No, the other one.High pay and status were quite obviously mentioned. Which are parts of being a politician, at least on the higher end. As for stats here in Sweden, the government seats (riksdagen, more specifically) are roughly equal for the sexes. I think it's currently 55%/45% for men/women, or close to it.
Was that at me? I can't tell with the pagetopper.
No, the other one.How is that not obvious? You asked a question, and the only posts in between that answer and my last were your question and Tobias' statistics about women in office (which I kind of followed up on with the second line in my post). You asked about what expecations we were talking about, which were mentioned in both posts before you joined into that particular discussion (the branch started by Mastah about pressure and expectations as an explanation for why there are fewer women in politics).
Because your answer was a bit difficult to follow. Without my question quoted or easy to look back on without changing pages, it was hard to follow you. And in any case, the pressure for wealth and status is not directly related to politics. Most politicians make crap money and get most of their wealth from side interests. My original question was directed at Mastah's statement and Mandemo's assertion that men are pressured to get high pay and status and thus are pressured to go into politics. My response to that is that politics does not seem like a fast track to either, and actually, it seems you need to already have that beforehand. It seems most politicians are only able to get support if people with money see them as a good investment. Being pressured to succeed may be part of it, but that problem is intertwined with women not being given the support they need to succeed.
That's only shifting the problem though. If women need money and status to succeed in politics and they aren't encouraged to get that, then the lack of motivation to pursue these is still a factor in them not getting political offices.
I don't see how that's "shifting" anything. As I said, even if we accept lack of "pressure" as a reason, this is a circumstance where "pressure" seems to be meshed with "support".
No, the other one.I'm not sure how being from a well-connected family is gender-based, though. Do rich and well-connected families exclusively get baby boys? That first article () also seemed to take American presidents as an example and apply it to politicians in general, which is skewed to be polite. I'll also note that both of those articles mentions encuragement as a factor, which I brought up on the last page. Being a politician may not always be a high-paid job, but it is a high-status job, comparatively. You work in the public eye, and you work for your community/city/state/country.
According to the articles, though, only the highest-end political careers are high-status jobs, and you can typically get them only if you already have high status. Yes, there are "career politicians" who are exceptions and made their way slowly up the ladder, but more often than not the low-rung politicians are obscure, underpaid, and underwhelming. Also, whether or not wealthy families/communities support girls as successors equally as viable as boys is kind of at the heart of the "sexism" debate. The question isn't whether or not they "only" get boys—its whether Heir Club for Men is still in wide effect.
edited 13th Mar '14 8:17:47 AM by KingZeal
No, the other one.In other words, the wealthier you are, the more sexist you are?
More like the wealthier you are, the more effect your inherent biases have.
Given the general societal portrayal of all politicians as corrupt, I would really doubt that there's a lot of pressure on anybody to go into politics (unless your last name is Kennedy). Throw in the fact that most local politicians will never get rich, and I rather doubt that "men being pushed to go into politics for success/status" is a factor.
Street Writing Mana porn actor tells his story. I hate to do the "link - discuss" thing, but I feel this guy introduces some very legitimate talking points. Personally, I've never seen any difference between what I do (I'm a carpenter) and what a sex worker does; we both trade our time, bodies and talents for a wage while providing a service society asks for. I get to have pride in what I do, people like the author don't. I've got a rather large problem with that inequity. Thoughts, tropers?
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
I honestly think sex workers should be treated with respect and that it shouldn't be something shoved in a closet. I don't think anyone should be forced into it, but one of the ways to do that is to bring it out into the light and make it respectable. If we stop treating it as dark and dirty and start treating it like a legitimate job that almost everyone consumes at some point or another and a healthy sexual outlet then there are fewer dark places for people to hide in it. It's consenting adults with other consenting adults. Who gives a fuck?
edited 20th Mar '14 10:02:32 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Both of them...
That was a great response.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
shimaspawn and glasspistol Marginalizing people only makes them more vulnerable to exploitation.
No, the other one.It's a good article. He makes a good point about objectification as well. To some degree, it's acceptable, as denying that means denying part of what we are.
