Follow TV Tropes
Oh, I was talking about the playboy. Once you are married, you are expected to get some. But if you don't, well, the woman is way more likely to get the blame.
Actually it happens quite a lot for both genders to be shamed for being single. For women its usually because the stupid Women have to be mothers, and if they aren't they are not true women thing. For men they are usually shamed if they are single and are not getting some cause for some reason sexual conquests is made out to be this big life changing thing that people must lord over others over.
Its all bullshit down the latter. Gender roles for both genders are sexist and harmful. Femininity and masculinity are not inherently dangerous but generally gender roles take them too far with their rigidness and unrealistic expectations.
Edited by Wispy on May 31st 2019 at 7:48:37 AM
Women of course get it a lot worse.
At least men don't usually have to think about things like "are my legs closed up enough" or "will this cab or Uber driver try to rape me".
I came across criticisms of the arguments made in the article posted on the last page. It looks like the data was misinterpreted:
The problem? That finding is the result of a grievous misunderstanding on Dolan's part of how the American Time Use Survey works. The people conducting the survey didn't ask married people how happy they were, shoo their spouses out of the room, and then ask again. Dolan had misinterpreted one of the categories in the survey, "spouse absent," which refers to married people whose partner is no longer living in their household, as meaning the spouse stepped out of the room.
The error was caught by Gray Kimbrough, an economist at American University's School of Public Affairs, who uses the survey data - and realized that Dolan must have gotten it wrong. "I've done a lot with time-use data," Kimbrough told me. "It's a phone survey." The survey didn't even ask if a respondent's spouse was in the room.
Edited by Pseudopartition on Jun 6th 2019 at 10:03:52 AM
This sounds more to me like Dolan not only sensationalized data, he out right purposely misrepresents it. Because the way the actual study data is presented, it would be hard to draw the conclusions that he tries to sell in his book by accident.
This might be a pet peeve in the grand scheme of things, but now that the FIFA world football cup (for women...) has started and constantly is in the news, can I say it's uncomfortable how it's always strictly called the "Women's World Cup", while the World Cup for men is never, ever called the "Men's World Cup" and is just simply The World Cup.
It reinforces tropes of "men are the standard gender, women are the deviation" and "it's normal for men to play sports, but for women it's such a remarkle feat that it should be pointed out that "It's women playing sports!".
Edited by LB7979 on Jun 12th 2019 at 10:00:50 AM
See, that reminds me of a statement that someone once made on Wikipedia, namely that womens' football does not really gain a lot of attention compared to its male counterpart, made during the course of a discussion on the inclusion criteria for footballers.
Just saw someone on my Facebook feed posting about that; basically complaining about people who think it's horrible women athletes get paid less ... while also refusing to watch them play games. His argument essentially was, if you want to see women athletes get paid better, then go to their games because rising ticket sales will make that pay raise happen.
Funny coincidence,there ... that is the main point raised whenever people complain about men having more pages on Wikipedia than women - men historically and for sexist reasons have more written about them, so there are more of them that we can write pages on.
There's a similar problem in boxing. Many female boxing champions, including the most notable of our age (undisputed lightweight champ Katie Taylor) mention they wish people would stop calling it women's boxing and just called it boxing, period.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the strange tale of "women's boxing" throughout history and the amount of ridiculous challenges placed upon it to this day (to pick a random example out of a hat, women's boxing has two minute rounds rather than three minute rounds for entirely arbitrary unscientific reasons, which directly hurts their entertainment value).
Yeah I think the only competition or sports where I know they make no real difference... is chess. Men and women can play against each other and nothing in the rules change for women either.
Edited by akanesarumara on Jun 12th 2019 at 5:57:19 PM
I know I'm going to regret looking up sexism in the chess scene...
Yep. I regret it.
... The sport where the Queen is much more useful than the king (seriously the king in chess is a sitting duck)... why am I still not surprised ladies in the high echelons of chess players face sexism?
Famous Youtuber Shaun did a video breaking down (and refuting) some common alt-right arguments (in this case, delivered by fascist youtuber Black Pigeon Speaks) regarding why women are inferior to men in chess. It's a solid microcosm crash course on the sexism in chess:
Basically, "waaah women are too emotional to play".
Edited by Gaon on Jun 12th 2019 at 9:07:05 AM
Thank him for bringing up the Polgár girls (yep Judit has two sisters, both also in chess, now I believe all busy helping teach the younger generation of players).
Remember that for a long time, the... either the American or the Japanese national women's soccer team got paid less for a win than the men's team did for a loss. I want to say it was the American team, but I expect that's not an uncommon arrangement.
(Sorry for the unsourced point, but I'm heading to bed and wanted to bring it up before the topic moved on.)
I think they still do, because their win bonus is based on the number of live attendees and broadcast viewers. So even if they win 10 games compared to the guys team winning one, they will get a smaller bonus if each of their games has a twelfth of the audience that the men’s games have.
