Which gender are you?

[guruilla]

C'mon guruilla, I already covered question one, it's called internalized misogyny

OK, but that particular question wasn't addressed to you but for those citing examples that seemed meant to show that misogyny didn't exist

Misandry is the label hurled most often at feminists who seek to rise above their lower caste status. There really is no way to discern its existence or prevalence as long as there are structural power imbalances between men and women. You cannot do so without reading the minds of members of an oppressed group and trying to pry justified anger apart from some sort of integral bias. It's a moot point really.

It's not a moot point to me or my wife, so I guess it's not for others too. And neither of us need to read minds to see the existence of it. Isn't a popular media saturated by ridiculous and/or grotesque male stereotypes evidence? Why do structural power imbalances between men and women make it impossible to discern the existence of misandry, but not of misogny?

Two: The war on the female body is not new, it has existed as long as the patriarchy and will continue to convolute through various permutations coinciding with technological advances and cultural changes. A hundred years ago, women diagnosed as hysterics were treated with stimulation to climax by their doctors, once a week. Others were treated with clitorectomies. The single underlying force in all of this is control of female sexuality. There is no great mystery in any of it.

How about the cause of it? If there's no great mystery, then why all the confusion and lack of agreement? And while I'm happy we're agreeing about its existence, can we also agree there are people (here at this board) who don't agree, and who even seem oblivious to it?

I'm not entirely sure why your agreement reads more like a dismissal...?

[brainpanhandler]

PW, for the company I work for, all of my bosses are women. It's a nationwide also worldwide company. There is no gender gap in pay. Women get promoted far more often than men. There is precisely NO misogyny in this huge company. Not only is it not tolerated, but doesn't seem to be a thing even if it were tolerated. Even bartending for the past whatever years I did it, there was no misogyny -- more camaraderie than anything else. When was the last time you had a job in which you witnessed any of your claims? At 40 years of age I think you're full of shit. Sorry, but the world you envision outside of your art colony does not exist the way you think it does. It's good to be aware of the possibilities if it did exist -- but it doesn't in real life.

I concur with this observation, ...

Heh? That misogyny does not exist?

Not in the way PW framed it. Which is why I phrased it as I did. Misogyny DOES exist but not in the way she sees it (which me writing that means probably I could be a misogynist to a certain few). I just have never seen it tolerated anywhere I have ever worked, went to school at, stores of all kinds, parties. I occasionally dabble in the "women are crazy" thing around men, but it's just a yeah, I know what you mean. Many of my best friends are women, they know me and unanimously say the same things about their fellow women. Dudes are just dicks, but I don't know any -- I semi have a few grudges in which I could do financial damage to, but don't do it because the whole once you follow the path to the dark side, there's no turning back. I don't get any sort of not getting along. When it happens it is heartbreaking.

Maybe I misread you. You seemed to be saying that misogyny does not exist. But I admit that was an extrapolation from what you wrote. When you write, "misogyny DOES exist", what do you mean? You say you've never experienced it virtually anywhere you have lived and breathed. Willow says we are soaking in it. I agree that we are soaking in it. Is it possible you just don't see it? Most men don't. I quite often don't. I have a feeling many women don't either. I apparently have a complete blind spot for misandry. Trying to figure out why that is.

[slomo]

PW, for the company I work for, all of my bosses are women. It's a nationwide also worldwide company. There is no gender gap in pay. Women get promoted far more often than men. There is precisely NO misogyny in this huge company. Not only is it not tolerated, but doesn't seem to be a thing even if it were tolerated. Even bartending for the past whatever years I did it, there was no misogyny -- more camaraderie than anything else. When was the last time you had a job in which you witnessed any of your claims? At 40 years of age I think you're full of shit. Sorry, but the world you envision outside of your art colony does not exist the way you think it does. It's good to be aware of the possibilities if it did exist -- but it doesn't in real life.

I concur with this observation, ...

Heh? That misogyny does not exist?

