Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
Original Poster
#1 Old 16th May 2015 at 3:47 AM
Default Free the nipple campaign
Recently there's been a video circulating on Facebook about the Free the nipple campaign. You can watch it here. Do you think this is something worth fighting for or an issue that detracts from more important ones? Personally I don't want to walk around topless, and I don't see why it is such an issue to put a shirt on. Additionally I don't think it would be appropriate in most places even if it was legal, except maybe the beach or something. And I feel like it could be taking space away from more important issues. But that doesn't mean I hate the movement, and it's not hurting anyone. What do you guys think?

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
bleed-in-ink.tumblr.com
Advertisement
Theorist
#2 Old 16th May 2015 at 3:57 AM
Don't care.

Might be nice to see more boobs though.
Might not.
Field Researcher
#3 Old 16th May 2015 at 4:28 AM
I'm extremely torn on this subject and I always have been. And then there's the difference between "Would I like to see it" and "should women be allowed to". I'm very uncomfortable with nudity, whether it's my own or other people's (including males) and I'm also the type to get very uncomfortable and slightly appalled, by seing two people make out in public, so I personally wouldn't want people to walk around topless, more than they already do.

But what I feel comfortable with and what I would do myself, has to be completely unrelated to what should be allowed. I say "has to be", because people will naturally form opinions on such things, based on their own nature, views, reactions etc, but applying those views to other people and what they're allowed to do is very morally wrong (in my opinion), so it has to be kept seperate.

I'm not sure, honestly... One can compare with tribal communities and say that the men there don't spiral into a stupor, from the women's breasts being exposed. So is the real reason for this "boob obsession", that it's something secretive that isn't supposed to be seen? And if so, increased exposure within sociaties should technically eliminate that to some extent. But is that a good thing, a bad thing or... just plain... non-mattering (is there even a word for that in English...?) Besides, women in those tribes don't walk around shirtless to make a statement or "just because" or to provoke reactions and force people to face it and make up an opinion about it. They do it because it's warm as hell for one thing, they don't generally have a lot of clothes and the clothes they have, is often home-made from scarce resources. So basically, it makes sense there to be topless, but what sense does it really make in western sociaties? As far as I can tell, it wouldn't really serve any practical purposes, it's entirely to make a point.

Besides, I can't entirely relate to this "nipples must be covered up" issue, as we in Denmark don't have censorship, so I can hardly watch any Danish TV or go anywhere outside, without seeing nudity (particularly top-part nudity) in some way, shape or form, but I know it's talked about in other sociaties. Personally, I wouldn't have minded not having full nudity shoved in my face since birth from any regular Danish movie, porn magazines on bottom racks in common stores, beaches (although I think it makes sense there) or just from people around me, for that matter. I assure you, I don't feel like I've experienced the world as it should be, because I grew up with breasts everywhere I looked. On the contrary, I think it's partly the reason why I'm very uncomfortable with nudity, as contradicting as it may sound. It just felt... intrusive to me. Like crossing some sort of intimicy line, without my consent, maybe. I didn't have a father growing up, but if I had, I wouldn't have wanted his ass in my face either. Ass isn't per say a "sexual" bodypart either, but it's still a private one that is kept hidden, like female breasts, but I don't see anything wrong with it being that way either.

Should it be socially acceptable for a woman to be topless, should she choose to? As I've been writing this, I've reached the answer: Yes.
Would I personally like/be comfortable with more public nudity? (exception being women breastfeeding, don't even get me started on how much it pisses me off, that that shouldn't allowed.): No.

Edited to rephrase the last part.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 16th May 2015 at 5:18 AM
Men have nipples too. Perhaps we should ask them to cover themselves up?

Anyway, personally I'm not particularly fond of being stared at for not wearing clothes, so I cover myself up. I'm also generally not fond of lots of nudity in public. I can understand how some might like a topless choice for sunbathing, but for walking about in public streets I find it a little bit gross, particularly in places where cultures meet. That also goes for old, hairy men in bathing speedos. Waaaaay too much nudity. For tribal communities, I don't care what they do, and if their traditions involve nudity, it's their choice.

I'd say that if people absolutely want to fly their nipples, then beaches only, and as a personal choice for those who might want to do it. But please keep at least the bottom half of the bikini on. As for men, please put on a shirt in public at the very least (unless they have a nice body to flaunt - girls sometimes like something to look at, too ).

