Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Safer Restrooms and Locker rooms...


... are coed accessible. Properly designed any public multi-person restroom and locker room has latchable doors on the toilets and changing/shower stalls. Making the partitions full length would be a trivial modification. Even men don't like foot tapping under the usual partial partition. Partitioned urinals generally need no doors although a few would be nice for the drop drawers men and women that choose them for urination. All women know that men pee standing up and leering at mens' hip pockets is a generally unsatisfactory experience for all genders. Cutting a door between the men's side and the women's side would provide equal access to the toilets and showers and equalize the lines at intermissions and breaks. The men's side and the women's side would still be different in the vanity area, reflecting the usually different grooming needs, and the usual sloppiness of men whose mothers don't follow them around to clean up. 

In a mixed facility the good guys could at least in theory protect all from the bad guys however they were dressed. In general a bigger group is safer than a smaller one and a predator alarm could be built in on both sides as in slack times sexes would still normally segregate. Ladies rooms are social, mens rooms are not.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Male Dominance and Evolution

beliefnet
Primitive small groups were generally a bit larger than 50 but about 250 seems to be maximum community size.  They generally were egalitarian or matrilineal.  The dominant male seems to be an artifact of larger groups in war prone areas usually religious wars.  

The animal kingdom is a lot more varied than at first studied by male dominant biologists.  It is frequently the alpha female that runs the group while the impressive male is relegated to a protection or territorial role.  Even then the "fighting" is a ritual to practice defense rather than a quest for dominance.  And generally the alpha female decides who mates with whom. E.g.  In a wolf pack in the wild the Alpha female chooses a mate, or in many cases finds a mate and the two are the only breeders in the pack.  When the Alpha female dies the pack disintegrates and all go off to find mates to establish their own packs.  

Unfortunately in the modern world the male dominance model of the major religions is pervasive in the west and schoolyard games through adult gladiator battles are dominance games among males.  Female preference is of little importance.  The dominant male gets the pick of the available females, his choice not hers, and the rest are distributed according to male status.

Female preferences in mates may have had some evolutionary effect early on in human history, and in the cultures that haven't been corrupted by Abrahamic religions, but in general where marriages are arranged women's preferences don't matter. Putz has the cause and effect reversed.  Where awesome fighters are valued it is among men only and the awesome fighters pick the women that appear to be the best brood mares.  Hence the social pressures for the appreciation of airheads with big T & A.  

Monday, May 4, 2015

16 Hours a Day to Support a Family

 Mormon wrote:
It's entirely common for my dad and I to work 12 - 16 hours in a day. ...

We've been awake for days at a time juggling work, family, and other duties. Ever been so sleep-deprived you hallucinated? Been there, done that.

I think people can see how having someone back home helping with the family duties would be quite helpful.

The mother of my children and I both worked 12-16 hours in a day, juggling schedules and sleep to take care of two boys growing up in Manhattan.  Due to rampant sexism in her chosen career field I probably juggled more than she did, properly so, as I was the person of privilege and could get away with leaving a board meeting to attend to an injured child.  (My part was over, but since mom was out of town presenting at a major conference, it wouldn't have mattered.)  True, we paid for high quality help with the children, and frequently argued about who should quit and stay home to save money, but all four of us ended up all right.  I probably took the biggest hit career wise, changing careers a few times to stay with the family, but changing careers was common enough among my MBA peers that it raised no eyebrows.

If it sounds like I don't find the slave you had at home helpful you are right.  Nor do I find working 12-16 hours a day depriving your children of a proper father, who could referee/coach games, teach Sunday school, read stories, and sing along with them in the evenings admirable.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Warped Echoes of Religious Patriarchy

Beliefnet
Apr 22, 2015 -- 3:48AM, Kwinters wrote:
Thanks! I am hoping to do more to highlight the link between the way religious patriarchy demeans women and the warped echoes of it in today's sexist religious institution and the proponents of religion.

I suspect a more productive tack would be to examine the warped echoes of it in the secular culture.

I grew up as a secular feminist male in a Sunday Country Club society.  Everybody went to church but nobody took it very seriously.  At the university few went to church and so few took it seriously that I had to travel to a nearby Jesuit University to find a good religious discussion.

Nevertheless the echoes of male dominance and sexual entitlement were everywhere. Even the women at the university seemed to think that the Mrs. was as important as the BA.  The way to the Mrs. was universally understood as submissiveness in everything from academics to sex. 

