The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course they're white, the black, brown, yellow, beige, plaid, and red people can't be prejudice, they told me so.
But when that was drawn, it was white people keeping black people out of the military.
Brainwashed? Yes, I have a clean mind.
Pussywhipped? Not a chance, that's why there's none in my life.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Menstrual Panties from Bloody Mary's have a detachable heating pouch, and a large selection of faces in the crotch you can bleed on.

[DanaC]

That's a genius idea

[infinite monkey]

That's kind of, um, disgusting and offensive. imho

[DanaC]

Oh, absolutely. But also genius.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From the home of a giant porn industry.

A Japanese artist who made a kayak modelled on her vagina has been found guilty of breaking the country’s obscenity laws, in a case that has invited widespread ridicule of attitudes towards images of female genitalia.

Megumi Igarashi, who works under the pseudonym Rokudenashiko – or good-for-nothing girl – was arrested in July 2014 after she distributed data that enabled recipients to make 3D prints of her vagina.

The 44-year-old was fined 400,000 yen (£2,575), half the penalty demanded by prosecutors, at the Tokyo district court on Monday after she was convicted of distributing “obscene” images. She was cleared of another charge of displaying similar material.

Igarashi distributed the data to help raise funds to create a kayak inspired by her genitalia she called “pussy boat”.

link

[DanaC]

From the country that brought you restaurants where food is eaten from the naked body of a woman, and where the most sexualised imagery is of childlike teens.

[DanaC]

The other side of the gender coin...

We talk an awful lot about, and indeed society has historically been very interested in defining, femininity, both in terms of setting and policing those definitions, and breaking down and challenging them. In recent years, there has been an increase in the conversation around defiing masculinity, or more properly, masculinities. Certainly as an area for historical and sociological study, it is a rapidly growing and developing field.

I really love the study of masculinities - having first encountered it via the historical study of gender and femininity, it really struck a chord with me. When 'women's studies' first started to take hold, and then 'gender studies' grew out of that, there was a tendency to see masculinity as somehow natural and unchanging, with femininity differentiated and imposed. Likewise, in the period I study (18th and early 19th centuries) there was a huge amount of discourse about 'the Sex', i.e women. Hundreds of thousands of words were published attempting to define womanhood, often in direct counterpoint to manliness. And historians for a long time, took as read that manliness had always been more or less the same, with only minor distinctions between one period and another. Men were the constant against which the shifting face of woman was measured. In recent decades that has changed and more and more academic discourse focused on how men conceive of their own masculinity, and how masculinity is perfomed and understood. The contextual and often contested nature of gender has now been expanded to include masculinity. I find it utterly fascinating.

So, I was quite excited to see Grayson Perry's new documentary series exploring modern masculinities. I highly recommend it, if you can find it. It's called Grayson Perry: All Man.

Here's a nice interview with Perry about his new series: (am hoping this plays outside the uk)

[Undertoad]

It does, I watched it, very interesting stuff.

On the things that our cultures are different on, it's interesting how they are damn near identical on how age 13-14 goes for boys. A biology that somehow you need relief from. Yes you have to be a level of macho, yes it's practically policed. I don't know anywhere this doesn't happen, does anyone else?

It's like, y'ever watch animals fight, for no particular reason? It's always when the rut begins.



BTW this is also why men can fuck each other up and then say good game at the end of it. Hey we had to get into it. It's the rut. But you're a good guy. That was some good antler spiking you got in.

[classicman]

[xoxoxoBruce]

It seem we have failure to communicate.

[DanaC]

..the fuck?

[xoxoxoBruce]

At the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor...

ANN ARBOR—When applying for a job or to college, women seek positions with fewer applicants than men, according to a new University of Michigan study.

The researchers found that the size of a competition—such as the number of applicants to a particular job or the number of people vying for a monetary reward—shapes who enters the competition.

Women prefer smaller competitions, whereas men seek larger competitions, which are typically associated with higher monetary rewards.

"These patterns of findings can contribute to a better understanding of gender inequality in the workforce," said Kathrin Hanek, the study's lead author. "The gender difference in preferences may in part explain pay gaps and the underrepresentation of women in particular fields or at the helm of large organizations."

