Feminism?

[Danoff]

Is that what you think my take-home conclusion would be?

I don't know what your take-home conclusion would be. That's why I phrased it as a question... which you didn't answer.

Why not? I would think it would be very reasonable to think one could separate a prior life experience from a current one in a professional manner. If a female and male worker came to you both asking for a raise and both had identical reasons and pitches, why would you need to profile them?

It's not a question of "need". We communicate ideas through language, but no two people do so identically. Both sides work hard to try to achieve effective communication. One side uses phrases that they think accurately convey the meaning and context they want to convey, the other side interprets those phrases based on what they know about the person communicating, the language being used, the inflections, the facial expressions, the body positioning... this is the nature of human communication.

Why would prior experiences with either sex matter? They would either deserve the raise on merit or not, do you agree?

Yeeeesss.... but not exactly the way you put it (see, I'm doing it right now, reading between the lines). Usually whether or not someone deserves a raise has less to do with how hard or efficiently they're working but rather the availability of others to do the same for less or equal pay. Further, good managers are proactive about raises - because some people will never express the slightest dissatisfaction before submitting their resignation. Meaning a good manager probably has to refuse almost every request for a raise they get - because they're proactive about it instead of responsive. But... all that taken into account, you can still work your way back around to deserving it on merit or not... so... a qualified "yes" to your question. Not sure what it has to do with the study though, so it didn't sound like "qualifications on the merit" were what people were asked to base anything on.

In the case of the study, if you believe prior experiences plays into why there is a difference, if you eliminate all "ism's" what do you think the "experiences" are that make someone favor one sex more than another?

I'm unaware of one sex being "favored" in the study. I didn't read the study, but from what I understand the women were interpreted as more "demanding" when using the same language? That's not favoring one sex over the other. If the women were perceived more negatively than the men with the same script (not sure that's the case), I'd hazard a guess that the script was not written well for women.

Sure we could but, what should a woman say or do differently than a man to get a positive response? I'm not asked to do anything differently than my male coworker while working, why should I have to change tack when asking for a raise?

What do you mean "change tack"? Just be yourself and you'd likely be better received than if you were to read a script pre-prepared for you. How is that news to anyone?

 

[Ian_83]

I've only just seen this thread and don't have time to read it today, but I'm quite interested in this topic.

Feminism (in my opinion) has been evolving recently and there are very different types of feminists out there too.

I've been listening more to the MGTOW and MRA's and some of their arguments are very valid.

At the end of the day, both men and women need to respect each other more.

 

[WhoosierGirl]

I don't know what your take-home conclusion would be. That's why I phrased it as a question... which you didn't answer.

...with the obvious take-home conclusion being what... that everyone is sexist?

That seemed like an assumption of what you believe I would think. To answer, I don't think the men who did the study are sexist and I'm going to guess that if/when told the results they where probably surprised. I would love to know why they thought the same words were "too demanding" coming from females.

Yeeeesss.... but not exactly the way you put it (see, I'm doing it right now, reading between the lines). Usually whether or not someone deserves a raise has less to do with how hard or efficiently they're working but rather the availability of others to do the same for less or equal pay. Further, good managers are proactive about raises - because some people will never express the slightest dissatisfaction before submitting their resignation. Meaning a good manager probably has to refuse almost every request for a raise they get - because they're proactive about it instead of responsive. But... all that taken into account, you can still work your way back around to deserving it on merit or not... so... a qualified "yes" to your question. Not sure what it has to do with the study though, so it didn't sound like "qualifications on the merit" were what people were asked to base anything on.

I was just trying to convey that presented with two employees of opposite sex asking for a raise using the same words to do so, a raise should be given on merit of that employee not of prior experiences with others like that employee.

I'm unaware of one sex being "favored" in the study. I didn't read the study, but from what I understand the women were interpreted as more "demanding" when using the same language? That's not favoring one sex over the other. If the women were perceived more negatively than the men with the same script (not sure that's the case), I'd hazard a guess that the script was not written well for women.

You don't see "won approval" as more favorable than "too aggressive"?, I do. What in your opinion would a well written script for a woman be? How should a woman ask for a raise?

What do you mean "change tack"? Just be yourself and you'd likely be better received than if you were to read a script pre-prepared for you. How is that news to anyone?

I was responding to your comment below, and possible misunderstanding what your trying to say. Again why should a woman use different words to say the same thing? And if you think we should, what do you think we should say?

"There is nothing those women could have said to receive approval of their negotiating style".

True?