There were a few women on campus that would whup yer ass in anything ya tried to compete in including finding them on top in sex. But the word on campus was that they were failures as women destined to a life of loneliness and frustration.  It generally didn't work out that way as there were some men in the academic world that respected that attitude and were looking for a partner rather than a "wife" and lived happily, if not ever after, long enough to propagate their genetic line. As might be expected their kids were awesome.   

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Bonfires (or incindiaries) on Campus

AKA The World is on Fire Lets Piss on the Candle We Can Put Out.

Although I am disappointed that Cal Alpha failed in minor ways to live up to the ideals of the True Gentleman and the fraternity traditions, I am not at all surprised that they and other SAE chapters reflect the privileged male culture in the US that continue to openly assert that women are kitchen slaves at best and the property of men whether they are related to the man at all.  The military, the police, the right wing(?) media, some important churches and many prominent politicians create that culture.  Unfortunately none of the above are likely to appoint a Title IX administrator to clean up their culture.   

Universities and colleges have the same problems but properly take the stance that as community leaders they should deal with them.  My concern is that draconian sanctions for minor offenses sends the wrong message about free association and free speech to the Stanford Community.  To wit: Fraternities are the only fall guys we have that we can pick on so they have to go.  See Etchemendy's one strike and you are out pronouncement.  

I am not concerned with bailing out Cal Alpha or SAE, appropriate responses by Stanford and National have been taken and are in place.  But they cannot have any effect on the house if the house does not exist even for an academic year.  Stanford should be a leader in creating a responsible social environment on campus and the fraternities and sororities should be the safe houses and leaders rather than the fall guys for failures all over the campus.

Other comments roughly reverse time sequence.

If you are going to throw guilt by association in the pot the administrator came from Ohio, politically and socially one of the most sexist and violent states outside of the deep south and Wisconsin.  Boehner is their US Representative. 

Lets not throw the house under the bus just yet.  Minor lapses in judgement, I wouldn't call it hazing in any sense of the word.  We had brothers hurt being tossed in the fountain for lesser crimes.  Underage drinking? I remember a punch called the Red Death that more than a few underage people had trouble with.  We had to be a bit more circumspect in the house, but times have changed. 

From my conversation with Laird it seemed like the house handled everything well, and the University had to do something, anything, to make a Title IX statement.  Lets see what he has to say.

Yawn. Sexual Assault Exaggerations are news.  Where is the most likely place to be sexual assaulted today? At the festivities around professional sports events.  Why isn't that news? D'oh.  Where is another likely place to be sexually assaulted, a church social.  Why isn't that news? D'oh. Lets look at the Military.  Why isn't that news? D'oh. What's left? Colleges.  When are you most likely to be sexually asaulted on campus? Game Day! Why isn't that news? D'oh.

Hey, college fraternities throw parties that women attend.  Everybody hates fraternities because they weren't tapped.  Now we got news.

True Gentlemen,

I am not threatening anytthing at this point.  Just trying to get a reasonable conversation going with the appropriate people at Stanford.  I think the appropriate people will begin with President Hennessy as the issue is not the dehousing of SAE but an assault on free speech, free association, and traditional Stanford social life, the last having no legal standing but is why legal issues will be the primary assault weapons. 

The damage to a pledge's name, to the fraternity's continued existence on campus, and indeed the existence of fraternities on campus has already been established with the announcement of the dehousing as a fait accompli based in part on the remarks of a pledge.  All of that makes makes Corry a huge reason why Stanford and at least the Old Lions should sit down and talk about undoing the damage.  I am not a wealthy person and $1000 is not something I can easily afford to invest in protectiing all that is important to me about my Stanford experience but I have spent more than that for a SAE reunion party. 

I would much prefer to speak softly, but I need a big stick to deal with the Provost's threat to basic freedoms at Stanford.  It doesn't even have to be a real big stick at this point but it needs to be really big. 

Phi Alpha,  needed more than ever at this point.  Stretch your memories it is relevant.

A bit of background: I was a legacy ΣAE and grew up singing ΣAE songs in the car led by Charlie Black, Kansas Alpha '23, on our many long road trips including a respectful love song to the Sweetheart of ΣAE which was a serenade song from the 20's.  I rushed ΣAE only as a courtesy to dad as my older sisters had convinced me that fraternities were sexist hellholes that I should avoid at all costs.  They were wrong about Cal Alpha.

