A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Feminism

Next 20 Messages

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 11th 8:00 AM
On Jeff's request...

Emily;

I'm ashamed to say that I know almost nothing at all about the discrimination program Gro Harlem Brundtland started. The topic seems extraordinarily incontroversial here in Norway - I cannot recall one single event where it has been reared up as a problem.

In startling contrast with the fracas emerging related to a similar (but with far lesser clout than the other discrimination program) proposal made to favor immigrants and refugees settled in Norway.

My personal feelings on the matter is a bit mixed.
I see the good intentions behind such programs, but the road to hell is paved with such good intentions.
I think women in general might perhaps be harmed equally as much as they will be helped by such programs - it surrenders to a notion that women in general can't compete equally with men, and has to get advantages in order to make it in the work pool. I think the way to go would be to change people's attitudes, rather than to discriminate.

OTOH, considering the lack of controversy around this matter, I suppose that everything goes well?

*shrugs* Maybe I'm just watching the wrong medias. :o)

Emily
User ID: 3688974 Jul 15th 11:46 AM
I disagree that positive discrimination is admitting that women can't compete equally with men. It is merely acknowledging that they've been discriminated against for the last few thousand years, and are being discriminated against now, despite laws to the contrary. If the programme kept going for 30 years with no sign of success (just like that disgusting anti-Chinese discrimination in Malaysia) then I'd agree with you. But there's nothing wrong with a 5 or 10 year programme to bulldoze through the conscious and subconscious prejudices against women. The laws could then be rescinded, and if women can't maintain equality after that, then tough luck.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Jul 15th 11:59 AM
I've just got to jump in on this.

Emily, I won't deny that women have been discriminated against for thousands of years, though I will point out that history hasn't been a cakewalk for the vast majority of men either.

But women now have much less cause to complain. Your statisitics about women being underpaid are usually the result of poor statistical analysis that fails to account for variables. I defend against those types of lawsuits routinely and its very rare that a women can show that she was paid less than a man doing the same work. If she can, she usually wins.

I can tell you this -- when I get a call from a client who want to fire an employee, The first thing I ask is whether the employee is female, over forty, or the member of a minority group. If they're not, fire away!.

And I agree with Kay-Arne concerning so-called affirmative action. It breeds resentment and suspicion of any woman or minority who succeeds because one alsways wonder whether the success is due to merit or preference.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 15th 12:44 PM
I can buy into one form of discrimination without hesitation - the moderate type.

I.e. - if two people of different sex apply for a job, and has exactly the same relevant qualifications, the job should go to the person of the underrepresented sex. (note; this would - in some branches - favor the male)

It was this form of discrimination that
was proposed for the immigrants and refugees in Norway, and was of course immediately screwed by cynical politicians and idiot media people.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Jul 15th 4:57 PM
I suppose I don't have a quarrel with your endorsement of "moderate" discrimination except that "exactly equal" almost never exists. Even if such a pair do exist, I can't see why one sex should be preferred over the other even if there is underrepresentation. Its discrimination that's bad -- not a mathematical inequality that might have nothing to do with discrimination.

The only type of discrimination I endorse is recruiting. That's how the military handles it here. there is no affirmative action once you're in, but the services make a major effort to recruit minority officers. They must still meet the same standards and are judge equally.

Mike H.
User ID: 8290473 Jul 19th 9:37 AM
If there are two "exactly equal" potential employees, and one is given the position over the other simply due to race or gender, how do you think that is going to make the person who didn't get the job feel? I just can't see the point in trying to "right past wrongs" with tactics that have negative consequences. What you are going to wind up with is two groups of people who feel slighted by the system. Let's be realistic here - are the so-called minority groups ever going to reach the point where they declare that eqaulity has been reached? I seriously doubt it. We have to give the employer some leeway in making business decisions that they feel will have a more positive impact on their company.

Of course, if discrimination can definitely be proved - one where a more qualified minority applicant is denied an opportunity soley based on that fact, then appropriate action needs to take place.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 19th 11:03 AM
Well, I agree with Jeff's assessment that it won't have any big effect, considering how there usually will not be 'equally qualified pairs'.
I was talking more out of principle than anything else. (and a bit irkdom about idiot politicians blowing this up to gargantuan proportions)

Thus, when I said "exactly equal", I meant just that.

And if some would-be employee feels down, because someone with _exactly the same qualifications_ as himself get's the job because of a quality like sex or race; well, color me bloody unsympathetic.

If he's going to turn bitter because his would-be boss didn't have the opportunity to flip a coin to choose, or choose him over the other purely by 'face factor', I'm guessing that that person just
feels like complaining about _something_, and thought this a good candidate.

That said, I agree that more radical reforms certainly could have negative consequences. Working on attitudes should be a priority.

