Is it possible that we are second best?

Pinkypoops I think you're missing the point.

It's not a brave, open-minded observation to say women might just be shit. It's the default position of a misogynist society. Lots of people deep down inside, without realising it, think that women are just shit really and that's why they don't get anywhere. Most don't realise that, it's only when the chips are down that it gets expressed and they don't even realise they're expressing that idea.

Refuting that proposition, isn't "being blindly, militantly feminist", it's just applying critical feminist analysis to an age old misogynist "common sense fact". Critical feminist analysis is the opposite of blind. It's blind to not be able to critique the stereotypical observations you see all around you on a daily basis. But when feminists do critique them, we're called blindly militant. The breath-takingly thorough research and analysis and lifting of the veil that feminist scholarship did - and is doing - on so many of the topics that you've raised, is actually incredible and amazing and if men had done it, would be considered one of the cultural triumphs of the twentieth century. Instead, it's called "blind". Sad.

I hope you're right, Himalaya. That would make sense. However, the effect of measuring results in education, as Lessthanaballpark pointed out earlier, is instant panic because it appears more girls than boys are good at it. It's believed there must be something wrong with the education, or the measure, or something. Not acceptance that girls may just be better at this education lark (at least at this stage of their lives). They can't just suck it up, they have to pick at it and find some way of making it not true. At least with the removal of cheaper insurance for female drivers, which I agree was unfair based as it was on averages rather than individuals, they've stopped the difference mattering.

Anniegetyourgun - I agree with you. I guess the challenge is to be able to judge individuals on their merits and not rely on stereotypes, even while admitting that there may be some gender related tendencies at a population level.

I guess technology may help - things like the move from women getting cheaper insurance as a group to "black box" insurance that monitors how well people drive. Could be applied in other areas of life. Similarly with work if we can get better at measuring results rather than assuming that performance on the basis of appearance/presenteeism.

I am not recognising in my largely evenly balanced male/female workplace (with more men in senior positions) the crying, affairs, shouting, swearing, bitching, irrational thinking or sexual harassment that is being described.

And I have worked in 4 different organisations.

YY to last three posts of FestiviaBlueberry :)

Excellent post Festivia.

I've often wondered what is wrong with showing people you are upset as well. Do you think it might make them uncomfortable to know that they have upset you? Well quite frankly it should. Or do you think it is a sign of weakness? Well it isn't. And in fact to even put it on the same level as aggression, sexual harrassment and violence that I have seen from men in my workplace is really really insulting and mimising. I had one guy at the Xmas party try and justify why another member of staff had held a woman in my office up against the wall by her throat, because she was annoying and would try the patience of a saint. There is still that underlying belief that women's behaviour deserves violence. That man didn't get sacked btw, he was moved to another office. I wonder why women aren't more confident in the workplace. Remind me again why that would be?

It's telling that you focus on the bad message that Rihanna sends out, while completely ignoring the bad message Chris Brown sends out. He's the perpetrator remember? He's the one we should be focusing on. Patriarchy ensures that women turn their ire on her instead of him.

What's wrong with crying at work? Why is that worse than swearing at work, or shouting at work, something lots of men I have worked with have done, but it never gets the criticism crying at work does. Because men tend to do the shouting or swearing and men are better than women, obv., so behaviour associated with them - anger, grandstanding, bullying, is OK, while crying - nasty icky female stuff - is shit, because women are shit.

I totally disagree that there is less bitching and irrational behaviour when working with men. For the first time in years I'm in a male dominated team and the muddled thinking, irrational decisions, grand-standing, bitching and sheer fear is extraordinary to behold after years of being in a co-operative, constructive environment. It's very entertaining, but there's no way it's as efficient as the female-dominated environments I've worked in for the previous five years. They're higher paid though. Because they're better than women, obv, because women are shit.

No but it's 70% of the women and only 7% of the men so what does that say

Frankly, the square root of sweet fanny adams. I think the fact that there are 100 men and only 10 women for them to have affairs with should give you a clue.....

On another tack..