I answered:

WhoosierGirl
Sure we could but, what should a woman say or do differently than a man to get a positive response? I'm not asked to do anything differently than my male coworker while working, why should I have to change tack when asking for a raise?

 

[Danoff]

...with the obvious take-home conclusion being what... that everyone is sexist?

That seemed like an assumption of what you believe I would think. To answer, I don't think the men who did the study are sexist and I'm going to guess that if/when told the results they where probably surprised. I would love to know why they thought the same words were "too demanding" coming from females.

What about the women? They felt the same way.

I was just trying to convey that presented with two employees of opposite sex asking for a raise using the same words to do so, a raise should be given on merit of that employee not of prior experiences with others like that employee.

I'm still having trouble with the way you're saying this, but I think we agree.

You don't see "won approval" as more favorable than "too aggressive"?, I do.

Here's someone's poor synopsis of the experiment:

[Carnegie Mellon Professor Linda] Babcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, "Yes, pay him more." But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
To be clear, both men and women thought this way.

So it appears that it was negative, that people did not like the woman.

What in your opinion would a well written script for a woman be? How should a woman ask for a raise?

I have no idea. I'm not a woman and I'm not a very good writer. I do know, from personal experience, that women and men communicate differently using different words (usually), and that those words carry a slightly different context. Really, women probably know best how to accurately convey tone and meaning from a context of having been spoken by a woman.

Why are you asking this question? Were you expecting me to give you some sort of sexist script? Is it so difficult to believe that men and women choose their words a little differently, and so are perceived differently when given the same words to speak?

I was responding to your comment below, and possible misunderstanding what your trying to say. Again why should a woman use different words to say the same thing? And if you think we should, what do you think we should say?

I have no idea why women tend to choose different words to say the same thing. But they do, and that means that they get interpreted differently when saying the same words. I don't have a particular preference in what women should" or "should not" say.

This isn't specific to genders. Every single person has their own way of speaking, and so every single person gets interpreted differently when saying the same words by people who know them. I don't know why they choose the words they choose, and I don't particularly care. But I calibrate my interpretations based on the person because I'm hard-wired (like all humans) to try to effectively communicate.

My mother in-law has a very strange way of choosing her words, for example. It's unlike anyone else I know, and I've had lengthy discussions about why her communication style renders her almost unable to express certain sentiments. Regardless, if she started one-day speaking like I do, choosing exactly the same words I do, I would interpret them much differently than if they had come from me... because I know her.

Human beings pull together all contextual clues that can get for every single interaction they have, automatically.

 

[Com Fox]

I don't see a study in that article, or linked from it - I don't see anything that all that attempts to fully account for the gap (which is what I asked for). The most it does is the author gives two arguments (without backing them up with evidence) for why they think discrimination isn't a factor:

1) If discrimination was a factor, it would be obvious - it isn't obvious, therefore it isn't a factor (what?)
2) No one has proved discrimination is definitely a factor - therefore it definitely isn't (the same fallacy Johnnypenso was probably getting at above).

There are several links in the article I reccomend looking into which back up some if his statements if you haven't read them.

 

[LeMansAid]

...with the obvious take-home conclusion being what... that everyone is sexist?

Maybe that we're still way too pulled toward sexism.

I won't walk up to a couple with a 4 year old girl and say "you have a beautiful daughter"... because they'd think I'm a pedophile. My wife could do that and they'd love it. It's not because they hate men, and it's not because I'm incapable of expressing that sentiment. It's because men don't generally express things using the exact same words as women, and when you try, it isn't received the same because the sexes are not identical.

That's sexism. It's not received the same because of sexism. Had you factored in other variables I'd have maybe held off being absolute, but you described it as purely a male/female differential.

Some more "way too pulled toward".....

Do you walk into your bosses office and ask him if you can look at payroll?

Boss = man? Subconscious, yes, but it's telling that someone with a vested and piqued interest in equality, contributing to a thread entitled Feminism (with a question mark for some reason), would still seemingly automatically affix a male to that position of power.

Still, sexism in a job environment is far from the be all and end all of prejudice. There very well could be some poor extremely smart guy, otherwise hit by a brutal gene lottery outcome, reading through this thread thinking "If only. If only I had to merely contend with being female".

 

[WhoosierGirl]

So it appears that it was negative, that people did not like the woman.

I was looking around and have found her experiment spun a few different ways now, I'm going to try to find a copy of her book to read it as she wrote it. I am really curious to read the script and the opinions of both the men and women.

Why are you asking this question? Were you expecting me to give you some sort of sexist script?

