How can we combat deep misogyny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's apparent that it runs incredibly deep in this country, where a woman's professional status is put under a significantly higher scrutiny than a man's, or the standards for which she could be put in the same professional level with a man (or higher) are impossibly unrealistic. She will never be "enough" even compared to males with mediocrity.

If we can somehow avoid talking about politics, can we please have a serious discussion about how deep misogyny runs in America (and yes, much more than many other places--or at least in different ways) and how we can successfully combat it? Is it possible? What do you think works well in other countries? What can we do here?

I honestly see exactly the opposite in the professional world. Leadership goes out of its way to promote female and URM candidates, often with qualifications that generally wouldn’t merit consideration. If a group is all female/URM it’s considered a good thing, a group that’s full of white guys is a problem that needs to get fixed. I just want to work with the most qualified person; I really couldn’t give a crap about anything else. I’ve had my female boss (who’s absolutely amazing) explicitly tell me that she will favor female candidates to “overcome” the unconscious bias she’s sure they’re experiencing in hiring. Luckily she also has very high standards so everyone we’ve hired has been good, but this message going the other direction would get someone fired.

I remember a few years back when a tech recruiting company was trying combat “sexism” in their online hiring tool. Female candidates were ranked lower in technical competence and had a lower rate of getting callback for jobs, even though the process was largely anonymous. They surmised that since people could tell the gender of the person over the phone, that’s where the bias crept in.

They ran an experiment using software that would alter the gender of the speaker; I listened and it was absolutely amazing how well it worked. They kept a control group where the voices went through the algorithm but the gender didn’t change to account for digital artifacts.

They found the following:

1) Digitally processed voices without a gender swap showed no changes.
2) Men modified to women had higher scores and callback rates than unaltered.
3) Women modified to men had lower scores and callback rates than unaltered.

So, the takeaway that there was bias, but it was bias against men and towards woman, even though the initial impetus for this was the “obvious” bias against women.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great news. First female chief of staff!

Doesn't count!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

If white women wanted Hillary or Kamala to be president, they would be.

Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

Yeah, I'm sure Kalmala wasn't qualified to be president because she can't bench press 200 lbs. GMAFB

Kamala is not a good candidate. It's ok to admit that without falling into the silly trap of calling everyone misogynist for pointing out her very obvious deficiencies, which are not counterbalanced by any particularly noteworthy gifts. In the realm of presidential politics, she's not particularly good or standout at anything. You may think you are helping, but it does no one any favors.

No, no. Not everyone. I called you a misogynist in direct response to your comments. So let's get that straight. Own your "truth."

You think an elected senator, an AG and a prosecutor is less qualified or not good at anything?

How about slowing down and stop frothing? In the realm of presidential politics, yes she is nothing special at all. She has no standout qualities or gifts. If all you can list are titles, perhaps you agree with me deep down.

Oh FFS it's like talking to a pigeon. What qualities does your guy have? Failed businesses? A criminal record? A filed TV show? Even if you take away all of the rhetoric he spews, Kamala is and always will be more qualified than Trump. She is more educated, has been elected to more positions and is younger and sharper.

What does qualities does your guy have? Won two national presidential elections. How about your girl?

Np. Right there is an example. Harris is a woman. Not a 'girl'. I agree orange dude ia a toddler bit you would never say boy

I was responding to a poster who called Trump a "guy." In the name of equity, shouldn't Harris be a "girl." If the poster referred to Trump as a man, I would have referred to Harris as a woman.

Well, the proper opposite of “guy” is “gal”, not “girl”.

DP. No it isn't. Learn when to back down from a silly point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

Because they both have a political past, and we were better off with his. Why can’t you comprehend this?

It is just unfathomable that people believe this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

Yeah, I'm sure Kalmala wasn't qualified to be president because she can't bench press 200 lbs. GMAFB

Kamala is not a good candidate. It's ok to admit that without falling into the silly trap of calling everyone misogynist for pointing out her very obvious deficiencies, which are not counterbalanced by any particularly noteworthy gifts. In the realm of presidential politics, she's not particularly good or standout at anything. You may think you are helping, but it does no one any favors.

No, no. Not everyone. I called you a misogynist in direct response to your comments. So let's get that straight. Own your "truth."

You think an elected senator, an AG and a prosecutor is less qualified or not good at anything?

How about slowing down and stop frothing? In the realm of presidential politics, yes she is nothing special at all. She has no standout qualities or gifts. If all you can list are titles, perhaps you agree with me deep down.