This thing about women not being fitted to do certain things e.g. rule the universe, because they are emotional due to their hormones and nature.

Testosterone is a hormone - anger is an emotion and we know what that can do - or do emotions and hormones only count negatively when they are female?

"one thing that seriously gets my goat is placing under-qualified people in positions because of their demographic (grrrr)"

Where does this happen?

IME, the only time this happens is when men get jobs because of their demographic and everyone calls it a meritocracy, not noticing that the man in question is surrounded by women of a lower level who are infinitely more qualified than him.

"Men are often more outspoken and stronger in meetings and debates- ipso facto, better at getting their point across and getting heard."

When women are as outspoken and as strong in meetings as men are, they are seen as aggressive, scary bitches. When women talk 30% of the time, they are perceived to have dominated the meeting.

Men being better at stuff - you need to remember that men have deliberately excluded women from all the stuff you mention - you go into a gym, and all the equipment there is made for an average male - women are smaller and lighter and are on average going to find that some of the equipment doesn't meet their needs. Because they're expected to slot into a world designed for men, rather than one designed for both men and women. All the other stuff you mention, women have been excluded from until recently and their efforts are recieved far more critically than those of men - when men screw up, it's their screw up and a chance to learn from it, when women screw up, it's received as further proof that all women are shit.

Back to the next bit of thread.

First the car-parking thing: firstly, how often have you noticed men having to try 3 times to park their car? Probably never, because we don't notice when men are incompetent about it, whereas as soon as a woman fulfills stereotypes, we seize on it. As a side issue, so what if women were not in fact, good at parking cars? Why would that be an indicator of inferiority? Why isn't an inability to turn on the dishwasher or washing machine an indicator of inferiority?

Sexy stuff - look at how rewarded women are for jumping through patriarchal beauty indicators. If people are rewarded for behaving in a certain way, they will behave in a certain way. It is rare for a woman to be rewarded, for looking like herself and being herself. If it weren't rare, more women would do that. I think you need to look at structures there, rather than blame the women who operate within the structures.

Viz testosterone, why aren't you saying that testosterone makes men more likely to murder, be violent and take risks than women, therefore we ought to place some reasonable restrictions on their behaviour? If we lived in the oppressive matriarchal society which were a mirror image of the oppressive patriarchal society we actually live in, then that is how the question of hormones would be phrased, rather than seeing testosterone as a positive thing.

Secondly with regard to hormones, even if it were true that our oestrogen controlled us into needing to make babies, why would that be framed as a negative? Creating the next generation would be considered a worthwhile and valuable thing to do, if we didn't live in a society steeped in misogyny.

In conclusion, I'm getting the feeling that as we all do (for a while) you've imbibed the misogynist framing of our society and want some reassurance that we are not actually, as shit as our society tells us. I think the only way you can rid yourself of that self-doubt (which was put there by a society which told you and me right from day 1 that we're not as good as our brothers) is by reading. A few basic fem texts might be helpful, because it will help you see the patters of how society is structured to ensure tht women fail. Knowing how this is done, helps you rid yourself of the feeling that we just aren't good enough.

Will now read the rest of the thread.

It says the men are shagging 10 women each. Maffs, innit.

No but it's 70% of the women and only 7% of the men so what does that say.

Its nothing to do with nosy, when it's in my face both on a working day and on nights out.

Anyways I'm just putting my point of view across this is what happens in my company it may not happen everywhere but I can only talk about my experiences.

Perhaps I'm just not nosy enough, but I have no clue whether professional colleagues have or are sleeping together and don't give a flying fig whether or not they are. I only care whether they are doing the job they're paid for.

This seems a very odd thread. Unless the OP is brand new to MN, or in fact to internet message boards completely, she surely would have realised that an opening post filled with quite wild generalisations would be experienced as pretty provocative by other members here. The wild generalisations have continued, even though many folks have provided evidence and patient explanations about why such generalisations are rarely helpful, the dangers of "self-fulfilling prophecies," etc. But, I'm not convinced that the OP really is inclined to engage with these. There's always a "Yes, but . . . " response, followed by more generalisations.