Not in the way PW framed it. Which is why I phrased it as I did. Misogyny DOES exist but not in the way she sees it (which me writing that means probably I could be a misogynist to a certain few). I just have never seen it tolerated anywhere I have ever worked, went to school at, stores of all kinds, parties. I occasionally dabble in the "women are crazy" thing around men, but it's just a yeah, I know what you mean. Many of my best friends are women, they know me and unanimously say the same things about their fellow women. Dudes are just dicks, but I don't know any -- I semi have a few grudges in which I could do financial damage to, but don't do it because the whole once you follow the path to the dark side, there's no turning back. I don't get any sort of not getting along. When it happens it is heartbreaking.

Maybe I misread you. You seemed to be saying that misogyny does not exist. But I admit that was an extrapolation from what you wrote. When you write, "misogyny DOES exist", what do you mean? You say you've never experienced it virtually anywhere you have lived and breathed. Willow says we are soaking in it. I agree that we are soaking in it. Is it possible you just don't see it? Most men don't. I quite often don't. I have a feeling many women don't either. I apparently have a complete blind spot for misandry. Trying to figure out why that is.

Misogyny exists, but institutional manifestations do not exist nearly to the extent usually claimed by modern (i.e. 21st Century) feminists. The wage gap exists, but is small when adjusted for appropriate factors such as experience, training, hours worked, responsibilities held, etc. Every field is different, so I can only speak for my own, but there is no way that institutionalized misogyny exists in academic science and professional schools. I have served on numerous search committees and admissions committees, and you cannot -- simply cannot -- get away with open or even moderately covert misogyny. If two candidates, one male and one female, present with the same training, scientific impact scores, and extramural funding levels, the woman will always always be preferred over the man, because of institutional rules that exist at every major academic institution in the US (and probably the UK as well although I'm not entirely sure about that). You'll immediately get in trouble with the local diversity committee if you do anything that looks, statistically, like preference for men over women.

So, no, I don't think misogyny exists under every rock and blade of grass. I'm sorry, but I don't. PW, I respect much of what you have to say about a lot of things, but I totally disagree with you on this point.

[slomo]

Here is a JAMA article (JAMA, 2015) on the wage gap in nursing. (JAMA is about as high ranking as you can get for a medical journal.)

Salary Differences Between Male and Female Registered Nurses in the United States

From the Methods section:

Using ordinary least-squares regression and employment information in the NSSRN, we assessed how much of the annual salary differences could be accounted for by demographic factors, work hours, experience, work setting, clinical specialty, job position, survey year, state of residence, and other factors. Analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp) and a 2-tailed probability value of <.05 indicated statistical significance. The study was deemed exempt by a research ethics board.

From the Discussion section:

Male RNs outearned female RNs across settings, specialties, and positions with no narrowing of the pay gap over time. About half of the gap was accounted for by employment and other measured characteristics. This gap is similar in magnitude to the salary differences found for physicians.

See also Figure 2 and compare with Figure 1. Basically, there is about a $5000 to $6000 annual salary gap for most subspecialties; in the context of a $60K to $70K salary, this is about a 10% gap. So, ten cents on the dollar, not 22 cents.

So, for registered nurses, there is a wage gap, but it's about half the figure we're given by mainstream rhetoric. Something to worry about? I suppose so. This study adjusted for everything under the sun, so it's hard to imagine what they missed. I'd like to know what's driving the gap, especially in a field that "shouldn't" be misogynist.

I'll grant PW this one: for registered nurses, she's partially right.

[slomo]

A Washington Post article from earlier this year, with a number of supporting links in the article:

The ‘Equal Pay Day’ factoid that women make 78 cents for every dollar earned by men

If it’s springtime, it must be time for gender equity claims.

A year ago, The Fact Checker awarded Two Pinocchios to President Obama for claiming that “the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.”

For a period, the president dropped that number from his remarks, but lately it has crept back into his speeches, especially when he’s speaking to Democratic audiences. And Democrats also continue to assert this, as evidenced by the statement above by Sanders, who is considering run for Democratic presidential nomination. The all-but-certain campaign of former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to make gender inequality a key theme.