Not at all, and I'm not trying to bait you into saying anything sexist, and I don't believe you to be sexist. That's not where I was going at all, I was just looking for what you believe as a male a female friendly script might read like.

 

[Danoff]

That's sexism. It's not received the same because of sexism. Had you factored in other variables I'd have maybe held off being absolute, but you described it as purely a male/female differential.

To understand whether that's sexism we'd have to get pretty far into the definition of sexism and I'm really not sure this thread would be better off for it (but if you want to, I'm game). The point was that gender creates a context for words, and that point was made vividly with that example.

Boss = man? Subconscious, yes, but it's telling that someone with a vested and piqued interest in equality, contributing to a thread entitled Feminism (with a question mark for some reason), would still seemingly automatically affix a male to that position of power.

Gotta pick one, there is no gender-neutral pronoun.

Not at all, and I'm not trying to bait you into saying anything sexist, and I don't believe you to be sexist. That's not where I was going at all, I was just looking for what you believe as a male a female friendly script might read like.

Women tend to be (not always) less blunt in terminology and phrasing than men.

 

[LeMansAid]

The point was that gender creates a context for words, and that point was made vividly with that example.

Only if there's an already created context for gender perceptions.

To understand whether that's sexism we'd have to get pretty far into the definition of sexism

Man says it, is thought to be a paedophile. Woman says it, and "they'd love it". I'll be impressed if you can convince me that that's not having prejudged genders.

Women tend to be (not always) less blunt in terminology and phrasing than men.

Which one of those more aligns with "too demanding" in your opinion?

 

[Danoff]

Only if there's an already created context for gender perceptions.

There is... and not necessarily because of sexism.

Man says it, is thought to be a paedophile. Woman says it, and "they'd love it". I'll be impressed if you can convince me that that's not having prejudged genders.

Sigh... ok what's wrong with being a pedophile?

Which one of those more aligns with "too demanding" in your opinion?

More emphasis is placed on the same demand.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Union workers only make up 11% of the workforce in the United States.

All I can say is more fool them.

 

[LeMansAid]

Sigh... ok what's wrong with being a pedophile?

Did I state that there was something wrong with being a paedophile? That's neither here nor there though, anyway. It's the judgements based on gender (to be clear - without factoring personal experience) that are the issue.

There is... and not necessarily because of sexism.

I don't know if it's a really long answer that you're loathe to have to assemble, or if you're just building expectations.

More emphasis is placed on the same demand.

I don't understand how this answers the question.

 

[Danoff]

Did I state that there was something wrong with being a paedophile? That's neither here nor there though, anyway. It's the judgements based on gender (to be clear - without factoring personal experience) that are the issue.

Ok, well if there's nothing wrong with it, we're arriving at the definition of sexism that I mentioned earlier. Taking a statement in a particular context based on the gender saying it is not inherently sexism.

I don't know if it's a really long answer that you're loathe to have to assemble, or if you're just building expectations.

It's that I've already supplied the remainder of the answer. People within a group can create their own context by making choices. If many women choose a particular inflection, a particular phrase, a particular mode of expression, or any other of a vast variety of personal choices that might be prevalent within the group, it is not sexist to notice that trend. In fact, it can be impossible not to.

I don't understand how this answers the question.

If women are less blunt in their phrasing, it means that more emphasis is placed on the same words for those women than for the corresponding men. Subtlety and tact heighten the meanings of particular phrases... placing more emphasis on the same phrasing.

 

[LeMansAid]

If many women choose a particular inflection, a particular phrase, a particular mode of expression, or any other of a vast variety of personal choices that might be prevalent within the group, it is not exist to notice that trend. In fact, it can be impossible not to.

That's experience-based. Doesn't count.

The parent of the child may have had an abusive paedophile mother for all we know. If so, your wife could well have just become a whole lot more sinister in that parent's eyes. Experience is a fickle thing, and not presumable. You talked about what would happen. Not what would likely or possibly happen. That is a very crucial distinction here.

I won't walk up to a couple with a 4 year old girl and say "you have a beautiful daughter"... because they'd think I'm a pedophile. My wife could do that and they'd love it. It's not because they hate men, and it's not because I'm incapable of expressing that sentiment. It's because men don't generally express things using the exact same words as women, and when you try, it isn't received the same because the sexes are not identical.

I have no idea why you think that you can mix absolutes and generalities as you've done and still believe that you're making a coherent point.

 

[Danoff]

That's experience-based. Doesn't count.

The parent of the child may have had an abusive paedophile mother for all we know. If so, your wife could well have just become a whole lot more sinister in that parent's eyes. Experience is a fickle thing, and not presumable. You talked about what would happen. Not what would likely or possibly happen. That is a very crucial distinction here.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that you thought I was clairvoyant or telepathic. I should have explained that upfront. I cannot see the future or read people's minds.