For breastfeeding women I don't mind (as long as they don't walk around naked) - how else are babies going to eat? The milk can't go through the bra, and drinking straws would be a little out there. It's less bother to bring your body around than a bottle and formula, and the milk comes pre-heated to the right temperature as well.

Toplessness for women and social accept - unless it leads to things like higher death rates for male drivers (and yes, I'm joking), I don't see any big problems in it.

I'm just personally not fond of it. I wouldn't like more nudity in the general community. It's bad enough already, considering it's socially acceptable to wander around in teeny weeny bikinis and speedos that barely covers the most essential. But hey - if people absolutely want to run around naked, it's their choice.
Scholar
#5 Old 16th May 2015 at 3:28 PM
I remember the nipple drama with Janet Jackson on american telly. I never saw the actual moment,probably because those big sports shows are not that big over here I guess , but I really enjoyed the drama afterwards. It is very entertaining to see stuck up people throw a hissy fit about things. Especially when blown out of proportion like that.

At the same time it is kind of scary how people can waste a lot of time about this, while other more important topics (imo ofc) are ignored.
Test Subject
#6 Old 18th May 2015 at 4:57 PM
I think the issue at heart - desexualising women's bodies - is a very important one but I dislike the way it's being done. With the Free the Nipple campaign you run the risk of shaming women who *don't* want to pose topless because they feel uncomfortable with it. Not only that but it's very easy to talk about freeing female nipples. This plays right into the hands of men who want to see more breasts and are using feminism as a cover to do so. You would never see a campaign that says 'Free Women from Femininity' or 'Let's Talk About Reality of Female Anatomy'. On a basic level, we only ever get to see conventionally attractive women showing their nipples but with a campaign like that, it's expected. So overall, I'm not here for it.

A: So are we cool?
B: Like the other side of the pillow! :)
Theorist
#7 Old 18th May 2015 at 5:43 PM
Personally, I think everyone should cover up, males included. I don't like seeing a shirtless skinny kid walking around in saggy pants thinking he's god's gift to women, or a fat hairy-chested guy with jiggly man boobs.

Personal preferences aside, I think if men are allowed to walk around shirtless, women should be able to as well. It's pretty dumb how, in the US especially, people get so worked up about "decency". There seems to be a mindset here that seeing something perfectly natural like a naked body will do more harm to the mind of a child than say, exposure to guns and gun violence. The same parents that would be disgusted and offended at their 10yr old child seeing a naked breast would have no qualms at all about taking their child to a gun range to shoot assault weapons. So backwards. Anyway, I digress.

Resident wet blanket.
Instructor
#8 Old 24th May 2015 at 4:11 AM
Ah, nipples.

Maybe it's the way I've been raised, or maybe I need to be psychoanalyzed better, but anything involving human "sexuality" (ie nipples, vaginas, testicles, etc.) tend to really, really gross me out. I'm so disgusted at the thought of looking at my own vagina that it's probably unhealthy. Nipples are strange and I don't like them at all. Women's nipples I hardly see, but the ones I have I'd like to turn the other way. Man-nipples are fine because sometimes I forget they're even there (otherwise, I hate them too.)

All of that it totally besides the point. In my opinion, I can see what the movement is trying to accomplish, but it's not winning my vote for me. Like I've mentioned in the Vent V4 thread, I'm really not an involved advocate for feminism. This kind of thing falls under that same category: Yes I believe women's bodies should stop being sexualized allthemotherFingtime, and yes I can see how unfair it is that men can jog shirtless and in western society women cannot.
But the way I see it is that this movement will never take off. I'm not saying that to be pessimistic or whatever, but think about it for a second: Much of the US already has the thought process that nippes=shameful. Not only would you have to convince Americans of all backgrounds, ages, beliefs, etc, but prepare the next generation for the desexualization of breasts. Not everyone would be on board with that either, so in the end we'd end up having a ton of split views.