Sanders, to his credit, updated the statistic to 78 cents, which reflects the latest Census Bureau data. But it’s still misleading.

Let’s take a refresher course in advance of “Equal Pay Day” — April 14, 2015 — which symbolizes how far a woman must work into the next year to make as much as a man.
The Facts

Few experts dispute that there is a wage gap, but differences in the life choices of men and women — such as women tending to leave the workforce when they have children — make it difficult to make simple comparisons. That’s what’s so facile about repeatedly citing “78 cents” or “77 cents.”

Democrats are relying on a simple calculation from the Census Bureau: a ratio of the difference between women’s median earnings and men’s median earnings. (The median is the middle value, with an equal number of full-time workers earning more and earning less.) That leaves a pay gap of 22 cents.

But the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the gap is 18 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages — 13 cents — but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers.

Annual wage figures do not take into account the fact that teachers — many of whom are women — have a primary job that fills nine months out of the year. The weekly wage is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does not include as many income categories. (Still, we should note that the wage gap likely would increase if part-time workers were included in the statistics, as is done in Canada.)

June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the workforce for periods to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay, and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 95 cents for every dollar a man makes. (Another interesting fact: Women who are members of unions make almost 91 cents compared to their counterparts.)

In 2011, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed economic literature and concluded that “research suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers are compared with male workers who have similar characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap.” They noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages but greater benefits (more flexible parental leave) so excluding such fringe benefits from the calculations will exaggerate the wage disparity. One survey, prepared for the Labor Department by the CONSAD Research Corp. during the George W. Bush administration, concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.

[Fact Checker: The zombie statistic about women’s share of income and property]

A 2013 article in the Daily Beast, citing a Georgetown University survey on the economic value of different college majors, showed how nine of the 10 most remunerative majors were dominated by men:

1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male

Meanwhile, nine of the 10 least remunerative majors were dominated by women:

1. Counseling Psychology: 74% female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97% female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
5. Social Work: 88% female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
7. Studio Arts: 66% female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female

We do not want to suggest there is no pay gap; in fact, just about every example above reported that there was some sort of gap in wages. A report by the American Association of University Women found that, after accounting for a variety of factors, including college major and occupation, there was an unexplained 7 percent gap one year after graduation. The gap then grew to 12 percent after 10 years.

Moreover, there is certainly a case to be made that women should be encouraged to enter lucrative fields now dominated by men. That might help mitigating another aspect of a pay gap — the long-term impact of even slightly lower wages. A 2004 study for the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, by Stephen J. Rose and Heidi I. Hartmann, calculated that across 15 years, prime age women earned just 38 percent of what prime age men earned – an apparent wage gap of 62 percent.
The Pinocchio Test

A year ago, The Fact Checker said “the president must begin to acknowledge that ‘77 cents’ does not begin to capture what is actually happening in the workforce and society.”

In a town hall meeting Oct. 3, 2014, the president acknowledged some of this nuance: “Women on average make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. What folks will tell you sometimes is you can’t really compare the situation, because a lot of women, by choice, end up working less when they have kids, decide to stay home, and so it’s not the same thing.” He went on to note that there are still examples of women getting paid less than men for “doing the exact same job.”

That’s certainly the case, but it does not excuse a broad-brush approach that relies so much on a single factoid. Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for naval architecture, a large gap in wages will almost certainly persist.

So it’s long past time for politicians such as Sanders to stop repeating the “78 cent” factoid without the proper context — especially if they are giving speeches on Equal Pay Day.

[Heaven Swan]

More on Canadian trans-spokesperson- autopedophile Stephonknee Wolscht

See the original post on Gendertrender to see twitter and instagram screen caps and a lot of great comments:
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/transwoman-stefonknee-wolscht-lives-life-as-a-six-year-old-girl/

Transwoman Stefonknee Wolscht Lives Life “as a Six Year Old Girl”

November 29, 2015


https://youtu.be/MbiAHnjHlHg



This six-year-old girl has some issues.