I have no idea why you think that you can mix absolutes and generalities as you've done and still believe that you're making a coherent point.

...because it's totally reasonable to assume that my audience knows that I can't possibly know with absolute certainty how someone will react in any situation due to anything I say ever. Case in point, I had no idea anyone on this site would call me out for failing to explain that I'm not omniscient.

Are you just looking for reasons to argue? Because if so, I'm not interested in this one. I assure you we can find real things to argue about. Did you have an actual point?

 

[LeMansAid]

Ok @Danoff, so you wrote it incorrectly, and now we're at....

 

[Danoff]

Ok @Danoff, so you wrote it incorrectly, and now we're at....

No, I didn't write anything incorrectly. You seem to have missed some of the thick sarcasm in my post. Your interpretation of what I wrote is beyond unreasonable.

Feel free to apologize for wasting my time.

 

[LeMansAid]

Your interpretation of what I wrote is beyond unreasonable.

Yes, it seemed unreasonable, but I didn't pick it as sarcasm. It might have been cleared up earlier if you hadn't been preoccupied with logic bombing about paedophiles, shoehorning in a completely off topic lesson for your "lessers".

Also, considering your "Men and women are different. Get over it." statement that endorsed the blanket different treatment of people in rape cases, based on gender, I'm not entirely surprised that I didn't catch the supposed "thick sarcasm".

 

[Danoff]

Yes, it seemed unreasonable, but I didn't pick it as sarcasm.

Really? You thought I was actually apologizing honestly for failing to explain that I'm not telepathic or clairvoyant?

No, I didn't write anything incorrectly. You seem to have missed some of the thick sarcasm in my post regarding your interpretation. In order to clear that up, allow me to remove all sarcasm and rephrase: Your interpretation of what I wrote is beyond unreasonable.

Feel free to apologize for wasting my time.

There, I've added, in bold, additional clarification that should (fingers crossed here) help clear this up.

It might have been cleared up earlier if you hadn't been preoccupied with logic bombing about paedophiles, shoehorning in a completely off topic lesson for your "lessers".

When you put a quote around a word like "lessers" it makes it seem like I somehow used that term. And I'm not sure you know what "logic bombing" is (even though for all I know, you made it up). You seem to be dragging statements that I've made about different topics into this thread. I said from the outset that this conversation was unlikely to benefit this thread, and it certainly hasn't. I tried to get you back onto your point... not sure what it is still... and I'll try again. Do you have a point? If so, what is it?

 

[LeMansAid]

@Danoff

The crux of it is - you want a job, a raise, something else? Advertise yourself as best you can. That might mean deliberately using/not using "man words" or "woman words". I'm naturally a pompous arse (big surprise), but sometimes have to be a bit more course in the way I speak and act, to facilitate a rapport. It's prejudice that creates the need for that betraying of myself, just as it's prejudice that creates the need for someone of either gender to have to adjust their words based purely on gender. If it's "I would like to use the language I would normally use, and the language that the men used, but that will be seen as 'too demanding' because I'm a woman", it's sexism at the heart of it. It might be subconscious, it might be a learned and understandably present response, but it's still sexism.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff

The crux of it is - you want a job, a raise, something else? Advertise yourself as best you can. That might mean deliberately using/not using "man words" or "woman words". I'm naturally a pompous arse (big surprise), but sometimes have to be a bit more course in the way I speak and act, to facilitate a rapport. It's prejudice that creates the need for that betraying of myself, just as it's prejudice that creates the need for someone of either gender to have to adjust their words based purely on gender. If it's "I would like to use the language I would normally use, and the language that the men used, but that will be seen as 'too demanding' because I'm a woman", it's sexism at the heart of it. It might be subconscious, it might be a learned and understandably present response, but it's still sexism.

I'm not suggesting that anyone change their words. To be honest, all of this goes out the window the moment someone has spent time with you - they begin to develop a calibration for how you communicate the moment you start communicating. If you adjust the way you're speaking, they know that. "LeMansAid doesn't usually speak this sternly... he must be really worked up about this specific issue, I should give it more attention". If you walk into your Boss's office and start talking about increased pay using an unusual tone, your Boss will notice that it is unusual and will respond accordingly, and that may be exactly what you want.