At the very least I believe that the "free the nipple" humdrum has a good idea, but it won't actually go into place in any of our lifetimes unfortunately. Personally, I'd not like to go running naked and I'm already uncomfortable with the things you learn in sex ed classes.
I'm very split on what to do. I feel like if a woman wants to run naked, by all means go ahead. Just know that A. I won't enjoy it B. Others may not C. If you get stared or pointed at, it's half your own fault and half society's fault for making the rules of nipples that way.
Mad Poster
#9 Old 26th May 2015 at 6:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Gremily_
If you get stared or pointed at, it's half your own fault

I'm going to have to cut you off right there and state that it is no way the fault of anyone for expressing themselves and feeling comfortable enough with their body to have the courage to walk around nude.

The very reason why nudity in general is such a problem in the western world is because of the exact mentality that people are at fault for expressing their outer beauty.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

Theorist
#10 Old 28th May 2015 at 3:24 AM
Nudity isn't the problem. People are the problem.

Unfortunate reality: The world is full of people.
Alchemist
#11 Old 2nd Jun 2015 at 10:54 PM
I think we should go the other way and demand that men keep their shirts on. Ain't nobody wantin' to see a pair of free-flapping man boobs over a pot belly that could put a pregnant woman to shame.
And personally I don't want to see lady titties, either. It's entirely possible to be beautiful and natural without inflicting it on anybody else: Re: The comfort of your own home.

BUT: If men are going to continue to be allowed to run around topless, women should be, too.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Test Subject
#12 Old 10th Jun 2015 at 6:11 PM
Women are most certainly allowed to do whatever the heck they want. It's the minds of society that says "nope woman nipples are gross." that keeps us from not going completely topless. (for me its more comfort and the mindset of idontwanttobesexualized that makes me wear shirts.)
Test Subject
#13 Old 15th Jun 2015 at 1:32 AM
Well, consider a flasher on a subway or street corner. He's forcing other people to participate without their consent, in his sexual fantasy. The part which makes his actions troublesome (and illegal), is the lack of appropriate boundaries. Other people have a right to go about their day, without being subjected to the sexual proclivities of random strangers. But in this case, here we have a group of young women who want to expose their nipples to other people. First I'd have to ask, why do they want to do that? What do they get out of exposing their nipples to random strangers? Is it something sexual or some other thing? Obviously, there's a great deal of cultural baggage surrounding women's autonomy and sexism in general which could be influencing their opinion (as well as our own) and we can't just ignore that.

Anyway, for whatever reason they have a need or desire to expose their nipples to random strangers. And the reason they give, which supposedly explains why they should be allowed to expose their nipples to non-consenting strangers, is that "I think I am entitled to decide for other people which body parts they consider to be sexual and private".

Aha, so they are entitled control freaks. But too bad for them, they don't get to decide for me. I am entitled to decide that question for myself. Honestly, I suspect that these young women secretly believe that if they just remove enough clothes then (some) men will quit constantly sexualizing them without their permission. It's the old "if you won't stop hitting me then I'll say I enjoy it" routine, familiar to domestic violence councilors everywhere. It never works and the only thing that line of thinking suggests (to me, anyway) is that they have unresolved abuse issues.
Test Subject
#14 Old 15th Jun 2015 at 1:43 AM
Well... suppose I should add that it seems difficult to make the argument that boobs aren't sexual. Neither boy or girl children have boobs -- breasts only develop on young women during puberty, as a visible sign to others that they are physically able to reproduce, gestate and nurse infants. A female breast is not the same thing as an elbow.
Theorist
#15 Old 15th Jun 2015 at 2:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by waiting45
A female breast is not the same thing as an elbow.


The value we place on elbows vs. breasts is different, the suggested connotations of elbows vs. breasts is different.

But really, tits and elbows aren't either intrinsically sexual. People define things. It's what we do. We've established a stereotype that says boobs are for boners, instead of for babies, but that's all it is. The Victorians popped wood over ankles apparently...so that's a thing. It's not an intrinsic thing (or my sexuality is somehow broke), so it only makes sense to allow for the notion that people are just kind of shitty (or, alternately, awesome) in that we just kind of arbitrarily declare shit sexyville by monkey-committee-consensus and all jump on the sexytime bus at some point and go "HELLZ YAH BEWBS!"