Before coming out as her true authentic pediatric female self, Stefonknee (“Steph on knee”, geddit?) was a 53 year old man named Paul who was living his inauthentic life as the married father of seven children. According to him, he looked after the kids while his wife worked as the principal of an elementary school. He was also self-employed as an auto mechanic who worked on cars in a garage on the family property “mainly overnight” after his wife got home.

In 2009 he was charged with 14 criminal offenses of assault, uttering threats, criminal harassment, and criminal mischief. His wife and their two oldest children- then in their late teens- testified against him. He was found guilty of assault and uttering threats. The court also issued a two-year restraining order against him that applied to his wife and all seven of his children. He and his wife divorced.

He moved to Toronto on parole and became a “transgender activist”. He was employed, apparently at The 519 Community Center as a “trans consultant” until, according to transactivist Justin Travis “Julienne” Goins now Patience “patienceinbee” Newbury he was terminated:

“[–]patienceinbee 0 points 10 months ago

She has demonstrated herself as deeply narcissistic and self-absorbed, putting her own struggles as a white trans woman ahead of the struggles of trans women of colour in Ontario, of putting her own attempts at suicide in front of murdered black and brown trans women at TDoR gatherings.

This would otherwise seem like a quibbling over her character. When she was employed, however, as a trans consultant for a queer-focussed community centre and assigned to work alongside a few trans women of colour, she had a tendency to hijack client/community presentations and redirect these back toward herself (implying that she was the most oppressed trans person there was). Eventually, this cost Stefonknee her job.”

Paul/Stef became active in the Occupy Toronto encampment, then cashed in his resulting SJW bonafides to organize the first “alternate trans pride” march in Toronto, in protest of the high cost of beer at the main event, and the failure to of the planners to center attention on individuals named Stefonknee.

MPP Cheri DiNovo thanked our little girl by name in testimony at the passage of Bill 33 which stripped Canadian women of legal sex status, and all rights therein, replacing protections for women (to be housed separately from males in prison, etc) with the rights of men like Stefonknee to wag their dick around the women’s locker room, women’s domestic violence shelter, or women’s prison. (I tweeted at MPP DiNovo inquiring whether she would be introducing a bill to protect Stefonknee’s rights to have his age identity protected in public accommodations such as children’s tables at Chuck E Cheese, access to height and weight restricted amusement rides, and incarceration in the juvenile justice system if convicted of another assault. MPP DiNovo had not yet responded for comment at the time of this post).





Eschewing any transgender hormonal or surgical modification “treatment”, Paul utilized his newfound rights as a male under DiNovo’s Bill 33 and took a spot in a women’s homeless shelter on the basis of his gender feels, and began attending services at the MCC Church. There he spouted tales of his abject transgender transchild existence to kindly folks who put love into action (and who turned a blind eye to his simmering rage, manipulative lies and compulsive autogynephilia). “I have lost my children, have been disowned by family, church and friends, been homeless, I’ve lost all I worked forty-six years to achieve, I am unemployed for the first time in my life, I am now a convicted criminal, I suffer from PTSD and am constantly thinking of killing myself…”

Incredibly, his children attempted to stay in touch with him but he responded with horrific abuse. His eldest daughter tried to have him at her wedding, with the caveat that he tone down the lolicon/brolita gear and not make a scene:

“I don’t want a commotion started or anything. I really want the focus to stay on me and David. Would that be okay?” She texted.

He waited until the day of the event and then on his daughter’s Big Day staged a dwamatical “suicide attempt”.

After that ugliness, a group of folks from the MCC church started a “support group” for him. Not a group of folks who join together for support but a group whose goal was to support him, singular. Like a team: Team Stef-on-knee. Team Let’s Sit Around A Table Wasting An Hour Every Week Giving Attention To An Unrepentant Violent and Abusive Able-bodied White Male Porn Addict. Looks like that project hit the end of the road when one of Steffie’s younger (in biological, cis-chronological age) daughters took a chance and texted the Raging Abusive Pervert Psycho Dad on Father’s Day. Rather than graciously accept the gesture, Paul unloaded with all sorts of abuse.

