maxofs2d:

darksnowfalling:

warpedellipsis:

quasi-normalcy:

meariver:

huntokar:

quasi-normalcy:

No, I’m serious, if women all got together and went into electrical engineering or automotive repair en masse, then ten years later people would be talking about how it was a “soft field” and it would pay proportionately less than other fields.

Likewise, if men moved en masse to bedeck themselves in sparkles and make-up, then suddenly you’d get a bunch of editorials talking about how classy they look.

None of these things are inherently masculine or feminine; none of these things inherently elevate you or drag you down. But whatever women are seen to do is automatically seen as being inherently more frivolous than anything men do. And shaming women for not pigeonholing themselves into a narrow range of acceptable “masculine” behaviours is just going to result in the goalposts getting moved once again.

This is literally what happened to basically every field women have entered. The opposite happens when men enter. Computers used to be a “woman thing” until the guys who did it got really mad about how badly their job was viewed and realized they could fix it by forcing out women.

Also happened/ is happening with the fields of biology and psychology….

I honestly wonder how much of the backlash against public education in the last generation has been due to teaching becoming a woman-dominated profession.

Fashion used to be a men’s thing. Then women got involved in the late 17/1800’s, so men went the other way because it came to be seen as “frivolous” and “anti-intellectual” to care about how you looked. Add in the homophobia that arose around that time, bam, staid bland dress. Ditto leggings/tights, that are now called attention-whoring when on men they were required to show you cared about your figure and had the money to pay for such a fitted item. 

People want to say misogyny doesn’t exist, that male privilege doesn’t exist. Look beyond “living memory” and you’ll find that’s what drives the “inexplicable reversals” society seems to make on many things. Hell, just look beyond your own society, and you’ll find out that what’s considered “for men” elsewhere is held in high esteem while here it’s scoffed at purely because it’s “for women”: 

  • Skinny jeans are the height of masculinity in several east Asian societies, rather than being seen as “gay” in the USA because of their association with femininity. 
  • Medical fields in Russia are valued like kindergarten teachers are here, because it’s women who are the doctors instead of men.
  • Love and romance are highly valued in eastern countries, because men are interested in it too—of course they would be, surely you want to share your life with someone? Here, it’s strictly a women’s subject.

The field of anthropology as a whole illustrates this.

Significantly higher proportions of females compared to males are currently entering the fields of archaeology and biological anthropology, and as this occurs, the prestige, funding, acceptance as valid kinds of science, etc, are fading quickly.

This has already occurred with linguistic anthropology and cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropology in particular went VERY quickly from being seen as a manly, scientific discipline (e.g., Franz Boas, Bronisław Malinowski) to being seen as a touchy-feely female thing.

Let’s examine a traditionally male-dominated role that is very well-respected, and well-paid, in many parts of the world — that of a doctor. In the UK, it is listed as one of the top ten lucrative careers, and the average annual income of a family doctor in the US is well into six figures. It also confers on you significant social status, and a common stereotype in Asian communities is of parents encouraging their children to become doctors.

One of my lecturers at university once presented us with this thought exercise: why are doctors so highly paid, and so well-respected? Our answers were predictable. Because they save lives, their skills are extremely important, and it takes years and years of education to become one. All sound, logical reasons. But these traits that doctors possess are universal. So why is it, she asked, that doctors in Russia are so lowly paid? Making less than £7,500 a year, it is one of the lowest paid professions in Russia, and poorly respected at that. Why is this?

The answer is crushingly, breathtakingly simple. In Russia, the majority of doctors are women. Here’s a quote from Carol Schmidt, a geriatric nurse practitioner who toured medical facilities in Moscow: “Their status and pay are more like our blue-collar workers, even though they require about the same amount of training as the American doctor… medical practice is stereotyped as a caring vocation ‘naturally suited‘ to women, [which puts it at] a second-class level in the Soviet psyche.”

What this illustrates perfectly is this — women are not devalued in the job market because women’s work is seen to have little value. It is the other way round. Women’s work is devalued in the job market because women are seen to have little value. This means that anything a woman does, be it childcare, teaching, or doctoring, or rocket science, will be seen to be of less value simply because it is done mainly by women. It isn’t that women choose jobs that are in lower-paid industries, it is that any industry that women dominate automatically becomes less respected and less well-paid.

http://cratesandribbons.com/2013/12/13/patriarchys-magic-trick-how-anything-perceived-as-womens-work-immediately-sheds-its-value/

A similar but more dramatic link of status and service is evident in the study of the warrior women of the 18th and 19th century African kingdom of Dahomey. The “Dahomey Amazons”, a corps of exclusively female, musket-armed, superbly drilled warriors, present perhaps the most notable example of women being used in warfare. These soldiers originated around 1725 as royal palatial guards, drawn from the least delicate and most physically robust of the king’s thousands of royal wives. A number of circumstances contributed for these women’s selection as palace guards rather than mere concubines. As personal consorts of the king, royal wives were utterly loyal, and since African social tradition forbade men from inhabiting the king’s royal quarters, women took the role instead. The physical robustness of these West African women and a consistent lack of military aged males due to war and the slave trade led to the employment of two to five thousand female bodyguards at any one time after 1725. Increasingly comprehensive drill and training transformed this royal bodyguard into an offensive combat force over the next five decades, which Dahomean king Gezo employed successfully against neighboring African tribes like the Mahi, Yoruba and Oyo. The amazon regiments came to constitute the elite soldiers of Dahomey, often outperforming the Dahomean men on the field of battle. Due to their proximity to the authoritarian king and impressive military prowess, the amazons were endowed with remarkably high social status, above that of most men of the kingdom, a social reversal seldom seen in West Africa. This connection of military service and social status helped secure more recruits to replace the amazon’s losses in battle. The amazons’ legacy might have endured longer had the French not attacked the Kingdom of Dahomey in 1890. The far better equipped Imperial French Army decimated the Dahomean army and conquered the kingdom, dispersing the remnants of the female regiments.

Samir Streatfield – Women in Combat – A Historical Perspective (2016)

She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.

Sen. Mitch McConnell on barring Sen. Elizabeth Warren from speaking out against now-AG Jeff Sessions