When in actuality we could live in bizarro-land where I wave my masculine and wrinkled elbow unadorned in front of the ladies and they'd be falling all over themselves for some sexy elbow shit. Those fucked up walrus-looking moustaches you sometimes see in black and white photos? Women swooned over that crap. Whenever anyone tells you human sexuality makes any sense, you slap them across their lying mouths - it's turnips and moonbeams in there. There's no making sense of any of it. When it comes to horny, we're straight down the rabbit hole.
Test Subject
#16 Old 8th Aug 2015 at 5:33 AM
This topic hasn't been replied to for awhile, but I wanted to drop some insight anyways. Most everything we construct corresponds to sociology. In regions of Africa, it's standard for prepubescent girls to stifle their breast development by allowing an adult to iron their breasts. This is all simply to avert the sexual comings that teen males experience when going through puberty. In America, the majority of us would consider this practice acerbic and immoral. Though, there it's socially expected.

This is an archetypal example of contrasting societies. In more liberal areas--like America--it's socially improper to have your nipple out for no apparent reason: even when breast feeding a baby it's seen as improper to some. The labels we give to certain actions and terms are dependent on the society itself. We give sexual meaning to nipples, vaginas, and anuses in most countries. In several countries though, you don't blink an eye if a stranger walks by nude.

It's a difficult opinion to address because it's so natural. Humans were born naked, factually. We still belong to the animal kingdom. The skin and fur on the same animals we domesticated have no difference of meaning than the skin on our bodies. We were all born to be naked. That is not a liberal or spiritual statement; it's a fact. Scientifically, if it weren't for us being intelligent persons, we wouldn't be able to conduct sociology, and therefore would have no real opinionated organization of culture. Which if you didn't already catch on, that would mean we wouldn't be able to create clothes. We wouldn't be able to label certain body parts as sexual, we wouldn't be able to apply morals to things, and we wouldn't be able to comprehend the universe in the way geologists or physicists do. That is all due to our intelligence as humans.

So, yes, it's natural to be naked. Though, if you're looking for society to approve of specific body parts being nude, you may want to move countries. Socially, depending on where you live, you may be labeled improper by the majority.

I do find it a bit ridiculous, however. There is many problems that need to be addressed in our world, and trying to get an already established society to approve of something that is so trivial is the least of them. Although this statement is opinionated, I think if your priorities lie within trying to get the exclusion of clothes on specific parts of the body validated, then you're fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought.

It has nothing to due with women's rights in this case, but rather how societies have labeled each gender's body part. It's not seen as sexual for men to walk around with a shirt off. It's seen as sexual for a woman to walk around with her shirt off. Most of society doesn't want to see a man walking around in a bikini, though.

Worrying about who has the more liberal choices in clothing is a lot different than making sure women get equal pay. There is just certain priorities that don't need to be fought for, and I understand that is up to one to decide. Though, I'm curious in how one can compare something that would support a person's health and possible family with something that has to due with the exclusion of clothing.

Considering the fact I'm sure most of us would let women strip naked if we experienced a life or death weather situation, I'm not sure what it's fighting for.
Lab Assistant
#17 Old 10th Aug 2015 at 11:41 PM
I hate it when people try to dismiss a problem just because they think it's not as major as others. Society can work on MORE THAN ONE PROBLEM at a time. The wage gap, domestic violence, and the censorship of titties all happen under the eye of patriarchy. If you try and solve rape before you focus on the way society shames and stigmatizes, yet still feels entitled to, women's bodies, you're never going to get anywhere.
Test Subject
#18 Old 11th Aug 2015 at 3:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SocialistBunny
The wage gap, domestic violence, and the censorship of titties all happen under the eye of patriarchy.


I'm disappointed by your comment.

First, to clear up any misunderstanding I am not in any way implying that there isn't a sociological issue with trying to free the nipple. I was simply stating I'm not quite sure what it's fighting for in itself. Both men and women by the majority do not want to see breasts, period. To free the nipple we would have to desexualize the nipple and/or make sexual parts appropriate in the open. There is no reason why women can't cover up. With that said, ALL humans should cover up male or not. We need to be working towards making men cover up more so than trying to get women's sexual parts validated to be shown in public.

My comment was explaining differences in societies and how in America specifically we are fighting for the wrong things. I use the term "wrong" since it's been proven countless times that infections and diseases are much more likely to be contracted when humans walk around nude in their daily life. I'd also like to point out that I never once said that societies can't work on more problems than one. I said that worrying about something so trivial is the least of what we should be worrying about; implying that the amount of effort we put into some issues are much more needed in other issues. Plus, if you're going to compare something as drastic as rape to something so trivial in my statement (if you were trying to point out the flaws in mine), then I can easily say one would have to be ridiculous to compare war to the campaign trying to free a nipple on a scale of absurdity.

