Australia has their first female Prime Minister, and people are celebrating. Should they be?

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Edit:
HSR's tone provides a bit of credence to this fact. Examples:
ooh look, a woman, I guess they are as good as men
"proof" that woman can earn the qualifications just as well as men
These comments would be insulting in a society that was beyond sexism (the surprise in comment one, or the need for proof in comment two).

I think HSR was just acting out how people would react, not necessarily stating his own views, but my point remains.

I don't understand what you are saying.

To make any claim (men > women, women > men, men = women) without relevant evidence is sexist. It's applying sex to something that it has no relevance to.

Postado por Squishalot

Sure, that's fine, but go back to Hillary Clinton. I know so many people who we're going to vote for her just because she's a woman. You ask them what the platforms of the different contenders were, and they'd have no clue.
I can't speak for the people in your government, but I would be surprised to find people like that.

Definitely. I'm sure that some people in the Australian population will vote for her simply because she's female. Probably a similar number to those who will vote against her for being female.

Noone else in the Government has the political experience, nor the skills, to be Prime Minister, and in that respect, many people inside and outside of Government believe that she's the most qualified, and I do agree with this. She's not there purely because she's a woman, though I'm sure some people do believe that it'll be easier to win votes by having a female PM. But, admittedly, I, many others think that she shouldn't have made a play for the leadership in the first place, because it wasn't necessary, and that Kevin Rudd is a better leader and international liaison.

In my opinion, once the data actually indicates that gender has little to do with position, prestige, pay, or anything else.

As I referenced above, this is clearly not the case right now.

I was having an argument with my girlfriend about this last night - the equal opportunities commissioner recently released a report saying that female graduates earn $2,000 a year less than male graduates with the same degree. But that doesn't deal with the bias towards longer-hour, higher paying jobs that men are more likely to aspire and apply to.

Do I think that CEOs should be forced to run 8 hour days so that females can feel comfortable entering their ranks and having time for their kids? No. You work hard, you get rewarded. If you want to split your hard work between your employer and your family, that's up to you, and you'll get rewarded by both parties accordingly. That goes the same whether you're male or female.

Postado por Heckler

I don't understand what you are saying.
Your first comment implies that people might be surprised to find out a woman was "as good as" a man.
As for your second comment -- seeing a woman that was as qualified as a man would serve as proof of something -- the fact that this argument requires proof at all indicates society is not 'unsexist'.

I'm simply saying that once sexism doesn't exist, it would be proper to stop celebrating advancements toward that position. Your comments provide credence to my claim that society is not there yet, for the reasons above (this isn't meant to be anything against you, or even to argue your position).

. . . longer-hour, higher paying jobs that men are more likely to aspire and apply to . . .
You have in your statement an implication about desire or properness of spending time with family that is inherently sexist. I could make the argument (although I won't, we're already reaching into conjecture here given my level of knowledge and research on this subject) that the mere fact that a female is more likely to want to spend time at home is indicative of a sexist culture.

Edits: wording, grammar, spelling, etc.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Your first comment implies that people might be surprised to find out a woman was "as good as" a man.
As for your second comment -- seeing a woman that was as qualified as a man would serve as proof of something -- the fact that this argument requires proof at all indicates society is not 'unsexist'.
No, the fact that people take for granted that women are equal to men in area X is sexist. Any claim made about sex without relevant evidence, is sexist.
So, yes, you need proof if you're going to walk around saying women are as good at politics as men.

Your comments provide credence to my claim that society is not there yet, for the reasons above (this isn't meant to be anything against you, or even to argue your position).
Again, I don't understand what you're saying. My comments are showing that your position of not wanting proof is sexist.

I'm siumply saying that once sexism doens't exist, it would be proper to stop celebrating advancements toward that position.
If you're already at a certain point, you can't advance toward it... so that really doesn't make much sense either.

Postado por Squishalot

You have in your statement an implication about desire or properness of spending time with family that is inherently sexist.