Oh FFS it's like talking to a pigeon. What qualities does your guy have? Failed businesses? A criminal record? A filed TV show? Even if you take away all of the rhetoric he spews, Kamala is and always will be more qualified than Trump. She is more educated, has been elected to more positions and is younger and sharper.

What does qualities does your guy have? Won two national presidential elections. How about your girl?

Np. Right there is an example. Harris is a woman. Not a 'girl'. I agree orange dude ia a toddler bit you would never say boy

I was responding to a poster who called Trump a "guy." In the name of equity, shouldn't Harris be a "girl." If the poster referred to Trump as a man, I would have referred to Harris as a woman.

Well, the proper opposite of “guy” is “gal”, not “girl”.

Guy is gender neutral. We've always called to a group of female friends, "Hey guys, listen to this!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

If white women wanted Hillary or Kamala to be president, they would be.

Full stop.

Many white women did. Why didn't Hispanic males?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

Because they both have a political past, and we were better off with his. Why can’t you comprehend this?

It is just unfathomable that people believe this.

Sounds like an issue you need to take up with the majority of the electorate. Maybe, perhaps, you are the problem if you can't even fathom that people believe this? Expand your circle and information ecosystem or prepare to keep being "shocked".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's apparent that it runs incredibly deep in this country, where a woman's professional status is put under a significantly higher scrutiny than a man's, or the standards for which she could be put in the same professional level with a man (or higher) are impossibly unrealistic. She will never be "enough" even compared to males with mediocrity.

If we can somehow avoid talking about politics, can we please have a serious discussion about how deep misogyny runs in America (and yes, much more than many other places--or at least in different ways) and how we can successfully combat it? Is it possible? What do you think works well in other countries? What can we do here?

The first thing that women can do to gain more respect is to stop blaming their failures on misogyny. - Gen X woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading this thread, I'm going to stop dating Colombian babes and start dating the feminists of DCUM.

Can't wait!

What are you talking about and why do you think anyone cares who you date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's apparent that it runs incredibly deep in this country, where a woman's professional status is put under a significantly higher scrutiny than a man's, or the standards for which she could be put in the same professional level with a man (or higher) are impossibly unrealistic. She will never be "enough" even compared to males with mediocrity.

If we can somehow avoid talking about politics, can we please have a serious discussion about how deep misogyny runs in America (and yes, much more than many other places--or at least in different ways) and how we can successfully combat it? Is it possible? What do you think works well in other countries? What can we do here?

The first thing that women can do to gain more respect is to stop blaming their failures on misogyny. - Gen X woman

So misogyny doesn't exist and we don't have to fight against it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This platform is still open:
Women are, in general, "less capable" of being POTUS than men?

Y or N

I'm just a woman. I can't answer until my husband gets home and tells me the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One very easy step would be to stop shaming stay at home moms in your community and online. They are women, they are contributors and right now they are given more respect by scum like Vance than Dems, who are afraid to be. acknowledge them for fear of feminist wrath.

Ever heard of the patriarchy? Vance doesn’t respect stay at home moms, he just believes that is what a woman should be. That a woman doesn’t have value behind being a mother. Hence, the childless cat ladies comment. And I’d love you to do a deep dive into Trump’s comments about protecting women…even if they don’t want it. Save it with your “feminist wrath BS.” Women aren’t going to shut up and stay at home just because men don’t like it.

Funny. I thought childless cat ladies were the ones being held in contempt by Vance, not valuable mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

Because they both have a political past, and we were better off with his. Why can’t you comprehend this?

It is just unfathomable that people believe this.

Sounds like an issue you need to take up with the majority of the electorate. Maybe, perhaps, you are the problem if you can't even fathom that people believe this? Expand your circle and information ecosystem or prepare to keep being "shocked".

I know they do, including people in my extended family. I'm just shocked by it because it makes no sense, and I'm a logical thinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?

No, it doesn't. It just says that you'd rather vote for a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon than a woman (and God forbid a black woman). But let me guess, you're an old white dude.

I’m not this poster but am a woman who voted for Hillary and did not vote for Kamala. But, sure, blame it on misogyny instead of looking at the candidate and the policy positions she’s taken over the years.

I really want just one of you to tell me in a way that makes sense how Kamala was less qualified than Trump, or Nikki.

She accepted the role of Border Czar. She let 30 million people enter illegally and unvetted. She is incompetent