As for proving discrimination...well, I wonder just how that will go about. I don't know how easy these things fares in the US of A, but here in Norway, there has (to my knowledge) been not one single trial regarding this. Does that mean Norwegians are all nice undiscriminatory people?

Well...

I recall something that reached the headlines last year (I think); one Iraqi refugee, with proper education as a doctor (more than OK'd by every Norwegian doctor the newspaper asked), and speaking good Norwegian, applied over _two hundred times_ for work as a doctor at various places in Norway. Most didn't even deign to give him a proper reply.
Even up in the northernmost parts of the country, where the lack of doctors are chronical, the man did not seem to meet the proper criteria of the officials.

Does that prove discrimination? Well...perhaps it does.
And most like it'd take a lot of resources to prove it - resources that are far beyond the reach of what a refugee are capable of. Back to square one.

Mike H.
User ID: 8290473 Jul 20th 3:20 PM
Kay-Arne -

Are you just bloody unsympathetic to those who are in the "majority" and lose out or do you expand that to include people who are currently claiming discrimination?

And whatever the underlying reasons for someone reacting negatively to a situation - the end result stays the same. I am simply suggesting that reverse discrimination can have negative effects that shouldn't be ignored.

Unless, of course, you are a student of Machiavelli. ;-)

KAH
User ID: 0262034 Jul 21st 9:15 AM
Mike;

In my example (which admittedly mostly is of academic interest), I would suppose that I'd be somewhat unsympathetic in any case - as long as we are talking _completely equal qualifications_. It is no longer a question of hiring the best man for the job, then, so it'll be reduced to face factor selection, or flip a coin.

As for end results...well, I suppose there might be negative reactions in any case, but in such a situation, there is very little justification for that particular reaction, IMHO.

Min Jul 21st 9:30 AM
Ok, I cannot resist any longer. Here I am.

First I have to say that I never had the impression that I was discriminated in any way as a woman. The other way round, perhaps. WHat do I mean by this?

I never experienced any hardships applying for a job or something. What I did experience was that bosses were ready to prefer me to a (more or less) equally qualified man. Not because I was a woman in general, but because I was a goodlokking woman. That annoyed me no end.

I used to work in Berlin, and that Boss was so. Not that he somehow tried to abuse the women or some such. He just primarily hired good-looking women. The guy I am currently working for is completely different, and he told me a story about that boss in Berlin (they know each other). Michael (my recent boss) showed Ronny (my current boss) a new girl working for him. And said: "Doesn't she look like a model? Great tits, ey"? And Ronny answered: "Hm, I would be more interested in great brains, but if you say so..."

_That_ is discrimination. Has it something to do with the discrimination of women, though? I think it's more discrimination of outer appearances.

Of course I think that equal treatment of women is important. Of course I think that women _have_ been discriminated for thousands of years, and for far too long a time.

But... (forgive me, Emily): I think the whole feminism thing is being driven too far at some points. Women _are_ different than men, and thanks God they are! On this earth, there are different races, different characters, different sexes. We should treat each other as equals because difference is precious. We should not try to be all the same.

I think and act differently than a man. And I expect to be respected and valued _because_ of that.

Some feminists seem to try to be men instead of women. I do not really understand that. I think that women can achieve the same as men do without talking about castrating all the men. These are groupy of feminists I do not really understand, and I do not want to be a part of.

That was a long post, sorry. It just took me away. There would be much more to say about that theme, but I will wait for some responses to bore you to tears with any continuation of it. ;-)

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Jul 21st 11:44 AM
"Good looking??" Obviously, standards are much lower in Germany than they are here in the states. <<heh-heh>>

Actually, Min, you made some very good points. Apparently, good-looking people in general seem to have a slightly easier time in the workforce.
And even if the boss _thinks_ its nicer to hire good-looking women, its comletely insensitive to ever express that preference verbally.

Emily
User ID: 9781133 Jul 21st 12:06 PM
Jeff - why am I not surprised to discover you make a living out of fighting women in equal opportunity cases??! I take your point, but I think I'll stick with the dozens of surveys on pay discrimination, thanks. Of course, there could be a cultural difference here...Americans are regarded here as a bunch of litigation-obsessed nutters who'll sue at the drop of a hat.

I do see the dangers of positive discrimination. The backlash - apart from in nice civilised (unless you're an Iraqi refugee) Norway - would be incredible. As soon as a single woman messed a job up, it'll be all over the papers, every woman in the country would be considered an incompetent who got a job merely because of her gender. But let's face it, as things are now a lot of women are suspected of getting jobs because of sleeping with their boss.

Mike - I appreciate what you're saying, but we are not just trying to "right past wrongs", but wrongs that are still ocurring today. How would you combat the totally subconscious discrimination that is rife?