Now, let's address the wage gap. All images provided on my side of the argument are government based. Don't ask me for proof. Most of the pictures give the site at the bottom. All other ones I'll provide links on.




The white house, our society, and many employers in congress continue to say there is a wage gap between genders, yet the factors to why there is this wage gap is rarely discussed. The wage gap exists, but it's not under the eyes on patriarchy. In fact, the blame for the wage gap is quite equal for blame on society's part. For your statement that it's patriarchy's fault to be accurate, the wage gap would have to be failing to be fixed flawlessly due to men holding power. Men hold the power in countless positions in America, but the wage gap is not to blame on them. It's to blame on both parties.

It's proven that traditional roles are still pushed onto both genders despite how liberal America is coming. Women AND men by majority still think in some ways women are more inclined to do certain tasks. Ones that focus on children, letting the man provide the money, and being a stay at home mother are still decently preferred by women and men regardless of the decline.




This proves that the wage gap is not to blame on men; it's to blame on how our society still applies gender stereotypes and how we've brushed those stereotypes off like they're simply to just be accepted. This proof is only going to support the next set of pictures I provide.





This is simply more sociological evidence that most of the complaining on the wage gap is mainly complains from our society. This also proves that traditional roles and how we value them still have some declining to do. Is there a good reason for it? No, not to the degree we make it out to be. The wage gap is ALMOST non-existent despite the white house, graduates, and congress employers themselves saying that it is a very big issue. Why? Our own government statistics say otherwise.

Education, choice of industry and occupation, hours worked, experience, and career interruptions all affect the productivity--and compensation--of workers, whether male or female.
Congress sets the pay of most federal white-collar employees through the General Schedule (GS). GS grade and seniority almost entirely determine the pay of federal employees. Other factors--including gender, market pay rates, and individual productivity--play little role.

The average woman on the GS makes 89 cents for each dollar earned by the average man.
OPM data show that among the federal workforce, females make up 75 percent of all social workers but only 17 percent of all general engineers. On average, federal social workers earn $79,569, while federal general engineers earn $117,894.
http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment.asp

A comparison of wages within each occupation reveals very little wage gap. Without accounting for any potential differences in education, experience, hours, or other factors that could affect wages, female engineers earn more than 95 percent as much as male engineers, and female social workers earn more than 97 percent as much as male social workers. For example, on the December 2013 data, female engineers had average earnings of $113,534 compared to an average of $118,979 for males. Female social workers had average earnings of $70,504 compared to $72,509 for males.

The average woman makes 18 percentage points less than the average man. Controlling for demographic factors and education actually slightly increases the gap (to 20 percentage points) primarily because women’s educational attainment now outpaces men’s. However, detailed proxies for occupation and industry reduce the overall gender gap by almost a quarter—to 14 percentage points. Adding controls for hours worked further shrinks the overall gap. And adding additional controls for the number of children a worker has and time out of the workforce reduces the gender gap by three-quarters—to just five percentage points.
http://www.consad.com/content/repor...al%20Report.pdf

Women with the same skills and doing the same jobs as men are paid almost the same amount. Including other factors would probably further shrink the remaining difference.
Surveys of individual workers cannot reliably measure total compensation, which includes benefits. For example, few workers know how much their companies spend on their health insurance premiums. Consequently, studies examining the gender gap rarely examine total compensation. If women--particularly working mothers--tend to place a higher value on some benefits than men do (such as more paid time off or better health coverage), this would artificially inflate the pay gap. They would accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits, but surveys asking about wages would report only the lower pay.
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/ima...shx?h=276&w=600

The gender gap has shrunk so rapidly over the past generation. In 1979, the median woman working full time made 62.5 percent as much as the median man. By 2013, that figure closed to 82 percent--half the gap disappeared. Since the 1970s, women have become more highly educated and moved into higher paying industries and occupations. For example, a generation ago, very few women worked as doctors or lawyers. Today many women work in these and other high-paying occupations and earn more as a result. Consequently, the aggregate gender gap closed significantly.


The claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men is more than misleading. It's a fact, but it's misleading.