On sprouts divides, I’ve never understood why sports are divided by gender as opposed to weight class, now sure the higher weight classes would end dominated by men, but the rest of the sport would be more even.
This is especially true for things like golf and chess, I know that e-sports does have women’s only tournaments but that’s specifically about trying to draw women into the sport.
Edited by Silasw on Jun 12th 2019 at 8:43:37 AM
You can argue how much relevance this sort of base biological difference has in any given sport, but it's going to matter in many of them. In some cases you might be able to design systems that allow women to compete directly against men with a handicap of some sort (eg, many golf courses have "ladies' tees" places forward of the "men's tees" to allow for shorter drive distances on the same hole), but in others you may not. In cases where physical differences aren't relevant to the competition (chess, poker, e-sports, etc) then you can just have mixed leagues with no adjustment required.
Kind of an aside, but worth noting: this logic only really applies to sports, where we're worried about fair competition. For other things where physical gender differences come up (like whether or not women should be allowed to be frontline combatants in the military), setting handicaps or adjusting targets doesn't necessarily make sense. If a job requires a certain level of baseline physical performance, then anyone who meets that standard should be allowed to perform that job, regardless of gender. (But it's also important to make sure that the requirements are actually tailored to the job, not set artificially to gatekeep women.)
Even that example undersells the diffrence, In some areas the strongest women don't even break out of the bell curve for men, where as the avrage is within that of the very weakest men
I was flat out told when I started to work out about this stuff, and that I shouldn't even bother trying to hit the same targets as guys do, and just work on my own and like.... Its honestly good advice.
But it does mean that its a good idea to divide up sports if you want to maintain fairness, its bad when you start treating one as more valid then the other though.
Jeffrey Epstein and the Oxymoron of ‘Underage Women’
Jeffrey Epstein is a shitlord and deserves every punishment legally allowed to be brought against him. But let's not pretend that the English language is some razor-precision tool that makes the phrase "underage women" an oxymoron invented for pedophilia apologia. The word "woman" is not, in common usage, strictly used to mean legal adults above the age of 18. The phrase "young woman" is applied to underage teenagers regularly and no one leaps in to interject "she's not a woman until she's 18!". Hell, the phrase "young adult" (as in YA fiction) applies to ages 12 to 18 according to Wikipedia (though our own article says "approximately 14 to 25"), so it's not like "adult" in legal terms is consistent with how people use "adult" in everyday speech.
Maybe using "underage women" instead of "underage girls" is a shitty editorial choice, but the accusation that it's designed to give Epstein a pass rather than just reflective of the nebulous definition of the word "women" seems like a stretch.
At the same time, there is an unquestionable difference in nuance between "underage women" and "girls", which is what the victims are. Yes, phrases like "young woman" are often applied to sixteen-year-olds and so on, but generally in the context of things like parental scoldings or, say, an article in the local paper about winning a science fair or something - that is, instances when the intention is to emphasize the person being described as more mature, more responsible, etc. In the case of describing victims of pedophilia, that's concerning.
In other words, no, it's not explicit apologia. But it's an awkward and unnatural construction, making it a suspect choice of phrasing at best, and one that's very hard to consider an accident. Given the context, it's one that shouldn't be given a pass.
Edited by RedSavant on Jul 11th 2019 at 12:39:57 PM
Yep. It's sadly just not as simple as by weight class. And this is why people get upset when trans women are entered into sports as their mental gender, because as unfortunate as it is AMAB people have a distinct advantage over AFAB people and it's probably not fair for them to share a category. Unfortunate stuff.
Edited by PhiSat on Jul 11th 2019 at 10:42:37 AM
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I meant by "shitty editorial choice". But I very much disagree that it's "awkward and unnatural" or "very hard to consider an accident".
The phrase "young women" is commonly applied to teenagers, and therefore to Epstein's victims. However, "young women" is ambiguous, and the media wants to make it clear that Epstein's victims were not legal adults, so they add "underage" for clarity. But "underage young women" is redundant and awkward, so they drop the less-specific "young" for the more-specific "underage", and you end up with "underage women".
Could you keep going and say "underage women" is contradictory and so should be changed to "underage girls"? Sure. But is failure to do so actual malfeasance, and an attempt to minimize and normalize Epstein's crimes? I wouldn't say so, at least not without other aspects of their reporting pointing to the same conclusion.
Hell, if you wanted to minimize Epstein's crimes, all you'd have to do is stick with "young women" without resolving the ambiguity at all. That would work in Epstein's favor and still be technically accurate.
I’d be curious as to how the same organisations have written about other accusations of child sex-trafficking, do they generally avoid saying girls or is it specific to him?
I suspect that any bias is unconscious, it could come from a desire to keep him appearing proper because he’s rich, it could be a downplaying of the horror so as to make the story safer for audiences, it could be that they don’t like thinking about teenage girls as purely children because they’ve sexualised teenage girls themselves in the past.
Community Showcase More