I was trying to imagine what it would be like if the thread made the same sort of generalisations about people of different ethnic backgrounds, or class backgrounds, or people with disabilities. Whether the op was from a minority ethnic group, or a less privileged socio-economic class or had a disability herself wouldn't really make a difference, just as the OP being a woman doesn't give one carte blanche to make pronouncements about all women.

There's also this phenomenon sometimes referred to as "internal oppression." That's where because you hear constant messages saying you are inferior, you believe these to be true at some level, and often "act the part," you're told you are supposed to play.

Yes, exactly. Who are these women having affairs with? Er, men? Or is it only lesbian affairs that are seen to be unprofessional? It's the old "if a woman has an affair she's a whore, if a man has an affair he's a lad about town" dichotomy innit. Women are allowed to be sex objects (ie judged in accordance with their attractiveness rather than their efficiency) but not to be sex subjects (ie willing participants). Weird stuff, and says a lot more about office politics than it does about women in the workplace.

Right, time for a joke. Parable of the Willies, as it were.

God was making people and had a couple of pieces left over in the box, so called the man and woman over.

Right, said God, right here I have the ability to wee standing up.

Adam pushed to the front. Me, me, me, I'll have that, he said.

Eve waited a minute. What's the other piece? she asked.

God grinned. Multiple orgasms, she replied.

Annie that's exactly what I'm saying, the women I work with dont put in the same hours as the men, and the ones I'm talking about dont have children and are mostly single. I totally understand when a woman has kids things change, I have one myself, I probably don't put in the same hours as I did before but I still do as much if not more than my equivalent male counterparts.

Maybe it's just my company but this is what I see.

*can't get anywhere on our own merits

Going I read that when I get a chance Uptoapoint .

Ninja for example I work with 10 women and about 100 men 7 of the women are having affairs or slept with male colleagues at some point, that makes 70% of the women at it and only 7% of the men. Maybe some women will benefit from their affairs but I would say the majority won't as I have seen it happen all too often before. It's this kind of behaviour that makes us women look unprofessional or that we can get anywhere on our own merits, instead we think we have to sleep our way to the top.

"And of course I most certainly do not feel that ANY behaviour on the part of women justifies male violence (again- a whole other subject)....however when one of the world´s biggest female role-models is beaten black and blue by her partner and then is seen to be possibly reconciling with him along with singing lyrics that could possibly be seen to be inviting more violence against herself, one does kind of despair of the message that sends out to would-be abusers."

It isn't Rihanna's job (or any other abused woman) to stop men abusing women. That is a job for men. And the whole music industry is also stacked against her. It is male-dominated and very misogynistic. There are many many male artists writing and singing equally, if not worse lyrics. Rihanna is merely a product (as horrible as that sounds) and quite frankly deserves our sympathy and empathy not our wrath/judgement/scorn.

And male violence isn't a whole other subject - it is at the root of inequality between men and women. One that you conveniently forgot to mention whilst discussing who parks cars better and who is good at playing computer games - as if that is why we have inequality .

You seem to be quite happy attacking women who are just trying to get by in a world stacked against them. As HandbagCrab said you have been let off pretty lightly on this thread for basically coming on and putting women down. It makes me angry that you feel it is OK to do that.

The sample chapter is all I can say without going in a rage about some of these generalisations about bitchy women and all that.

As for this 'bitching and irrational behaviour' by women, all I can say is that I've not seen it. And who are these women having affairs with? Or does it not count as unprofessional on the part of the men?

I typed this post half an hour ago and the conversation's moved on but hey... About men having more confidence, I remember reading about research that showed there was a reason why women weren't as assertive in the workplace as men - they got much more harshly judged for e.g. asking for more money.

As well as general views about proper behaviour for women, it also depends on context - how much women are seen as outsiders. Another study I read about found women MSPs were more assertive in the Scottish Parliament than female MPs in Westminster - presumably because women had been included from the very beginning and so were more accepted.