I attended  ΣAE Leadership School in Evanston and was impressed with the national values of respect in the fraternity not only for brothers but for all people, particularly including women.  The True Gentleman credo was evident in all we did at Leadership School.  It was at Leadership School I found out about the Little Sisters of Minerva for houses to demonstrate their respect and concern for campus women.

I was instrumental in the founding of the Little Sisters of Minerva at Cal Alpha when there were few women and no sororities at Stanford. The Saturday dances on the huge porch facing what is now White Plaza led by Little Sisters who invited friends to the party were a fixture of Fraternity Row.  Hat tip to The Lancers, the house band, for the music.

I was social chairman two years, and threw many parties some of questionable taste (including an annual Toga Party) but part of my job was to insure that the True Gentleman values of the house and ΣAE were maintained.  By and large they were. 

It is no accident that many of the cc’s here are from the early 60’s.  As I remember the class of ’61 threw a 25th reunion party including neighboring classes and the Little Sisters, a tradition that has been maintained since with the 5X reunion class hosting the others.  The reunions are always well attended including Little Sisters some of whom married brothers and are still happily married after all these years.  These reunions are a testimony of the strong bonds built in living, socializing, playing, and working together in a tight social environment including the Little Sisters of Minerva. 

In my visits to the ΣAE House, both before and after I moved near campus I have made it a point to notice how the women visitors were treated and it seemed to me that the Little Sister tradition of respect and concern has been maintained, including the 2013 pregame party invite for Alums.
 
My initial reaction to the SD article was that even the social suspension was a political overreaction by Stanford to real abuses on other campuses and nothing I have seen or heard since changes that opinion at all.  No one was physically hurt, bad taste including sexist atrocities passes for entertainment on Fox News, and a private, by invitation party implies an acceptance of the invitation.  Telling tales out of Vegas is rude in any society, and overreacting to tales told out of Vegas is just wrong.
 
From the information provided it appears that the house measures taken in response to the suspension are more than adequate to address the nonissue that caused it.  

Correspondence 

Dear Vice Provost:

I understand that Stanford is under considerable pressure due to Title IX, current events, and campus protests to do something – anything – to show that the University cares about women’s rights.  But a death penalty for one of the few vibrant, women friendly, social organizations in the Stanford social desert sends the wrong message, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time. 
The wrong message:   Any voluntary gathering of men and women will be subject to “special scrutiny” under Title IX.  Have a mixed social gathering only at risk to the existence of your organization.  Essentially you are saying that social gender segregation is the policy of Stanford. 
The wrong reason: A hostile environment refers to an environment like a workplace or classroom where people are not able to avoid the offending material without severe consequences.  Being pelted with grapes for walking out is not a severe consequence in the case of the annual Roman Bath party apparently eagerly anticipated by both the men of SAE and the women of Pi Phi who knew that improv. stand-up, dark humor was going to be a feature of the party.
The wrong time:  Announcing a death penalty for a popular organization after most students have left campus to celebrate a busy, merry holiday with friends and family hoping that nobody would notice sends the message to the media, the student body, and the parties involved that the only reason for the death penalty was to have something to show Title IX snoops if they showed up at Stanford.  The burning match appeal the first week of classes is further evidence that Stanford is making a political statement, not a transparent, reasoned action for the benefit of the University community. 
As a 52 year alum who greatly benefited from my time in the SAE House on Lasuen Row and have viewed my SAE Reunions with my brothers and “Little Sisters of Minerva” as one of the main reasons to attend Stanford Class Reunions.  I strongly protest this unnecessary and disgraceful action.
Please note that the above is a personal opinion of a Stanford Alum, not associated in any way with the current Cal Alpha SAE Chapter.  It was, however, stimulated by the request for support in their appeal of the dehousing action taken by the University.  

Sincerely,

 
Vice Provost;

You should be aware that the announcement by the Title IX administrator in re. SAE and related announcements by Provost Etchemendy have effects far beyond the fate of the current house and will have major ramifications as to free speech on campus and indeed traditional social life at Stanford. 

A group of Cal Alpha alums as well as other interested parties have taken interest in some legal issues in the matter some of which might be germane to your decision.

At the very least the following case should be relevant.
 
Full text of opinion in Corry et al. v. Leland Stanford Junior University et al.  

Pertinent excerpt from Calif. Education Code sec. 94367
              "No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or . . . the California Constitution."

Speech by President Gerhard Casper on Corry decision:

There also appear to be Title IX issues with applying group sanctions for behavior of individuals that may be relevant to this type of case. 

I am not an attorney so cannot comment on any of the above but I think you should be aware of our discussions.  


