All Comments (6)

interesting - i posted a response to garyd yesterday and i think because i used the word for a female dog it didn't get posted, and yet that filth posted by "just from the grape vine" makes it through...

gary, i had hoped to carry on our conversation in a civilized, intelligent manner, as we had been doing, but unfortunately it seems that it cannot be done here. but thanks for your comments anyway...

Whose talking about rights? Certainly not I. What I am discussing here is simply that men and women tend to function quite differently in certain settings. For better or for worse that can hamper one or the other in those same settings.

Yes, JJ, people drool that at my folk a lot. our point? Would you like more bigotry, or less? You seem unclear on the point.

I've never really understood the notion that these kinds of comparisons actually mean a whole lot...

From what I see here, many *perceive* themselves as less sexist than racist, but in the process tend to tell women whom they don't know that they know better than them whether or not sexism exists.

Not just in the Pagan threads, but there's a *lot* of talk scattered around about whether if female religious don't primp and preen enough, if we're fit to encourage people to be less 'worldly' or whatever. :)

I think people see racism as *uglier,* but sexism remains pervasive, ...and defended pretty stiffly, even if on the basis it's not happening. At least among the more radical religious (and radical a-religious) of certain stripes.

There certainly seems to be another backlash on, where people are trying to dress up their idea of 'woman's place' as the only way to be, and all.

I do think that in working out the fact women have the *right* to pursue lives some find 'nontraditional,' that we have to be careful not to *devalue* work and lives associated with those 'traditional roles,' and those who choose them... But at the same time this is no cause to retreat from the ideal of women having the same *options* as anyone else.

Amanda, Why do you think it's done on purpose? Men and women neither think nor function the same way and thats a good thing. Neither is worse than the other they are simply different. There is to my knowledge only one female serial killer of note in history who was not a poisoner Ailene Wournous. She was unique as well in that her victims were strangers. Males dominate that group much as they dominate leadership positions in fortune 500 companies. I suspect it is the flip side of the same coin. In my experience I think women simply are not as prone to approach things in the same nearly monomaniacal winner take all fashion as are men. Women are more inclined to network men simply don't do that to the same extent and in the same way as women.

In short women in general (there are of course exceptions and Hillary Clinton appears to be one) simply aren't willing to climb the top by using other people as stepping stones. And for better or for worse beyond a certain point you can't get to the top of the corporate ladder of most fortune 500 companies (there are again some exceptions) without cutting a few erstwhile friends off at the knees.

I agree with some of the points made about who we can/can't isolate ourselves from, but the fact remains that the higher up you get in any industry - including corporations, higher education, etc. - you see fewer and fewer females, which creates an opportunity for sexism to flourish. It may not be "intentional" isolation (although I would argue that it is) but with women (that is, white women - women of color are even more of a minority as you move up in the work force) almost absent from these environments, it's hard to believe that the best interest of women is being served.