Though, if you still disagree and are a little AAUW advocate, you might want to consider the fact that AAUW rarely provides full government based data unless it works towards proving women are discriminated. I put an "x" next to the wage gap concerning color since that's a topic for another time.

http://www.aauw.org/research/the-si...gender-pay-gap/
(1) their first link provides no government based data, (2) their second link fails to show why the wage gap is bigger in certain states opposed to others--disregarding the other factors I just listed above, (4) their fourth link is irrelevant with the proof I just provided, (5) their statement have no proof or link whatsoever, (6) their statement has no proof or link whatsoever, (7) their statement has no proof or link whatsoever.

That settles the wage gap argument.

Now, let's settle the domestic violence you associated with patriarchy. Again, for your claim to be accurate domestic violence would have to SOLELY be from men having most of the power. Domestic violence would not vanish if women suddenly had most of the power, and domestic violence is also not only inflicted on women.

70% of cases of non-reciprocal violence were perpetrated by women. This is not government based. This study is by CDC researchers Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

All forms of domestic abuse can lead to trauma. Do not imply that domestic violence is strictly high among women. Men do not lead far behind domestic violence as far as reciprocal violence goes, and they experience more non-reciprocal violence than women.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/d...statistics.html

"I'm showing you why I'm staying here. I'm patient. I could roll around the world with you."
Top Secret Researcher
#19 Old 11th Aug 2015 at 9:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
First, to clear up any misunderstanding I am not in any way implying that there isn't a sociological issue with trying to free the nipple. I was simply stating I'm not quite sure what it's fighting for in itself. Both men and women by the majority do not want to see breasts, period. To free the nipple we would have to desexualize the nipple and/or make sexual parts appropriate in the open.


Yes, and that is the point of the campaign: to desexualize nipples.
And like you said in your last post most cultures have no problem with seeing nipples in the open. If we want that change, then we can obviously make it happen. And going to another culture isn't really an option, because most people living here like it here. Why go to a drastically different culture when you only want one change?

Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
My comment was explaining differences in societies and how in America specifically we are fighting for the wrong things. I use the term "wrong" since it's been proven countless times that infections and diseases are much more likely to be contracted when humans walk around nude in their daily life.


You're talking about societies that don't have advanced healthcare and often don't have good hygiene. If they do have those things, there are no problems.

Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
I'd also like to point out that I never once said that societies can't work on more problems than one. I said that worrying about something so trivial is the least of what we should be worrying about; implying that the amount of effort we put into some issues are much more needed in other issues.


SocialistBunny's point was that desexualizing women's bodies is a possible step we can take to reduce rape. One of the major problems that causes rape is the fact the some people see women's bodies as sexual objects. Taking steps to change public perception in that way will likely have an effect on rape rates.

And like you said, rape is not trivial. That would make the nipple campaign pretty important, no?

Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
[women work less]
A comparison of wages within each occupation reveals very little wage gap. Without accounting for any potential differences in education, experience, hours, or other factors that could affect wages, female engineers earn more than 95 percent as much as male engineers, and female social workers earn more than 97 percent as much as male social workers. For example, on the December 2013 data, female engineers had average earnings of $113,534 compared to an average of $118,979 for males. Female social workers had average earnings of $70,504 compared to $72,509 for males.
[...]
The claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men is more than misleading. It's a fact, but it's misleading.


First of all, did SocialistBunny say that the wage gap is 77%? Because that's really a tangent from that statement. Not to mention the subject of the thread.

Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
Women with the same skills and doing the same jobs as men are paid almost the same amount. Including other factors would probably further shrink the remaining difference.


Second, your figures mention women who voluntarily take less hours or pass on promotions. But do they cover the ones that are not voluntary? Employers will often pass on women for promotions or raises simply because they expect her to get married and/or pregnant. That sort of thing does count toward the wage gap, because it's discrimination. If you adjust for that, then the gap is a lot higher than you're making it out to be.

Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
That settles the wage gap argument.


No. You provided cherry-picked statistics that prove your point while ignoring factors that do actually count.

Quote: Originally posted by Kommode
Now, let's settle the domestic violence you associated with patriarchy. Again, for your claim to be accurate domestic violence would have to SOLELY be from men having most of the power. Domestic violence would not vanish if women suddenly had most of the power, and domestic violence is also not only inflicted on women.