The bolded statement that you highlighted was not sexist, in and of itself, unless you chose to take a specifically sexist view of it. It is no more sexist than to say that 'men are more likely to watch pornography' - it's a factual statement, that can be backed up by empirical evidence.

I could make the argument (although I won't, we're already reaching into conjecture here given my level of knowledge and research on this subject) that the mere fact that a female is more likely to want to spend time at home is indicative of a sexist culture.

See, this is something I disagree with. We've spent years building up a culture of equality. Yet, if I feel that I want to earn enough money to look after a wife and kids, is that sexist of me, and me being a slave to society, or is that a choice?

Postado por Heckler

@HsR:
Ah, okay then, so saying that men are better than women at politics (explicitly) would require proof, but seeing the 83% vs. 17% male/female ratio in congress and implicitly assuming this is okay without proof? Is it the same 'free market' argument as usual? It happened, we had elections, 83% of the elected were men.. that doesn't indicate any sexism, it simply indicates that people wanted men more than women, apparently because men are better politicians because they're men?

But fair enough, I'm simply stating that the data that I'm familiar with (which is a small amount, admittedly -- my position here is not strong, and I make no claims that it is) seems to indicate that there is a sexist culture still in position. I guess the reason I'm satisfied with this conclusion is because I think most everyone would agree that 100 years ago, there was sexism. 50 years ago, there was sexism. etc. etc. And right now, by looking at many of the same data that you might use to draw those conclusions, you can still see disparity.

But if I've insulted you somehow, then I'll retract your involvement in my point altogether. The disagreement here is more in the fact that I can look at data and see one thing, and you can look the same data and see something else. Because of this, we simply have to agree to disagree (after all, neither of us is trying to change the other's mind anyways, right?).

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

See, this is something I disagree with. We've spent years building up a culture of equality. Yet, if I feel that I want to earn enough money to look after a wife and kids, is that sexist of me, and me being a slave to society, or is that a choice?

This reminds me of a term paper I wrote in high school (we didn't have computers, so I don't have a copy any more). It was about the effects of the Great Depression on the family.

I don't remember much, except for a few points, so don't ask me to try to back anything up :P

But, in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the father was seen very much as the bread-winner. The mother took care of the family while the father went out, earned money, and brought it home. So enter the Great Depression, and fathers are no longer able to fulfill their rolls as bread-winners. It was a psychological nightmare, because society had ingrained it in them, that they were the bread-winners, and if their family didn't have money, it was their fault. From this point in history, we can see a marked decrease in family life and unity as a whole as well as the feminist movement gaining much momentum.

I guess, that doesn't affect the discussion much, but I thought it was interesting.

One might ask whether that's a sexist view of the family. And if so was it society that was at fault, or the individuals themselves?

Ah, okay then, so saying that men are better than women at politics (explicitly) would require proof, but seeing the 83% vs. 17% male/female ratio in congress and implicitly assuming this is okay without proof? Is it the same 'free market' argument as usual? It happened, we had elections, 83% of the elected were men.. that doesn't indicate any sexism, it simply indicates that people wanted men more than women, apparently because men are better politicians because they're men?
No, I'm not really saying any of that. You're not factoring in the fact that more men enter into politics that women, so obviously more are going to get elected.

I'm not saying anything about how sexist society is. All I'm doing is saying that sexism is much broader (in definition) than people usually assume.

Postado por Heckler

- it's a factual statement, that can be backed up by empirical evidence.
I don't think it's sufficient to register as any sort of argument in a gender discussion though.

As an example, the percentage of Black Men in prison is greater than their percentage out of Prison. (or maybe, the percentage in the NBA or NFL vs. 'regular' society). Also a provable fact -- but I think it would be a leap to claim that this fact serves as proof that having Black Skin makes you more likely to commit crimes, or to be great at football or basketball.

In order to make that leap, you have to ignore a number of factors, and make a few logical leaps. Those assumptions and leaps are pretty good definitions of racism, in my opinion.