Her last text: “Please text me if you want to, but I’m not ready for a call. Happy Father’s Day.”

His response: “I’m going to kill myself. Bye.”

Former Team Stefonknee, the nicest folks ever, recoiled in horror at his calm recitation of the messages off his phone. But “I literally was ready to slit my throat”, he relayed.

“Yeah. Well, keep it to yourself,” snapped church deacon and Former Team organizer as the rest of the participants averted their eyes, speechless.

If you want to get rid of those last few guests at the end of a party or if you want to see what a 3am Todd Haynes drug company infomercial for assisted suicide might look like you can watch this all play out in gory detail in the video ‘Paul Wears Dresses’ at the bottom of this link: http://www.thetransgenderproject.com/#! ... ee-wolscht

[Or you can just be grateful that GenderTrender took the hit for you. Don’t forget the tip jar! ]

Apparently Stef on knee was arrested again this March for god knows what:

Enter FetLife, the final chapter, and the total immersive realization of Paul/Stef’s truly superauthentic True Self as a trans-pedo transgender identified “six year old girl” sexually partnered to a similarly sketchy kinkster pair of polyamorous nudist inhabitants of Unsexy Erotic Lifestyles in Peterborough Ontario.

Fire up the cameras because this is one lady- I mean girl! – (and by that I mean middle-aged deadbeat father of seven) who really wants the world to know how Brave! And Heroic! It is for men to embrace and devote their whole life to their sexualized embodiment of what they see women and girls as.

“I felt like a woman!” reports Stefonknee of his “adopted dad’s” penis inserted man-on-man into his “six year old girl” rectum at the Oasis swingers club. “I was surprised I didn’t think I was going to be pregnant, I was so much a girl. I actually have an erection right now from it so I’m just going to pull my dress down a little bit,” he told the journalists who were covering his journey to girlhood.

Instagram photo


Stefonknee fighting for girlhood on instagram
Posted by GallusMag
Filed in Children, Crime, Gender, Media, puke, Radical Feminism, Transgender, Transgender Children, Women
Tags: age identity, bill 33, Bill C-279, brolita, cheri dinovo, gender identity, jender journey, lolicon, lolita, Paul Wolscht, porn-sick men, sissie boi, Stefonknee, Stefonknee Wolscht, toby's act, trans-age, transage
109 Comments »

[Sounder]

Ugh, that was unpleasant.

In a wider sense and in reference to this quote, i don't get how men 'acting' in the way they 'think' women are, deserve special support from the activist community.

Fire up the cameras because this is one lady- I mean girl! – (and by that I mean middle-aged deadbeat father of seven) who really wants the world to know how Brave! And Heroic! It is for men to embrace and devote their whole life to their sexualized embodiment of what they see women and girls as.

[Project Willow]

I'm not entirely sure why your agreement reads more like a dismissal...?

No, I'm not being dismissive, I just don't find any aspect of this conversation novel or surprising, and it's as tiring as it always is, like having to explain yet again that I don't hate men, which colored my reaction to the misandry question. Arguing with a group of men about what it's like to be female is..., I'll just say, it touches more than one nerve.

Anyway, carry on.

[8bitagent]

I'm a genderfluid non binary vegan anarcho queer...just kidding

[Project Willow]

I'll grant PW this one: for registered nurses, she's partially right.

When did I ever bring up the pay gap? I believe this is the only time I've mentioned work in this thread:

For example, some work is deemed worthy of pay, while other work is not, like child rearing, and housework.

That is not about market determined pay gaps, it is a much broader critique of the system. You have to imagine all human activity in the world as labor, not just that which can be value extracted in capitalist systems. Traditional women's work resides outside of the market, and so has no value, and hence no pay. We are not so many generations out of this very strict, hierarchical arrangement where men were free to sell their labor on the open marketplace, while the majority of women were restricted to selling themselves to individual men as wives and mothers.