Yes, and the links you're provided actually prove the claim. The situation is far more nuanced than you seem to realize.

Do you know why women beat on men and men don't beat back? Because men are tough. Men are stronger than the weak little women, and it's just wrong for them to hit back. (Not my views)
Men are constantly told not to hit women. Women are not given that same message because they're just weaklings, who cares if they beat on someone? (Still not my views) Men are expected to toughen up and not be pussywhipped into submission. That's why there are so many women's shelters and no men's. Because men aren't allowed to be weak enough to be beaten by a woman.

If women had the physical power, then yes. There would likely be the same amount of domestic violence. And men would probably be doing more of the beating, because they're the ones who can get away with it.

The domestic violence situation is caused by the patriarchy, because that's the reason behind it. Women beat men because men can't fight back or complain, because it would hurt them to admit that they're getting beaten by someone weaker. This is caused by the patriarchal assumption that men are better than women and that men aren't allowed to be weak.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Test Subject
#20 Old 11th Aug 2015 at 11:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Yes, and that is the point of the campaign: to desexualize nipples.
And like you said in your last post most cultures have no problem with seeing nipples in the open. If we want that change, then we can obviously make it happen. And going to another culture isn't really an option, because most people living here like it here. Why go to a drastically different culture when you only want one change?



You're talking about societies that don't have advanced healthcare and often don't have good hygiene. If they do have those things, there are no problems.



SocialistBunny's point was that desexualizing women's bodies is a possible step we can take to reduce rape. One of the major problems that causes rape is the fact the some people see women's bodies as sexual objects. Taking steps to change public perception in that way will likely have an effect on rape rates.

And like you said, rape is not trivial. That would make the nipple campaign pretty important, no?



First of all, did SocialistBunny say that the wage gap is 77%? Because that's really a tangent from that statement. Not to mention the subject of the thread.



Second, your figures mention women who voluntarily take less hours or pass on promotions. But do they cover the ones that are not voluntary? Employers will often pass on women for promotions or raises simply because they expect her to get married and/or pregnant. That sort of thing does count toward the wage gap, because it's discrimination. If you adjust for that, then the gap is a lot higher than you're making it out to be.



No. You provided cherry-picked statistics that prove your point while ignoring factors that do actually count.



Yes, and the links you're provided actually prove the claim. The situation is far more nuanced than you seem to realize.

Do you know why women beat on men and men don't beat back? Because men are tough. Men are stronger than the weak little women, and it's just wrong for them to hit back. (Not my views)
Men are constantly told not to hit women. Women are not given that same message because they're just weaklings, who cares if they beat on someone? (Still not my views) Men are expected to toughen up and not be pussywhipped into submission. That's why there are so many women's shelters and no men's. Because men aren't allowed to be weak enough to be beaten by a woman.

If women had the physical power, then yes. There would likely be the same amount of domestic violence. And men would probably be doing more of the beating, because they're the ones who can get away with it.

The domestic violence situation is caused by the patriarchy, because that's the reason behind it. Women beat men because men can't fight back or complain, because it would hurt them to admit that they're getting beaten by someone weaker. This is caused by the patriarchal assumption that men are better than women and that men aren't allowed to be weak.

I was replying to his comment. Not the topic itself. Either I'm wording things in a mean way, or people don't want to accept the fact that the wage gap isn't really there.

He mentioned wage, I was pointing out why there isn't a wage gap nor was it made strictly by men.

Your domestic abuse mentality is so backwards I'm not even going to bother replying to that. It's statements like that which hold our society back.

I disagree breasts should be desexualized. Everyone should be clothed, in my opinion.

I don't think I'm missing any points. Continue to live in whatever backwards feminist world you live in. Unless you can fight against my statistics, you're just proving you're offended. They're not cherry-picked. Cherry-picked statistics would be the ones that try to prove that there is a wage gap when there isn't one that are almost never backed by government data. Every single one of those pictures and my statements were backed by government data besides the one at the very end. Oh, but that's cherry-picked right? Though, have fun finding reliable statistics that work in favor towards you. That'll be interesting to see.

Until you prove otherwise, there is not factual wage gap. Everything that's coming out of your mouth is words, not proof. Whatever, man. Agree to disagree I guess.