But as I said, I won't be able to hold up an argument from this point of view for long (at least not in fact) so if I keep discussing, I'll only be speaking hypothetically in ways that will be easy to pick apart (and again, not to change your mind, just to explain my point and maybe gain a little more insight as to why I have that point).

is that sexist of me, and me being a slave to society, or is that a choice?
Either way, the existence of the dilemma is indicative that sexism exists, in some regard.

Edits: I'm writing a paper at the moment, so I'm posting in a hurry. My apologies for the continuous grammar and structure edits.

No, I'm not really saying any of that. You're not factoring in the fact that more men enter into politics that women, so obviously more are going to get elected.
I don't dispute this, my point is that in a representative system of government, the mere fact that "more men enter into politics than women" could itself be indicative of something sexist existing somewhere. My underlying point has been, and continues to be, that there's nothing wrong with a celebration of an event that seems to serve as proof of progress toward a goal of gender equality. The only time this would be wrong is if it were celebrating an event that progressed one gender further ahead of the other, but I don't think there's any proof that this is the case (circumstantial, empirical, incomplete, or otherwise). There's tons of reasons to think this is a sign of progress however, and so I don't see anything wrong with smiling about it in that regard.

I'm not saying anything about how sexist society is. All I'm doing is saying that sexism is much broader (in definition) than people usually assume.
I would agree with you, but I'd like to think I'm on your side of that argument (in that I'm searching for broad definitions).

Postado por Squishalot

...

Sounds like quite the interesting paper; it's a shame you don't still have a copy.

Ask yourself the same question now - if and when you get married, if your wife earns more than you and/or you become unemployed and unable to find a job, will that drag you down? Do you think that's a society driven thing, or because you want to do the right thing?

I'd like to think it's because I want to do the right thing by my family, and that I can't by being unemployed. But apparently, if I think that, it's because our patriarchal society has brainwashed me into believing that I can't pursue the goals and jobs that I want to, and have to endure jobs that pay well. Even if I enjoy them.

I don't think it's sufficient to register as any sort of argument in a gender discussion though.

As an example, the percentage of Black Men in prison is greater than their percentage out of Prison. (or maybe, the percentage in the NBA or NFL vs. 'regular' society). Also a provable fact -- but I think it would be a leap to claim that this fact serves as proof that having Black Skin makes you more likely to commit crimes, or to be great at football or basketball.

In order to make that leap, you have to ignore a number of factors, and make a few logical leaps. Those assumptions and leaps are pretty good definitions of racism, in my opinion.

You don't need to. If you could demonstrate that a higher proportion of crimes by black people lead to imprisonment than crimes by white people, that would be evidence of racism. Alternatively, if you could demonstrate that the same proportion of crimes by black people lead to imprisonment as crimes by white people, you could demonstrate that higher percentages of black people in prison is caused by higher incidences of black crime.

At no point are we making the assertation that 'being black makes you more likely to commit crimes'. What we can quantifiably state (given sufficient evidence, and I don't know the numbers) could be that 'black people are more likely to commit crimes'. And that, if factual, is not racist.

Edit to be clear: What I said is that men are more likely to apply for said jobs. Women are less likely. These are factual statements. At no point am I trying to imply that 'being a woman makes you more or less likely'.

(and again, not to change your mind, just to explain my point and maybe gain a little more insight as to why I have that point)

That's more than enough reason to argue hypothetically, from my perspective.

Either way, the existence of the dilemma is indicative that sexism exists, in some regard.

Well, no. I don't see it as a dilemma, I see it as a choice. It's other people (typically equalitarian feminists or pro-feminists) who want to coerce me into thinking that I've been brainwashed.

(Is anyone else frustrated by Live Preview being at the bottom now? I can't tab my way to submitting easily anymore...)

Postado por Heckler

I would point to what HsR said about sexism being broader than most people would think. Let's apply it to the racism argument -- again, hypothetically.

Trying to be broad --

Let's assume that our legal system is blind to race, and leave any question about punishment vs. crime for black vs. white out of this discussion for now.
This means that a higher incidence of Black kids in prison means that there is a higher incidence of crimes committed among Black kids than White kids. (Again leaving out any discussion about racist enforcement, or larger surveillance in neighborhoods which may have more Black people).
I think these are huge assumptions, but just for the sake of argument, if they're true we can go into a string of further hypotheticals:
Why do Black kids commit crimes more often? Culture?
If so, what leads to this culture? A high incidence of single parent families perhaps? Inner city lifestyle?
If so, why are there more single parent families among Blacks than Whites? Why is there a larger proportion of Blacks in inner cities than Whites? Perhaps because of old institutionalized racism against their relatives in the 30's, 40's, etc which put their families there? Why do inner cities have a culture of crime? Could it be because in the past they received less funding and attention due to racist policies?
If so, this hardly makes their skin color the cause of their actions. If anything, it means the racism of America's past is to blame for the 'racist' data we see today (that is, the statistical disparity).

To reiterate -- my above thought train was not meant to be a thorough analysis, just a demonstration of how a simple question turns into a complex question, and how a complex question can turn into a more complex one.

The underlying logic behind just about everything I've said is that if you can look statistically at data, and you see evidence that there is some disparity between the total sample and a localized section of the sample that seems to be correlated to something that 'shouldn't' have correlation (ie. race = crime, gender = quality, etc), then that warrants a thought process as to why.

I think as a lesson from the past, it can be demonstrated that at any point in time people didn't think they were acting 'wrongly' -- that is, women's suffrage was withheld for a specific reason, and most people probably saw it as justified back in 1770. Just because most people saw it that way doesn't mean it was right however, though I'm sure they would have all sorts of 'evidence' to point to that "men are better at voting than women," and other such nonsense.

If I try to imagine what people will think about us in 200 years, and I specifically look for things that they might take issue with, I would think that a lot of these statistical disparities would qualify (or at least, the underlying reasons behind them). That being said, when a woman achieves a position that a woman has never achieved before, I see no problem with painting that as a step towards statistical parity, and therefore a good thing from that perspective.

Edit to be clear: What I said is that men are more likely to apply for said jobs. Women are less likely. These are factual statements. At no point am I trying to imply that 'being a woman makes you more or less likely'.
In my opinion, your factual statements should be in the past tense. 'Women have been shown to be less likely...' would be more proper, that is factual. Saying 'Women are more likely' not only references past facts, but it seems to imply that those past facts point out something intrinsic to being a woman -- which is exactly what you said you weren't doing. (so perhaps, just a communication problem on my end).

Postado por Squishalot

I'd be happy to reword it as 'have been shown to be' if you insisted, since I'm not interested in a grammatical argument either. It's definitely wnat I intended to say - I have no belief that women or men are more or less likely, intrinsically, to apply for longer working jobs.

I understand where you're coming from with regards to the inherent sexism / racism in society. But, the world comes to two main arguments:

1) You buck the trend and discard tradition, and you're not a slave to society.
2) You follow the trend and tradition, and you're a slave to society.

... when in reality, there is also a third option:

3) You're not a slave to society, so you make your own choices and choose traditional paths.

I recently saw a wedding video of someone I know who danced down the aisle carrying a giant lollypop for a bouquet. Yet she wore a white wedding dress and was 'handed away' by her father. She's obviously someone who cares little about following tradition for the sake of it, but she obviously included those two things because they were right for her. Should she come under fire from feminists for it?

Postado por Heckler

I don't disagree with any of your choice vs. slave points (in fact, I like your analysis). I don't think feminists should bring anyone under fire for something they do of their own accord, even if it is because of cultural norms or brainwashing or anything, and this isn't the point I'm trying to make (although that would be an interesting discussion, and has a lot to do with why I support some affirmative action programs).

