Women's Issues

Not just that.

The US, Latin America and Europe to a lesser extent have the conception that you need to go to college once you leave your teens, not only to get a better job but also get more connections and I've seen the mentality that in college women can meet men that are going to be top earners and thus marriage material.

I am getting more page toppers than I'd like to.

edited 7th Mar '17 8:35:53 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges

There are a large number of social factors that also push women away from high earning career paths and towards more 'acceptable' ones. It's not go much about women nto being hired as them spending much of their lives being told that they shouldn't apply, often by their own parents.

Then there's the fact that women are often predicted to drop out fo the workforce at a particular point so as to have children, which is an assumption that is grounded in part in the fact that women face huge social pressure to do exactly that. Some women do drop out of the workforce to have kids (because society tells them that they're hey should drop out, or at least that they should do the impossible and do all the parenting while holding down a career) and thouse who don't will often be assumed to be going to.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

It's not just getting into college. The issue is also entering the STEM fields, going into post-graduate studies, etc.

And like the paper I cited posited, even their own elementary school teachers are discouraging them.

edited 7th Mar '17 8:45:24 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

I can say something about women in STEM fields, they are usually more competent than most men in the field.

But before anyone loses their shit it isn't because they were inherently female. It is because the few who entered and survived their freshmen years really want to be there and pursue a career on the field, instead of the large amount of men who simply entered because they had some vague idea of what the field was but really didn't have any vocational affinity towards it and/or though they'd get rich, the larger amount of males in STEM also increase the amount of males who aren't that committed to college.

I speak this from experience, when I put the number of competent programmers by gender side by side in my Computer Science course, the amount of good male students and the good female students tend to be the same even though the female sample size is smaller.

Inter arma enim silent leges

x3. Doing all the parenting AND the housework while holding down a career. My BFF is a surgical nurse so she's on her feet all day, and her shifts are variable. Some days won't go beyond nine hours, but sometimes she'll give me a call seventeen hours in while wringing blood out of sponges. Her husband earns a lot more, but works from home. A frequent source of conflict is that he says she doesn't do enough around the house. She has the more physically demanding job, but is expected to come home and start scrubbing because inside the house is woman's work.

i. hear. a. sound.

And now presenting fun magazine photo controversy time with Emma Watson. (Mild NSFW warning.)

Initially, I saw it as a attention grab stunt, but the radio host's (a woman, just so people get the broader picture) follow-up that Watson was a hypocrite for posing in that outfit made me realize that it's just the divide between second-wave and third-wave feminism over the nature of women's agency playing out again. Or to elaborate, it's kind of like the classic quote about "trading freedom for security" - second wave feminism holds that women should never trade away their agency for anything. Hence the hypocrisy accusation - how can you advocate for the agency of women if you do something that trades away your own agency as a woman, like say posing partially naked on a magazine cover? ^note Agency over your own sexuality requires perfect control over who the audience to said sexuality is, apparently.

Anyway, I figured this was worth bringing up for discussion

edited 7th Mar '17 4:25:23 PM by TotemicHero

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

You mean the contrast between the objetification of women's bodies versus the right of women to show their bodies, combined with the blurry line of where one beings and the other ends?

I kinda see this with some of the professional cosplayers I follow in FB, sometimes they get some attacks from internet third wave feminist because they use stripperific costumes and photo ops to earn money and fame.

Inter arma enim silent leges

I'm not really a woman so my opinion on this isn't to be taken as authoritative by any means, but I kind of have to agree with Watson here.

I don't think women's sexuality and feminism is so one-dimensional as to be reduced to "oh she showed her boobs, she's not feminist anymore!".

Well, that's kind of how it was in the 70s and early 80s, due to the aforementioned second wave feminism with its sex negativity. This is eventually what led to third wave feminism spinning off in the 90s. And on that subject...

If these people are really that sex negative, they probably aren't actual third wave feminists. Third wave feminism normally would be completely on board with skimpy cosplay.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

Hence why they were internet third wave feminists they are certainly women with a very skewed or shallow view of feminism they got from reading some blogs or the summation from some long posts somewhere.

Inter arma enim silent leges

If Watson was acting skanky/crazy like Miley Cyrus, maybe the complainer would have a point, but that picture is so tasteful I don't see anyone getting offended by it unless they really wanted to be.

Tasteful nudity. It is a thing. C:

I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency

Things like this make the word controversy lose its meaning.

But really, it is a non-issue, sure it gets people discussing it but come on, that case is so inane it hurts, it isn't like she is posing for a porn shot.

Inter arma enim silent leges

If there's one thing I've learned about third wave feminism, it's that the emphasis on intersectionality has done nothing to resolve the sex-positive/sex-negative squabble so far. And Lena Dunham.

Also worth noting is society's at large's... issues with women embracing their sexuality. A woman daring to embrace her sexual side on her own terms outside social media is verboten for some reason.

edited 7th Mar '17 6:39:42 PM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

While it's true there's also bona fide third wavers who might think that way, I think it would be more accurate to describe a lot of modern feminists with hardcore sex-negative anti-objectification attitudes as neo-second wavers. In general the majority of genuine batshittery anti-feminists bring up when whining about how terrible third wavers are and how much better the previous waves were has way more in common with the declared goals of the second wave than ideas introduced by the third wave (whose focus has primarily been about intersectionality for better or for worse).

Not to say the third wave isn't still loaded with its own set of basketcases, like all politically charged movements do, or that the boundaries between the two waves are so hard-cut. But if we're going to be splitting feminism into waves in the first place then such demarcation would be useful for semantic precision's sake. Now granted, it's not as easy as marking the difference between the first and the second, since the first wave had a clear and distinct set of legal goals with visible accomplishments to their name, whereas the second and third both focus on cultural changes, and the third arose specifically to address issues that run perpendicular to those of the second wave.

'd, sort of.

edited 8th Mar '17 12:17:22 AM by AlleyOop

As a guy who isn't entirely comfortable with his own body despite living with it for decades, I can't help but root for Emma Watson.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Watching her grow from lass to lady has been a very tissue-intensive experience for me. You want the next Helen Mirren, folks? Give her thirty years... I think she's got a good shot.

Anybody who has an issue with those shots needs their priorities straightened out. That's a young woman feeling tastefully exuberant with what she's got while she knows she's got it. Ain't nothing more positive than that.

edited 7th Mar '17 9:22:01 PM by Euodiachloris

And even if, that'd still be her decision.

edited 8th Mar '17 4:16:04 AM by DrunkenNordmann

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

That is the point.

She can do anything she wants, the question is why should we care about it and make it a problem? The overreaction to that photo is the problem.

I've seen this same thing when some ruckus was raised over a few child actresses posing for Playboy when they turn 18 as something that should have been verboten, because she was a childhood icon. But come the fuck on, she's an adult now, they should do whatever they want with their bodies it is none of my business.

Inter arma enim silent leges

Happy International Women's Day!

I hope the strike doesn't backfire.

i. hear. a. sound.

Strike?

A bunch of women throughout the US were planning on staging/current doing a (illegal, so they could be fired. Hopefully they aren't) walkout to demonstrate how shitty things would be for everyone without women in the workforce.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Strike.

i. hear. a. sound.

Thats going to backfire horibley..... :c

That's my fear/assumption. Its also getting a lot of backlash from some circles.

And taking inspiration from the Occupy idiots isn't a good start for a movement.

edited 8th Mar '17 12:09:18 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.