All I'm saying is that if Danoff wrote a script for asking for increased pay and handed it to a woman to read to people who had no idea who she was, it might not be as well received as if I handed it to a man to read to people who had no idea who he was. Likewise, if my wife wrote a script asking for increased pay, it might not be as well received if she handed it to a man to read as if she handed it to a woman to read. In either case, I'd expect her script would be better received than mine though, because she's really good with that sort of thing (being an attorney).

That kind of effect may have created some of the bias in the outcome of the study. It's a hypothesis anyway. I have no proof of this whatsoever, just intuition.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/us/good-samaritan-mistaken-for-kidnapper-trnd/index.html

This ^, on the other hand, is just outright sexism. It's not being called that, it's being called a mistake. Guy tries to help a toddler find her parents, guy gets beaten, smeared on social media, receives threats against him, and has to pick up his family (he has 2 daughters) and leave town to avoid being attacked.

He says he'd do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do. But this, and versions of this, go through men's heads all the time. I wouldn't allow myself to be in my own house while my wife was away if our 16 year old babysitter was also in the house because I did not want to put myself in a position where I could be falsely accused. I was at the neighborhood playground with a little girl who fell and hurt her ankle. Her parents live within eyeshot of the playground but were inside their house. I walked her home, but I was careful to make sure my daughter was with us and I'm not sure exactly what I'd have done if my daughter wasn't there.

We don't like to talk about sexism against men, but assuming that someone is a kidnapper, beating them, smearing them, and running them out of town all because they have boy parts is definitely sexism, and it's a version of sexism that's almost socially accepted. Even the man who was beaten says he understands the concern since he has kids of his own. What he understands is that he himself is also sexist in this regard.

To dive into this just a bit, if I saw a strange man walking at the playground carrying my daughter's hand, and someone told me they thought that she might be trying to be kidnapped, I would almost certainly be concerned that that was exactly what was happening. I wouldn't be nearly so concerned if it was a woman, that's not sexism, that's profiling. Upon catching up with my child and the man, my first order of business would be to get my child back and assess whether that was what was happening, the "assessment" probably wouldn't be identical to if it was a woman - that's not sexism, that's profiling. What I would NOT do, is assume that the man was trying to kidnap and attack him, that's sexism. I would not smear him on social media based on that assumption, that's sexism.

Being careful around a pitbull is profiling. Shooting a pitbull on sight is prejudice.

 

[Carbonox]

Love the kid's dad's reaction.

"According to Gross, the father of the little girl hasn't expressed any remorse for attacking the good Samaritan. "They still think their daughter was trying to be kidnapped," he said. "They're just not listening."" I guess when the truth hits hard in the form of backlash, the best strategy is to curl up in a ball and continue insisting to himself that he was in the right.

 

[UKMikey]

I wonder whether Mr Patel's ethnicity also played a part in the Strickland family's unfounded suspicion and subsequent persecution of him?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...falsely-dubbed-child-predator-flees-town.html

 

[Carbonox]

I wonder whether Mr Patel's ethnicity also played a part in the Strickland family's unfounded suspicion and subsequent persecution of him?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...falsely-dubbed-child-predator-flees-town.html

And you arrived at that conclusion how? The entire article didn't allude to it in the slightest.

 

[UKMikey]

And you arrived at that conclusion how? The entire article didn't allude to it in the slightest.

I haven't arrived at any conclusion. Just wondered whether it was a factor when reading the second article which identified the parties involved. I guess Strickland was stupid enough without there being any prejudicial motives involved.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wonder whether Mr Patel's ethnicity also played a part in the Strickland family's unfounded suspicion and subsequent persecution of him?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...falsely-dubbed-child-predator-flees-town.html

I see no evidence of that but if I was Mr. Patel, and didn't get a huge apology and a thank you from the father, and a huge retraction on all social media, I'd be suing his ass off.

 

[lancia delta hf]

I see no evidence of that but if I was Mr. Patel, and didn't get a huge apology and a thank you from the father, and a huge retraction on all social media, I'd be suing his ass off.

Falsely Labelling someone a pedo is not only disgusting but can lead to suicide too. I'm trying to put myself in the fathers shoes, but I can't imagine just punching someone without speaking a word. Especially when I know I've been a dimwit and not kept an eye on my kid.

 

[UKMikey]

I see no evidence of that but if I was Mr. Patel, and didn't get a huge apology and a thank you from the father, and a huge retraction on all social media, I'd be suing his ass off.

It sounds like the assailant is going to get away with it simply because Patel is too decent to pursue him in the courts. Strickland's not even sorry and is basically straight up calling this man a liar.

 

[ryzno]

I would have called the police and waited for them to deal with the kid.
No good deed goes unpunished.