treatment -- this means both men and women. If a man had beat out OP's friend, even if he was more attractive than the friend, his looks wouldn't be talked about as the reason.0 -
Hiring because of beauty is benevolent sexism that hurts men more than women in this scenario, but discriminating because of beauty or lack thereof may not be as gender specific as it seems.
Um, you 100% missed the point.
Attractive people in general get preferential treatment -- this means both men and women. If a man had beat out OP's friend, even if he was more attractive than the friend, his looks wouldn't be talked about as the reason.0 -
Hiring based on physical traits is not sexism unless it's continued trend of bias against one gender in favor of the other. Good looking men also get preferential treatment in the workplace. This is not sexism or discrimination. While many people think it's wrong, the word "sexism" or "discrimination" is thrown around far too often without justification.
Just like the whole "wage gap is due to discrimination and sexism" argument. False. Plenty of well constructed studies have shown wage gaps are due to other factors and nearly disappears when you control for these inputs. The amount due to discrimination is not statistically significant.0 -
Excuse me while I conjure up my inward Avenue Q:
"Everybody's a little bit sexist..."0 -
I see the thread has been going on for a while now, so I may be way to late for people to still be reading... But this type of stuff is my bread and butter so I'll respond.
First... Both sides have their "woes" so technically... yeah, we are all sexist... to the opposite sex to some extent or the other. Just because men and women differ from each other.
Recently, a few of my guy friends told me that I was logical and that most girls weren't logical. It rubbed me the wrong way, because we are both equally logical just in different areas.
With that said, I believe that women get away with being more sexist than men because its generally more accepted in our society. Turn on the TV and watch any sitcom or movie and you will find men being treated as idiots and women as super intellects. Men are put down way more than women and women throw a fit when the tables are turned. Its like the saying "Men should never hit a woman... even if a woman hits him." Thats dumb. No one needs to be hitting period. HUGE double standard.
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)0 -
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)
What exactly are you trying to say here ...
:huh:0 -
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)
What exactly are you trying to say here ...
:huh:
Feminism is steeped into our everyday life....?
Edit: I was also taking a light stap to those who get angry over gender roles. People who let their children "choose their gender." But... not really the subject.0 -
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)
What exactly are you trying to say here ...
:huh:
Feminism is steeped into our everyday life....?
Feminism is broad term that means different things to different people. You're saying things and not really explaining what you mean, just assuming that people have them same understanding that you do. So this reply is equally vague.
The idea that men shouldn't hit women, but it's ok for women to hit men isn't because FEMINISM! It's because women have traditionally been viewed as the weaker sex -- fragile.0 -
Edit: I was also taking a light stap to those who get angry over gender roles. People who let their children "choose their gender." But... not really the subject.
So, you want children to grow up doing girl things if they are girl and boy things, if they are a boy and not question if anything is actually a "boy" thing or a "girl" thing instead of "These are things you can do"?0 -
0 -
He's a crybaby.
^This.0 -
Maybe the person they hired was positive and not a whiner. And more qualified. And even if she wasn't as qualified, I personally would choose someone with a good attitude I thought I could work with over someone with a little more experience.0
-
does he want some cheese with that whine? I mean damn, everyone has some level of being self-centered, its just how long you stay there.0
-
Hiring because of beauty is benevolent sexism that hurts men more than women in this scenario, but discriminating because of beauty or lack thereof may not be as gender specific as it seems.
Um, you 100% missed the point.
Attractive people in general get preferential treatment -- this means both men and women. If a man had beat out OP's friend, even if he was more attractive than the friend, his looks wouldn't be talked about as the reason.
But the question I am asking you is, would we be talking about the appearance of person who beat out the Op's friend if she was male? Would people assume he got the job over the OP's friend because he's more attractive?
There is no doubt that attractive people are given preference. But would anyone have attributed Op's friend not getting the job to looks if the person who got the job was an attractive man?0 -
I see the thread has been going on for a while now, so I may be way to late for people to still be reading... But this type of stuff is my bread and butter so I'll respond.
First... Both sides have their "woes" so technically... yeah, we are all sexist... to the opposite sex to some extent or the other. Just because men and women differ from each other.
Recently, a few of my guy friends told me that I was logical and that most girls weren't logical. It rubbed me the wrong way, because we are both equally logical just in different areas.
With that said, I believe that women get away with being more sexist than men because its generally more accepted in our society. Turn on the TV and watch any sitcom or movie and you will find men being treated as idiots and women as super intellects. Men are put down way more than women and women throw a fit when the tables are turned. Its like the saying "Men should never hit a woman... even if a woman hits him." Thats dumb. No one needs to be hitting period. HUGE double standard.
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)
What the eff.0 -
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)
What exactly are you trying to say here ...
:huh:
Feminism is steeped into our everyday life....?
Edit: I was also taking a light stap to those who get angry over gender roles. People who let their children "choose their gender." But... not really the subject.
Feminism contends that the difference between the genders is a social construct besides the obvious physical differences. Research offers a different explanation, I just watched a 60 Minutes episode about this topic:
http://youtu.be/eFYfZg1jsJU. How feminist theory impedes research on gender differences.
There is also an in depth Norwegian documentary on the topic titled "Brainwash" here:
http://youtu.be/tiJVJ5QRRUE
Of course feminism is ubiquitous, when you have President Obama regurgitating feminist myths like the wage gap or bad statistics on sexual assault on college campuses it is inevitable.0 -
The negative effects of feminism is so steeped into our everyday life that most people can't identify it. Its why men are so feminine and women are so manly. (Oh, no! Gender roles!!!)
What exactly are you trying to say here ...
:huh:
Feminism is steeped into our everyday life....?
Feminism is broad term that means different things to different people. You're saying things and not really explaining what you mean, just assuming that people have them same understanding that you do. So this reply is equally vague.
The idea that men shouldn't hit women, but it's ok for women to hit men isn't because FEMINISM! It's because women have traditionally been viewed as the weaker sex -- fragile.
Well, I think wikipedia covers the way I am using the word feminism, itself. All of it. My vagueness was a bit intentional, in the last line, only because I think that feminism has so many effects that we could talk about it forever. (If you want to ask a specific question then, I'll answer.) In this case, the OP is asking if we are all sexist and if women are treated better than men. I'd say yes to both.... as a rule with exceptions.0 -
If he were male I would assume some people would say it was the result of cis heterosexual white male privilege, that is until OP clarifies that he is black, gay, and a female-to male-transgendered person, then it would go back to diversity quotas.
Hiring because of beauty is benevolent sexism that hurts men more than women in this scenario, but discriminating because of beauty or lack thereof may not be as gender specific as it seems.
Um, you 100% missed the point.
Attractive people in general get preferential treatment -- this means both men and women. If a man had beat out OP's friend, even if he was more attractive than the friend, his looks wouldn't be talked about as the reason.
But the question I am asking you is, would we be talking about the appearance of person who beat out the Op's friend if she was male? Would people assume he got the job over the OP's friend because he's more attractive?
There is no doubt that attractive people are given preference. But would anyone have attributed Op's friend not getting the job to looks if the person who got the job was an attractive man?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions