Don’t Pat Yourself on the Back Yet: The Plight of Women in the U.S.

[McCamy Taylor]

Many people who are very hip to the implications of the racial caste system, even people in the movement, don't seem to be able to see the sexual caste system and if the question is raised they respond with: "That's the way it's supposed to be. There are biological differences." Or with other statements which recall a white segregationist confronted with integration.

Sex and Caste by Casey Hayden and Mary King

http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/Sex-and-Caste.html


I. The Gender Wage Gap

"All women – and their families – deserve equal pay. Women now make up nearly half of the nation’s workforce, most homes have two working parents, and 60 percent of all women work full-time," Obama declared.

Women who labor have always made less than men in this country—to the delight of sweat shop and factory owners. In 1980, women made about 60 cents for every dollar men earned. Wages for women rose relatively quickly during the 1990s, but since 2000 they have stagnated. Right now, women earn, on average, 77% of what men do.

http://wireupdate.com/local/president-obama-says-pay-parity-remains-far-from-reality/

Why do men make more? Maybe because many people still think that men are better workers. One study found that people rate the work performed by men as more “satisfactory” even when the men and women do the exact same things.

http://khufu.openlib.org/~tchecndg/archive/2007/att-0755/DiscriminationHekman.pdf

There are ways that women can increase their pay. One is by not having children. A study at Cornell found that women with children were more likely to be turned down as job applicants. There was no similar prejudice against men with children. This means that a couple will have an easier time finding a good job for Dad than for Mom.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug05/soc.mothers.dea.html

If women---who ordinarily have children, that being one of the biological functions of all human beings---get turned down for the best jobs, they have to settle for second best. Jobs that are usually performed by women tend to be lowering paying than jobs that are filled almost exclusively by men. Men's work is considered "dangerous" and "important." Women's work---like teaching our children so that they can be the next generation of productive workers in this country---is considered to be so trivial that all of them can be laid off at once, and the public hardly bats an eye.

Even though Congress has passed laws against it, wage discrimination against women remains the rule in this country. Think of the economic incentives to employers. If half of the work force makes a wage that is 22% lower than it should be, that means employers are saving 11% across the board on their labor costs.

II. Women and Poverty

Since women make less money than men, and since they are more likely to be custodial parents than men and because they do more unpaid care giving than men, it should come as no surprise that women are more likely to be poor in this country. Domestic violence---which can cause a women to miss work or even to become homeless---also contributes.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/women_poverty.html

Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2008, 28.7 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 13.8 percent of households headed by single men and 5.5 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

Society overwhelmingly insists that children need the care of a mother---and yet, that same society does not bother to give mothers the same economic opportunities that it gives men, even though the needs of women may be greater.

III. Women and Health

Women pay more for health insurance than men do in this country.

In a Humana plan with a $2,500 deductible, a 30-year-old woman pays 31 percent more than a man of the same age in some cities; Anthem Blue Cross (part of WellPoint) charges 30-year-old women 49% more than men of the same age for its Blue Access Economy plan in at least one city.
The disparities also show up in state insurance pools for people at high-risk. In Dallas and Houston, women between 25 and 29 pay 39% more than men of the same age when they buy coverage from the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool. In Nebraska, a 35-year-old woman pays almost a third more than a man of the same age for coverage.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/10/30/women-pay-more-than-men-for-health-insurance/

When Congress and the President were negotiating health care legislation, they discovered that they could not please all the people---so they did what politicians so often do. They threw the women under the bus. Under Health Care Reform, most women will still be subject to higher insurance premiums. And those who currently have abortion coverage through their private insurer will have an additional barrier to care.
http://www.now.org/press/03-10/03-21b.html


IV. Women and Violence

Here are some scary statistics:

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

One in six women in the U.S. has been raped—often by a family member, friend or partner. The majority of these crimes are never reported to law enforcement, which has not typically been sympathetic to the plight of female sexual victims. Twenty-five percent of women have been the victims of domestic violence. Only 8% of men have been the victims of domestic violence, but violence against women can have a profound effect on boys, who are ten times more likely to beat their own partners if they grow up in a violent household.

Now, I don’t know about you, but when I hear about that many women being raped and battered by men, I wonder if there is hate involved. As in hate crimes. You know, the systematic violence that is used by a socially dominant group to keep another group oppressed. With all the hate crime laws in this country, you would think that women---physically smaller, more vulnerable, much more likely to live in fear of violence---would be one of the very first groups singled out for protection. If you thought that, you would be wrong.

The number of hate crimes committed against women, as well as the rate of increase or decrease, is unknown. The reason is that the Hate Crime Statistics Act was passed, signed into law, and reauthorized without including hate crimes against women as a class. Other federal laws and many state hate crime statutes also exclude bias crimes targeting women.

In recent years, many women's advocates have spoken out about the alarming rate of violent physical and sexual assaults against women. Although the most common forms of violence against women have traditionally been viewed as "personal attacks," or even the victim's "own fault," there is growing recognition that many assaults against women are not "random" acts of violence but are actually bias-related crimes. As one advocate testified before Congress "women and girls.... are exposed to terror, brutality, serious injury, and even death because of their sex."

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/women.html

Members of minority races, religions and ethnic groups are protected, presumably out of a sense of fairness. So, why don’t women need the same protection? There is only one answer. Women are not seen as deserving of protection. If they get raped, it is because their skirts are too short. If they get slapped, it was because they talked back.

V. Women and Emotional Violence Part 1: A Case Study

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Whoever first said that probably wasn’t called a “fucking whore.”

I am going to talk about one of the left’s ugliest moments, when many so called liberals rallied around Randi Rhodes for calling a Democratic presidential candidate a “$%#@ whore”.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Air_Americas_Randi_Rhodes_said_suspended_0403.html

Since the mods do not like commentary about behavior or misbehavior at DU, I am going to quote some of the responses at the other progressive message board. You know, the one that does and says things that folks at DU would never, ever think of saying or doing.

Randi is speaking the truth, but because this was at an Air America event, the suspension was probably politically necessary.
Still, an absolutely historic video.

So historic that it has been scrubbed from the internet.

I hope they bring her back sooner rather than later, and I hope she spends virtually all her time until then doing more routines like this. There is definitely a place for nightclub politics, where on a good night a one-line lampoon can paint a thousand Frank Rich columns

Good news for Rhodes fans. The American entertainment industry does not ruin your career for saying something sexist. Rhodes and Imus are proof of that. On the other hand, if you criticize a religion (Helen Thomas) or a race (Michael Richards) you can kiss your career goodbye. Because sexism is just good old American fun, but bigotry is ugly.

There's more to this than just the shallow. Rhodes was not saying Clinton sleeps around, or even making ANY comment about her as a sexual being. IT WAS NOT ABOUT SEX. Please read further, listen to the whole context, realize she's talking about this woman's SAY ANYTHING, DO ANYTHING TACTICS

To the last poster, so if I call your mother a “$#@% whore” that’s just a commentary on her leadership style, nothing to get offended about?

How many Clintonistas have been whoring themselves to Fox to try and get the Bubba Vote in Penn.

Be sure to check out the poll.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/3/489573/-Randi-RhodesSUSPENDED-(w-poll)

Commentary at Kos is better than the stuff posted on this Rhodes fan site:

Randi CONTINUES to be my HERO!... I am SO PISSED OFF that they SUSPENDED Randi!!!!!! AAR had better get her BACK on the air ASAP! Everyone should contact them and let them KNOW that you support Randi! Thanks....

Randy is soooooooo right!

Randi's got it DOWN! I love her, shall we say, DIRECTLY TO THE POINT approach!!
She's a woman after my own heart!
Anyone bashing Hillary deserves to be HEARD 24/7!
Please check out my 2 brand new one-of-a-kind Hillary BASHER t-shirts …
One's called "Hillary Vampire" and shows her sucking blood out of the neck of the Statue od Liberty
The other is called "Hullary CUNTon for President 2008

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=46858263&blogID=372875965

VI. Women and Emotional Violence Part 2: Pimping Our Daughters

Emotional violence directed at women has one goal---to keep them oppressed by chipping away at their self confidence. The good news for Hillary Clinton---I doubt she did more than laugh at Randi Rhodes’ comments. The bad news for America, another generation of young, impressionable women were taught a very old lesson. If you try to compete with men, you will become a laughing stock. You will be shunned, reviled.

Men who are overly aggressive are called “dicks”, a word that is not entirely negative, since it carries with it the connotation of power. You do not hear the word “dick” and think to yourself “that dick needs to be put in his place.” You think “I need to stay out of his way.” But when a competitive woman is called a “cunt” or a “whore”, there is always that threat of violence as in “someone needs to show that cunt who’s boss.”

Here is an article about the left’s use of the word “hysterical” as an attack against Clinton. Remember that “hyster” refers to the uterus. When you call a women hysterical, you are actually condemning her for being female.

This charge of insanity—fits, pathology—against any woman who aspires to transcend prior female achievements is the go-to weapon for people who would keep women down. And this move goes way beyond the candidacy of any particular individual. In a recent Nation column, Tom Hayden (the '60s guy, now in his 60s) deployed a full arsenal of insults, comparing Clinton to Lady Macbeth and then going on to liken her appearance to a "screech" on the blackboard.

http://www.slate.com/id/2190282/

Emotional violence against women is even more prevalent than physical violence. Girls grow up being told that they must never, ever get mad or argue with anyone. If someone gets mad at them, it is the girl’s fault for not being pleasing/charming/attractive enough. In other words, she is a failure,a big fat zero. If she feels angry at the way she is being treated, that is a sign that she is not feminine enough. She is "hysterical". Boys are encouraged to express their anger. Girls are told to swallow it. Self esteem is tied to how freely a child is allowed to express his or her emotions. Therefore, it is no wonder that girls in this country continue to grow up hating themselves.

Although women have made gains in education and employment in the equal rights war, they're still losing the self-esteem war. Girls' self-esteem peaks when they are about 9 years old, then takes a nosedive.

http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/how_raise_girls_healthy_selfesteem

The author describes how the preoccupation with beauty in pre-teen girls leads to low self esteem, self abusive behaviors and depression. Since depression impairs the ability to learn, girls start life with an educational disadvantage.

Note that if you tell a woman to "get over it" when she is confronted by sexism, you are reinforcing that old childhood programming. Someone who cares about the shitty deal that women have in this country would say instead "Tell me more. I want to know how you feel. I want to share your pain."

The bottom line is this: a society that not only condones but applauds the use of sexually derogatory language hates its daughters and hopes that they will grow up to make 78% (or less) of what a man makes and have a one in six chance of getting raped. Why? Because there are always economic advantages to having a permanently oppressed group of laborers/scapegoats, whether they are Black or Hispanic or Women.

As I squirmed in my seat, I asked myself, “Does music dictate culture or is it the other way around? Does rap music encourage misogyny or does it simply mirror a culture of misogyny?"

http://therapup.net/2009/04/11-rap-songs-to-disrespect-women-to.html

[Kitty Herder]

1. K&R!!

[saracat]

2. Thank you for this. This is a remarkable piece !

[LiberalLoner]

3. Wow, thank you so much for this. Now I am totally depressed. But I know

in my heart everything written here is true. And that so many people (even some women) will have a knee-jerk reaction to shut you up or shame you for posting this or shame me for feeling we women are basically under the threat of attack by men all our lives.

[Dystopian]

4. KandR

peace~

[Betty Karlson]

5. About Women and Health:

The USA have a four times higher childbirth mortality rate than European countries Greece and Germany. In the land of the free, women are at a four to five times higher risk of dying while giving birth. To allow this to continue is one of the greatest acts of misogyny: safe delivery is still considered a privilege.

[canetoad]

6. K & R

In what I hope is not a vain attempt to save this important post from sinking to the bottom.

[Book Lover]

7. K&R

And I am honestly surprised that none of our resident or transient MRAs have come in to refute these well-supported points. Good. Many thanks for this excellent, bookmarked post.

[awoke_in_2003]

24. MRA? nt

[Caliman73]

26. MRA = Men's Rights Advocates

I think...

[Book Lover]

28. That's correct (nm)

[awoke_in_2003]

29. no wonder I didn't get that...

the idea of MRA is as ludicrous as christians in america needing protection from persecution.

[Scout]

32. they're heeeeeeere see #22 n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Then perhaps you could rebut those points.

Although I am somewhat flattered that you expected me to dispute the gibberish.

[Book Lover]

62. Oh, I saw

I read, then went to Twisty to stop the puking.

Remember, when women talk about the trouble and strife that we suffer due to sexism and the patriarchy, we must at all costs stop having that conversation the instant a man comes in and says (all together now, once more with feeling) "What about the men! Your numbers are totally wrong and men suffer far more than women do! Shut up and listen to me because you are wrong and there's *plenty* of evidence that men suffer way more in this world than you do, you stupid bitch!" because those problems are far, far more important than the original ones we were discussing.

Even if I had 30 hours in my day, I still ain't got enough time to push the rock up that hill.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. The best part of these threads

are the little passive-aggressive teambuilding exercises they inspire.

Welcome to Junior High School. :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

8. You have failed to mention the provocation for Randi Rhode's vulgar remarks.

In your conversation about sexism, you are playing the victim card without indulging the whole story that includes racism in the form of race-baiting. There's more to the story and it's relevant in this conversation.

Superdelegate Says He Heard Racist Strategy From Clinton Camp
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/06/andrews_says_he_heard_racist_s.html

Racial Undercurrent Seen in Clinton Campaign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201762.html

Hillary Clinton Team Throws Racially-Tinged Mud at Barack Obama Nonstop
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/14/2008-01-14_hillary_clinton_team_throws_raciallyting.html

Racial Tensions Roll Democratic Race
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

[cornermouse]

10. The old "she asked for it" or "she made me do it"

screech?

[iamjoy]

14. Well, Something Else There

I'm not totally justifying what Randi Rhodes said, but she is a woman, so a woman calling another woman bitch or whore is kind of like one African American calling another the N word

That is to say (for me at least) it is still wrong. It endorses racist (sexist) language. BUT, it does not carry the same weight of oppression as when a white person (man) uses the term.

For that matter, many Liberals forgave Congressman Alan Grayson for using the term "K Street Whore." We know Grayson is a strong, reliable progressive who speaks his mind. But is that justification? I like to tell myself that the fact he was using that term to refer to a woman was coincidental since "whore" could apply to any lobbyist, regardless of gender.

[Caliman73]

27. I disagree

I think that the analogies do not fit exactly. Some Black men have taken to calling friends or other Black people "nigga" as a way of taking the power out of that word, although I am sure that it still offends many Black people to hear even members of their own group using it. Chris Rock had a very funny bit on the use of the word in his show "I Ain't Scared"

Some women have taken to calling each other "bitch" for a similar effect, but I have not heard the word "whore" being used to diminish the power of sexism. It is true that whore can be used to describe anyone who takes money for sexual services and it is used more generically to describe people who sell their values for money or power as well.

The problem with the analogy is that Rhodes was using the word "whore" specifically to demean 2 women with which she had a disagreement. She could have used any number of other terms or descriptions that would have described her disagreement but she chose to use that specific descriptor.

You can disagree with what the Clinton campaign did in regarding their use of race in the primary, but it does not justify trying to demean them with sexist language.

[defendandprotect]

43. Agree that the term "whore" has become gender-neutral . . . in the main ...

[Cerridwen]

17. "They started it!!!"

Yeah, my mom didn't go for that when I was a kid.

"Victim card," in case you're unaware of it, began its life as a r/w slam against any valid criticism brought by anyone the "right" considered undeserving and most especially for those who were considered too "uppity." I remember the phrase first coming from limbaugh; I'm not sure he "created" it, but he sure as hell catapulted it.

Whenever I read a liberal using the term, or its companion terms, "welfare queen" and "nanny state," I cringe to think of how effective the neocons have been at not only setting the debate, but framing the way that debate is conducted and how much power the press has thrown behind the catapult.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Nonsense.

Hillary Struggles Against Sexism But Regularly Plays Race Card

Playing the "victim card" knows no ideological boundaries. Much was written about this by a diverse cross-section of the political spectrum. In this scenario specifically, complaining about sexism and ignoring/discounting the race-baiting perpetrated by one campaign against the other is the very essence of playing the victim card.

It was for naught and did nothing to further either cause. If we cannot acknowledge this, we have learned nothing from this unfortunate episode.

[Greyhound]

48. "in case you're unaware of it"...

C'mon, look who you're talking to.
:rofl:
:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

52. Actually it's a psych term that has no particular ideological origin nor political connotation

* edited for snark; I don't need to go there

:hi:

[saracat]

25. Pitting sexism against racism and expecting anyone to make a "choice" is vile.

Both campaigns were "tinged" with aspects of both and there should be no justification for either. There is an implication that one is "worse than another". Rhodes does not get a "pass" because someone else may have said something bad on another campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Nobody's interested in the "oppression sweepstakes," just the truth. nt

[saracat]

37. Then why enter the sweepstakes? Using opinions about another campaign to justify

remarks made by a slime ball is participating. Wrong is wrong no matter who said it ,no matter why, or under what circumstances. There are no mitigating circumstances to sexism.

[AtomicKitten]

38. "Hillary Struggles Against Sexism But Regularly Plays Race Card"

http://www.alternet.org/election08/84150/

[saracat]

39. There ya go again. Unbelievable. I get it .Stop playing the contest.

Race isn't more important than sexism. And this thread isn't about comparison.

[AtomicKitten]

40. It's about accountability; you demand it but refuse to give it. Your outrage is selective. nt

[saracat]

41. The topic is feminism.

[AtomicKitten]

45. It's a diatribe on sexism with Hillary as the victim and a blind eye to her race-baiting campaign.

Feminists Are Split On HRC Sexism Defense
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6691.html

Hillary Clinton's Candidacy Has Done Feminism No Favours
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3558713/Hillary-Clintons-candidacy-has-done-feminism-no-favours.html

Feminist Leaders Oppose Hillary, Endorse Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/feminist-leaders-oppose-h_b_84715.html

The Feminist Divide Over Obama
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1807242,00.html

[saracat]

46. Yawn. She is the SOS now, did you hear?

[AtomicKitten]

47. She is SOS because Pres. Obama is a gracious feminist. nt

[saracat]

49. Thanks for attempting to get back on topic.

[AtomicKitten]

53. LOL.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. Angela Davis "Women, Race and Class" should be required reading in school.

Remember that the corporate bosses' favorite game is "Divide and Conquer" the working classes. Tell Blacks they do not have equal rights because women are keeping them down. Tell women they can not get ahead, because Black folks get all the breaks. Meanwhile the (mostly) white male corporate CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

59. If racism was the provocation, Randi's remarks

would have been far more effective if she had simply called Clinton out on it. Randi's unfortunate choice of words only reflected badly on her and those who employed her.

[AtomicKitten]

68. It was; I was there. It was at a club here in SF on behalf of 960 Green.

It was right after Geraldine Ferraro embarrassed herself with her outrageous racial comments. In the context of doing comedy stand-up, Randi's vulgar comment was not nearly as provocative as the isolated comment replayed on youtube made it seem. Air America took advantage of the brouhaha to can her in the midst of ongoing problems negotiating her contract. In the end, Randi ended up back on radio 960 Green.

[cornermouse]

9. K. &. R.

[CTyankee]

11. A very robust k & r to you McCamy! We have our work cut out for us!

You are a perfect example of the kind of activism that is needed always to preserve rights that are either being taken away from us or never were fully granted to us in the first place.

Oppressed people have always had to fight without ceasing to right wrongs against them. Why did we think women's rights would be any different?

[seabeyond]

12. another big with the emotion and raising of girls. the ego. we are taught to coddle, protect the

fragile male ego in all things. women must suck up behavior to coddle and pet the male ego. women, though, must suck up their ego, lighten up, not take it so seriously.

men are not only allowed ego, but womens job to protect and coddle
women are not allowed ego to the point we must suck it up and ignore it.

i spent a day reading different psychologists on particular behaviors of gender and time and time again i listened to these educated doctors repeating this for both genders. i found it fascinating.

good post. thank you

[planetc]

13. And may I also recommend...

Besides this estimable post, may I recommend Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, first published in 1973, reissued in 1993, and I don't know when else. I read the book when I was about 33, and realized that for my entire life, I would be real close to a whole lot of trouble, because I'm a woman. Although I've never been raped, I have been discriminated against, unquestionably. And from my perspective, the laws of this country offer very little protection against discrimination. The victims of sexist discrimination have the burden of proof, they must bear at least some legal costs, they must be very patient, and if they finally prevail, they have probably been blacklisted from their trade since their protest became public. The vast majority of women can't afford to begin the process, can't afford to persist in it, and can't afford to win OR lose.

I don't see more laws as being the most efficient solution to the fruits of discrimination, although I certainly won't complain if we pass the Equal Rights Amendment. We need a change in the thinking of both men and women, a revolution in the head, to steal the title of a Beatles book. I worked for 17 years for a great American university, and sexism was everywhere. The most discouraging thing about that sexism is that the men who suffered from it were absolutely convinced that they weren't sexist. They felt they couldn't be--they were too intelligent, too well informed, too well meaning, too nice to their wives, to be sexist.

But these mostly very pleasant men don't understand feminism: they have never read a book on the subject, nor a decent article. They feel that that's not really necessary, that they understand the topic well enough from the stray bits of information and error in the culture around them. They understand that they are not to discriminate against women, but no one ever forces them to look at the way they see the real women on the faculty, on their staffs, in entertainment, on the streets.

Most men don't understand what the patriarchy is, so they don't have to reflect on their place in it. It's a self-protective ignorance, and it's that we have to address in order to transform our society.

[defendandprotect]

44. "Feminism is anti-dominionation of anyone by anyone else" ... Marilyn French

and it's the best definition of feminism I've ever heard!

[noamnety]

15. k&r

Thank you for laying this out.

Anyone supporting the insurance bill should seriously question themselves - would they support it to the same degree, would they be so vocal about holding it up as a shining example of a "success" if it was written so insurance companies had the option to charge black people 40% higher rates?

[Cerridwen]

16. Kick, Recommend and BRAVA!!!!!!!

Great job putting this all together!

:yourock:

[Greybnk48]

18. This is one of the best posts I have read on DU in a while.

Very informative, well researched, and certainly relevant. Thank you so much.

[Spheric]

19. K&R Thank you for this. Extremely well done. /nt

[riderinthestorm]

20. I don't have enough time to post on this excellent OP but have to K&R! nt

Too excellent to fall off the front page!

[LWolf]

21. k&r

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Point by point

Right now, women earn, on average, 77% of what men do.
The fact that women choose lower paying careers, work fewer hours, show a demonstrable bias toward jobs with nonmonetary rewards and don't negotiate for highest salary explains almost all of this difference.

If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay? The answer is no. The evidence shows that even when the “explanations” for the pay gap are included in a regression, they cannot fully explain the pay disparity. The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn. Thus, while discrimination cannot be measured directly, it is reasonable to assume that this pay gap is the product of gender discrimination.

http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf

After adjusting for all the factors that American Association of University Women deemed relevant, the pay gap is 5%.

Men's work is considered "dangerous"
No need for the quotes. It is dangerous. 92% of workplace fatalities are men.

Women pay more for health insurance than men do in this country.
Yes they do, because health care for women is more expensive.

Principal Findings
Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.

Health care reform equalizes costs by shifting that cost differential onto men. The alternative would have been to spend more on men's health enabling them to live as long as women. Not likely. "Thanks" might be in order.

IV. Women and Violence

Men and boys are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.

[McCamy Taylor]

56. Men are victims of men. Women are the victims of...men. Just as we raise our daughters to have low

to no self esteem, we raise our sons to channel any negative emotion into anger. Johnny is crying because his dog died? Tell him boys don't cry. Johnny picks a fight because his dog died? That's ok. Real boys are full of energy.

Remember, the victims of any -ism include the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Racism hurts whites in this country by forcing them to ignore the natural human urge to show compassion. Sexism hurts men by forcing them to suppress the natural human desire to grieve.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. I don't dispute that patriarchal attitudes hurt.

But both sides of that particular blade cut equally deeply.

In your critique of sexism, you just provided a really excellent example of a patriarchal attitude; The only kind of violence with which we should be concerned is men abusing women. "Man as victim" is either cause for ambivalence or at worst, a punchline.

"Men victimizing women?" A call to arms! "Men victimizing men?" Meh. Let 'em sort it out. "Women victimizing men?" 'Bout time!

All three phenomena are intolerably commonplace.

FWIW, I agree with your basic point WRG Hillary. I don't agree with the misleading stereotypes and talking points you used as steppingstones to get there.

[redqueen]

75. "The only kind of violence with which we should be concerned..."

Who said that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. The person to whom I was replying

(paraphrased) Yeah, men are more often victims of violent crime, but who are the perpetrators? Men!

Absent the belief that this makes the victims less important, the post makes no sense.

[redqueen]

79. I don't see how that implies that the victim is less important.

The victim isn't the subject, the perpetrator is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Had the OP been about perpetrators

It would have said "men and violence".

It's difficult to have a conversation on the topic.

A) women and violence...
B) men are more likely to be the victim.
A) but men are the perpetrators...
B) so? How is that relevant to the topic?
A) we were talking about men who abuse.
B) no, we weren't. We were talking about women, specifically those women who are victims of violence.

[redqueen]

83. The OP is about women.

This subthread has become about how men really deserve more attention with respect to the issue of violence.

Nothing new... just the same old same old attempt to threadjack by MRAs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Is "no, that's misleading" a threadjack?

I suppose so if the point is to rally the troops around a set of myths.

Cue response: "If you want to talk about men who are the victims of violence, start your own thread." Right?

"... but I'm not saying female violence victims are the only important ones... and it's not a patriarchal attitude either, so stop saying that!"

[redqueen]

86. What exactly in the OP was inaccurate?

Please quote the inaccurate statement. Thanks in advance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. For one:

When Congress and the President were negotiating health care legislation, they discovered that they could not please all the people---so they did what politicians so often do. They threw the women under the bus. Under Health Care Reform, most women will still be subject to higher insurance premiums.

Most women will be subject to higher insurance premiums, but most men will be subject to MUCH higher insurance premiums because gender is no longer a rating criteria. The medical costs of the long life that women enjoy will be passed on to short-lived men.

By any logical and rational measure, women are the big winner in health care reform.

[redqueen]

90. So it's not inaccurate, you just wanted to add a disclaimer.

The entire concept behind public insurance is to pool money so that everyone gets coverage. It's sad that we're still forced to pay... but sadder still is that gender is being used as a tool to say "y'all are still getting off easy!"

No inaccurate statements about violence to share? (And I do mean *actual* inaccuracies... not just things that you wish had included some kind of mention of how really women don't have it so bad, not really... it's really men that are being screwed.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. I concede your point. I said "inaccurate" when I should have said "deliberately misleading". n/t

[redqueen]

92. It's not misleading. It's factual.

The fact that your ax ins't being ground is your problem, not a fault of the OP's.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. So if I post an OP about "the plight of men in the US"

And fill it with factual data, you wouldn't chime in, and wouldn't consider it misleading?

[seabeyond]

100. if you had a thread on problems men are having, i would consider, and interact

with my own knowledge and thought....

i am not at battle with men. i do not want a winner and loser.

i want both genders to be healthy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. Including calling bullshit if you thought it was justified.

That's not threadjacking, it's discussion. :think:

I do not want a winner and loser. I want both genders to be healthy.

I am often lax in giving appreciation where it is due. You have always been consistent in this regard. Thanks!

[Romulox]

76. Hypothetical: If a woman raises her son to be a bully, and he beats me up, am I "oppressing myself"

Because the essential social connection between this violent bully and myself is our maleness? That's a hard argument to make, imo, and one of feminism's gaping holes. You must ignore race, class, social influence and every other factor involved to come up with a rather lame "ictims of any -ism include the oppressor as well as the oppressed". In fact, I haven't a clue how you can justify trying to characterize a victim of violence as an "oppressor". :hi:

[Romulox]

77. The insurance issue would've been more persuasive if they had discussed car insurance. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Yes. But persuasive of the opposite point. n/t

[Romulox]

94. Right. But any good writing acknowledges and deals with concessions.

The writer ignores this (gaping hole) in her theory because she has no answer, imo.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[me b zola]

23. K&R

[Lorien]

30. Actually, women are on the verge of outnumbering men in the workforce:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/03/20090903women-work0903.html Perhaps because traditionally we've had to work twice as hard for half the pay, so that's appealing to tight fisted employers during a recession. I once worked for a major corporation who routinely paid women $25 per hour for the same job that men did for $45 per hour. I managed to finish my work in 1/3 the time that my male office mate did, I had been there a year longer than he was, yet he still made $20 per hour more than I did for the same position. This corporation is notorious for winning lawsuits filed against them, so suing really wasn't an option. I fought for better pay and eventually made only $5 less per hour than my male coworkers, but was told that since I "didn't really NEED a job" because I could "just get married instead" I shouldn't make as much. I asked if my single mother with two kids had been in less of a need of a job than my playboy father who ran out on her. Naturally they had no reply.

[Nikki Stone1]

64. at 60% of the pay.

.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. Bravo!

I wrote this in my first edition of my ezine in May: http://www.lovelylifemagazine.com/articles/Paycheck_Fairness_Act_Languishing_In_Congress?month=1&year=2011

I'm a single never married woman (37). It chaps my ass that because of my gender and ONLY my gender I will make 700K to 2 million less a year than a man with my same education and experience.

It chaps my ass to know that if woman had a higher earning power - they would be able to buy their way around the 'system' in place. They would be able to hire the best divorce atty when they finally get away from their abuser. We could start our own businesses - and pay ourselves our real value and worth.


Please please please - contact the Women's Law Center, go to their site - there's also equalpay.org. The first step to overcoming the total inequality -

We gotta go get the money honey!

[Alcibiades]

65. 700k to 2 million less a year?

Damn. That gender gap is getting big.

[Greyhound]

35. BIGGEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!

:kick: & R

[defendandprotect]

42. K&R --

[Odin2005]

50. K&R

[Juneboarder]

51. Thank you for the post...

I was just inquiring on this information over the weekend, and now I have lots of information to read up on as well as items of interest I'd like to look into further.

Thank you again for putting all of this together and sharing with all :)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

54. gotta run, no time to comment, but... K&R. THANKS Mcamy Taylor.

just the other day I saw some discussion here deriding discussion in an article on, "the Feminization of Poverty", like it was some joke someone made up.

Still a long way to go......


THANKS for this.

[Darth_Kitten]

57. Now I feel depressed..........

:(

[cleverusername]

60. BINGO!

Lumberjack Jeff's straw man is a distraction to obscure the fact that crimes are largely committed by men. Gawd forbid we force men to be accountable for their actions. WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!11!! The male privilege is so thick in here! Love the mansplaining. Keep up the good work! My feminism Bingo card is almost full! Wait... BINGO!

[Liberal_in_LA]

61. kick. nicely put together

[JDPriestly]

63. And the lawyers who could challenge those who commit violence against

women have little power in the legal firms.

Although the nation's law schools for years have been graduating classes that are almost evenly split between men and women, and although firms are absorbing new associates in numbers that largely reflect that balance, something unusual happens to most women after they begin to climb into the upper tiers of law firms. They disappear.

According to the National Association for Law Placement, a trade group that provides career counseling to lawyers and law students, only about 17 percent of the partners at major law firms nationwide were women in 2005, a figure that has risen only slightly since 1995, when about 13 percent of partners were women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/19law.html

The article is from 2006, but things have probably gotten worse, not better, what with all of the downsizing at law firms.

[Alcibiades]

66. You Lie!

Or so the latest issue of the Atlantic tells us. In it, the claim is made that men are DOOOMED! DOOOOMED! And the author dismisses glibly all evidence to the contrary.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135

Overblown stuff. Women are, in this country, less oppressed than in the past, though it's not as good, at least in terms of pay and benefits, as it is for women in western Europe, but this does not spell "The End of Men." I'm not entirely sanguine, but the situation is much better for my wife than it was for my feminist mom.

When you look at what women's liberation has accomplished in the time since it stopped calling itself women's liberation, it has been the most successful social movement this country has seen in my lifetime, doing as well, or better, than the movement for racial equality. When you compare what the women's movement has done compared to what the peace movement has been able to do over the last 40 years, I think American feminists have more cause for celebration than despair.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. The Atlantic is trying to sell copy. I'm trying to tell the truth.

The corporate media has lost all credibility when it comes to social and political affairs.

The best place to look for news is non-profit sites like this. You add $$$+news=lies.

[Alcibiades]

70. It's a bizarre read

I thought it betrayed a certain class bias on the part of the author: rich women are doing well, so therefore it's the end of men. In reality, rich women are doing well, rich men are doing well, and everybody else is just getting by, or worse. She seriously needs to read "Nickel and Dimed."