As for the WaPo article, the author didn't consider that the higher earning jobs are higher earning because they are traditionally male dominated. Jobs traditionally held by women or associated with traditional women's roles are devalued in the marketplace. There is evidence of this through comparisons of required skills and educational levels, and how wages rise as more men enter these fields. The whole wage gap argument as it exists today is based on criteria too narrow to provide anything other than minor data points.

[82_28]

What exactly is a "minor data point?" "Data points" are data points. They are where one gains knowledge -- the meaning of the term data itself or I guess digits mean fingers but has been sorta redefined. We all toss a shit ton of emotion at shit but in the end we are ultimately friends. I refuse to go your route because it is absolutely foreign to me. Yet is native to you. Do I know why? Of course not! Your experiences of any sort are yours. Can I "call a spade a spade"? Well, I am going to anyway because mine are mine. Nobody is fucking special, except they are. Nobody is MORE special than the next gal or guy. To think so it means you suck at calling spades spades because you exhibit selfish behavior while others do their deed with selfless behaviors. It is sorta poisonous to go this route. You wind up losing friends and allies for no good reason. Yet they will always remain lost.

Sorry.

[Sounder]

What gender are you? Well I don’t do polls but I did have a good laugh upthread where a few folk insisted that the questioners of this new hoped for orthodoxy were expressing hatred toward an oppressed group.

My story? My older brother’s wife is named Gary, my younger brother’s partner works in the heavy trades and is strong as any man. Our family embraces and loves them because we have always been carried along by strong women. They are not ‘trying’ to be men, they are simply strong women. They are the kind of folk that challenges stereotypes, not the men that dress up like whores and continue to spread the idea that women are only objects for sexual gratification.

[slomo]

As for the WaPo article, the author didn't consider that the higher earning jobs are higher earning because they are traditionally male dominated. Jobs traditionally held by women or associated with traditional women's roles are devalued in the marketplace. There is evidence of this through comparisons of required skills and educational levels, and how wages rise as more men enter these fields. The whole wage gap argument as it exists today is based on criteria too narrow to provide anything other than minor data points.

PW, this is a non-falsifiable claim. Basically, no matter how much evidence I provide, the answer will always be "because misogyny". I reject propositions that, by design, can never be proven false. I'm happy to concede the point when bias can be empirically demonstrated (e.g. the nursing example), but statements such as "higher earning jobs are higher earning because they are traditionally male dominated" can never be investigated empirically in a way that conclusively establishes causal direction. To the extent that there is evidence to inform the question, the causal direction seems to operate in reverse: higher earning jobs are male-dominated because they are higher earning. Perfect example is nursing: as nursing became a more lucrative field, more men started entering. The higher earnings came first, as registered nursing began to involve more and more technical expertise; the men came second. There is in fact a social mechanism that explains why high-earning jobs attract men: men require more money because women expect them to be higher earners (for evidence, see the OKCupid links I provided earlier in this thread, or go to the OKCupid blog). So, to the extent that there is evidence for causal direction, it is the exact opposite of your claim! Please don't tell me that statistics and science are inherently misogynist, because then you're just proving to me that this is a religious position with no empirical basis whatsoever (and is therefore garbage for determining social policy).

That is not about market determined pay gaps, it is a much broader critique of the system. You have to imagine all human activity in the world as labor, not just that which can be value extracted in capitalist systems. Traditional women's work resides outside of the market, and so has no value, and hence no pay. We are not so many generations out of this very strict, hierarchical arrangement where men were free to sell their labor on the open marketplace, while the majority of women were restricted to selling themselves to individual men as wives and mothers.

The idea that all labor should be monetized in the marketplace plays right into the capitalist system you seem to hate. There is also, beneath the surface of the assertions you make, an assumption of zero-sum conflict between men and women. I don't buy that. The successful heterosexual marriages that I know well enough to comment on their internal dynamics do not work that way. They work cooperatively, with the idea that each partner takes on certain burdens of daily life for the good of the couple or family unit. In my homosexual marriage (which does not include a female person so I guess it does not count as a data point) works the same way: my partner and I do the things we do for the good of the whole household, because love. The view you are espousing, that we are all individual free agents selling our labor to the highest bidder, regardless of the social network we happen to find ourselves in, is one of profound alienation and only supports the atomization of society that our current form of capitalism encourages and requires.