Min, I too don't feel I've been discriminated against as a woman. In fact I'm lucky - I got to go to a good girls school, whilst my brother was stuck in a ghastly boys Catholic comprehensive. And I'm earning a whole �50 more than my male predecessor got for the same job. The only thing that irks me is that whenever I pick up the phone - I'm researcher to an MP - everyone assumes I'm the secretary. Funnily enough whenever my predecessor answered the phone he did not have this problem. But I'm not worrying about it too much, given that if I'd been born in Niger I'd be living on the brink of starvation under a filthy military dictatorship, I'd have had most of my genitals sliced off as a child, at 15 I'd have been married to a man not of my choice who had near-total control over my life, I'd have 8 children, seen two of them die, and be ready to expire during childbirth any minute now.

I'm also pretty ugly so luckily I don't have your problems. And I have no intention of getting married, and I'll certainly never have kids in a million years, so I'm not going to suffer the discrimination most wives and mothers do.

I'm not a believer in the women-and-men-are-exactly-the-same-they've-just-been-messed-up-by-their-upbringing school of thought either, Min. Even in a totally non-discriminatory society I expect more women than men would choose to be their children's primary carer. I just don't believe they'd choose to do all the washing-up as well.

I just believe women should have the same rights as men to do anything they wish - even if it's something stupid like becoming a priest or joining the army. Of course, liberation feminists say that society is a patriarchal construction and instead of accepting it and demanding our slice of the cake we should create a whole new society based around women's needs. But let's face it, that's not going to happen. The women in America in the 1960s who sat down to discuss what the new society should be just carried on talking and talking...and in the end most of them decided to become lesbians. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it did tend to confirm the stereotypes whilst not producing any kind of general social change.

Min, can you elaborate on how you think and act differently from men? And what effect you think this should have on the concept of equal rights?

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 22nd 9:34 AM
As for pay discrimination surveys...I seem to recall a recent one in Norway, which results indicated that there indeed were differences between male and female pay...but that these were largely due to men working more overtime.

Corrected for these, things more or less equalled out nice and fair.

Not that this necessarily has any bearing outside of Norway...

An another little comment to Emily's last post;
A couple of days ago I read that a survey showed that 10% of all women were theoretically willing to sleep with their boss to further their careers.

I wonder if this number has been corrected in regard to pointy-haired bosses badly lacking in personality, looks and intelligence. :o)

Mike H.
User ID: 8290473 Jul 22nd 2:10 PM
One of these days I'm going to have to try and post something related to the author and his works. :)

Actually, I probably don't have much else to add to this topic. But in answer to Emily's question: I don't know how you combat subconscious thoughts. Education seems to me to be fairly important, though. I just have this sneaking suspicion, however, that Reverse Discrimination does not result in more open mindedness. That seems to be contrary to what is needed.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Jul 22nd 7:25 PM

Kay, if most of the bosses were women, I am fairly sure that the same amount of men would be willing to sleep with them to get further in their jobs... so much for that.

Emily, oh, how difficult a question. How do I act and think differently than men do? I stated that I do, and I am sure that I do, but it is quite a different - and difficult - matter to analyse it and put it in (English) words. Well, I'll try.

This should not be generalized: I am sure that there are men who think and act the same, but in my working and studying life, I often observed that the following differences mostly seem to appear due to me being female. Ok then.

I never forget the person behind the work, the job or, in my journalistic work, the story. Men do that far more often. I have a readier, quicker, easier acces to someones personality and feelings. When we make interviews with "difficult" partners, my boss often lets me do them because the people open much more quickly to me than to him (though he is one of the most sensitive males I know). This could, of course, be due to the people's view of women, or because of my personality, too.

When I am working as a set-manager during our shootings (or whatever the correct term for this job may be in English - the one who has to keep things going during the shootings), I work much more with empathy than with logic. I often ask everybody - not only the actors, but the camera-men, the grips, best boys, everybody - how they're feeling, give them some coffee when it's late at night.

I am much more in use of my body -and that does not at all mean what Kay-Arne described earlier or any sexual-related thing. I just give the crew hugs or some small shoulder-massage when they're tired, or ruffle their hair, or just pat their shoulder or some such. Men in that kind of position virtually _never_ do that kind of things.

Another thing that could be either good or bad: I have no problem with flirting if I want something. An interview, a statement, an information. This can, of course, be because of my education. I prefer doing this on the phone, making jokes when I have an important phone call, these sort of things. I know that I use female means of persuasion then, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Men seldom try this flirtatious thing with women when they call and want something. Perhaps because they fear to be misunderstood.