[seabeyond]

69. "more cause for celebration than despair". what men really dont get... more than

despair.

the thing..... it isnt good enough. i dont know what it was and what it is comparatively. i. dont. care.

i have had more men say to me,... well, you should be thankful you live in the u.s. it is much better than some countries.

that gets a huge WTF from me, cause no, i am not appeased that i am not being given 100 lashes for being raped.

today

there is still despair. be it for the blacks, gays, mexicans or women.... there is cause for despair.

that is the issue

[Alcibiades]

71. Don't forget working people in general

My personal favorite example is cited in the Atlantic and elsewhere: because there are now women who are billionaires and CEO's, gender equality--nay, female superiority--has been achieved. I think that the average man who earns less than 30k a year has a lot more in common with a woman in the same situation than with a man who earns over 100k a year, and vice versa: whether either of them realize this is a question of consciousness raising. Most of the problems addressed in the OP are faced more by women in lower SES categories than by the single, ambitious, well-educated professional corporate ladder climbers who merely need the removal of impediments to their successful career: I think that the more today's women's movement addresses the needs of the former rather than the latter, the more hope and less despair there ought to be. This will require first of all, though, that women be not appeased by the lack of lashes or the mere existence of female CEOs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. Somewhat hyperbolic, but still a good read. Thanks. n/t

[redqueen]

74. lol @ "somewhat" (nt)

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. *shrug* The point of writing is to engage the reader. n/t

[redqueen]

84. Obviously. Sensationalism rules, rational thought be damned. (nt)

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. Heh. Funny.

Upthread, rational thought is considered a threadjack.

[Beacool]

72. K&R

:kick:

Ahhhh, classy Rhodes. You brought back memories. It was an eye opener to realize that the left is just as sexist as the right. Reading this board, KOS, Huff and other LW blogs during the primaries was just depressing. Well, beware of what you wish for. I notice that the left and the media's legs seem to have stopped tingling........

:eyes:

[Greyhound]

95. More please.

[cleverusername]

96. Try Feminism 101

For the men who want to discuss feminism:

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

You'll learn some new and interesting concepts.

[redqueen]

98. "By 15, girls are twice as likely to become depressed than boys."

When and why does girls' self-esteem drop?

* Starting in the pre-teen years, there is a shift in focus; the body becomes an all consuming passion and barometer of worth.
* Self-esteem becomes too closely tied to physical attributes; girls feel they can't measure up to society standards.
* Between 5th and 9th grade, gifted girls, perceiving that smarts aren't sexy, hide their accomplishments.
* Teenage girls encounter more "stressors" in life, especially in their personal relationships, and react more strongly than boys to these pressures, which accounts in part for the higher levels of depression in girls.
* The media, including television, movies, videos, lyrics, magazine, internet, and advertisements, portray images of girls and women in a sexual manner—revealing clothing, body posture and facial expressions—as models of femininity for girls to emulate.



The sexualization of girls and mental health problems

In response to reports by journalists, child advocacy organizations, parents, and psychologists, in 2007 the American Psychological Association (APA) created a Task Force to consider these issues. The Task Force Report concluded that the sexualization of girls is a broad and increasing problem and is harmful to girls' self-image and healthy development. Sexualization is defined as occurring when a person's value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another's sexual use. The report states that examples of sexualization are found in all forms of media, and as 'new media' have been created and access to media has become omnipresent, examples have increased.

The APA Task Force Report states that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains:

* Cognitive and emotional health: Sexualization and objectification undermine a person's confidence in and comfort with her own body, leading to emotional and self-image problems, such as shame and anxiety.
* Mental and physical health: Research links sexualization with three of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in girls and women—eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed mood.
* Sexual development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls' ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image.

when are people going to start putting human beings ahead of their desire to be titillated by the female form at nearly all times and in nearly all situations?

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. In your opinion, why are teen boys 4x as likely to commit suicide?

These are statistics which are difficult to reconcile.

[redqueen]

103. It's 3x. Probably because they're not allowed to feel emotions because it's too feminine to do so.

And as all men know, the absolute worst thing in the world you can be is in any way feminine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. It's 3.93 times. By most math, that rounds to "four".

But it sounds as if it is safe to say that you believe it's their own fault.

Do you agree that this is a problem? If so, do you think society has any responsibility to try to solve it? Would you say that it's on par with the problem of depression among teen girls?

Also, if boys can't or won't acknowledge emotional problems, how can a statement like "By 15, girls are twice as likely to become depressed than boys." be validated? If the premise is true, the multiple shouldn't be "twice", it should be some number approaching infinity.

Either;
Boys kill themselves without experiencing depression
Boys are underdiagnosed for depression
Girls are overdiagnosed for depression
The statistic is made up to serve an agenda

Do you see any other explanations?

[AsahinaKimi]

99. kicking

got here to late to rec