[slomo]

Now if you want to argue that high paying jobs are high paying because they support a hierarchical system of domination and alienation (regardless of gender), then I'm more inclined to agree with you. I still think it's a religious position that can't be investigated empirically, but it's a position with which I'm sympathetic. However, the solution is not more individualism, alienation, and monetization of daily life. It's the exact opposite: strengthening social networks, building real and functional communities based on cooperation (not gender or racial hostility).

[brainpanhandler]

PW, for the company I work for, all of my bosses are women. It's a nationwide also worldwide company. There is no gender gap in pay. Women get promoted far more often than men. There is precisely NO misogyny in this huge company. Not only is it not tolerated, but doesn't seem to be a thing even if it were tolerated. Even bartending for the past whatever years I did it, there was no misogyny -- more camaraderie than anything else. When was the last time you had a job in which you witnessed any of your claims? At 40 years of age I think you're full of shit. Sorry, but the world you envision outside of your art colony does not exist the way you think it does. It's good to be aware of the possibilities if it did exist -- but it doesn't in real life.

I concur with this observation, ...

Heh? That misogyny does not exist?

Not in the way PW framed it. Which is why I phrased it as I did. Misogyny DOES exist but not in the way she sees it (which me writing that means probably I could be a misogynist to a certain few). I just have never seen it tolerated anywhere I have ever worked, went to school at, stores of all kinds, parties. I occasionally dabble in the "women are crazy" thing around men, but it's just a yeah, I know what you mean. Many of my best friends are women, they know me and unanimously say the same things about their fellow women. Dudes are just dicks, but I don't know any -- I semi have a few grudges in which I could do financial damage to, but don't do it because the whole once you follow the path to the dark side, there's no turning back. I don't get any sort of not getting along. When it happens it is heartbreaking.

Maybe I misread you. You seemed to be saying that misogyny does not exist. But I admit that was an extrapolation from what you wrote. When you write, "misogyny DOES exist", what do you mean? You say you've never experienced it virtually anywhere you have lived and breathed. Willow says we are soaking in it. I agree that we are soaking in it. Is it possible you just don't see it? Most men don't. I quite often don't. I have a feeling many women don't either. I apparently have a complete blind spot for misandry. Trying to figure out why that is.

Misogyny exists, but institutional manifestations do not exist nearly to the extent usually claimed by modern (i.e. 21st Century) feminists. The wage gap exists, but is small when adjusted for appropriate factors such as experience, training, hours worked, responsibilities held, etc.

I think it's more a matter of respect. That respect or lack thereof can manifest in many ways. The wage gap is but one.

Every field is different, so I can only speak for my own, but there is no way that institutionalized misogyny exists in academic science and professional schools. I have served on numerous search committees and admissions committees, and you cannot -- simply cannot -- get away with open or even moderately covert misogyny. If two candidates, one male and one female, present with the same training, scientific impact scores, and extramural funding levels, the woman will always always be preferred over the man, because of institutional rules that exist at every major academic institution in the US (and probably the UK as well although I'm not entirely sure about that). You'll immediately get in trouble with the local diversity committee if you do anything that looks, statistically, like preference for men over women.

You limit your comments to only your experience and your field. I can't question your experience. But I would ask why you think it is necessary to have these strict rules on hiring, still. There's a reason.

So, no, I don't think misogyny exists under every rock and blade of grass. I'm sorry, but I don't.

The phrase "we're soaking in it" is a slight hyperbole, but it's to suggest that sexism is so ubiquitous as to be difficult for men to notice. It stands to reason we would not notice as we benefit from it. No? Even otherwise well meaning men that want the world to be more just probably don't notice the thousand cuts a day of sexism because it's painful to admit how indoctrinated and privileged men are.

PW, I respect much of what you have to say about a lot of things, but I totally disagree with you on this point.

Totally disagree? Totally?

I'm still trying to undo my own conditioning.