In my mind, there's a HUGE difference between positive and negative actions -- the feminists attacking your friend is an example of a negative action; saying "oh Australia has a female PM for the first time, that's nice *smile*" is an example of a positive action. Even though from a certain perspective they might be pretty similar or seem to support the same stance, they are very different in my mind.

My point from the beginning has been that there's nothing wrong with being happy specifically about the fact that she's female. I agree it would be sexist to have chosen her because of that fact specifically, but your original question was whether the celebration was okay, which I see absolutely no problem with in this case.

Postado por Squishalot

Fair enough.

So if there is celebrating when she falls at the next election (which is likely based on poll results), is it still ok to smile, or will it then be politically incorrect to smile, from your perspective?

Postado por Heckler

Depends why you're smiling. If you're smiling because she failed, I would call that negative (regardless of her gender). If you're smiling in retrospect because the next woman might have an easier time being taken seriously, then I would say that's positive.

If you're smiling because the winner was a man, I would say that' might be politically incorrect because that's not a step towards gender parity, so I would question the basis for the smile.

I think it would be improper to say "Sweet, 2 points for women!" or "Sweet, 2 points for men!" -- but it is altogether proper to say "Sweet! 2 points for a step towards equality!"

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Depends why you're smiling. If you're smiling because she failed, I would call that negative (regardless of her gender). If you're smiling in retrospect because the next woman might have an easier time being taken seriously, then I would say that's positive.

If you're smiling because the winner was a man, I would say that' might be politically incorrect because that's not a step towards gender parity, so I would question the basis for the smile.

Why is it wrong? If she sucked, she sucked, and I'd sure be happy to get her out. How is that "politically incorrect" or "negative"? I think it's quite positive to get bad people out of office.

And you have double standards for men a women...how is that not sexist?

Postado por Heckler

Maybe my edit clarified what appeared to be a double standard... and I specifically avoided the phrase 'politically incorrect' in my first statement. I said 'negative' -- there's a big difference there. And my point wasn't about celebrating because she sucked, it was about celebrating because the woman failed -- if she sucks, she sucks, I was trying to take Squish's question in context, I assumed he meant if people celebrate a male winning, is that equally proper.

If my 3rd statement still constitutes a double standard, then I would qualify it by saying that the motivating point behind the standard is a representative proportion of males to females in politics as in population. Applying that standard to men and women individually makes it appear as a double standard because the current proportion is male-heavy, and therefore a push for equality is obviously going to appear to favor females.

Postado por Haxzor

ihate JuliaGillard and I hate Tony Abbott, so I'm voting Greens next election

Postado por Squishalot

If you're smiling because the winner was a man, I would say that' might be politically incorrect because that's not a step towards gender parity, so I would question the basis for the smile.

And you have double standards for men a women...how is that not sexist?

This.

It is a step towards gender parity, technically speaking. The previous PM was a woman, if the next PM is a man, is that not parity? At what point would you consider it parity, from a practical perspective, in such a way that electing a man is smileworthy? (And back patting worthy, no less.) And at what point should we no longer be bothered smiling or back patting?

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Maybe my edit clarified what appeared to be a double standard... and I specifically avoided the phrase 'politically incorrect' in my first statement. I said 'negative' -- there's a big difference there.

If my 3rd statement still constitutes a double standard, then I would qualify it by saying that the motivating point behind the standard is a representative proportion of males to females in politics as in population. Applying that standard to men and women individually makes it appear as a double standard because the current proportion is male-heavy, and therefore a push for equality is obviously going to appear to favor females.

Why are you pushing for equality in numbers? Again, I call that sexist. You're forcing men and women to be equal in an arena where you have no evidence that they should be equal.

Postado por Squishalot

ihate JuliaGillard and I hate Tony Abbott, so I'm voting Greens next election

Heh, I think a lot of people are joining you on that front.

Me... my electorate is 73-75% Liberal (Phillip Ruddock). My vote isn't going to do a thing.

Australia has their first female Prime Minister, and people are celebrating. Should they be?

Resposta da Mensagem