I am not representing anyone but myself as a Stanford Alum please pass the buck to President Hennessy.  It belongs on his desk.  

Sincerely,


Comments:

This is an open thread.  Anyone may comment anonymously or blog ID.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Men and Women are Different

beliefnet
Feb 2, 2015 -- 11:28PM, A Creationist wrote:
Your male-nurse-counterpart, would recognize some other differences, though.  [Women] have body parts which complement [which have different functions from him,] and [women] were designed for reproducing offspring. [Along with most other human activities.] Your body produces eggs, monthly, and you menstruate, monthly, and his produces sperm, continually.  Your breasts were designed to suckle a baby [and women have] in a womb which he doesn't have.

The two brains differ; the types of thought processes differ; the body structures differ; the emotional reactions differ; the topics of conversation differ....

If the designs differ, why fight the roles and functions, associated with them?

[Minor edits in red].

In the ERSSG with which I identify women are generally smarter and more competent at anything they choose to do than the men.  The men are smart and competent as well, the SSG selects for intelligence and competence, but the women seem to be slightly higher on both curves than the men.   Evolution selects for smart, competent women because smart, competent women produce smart, competent children of both genders which are valuable assets in the reproduction of the species. 

It is true that the women gestate the children.  It doesn't seem to slow them down much, as their men pick up the slack.  One scientist I knew was in the lab at 10am went to a scheduled medically indicated induction for her second child at 2, and was back in the lab the next day. Something about a grant application that was inconveniently due about the due date of the child.  Dad picked up the slack at home with the first child, he took a week vacation (before paternity leaves) in anticipation of extra work at home due to the grant and anticipated birth.  He also handled the middle of the night feeding: get up when the baby cried, hang the baby on the teat of the sleeping mom, change the diaper when indicated, and tuck the baby in the crib.

Home chores are usually more equally divided with men taking the more equal half.  The men take the more equal hit on accommodating their careers to the needs of the women as well.  Only proper as they are the privileged ones.  A white male MBA changes jobs and careers like underwear anyway, doing so to stay near the woman's workplace is no problem.  The only racism in that statement is in the larger society, the non-white males have more difficulty changing jobs and careers for any reason.  

Monday, February 2, 2015

Congregational Patriarchy and Inequality

beliefnet
It simply isn't accurate to say that patriarchy and inequality are intrinsic to the Abrahamic faiths.       Theist
 Questions:  Percentages please, estimates OK, choose a congregation you attend regularly.  Or have a friend answer who attends regularly. 

How many couples have pre-marital meetings with clergy?

How many couples have traditional wedding services?

How many men are preparing and serving at Coffee Hour?

How many men are teaching Sunday School?

How many men are teaching Sex Ed?

Do you even have Sex Ed?

What age does Sex Ed start?

Are Sex Ed classes mixed?

Are Sex Ed classes parent discretion?

What percentage of the clergy are women?

Please note these questions are concerned with 21st century practices not bronze age stories. 

Monday, January 19, 2015

The Ryley Rule.

beliefnet
His kitchen looks clean.   christine3
I hope you have not inadvertently revealed a sexist bias in the society: That a man in a clean kitchen either doesn't cook or has someone clean up after him when he does. 

Be it known to all people: He (gender intentional) who cooks cleans up to Mrs. Ryley's standards. 

This is affectionately known as the Ryley rule by the men in my family most of who do much of the cooking for the family.  Mrs. Ryley was a fastidious housekeeper.  Her traditional husband quickly gave up his aspirations to be a gourmet chef when faced with this rule, but her sons did their share of the cooking under it.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Is is sex or sexism that sells?


“Everyone says sex sells, but actually sexism sells. There’s a difference.” -@femfreq (via @mmjordahl)
Not so. If the attractive and provocative model pitching the oversize SUV convinces the buyer of either gender that the SUV will compensate for lack of the necessaries for attractiveness where is the sexism. Pure sex sell. Also, is Yuja Wang being sexist by selling her music by dressing appropriately for a star of her age? It sure makes the reviewers drool all over their copy, who is sexist here?
Jonathan Korman  The process is sexist. It doesn't need to be located in any individual.
A process cannot be sexist. It is the individual reaction only. Dressing appropriately for the job is not sexist. Consider a CEO in a power tie or scarf and shoulder pads, at the head of the table. Is hesh being sexist? Using sex to sell, or what?

This is the same argument that a runner in a sports bra/top and tight shorts is asking to be raped. It doesn't fly.

More later... 11/?