I also observed (and I admid I could be wrong here) that women seem to have a quicker way of putting things together. Not more intelligent, just more able in connecting different tasks and requirements. When it comes to shootings, for example, most women in this job are much faster than men to organize and bring all things together. I read an essay once that said that women can connect different tasks faster because they have done just that for thousands of years, while the men just had to hunt and think about killing the next mammut. Well, I don't know if it's true, but it seemed to be so with most women and men in that kind of business.

These were some, and I am sure there are much more I forgot here. The usual, superficial things. Yes, I can show and discuss feelings better than most men. And that sort of things.

No way to tell if any of these lies in the genes, or if it is burned into us in thousands of years of gender-education. Would it help to know?

Did that help you in some sort, Emily?

Kay-Arne Hansen
User ID: 9209903 Jul 23rd 8:44 AM
On a slightly more serious note...(yeah, right)

Min;

Well, considering the lack of female bosses around, I guess I won't be able to boost myself up a few rungs on the career ladder by sleeping with the boss. And that _really_ irks me.

I'll probably never have a boss called Michaela, who will refer to me to her fellow female boss like this; "Doesn't he look like a model? Great tits, ey?"

I mean, I don't have much to brag about in the tits department. At the very least, I'll have to gain a couple of hundred pounds before I'm there... :o)

Min
User ID: 9433023 Jul 23rd 9:10 AM
Kay, the "positive discrimination" works either way. I _did- hear females in a high position talk about men like that. I remember that sentence said by a productions-manager I worked with as set-manager. She showed me one of the best boys, saying "What d'ya think? Fabulous ass, this one, ey"? You see, either gender is temptated to fall to that kind of discrimination...

Kay-Arne Hansen
User ID: 9209903 Jul 23rd 9:16 AM
Yeah, I know...the above post was just an excuse for the 'tits' joke. :o)

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Jul 23rd 1:36 PM
Emily, I make my living defending employers, not just men. Last year I had a reverse discrimination claim filed by a man who claimed that he was fired in place of a favored female. His claim was crap, and I got it thrown out. And I currently have a sexual harassment case involving two women, so I really can't be accused of being anti-female either.

My point is fairly simple. A common statistic cited here is that women earn approximately 71% of what men earn. That statistic, however, isn't corrected for the types of jobs held. In other words, the fact that a higher proportion of females choose to enter fields that are lower paying (though maybe more interesting or more conducive to a balanced lifestyle) is simply ignored. That makes the 71% figure meaningless in terms of determining whether discrimination actually exists because its comparing apples and oranges.

Another factor often not accounted for is years in the workforce. For example, some media clown who has no understanding of statistics will point out that women college graduates earn only 80% of what male college graduates earn. But that doesn't account for the fact that many women take years out of the workforce for childbearing. Such women are comparable neither to men nor women who do not take such time off.

As you rightly guess, we have _plenty_ of laws here that require equal pay for equal work. But just saying "I'm a woman and he makes more" doesn't cut it. You have to take into account other, non-gender based factors that might account for discrepancies before leaping to a conclusion of discrimination.

I could load you down with examples of cases I've handled but i'll give you just one. Last year, I had a trial involving a discrimination claim by a woman who claimed she wasn't selected for an executive position because of her sex. Both had a Master's degree in finance, and both had approximately 20 years of experience with the Company. Because she had 2 years mroe experience, she claimed she was more qualified and should have gotten the job. Discrimination!

Of course, what she neglected to mention was that she had been a non-degreed _secretary_ for 16 of her 22 years, and had her masters degree for less than a year prior to the promotional opportunity. The male, on the other hand, had earned his master's degree 16 years previously and had held mangerial positions with the company for 15 of those years. My point? You have to look at the details before screaming discrimination.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 30th 8:41 AM

There's one thing speaking (sort of) for 'positive discrimination', though...

While people philosophically speaking would have good arguments against such a device - doing something 'bad' in order to support a greater 'good' - in practise it is used in other areas, with far greater impact than applying for jobs.

The recent example being Kosovo. Here, NATO bombed
Serbia, in order to stop the ethnic cleansing and the murders of Kosovo Albanians. One must assume that in those bombings, quite a few innocents (also Serbs) died. People who doesn't support the regime, elderly people, intellectuals, others.

As such, NATO did something 'bad' in order to achieve a greater 'good', or so they claim. I happen to (more or less) agree.

Now, some might claim that the analogy is not appropriate, since the stakes were much higher - people were being slaughtered in Kosovo, after all, and that is a wee bit harsher than being out of a job because of one's sex.

Sure, but that goes both ways - having bombs thrown in your head is a bit harsher than possibly being discriminated against, because the other sex is legally favored.

Now, this would foremostly apply if there were something to the feminist allegations that men only or generally prefer men to women, regardless of qualifications. Which I'm not all that sure of, but I'll leave judgement of that to those who know more about the subject than I.

Next 20 Messages