The difference between the genders can be partially attributed to women feeling more comfortable in smaller competitions. Hanek points out that some environments offer greater opportunities for women to behave communally rather than competitively.

"Smaller social groups, even when individuals are in competition, tend to allow people to form more intimate social bonds and be more attuned to others' needs," said Hanek, who recently received her doctorate from the U-M Department of Psychology. "And these communal behaviors, in turn, tend to be more normative for women."

More

[sexobon]

... This research by no means blames women for gender inequality but rather uncovers a novel environmental factor that might contribute to inequality, ...

Mercy! Send the EPA in to straighten this situation out.

[DanaC]

A recent story in the news caught my attention.

A receptionist claims she was sent home from work at a corporate finance company after refusing to wear high heels.

Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney in east London, arrived on her first day at PwC in December in flat shoes but says she was told she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel”.

Thorp, who was employed as a temporary worker by PwC’s outsourced reception firm Portico, said she was laughed at when she said the demand was discriminatory and sent home without pay after refusing to go out and buy a pair of heels.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...c-nicola-thorp

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally never wear heels - I gave them up as a teenager because they were fucking uncomfortable and I tended to end up twisting my ankle a lot. I'm really glad I did, because regular wearing of heels can damage your feet and your spine. I know plenty of women like wearing heels, but the idea of enforcing them as a dress code for work I find ridiculous. I get the idea of a dress code - nothing wrong with insisting that your workforce look smart, or dress according to a particular style - but there is no reason why a woman can't look perfecly smart in flat shoes. There are however, compelling reasons for not wearing heels - particularly given that part of this woman's role would have been to escort guests around the office complex, meaning she would be on her feet and walking for much of the day.

Heels are not a pre-requisite for loking smart. They do however increase the sexual attractiveness of women. So - apparently, for a receptionist it is not enough that they look smart and presentable, they also have to look sexy.


Another columnist comments:

First impressions count, even for business. It’s why the reception of any building is usually the smartest part of the office. There will be brightly coloured flowers, comfortable sofas, free water and, more often than not, a pretty young woman ready to welcome you. They’ll be wearing a full face of make-up, the smartest clothes their salary will allow, and a beaming smile. They’ll know the name of everyone in the building but nobody will know theirs. They are the first thing any visitor knows about your company and the guardian of your secrets. They’re undervalued and underpaid. And no matter how good a job they do, the one thing you will judge them on is what they look like.

I know this because I spent a year welcoming guests, pouffing the cushions and answering the phone in my best cut glass accent for a finance company. At my annual appraisal they told me I’d done a great job and they were thrilled at the effort I was putting in, there was just one thing to be improved on. Could I possibly wear more lipstick?

So - wearing lipstick was not enough - she had to wear enough lipstick. Guess she wasn;t looking sexy enough to do her job?

We know how you dress is no longer a signifier of success or importance, Steve Jobs’ dedication to jeans and trainers ended that, so why do we still feel it’s necessary to dictate the type of shoes that women wear? Yes, dress codes might ask men to wear ties and not apply this rule to women but there’s one clear difference here: unless your office takes its influences from Fifty Shades of Grey, there is nothing particularly sexual about a tie. High heels on the other hand, they’re designed to sexualise women. They lengthen our legs, change the way we walk and, whether we intend it or not, make us more attractive to both sexes.

(for the sexual attraction aspect of heels see: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S10...122-5/abstract)

The columnist continues with an acknowledgement that heels can feel empowering, adding height and stature, but only when you are wearing them by choice.

For some reason I don’t believe that Portico wants its female employees to feel empowered by their shoes, if they did they wouldn’t have minded so much when one of them pointed out the company’s blatantly sexist policy. So why is it so wedded to this outdated dress code?

Perhaps it’s because even now in 2016, nearly 100 years after women got the vote, 50 years since we were entitled to equal pay and more than 10 years since Sex and the City stopped trying to convince us that heels were independence in shoe form, what we really judge success on is the attractiveness of the woman attached to it. It’s not enough to have a professional, competent receptionist welcoming your guests, she also needs to be sexy.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-...rkplace-sexism