"I'm showing you why I'm staying here. I'm patient. I could roll around the world with you."
Top Secret Researcher
#21 Old 12th Aug 2015 at 12:27 AM
Wait a second. You're saying that data that proves a gender gap is cherry-picked because it proves a gender gap? What the hell?

This discussion is going to be pointless if you're just going to insult people and ignore any points. And it's off-topic, so let's just drop it, 'kay?

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Test Subject
#22 Old 12th Aug 2015 at 4:08 AM Last edited by Kommode : 12th Aug 2015 at 4:48 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Wait a second. You're saying that data that proves a gender gap is cherry-picked because it proves a gender gap? What the hell?

This discussion is going to be pointless if you're just going to insult people and ignore any points. And it's off-topic, so let's just drop it, 'kay?


Nice, you're being a hypocrite. I just sat there and pointed out that the one that proves there is a gender gap is flawed, and many other have debunked it as well. It's cherry-picked because IT'S NOT FACTUAL. It's cherry-picked because it fails to cover the factors towards the wage gap. My statistics even displayed there was a wage gap, but explained why. I'm starting to question if people even took an hour or two to read everything I posted.

Literally, you're the only one ignoring points. I'm getting dislikes yet I'm the only one that gave statistics. You're literally just mouthing words. I'm confused. The one site that tries to prove there is a gender gap is literally flawed. Like, it's literally flawed. One doesn't even have an ACTUAL statistic. How the hell can you try to say it's factual if it doesn't even have any other statistic source besides the site itself?

The site itself was constructed my feminists. You do know this right? You do know how radical feminists can get, yes? You DO know they only source they provide is usually from themselves yes? Does that sound reliable. If you want this argument to go anywhere, provide PROOF where I'm wrong. Don't just sit her and mouth words that you have yet to prove simply because you don't like the way it sounds.

Though, we'll just agree to disagree. Since, it's clearly not going anywhere.

"I'm showing you why I'm staying here. I'm patient. I could roll around the world with you."
Mad Poster
#23 Old 13th Aug 2015 at 3:59 AM
After reading (some of) Kommode's post - complete with charts and references - I'm just going to wander back out. Personally, I am neither offended nor excited by naked bodies (in general), but I alter lots of my "natural" behaviors to conform to society's expectation, including hugging passing strangers and singing in elevators.
Mad Poster
#24 Old 14th Aug 2015 at 1:41 PM
Seeing women's bodies as sexual objects does not cause rape. Rape is a power play - a way to humiliate and dominate another human being. Men also get raped. The Baltimore Sun had an article about male on male rape in the military. Breaking the Silence
Scholar
#25 Old 19th Aug 2015 at 2:22 PM
What I notice :
- Society has this weird perception if it comes to people's nakedness. Half the time we are supposed to ignore that it exists in a childish way : You don't see it, so it is not there (this goes for other things too and even politicians 'solve' problems this way).
- Women being topless is going too far, but a woman feeding a baby on the bus station is ok. Which is not only a breast naked in public, but a child sucking on it too. No matter how you look at this, it is quite the contradiction.

What I think :
- There is no way to desexualize men's and women's bodies. Thank biology for that Sure, we can play the hide& seek game here too, but nature isn't fooled easily. Seeing something you like, will get you going (provided you are not a-sexual ofc).
- Society is definately not ready for all women going topless everywhere. Also, maybe lets ask those women first if they even want to.
- I do think however that there should be places (apart from within the privacy of your own home) where you can walk around naked in public. Fortunately, many countries already offer this in nudity beaches, resorts etc. Not my cup of tea, but I like it for people having choices to live their life like they want to. Makes me happy.
- I hate how ugly bodies are so condemned in nowadays society (even a little bit in this thread, I noticed). As example, when a movie is discussed and a lot of people are talking about someone's teeth, instead of their great acting job.
- I hate how society, or maybe better said,industry and media , is trying to push the bar higher and higher for what is seen as a beautiful body and how we all should strive for it. Too many people seem to fall for it. I don't see any potential moral gain here. Only more pain and sadness for people left out. Personally I find this a lot more disgusting then any so called ugly body. Having a by media accepted beautiful body is also not the same as having a healthy body, but more and more people seem to become confused about that. Bleeching teeth, cosmetic surgery, men taking steroids to become more buff, it is as if this is becoming the new normal.
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top