Tea TimeA good article. I agree on most things (except that women getting paid more in porn is a patriarchal thing, since this higher demand for women results from most porn being made for heterosexual men). And I agree with drunkscriblerian, every work is selling parts of your body, sex work is no different in this regard. It's not for everyone of course but what kind of work is? The problems of sex work are not inherent in sex work itself but result from society's treatment of it. I especially loathe the hypocrisy of people treating porn stars and sex workers in general like shit but use their services. I'm not sure but couldn't it be that they project their self-hate for consuming porn (because you have to be ashamed of doing so or something) on them? The problem with objectivication is that it's dehumanizing. And when people are not regarded as persons you don't respect them. But that's hardly the fault of porn per se (or of porn alone) and more what kind of porn is made and how it is viewed. Naked doesn't have to equal objectification. If we just acknowledge that sex is fundamentally a part of being human instead of vilifying and denying it, It'd be easier to see the actors as human themselves.
@Antiteilchen: Porn is made mostly for heterosexual men because they're the majority of porn consumers (men consume more porn than women and most men are heterosexual). The reason is the same as the one why prostitution is mostly practiced by women for male clients: humans are like all other mammals.
Tea TimeIf all porn is made for men than it's no surprise it's mostly consumed by them. And it only holds true if you don't count all the erotic novels.
humans are like all other mammals.No we're not. Otherwise we would only have sex during a mating season and men would be the ones trying to impress women with their looks. We're more like Bonobos.
It's an egg and chicken situation, isn't it? Are porn producers just making what the market demands or are market demands influenced by porn producers? If they just want to want a profit and act reasonably, then the first is the more reasonable explanation, which is why I will hold onto it unless given reasons against it. Also because I don't see which patriarchal notions would support male consumption of visual porn while women reading more erotic novels is seen as a very natural thing. Regarding animals we are similar to, I would simply say it's not that simple. Bonobos, as far as I understood it, have a mostly polyamorous sex life which I wouldn't use to describe our recent society and certainly not many of our predecessors, though some come close I guess. Overall more women than men were successful at getting their genes to the next generation.
Tea TimeI don't say that men are watching visual porn is unnatural. I say that women don't, is unnatural. And their consumtion of novels seems to imply a demand, no? I also thought (but I could be misremembering) that a third of all porn watchers are women regardless of it being made for men, which would further imply a demand for visual porn. I would not be surprised if an industry would just stick to the tried and true instead of risking money in something new. It's like the gaming industry's insistence on only making games for men because women don't game.
I wouldn't use [polyamourous] to describe our recent society and certainly not many of our predecessors,An easy mistake to make. But if humans would not stray there would be no need for penalties for doing so. Why stone women to death for a crime they don't commit, why use FGM, why the use of prostituition in almost every society? Sexually repressive societies are called that for a reason. They repress sexuality. Addendum: Bonobos are also one of the most genetically related to us, lending more credit to the idea that we're most like them of all animals.
edited 21st Mar '14 8:07:42 AM by Antiteilchen
Also because I don't see which patriarchal notions would support male consumption of visual porn while women reading more erotic novels is seen as a very natural thing.I can answer that: most visual media is produced with white, heterosexual males as the target audience. Porn is just a symptom of the larger issue that also encompasses film, television, and video games, which is that producers such as Hollywood have difficulty with the idea that women are anything more than a niche group. The idea that white, heterosexual males are the only audience worth marketing towards is a very old one that predates both the women's liberation movement and the civil rights movement. The attitude lingers to this day because producers fears change, and would rather do whatever made money yesterday than take a chance on something new today. Problem is, yesterday the blacks were slaves, women were the property of their husbands, and we all pretended gays don't exist. So, to summarize your chicken and egg scenario, the egg came first. Problem is, the egg wasn't laid by a chicken. It was laid by the hideous beast that became a chicken. The chicken's evolved over the years. It's time the egg caught up.
edited 21st Mar '14 9:00:45 AM by TobiasDrake
We might more alike to bonobos than to other mammals (not surprising that we are more like other primates), but we still share a lot with mammals in general. As for the mating season, it's not universal across mammalian species and its goal is for the species to breed when conditions are favorable, which for humans doesn't depend on seasonal changes (though births do have seasonal variations).
No, the other one.One thing I believe porn does teach us about how men view women is what men's actual preferences are. If you look at models and actresses, they follow a fairly narrow standard of beauty. If you look at porn actresses, they're more varied, and generally not excessively thin. The typical model look came from (stereotypically gay) designers who basically wanted wanted walking clotheshangers for their creations. How porn actresses should look is decided by how sexy they are to men, with a specific target group or not. So why is it so common to think models are supposed to be the standard of feminine beauty according to men? (Short answer: PR.)
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.