| >> |
No. 376102
>>376098
Culture does matter. Just not the way you're trying to apply it. There are far more factors to it than that, though.
First, we have the biological. That's not really a conspiracy, but it just so happens to be the cause of the inequality to start with. We all know that sperm is cheap and easily attained, eggs and the basket to produce babies in isn't, and the natural competitive game it is to get that to work. These are immovable objects for the most part, but the tyranny of biology won't be an impediment forever. Surrogacy is becoming more common, and there are other means by which women will see more competitive advantages so they won't be tied down with biological obligations. This in itself is a very primal level of inequality, and it affects everything that comes after it. Sexual dimorphism itself.
Second, the neurological. Gray to white matter distribution, the effects endocrines have on the development of the brain, what these differences actually -mean-. We still don't have enough data to make concrete heads or tails, so working here is mostly a nonstarter.
Third, the practical and philosophical. Is a basket of grain carried by a woman worth less than a basket of grain carried by a man? What is it about being female that causes one to make less and be promoted less than a man? Many, many things. This is distinct in that one industry or organization or trade often has to bow to physical practicality and grit, and sometimes that means bucking culture to make it possible.
Fourth, the cultural. And yes, this does come after the philosophical in my book, or at least sit at a different position on the same tier. If it were a venn diagram, they'd overlap. Society's opinion on the sexes and their obligations and their values and taboos.
Fifth, The Landed Gentry. Believe it or not, there's a classist element to all this.
Sixth, the legislation and policy of the culture.
The things I see (and I emphasize, this is all just observation made with my butt) holding women back are unfortunate rules of the game. Their own playing pieces are, in some ways, disadvantaged based on the context of the game we're playing, especially if they want to fulfill all their sex's capabilties by the end. IE: Be both a mother, and a professional in their chosen craft. Women by and large need resources and time and more community assistance to do the same things a man is expected to do for themselves, or for other women. That complicates things right at the getgo, but as society advances technologically, this difference becomes less and less relevant. And good riddance when that day comes.
Then we come to where physical meets rational. The distribution of our brainmeats. They've found that, while exceptions and individuals exist, women unfortunately do not handle the workplace in the same manner a man does. By this I mean they operate with different tolerances, responses and reactions to stimuli, be it success, failure, persistence and independence based on their sex. A man may be more quick to step forwards if he has a slim shot of victory, because he feels he has less to lose. A woman may hold herself back, fearing even at 40-50% chance of success, it's not worth the risk. A man will turn down offers for jobs and say "can you do me better?" more often than a woman, who will often see the first offer as salvation and see it as superior to nothing. It's why, I've seen it discussed, there are fewer women willing to run for office, much less women who win. And men react to this perceived default reaction of shyness by stepping up for both themselves and under the operating knowledge a woman might start doubting herself and falter, necessitating stepping up. This is why they prefer the distribution of qualities in men vs. women in some industries. Advantage, predictability, and control. If women worked in coal mines in our society at the same number as men, we'd have a bigger push for tighter safety regulations in the mine and health inspections to reduce toxin related death or impairment.
And then we come to the brass tacks, where observation of these physical things becomes rationalized business policy. I have some stories, man. Horrible stories. Do you know the state of nursing in our (assuming you're from North America) country? Do you know there are nurses in isolated regions working in overworked, underpaid positions, female nurses making about as much as they made 30 years ago without much increase in payment? People are paying more for care, but all that money is going to their employers. Agencies. A business will exploit the structures and resources that just so happen to be there, and a business will exploit the female dissinterest in making waves in favor of stability in order to retain their position. They're more likely to cow to intimidation and handling authoritative power causes them more stress. And so business capitalizes on what it knows women will do nothing about. Are they actively targeting women? No. But women naturally target nursing. And like a wolf naturally targets a familiar shape of an animal it knows it can exploit for meat, women in those industries will be preyed on. If we had more male nurses to bang the table and threaten to call the State to get involved, ie: Pay us more or this whole fucking table gets flipped, or more women stepped up in their own defense, this shit would be less common. But they don't.
And here we come to the unhappy corner where the village and neighborhood meets the church and the heritage. This can vary depending on individuals, the times, access to information, and the philosophical culture already there, whether it weaves nicely with the local book everybody is on the same page on, or diverges completely. Opinions, which make people relate to one another based on certain operating logic. "A woman should be a submissive blahblahblahblah," says the book. And so, a believe of the book expresses this belief. The book says anything that prevents a woman from getting pregnant is an abomination, and therefore, the woman has the choice between letting nature take its course, or celibacy. The book highly recommends being charitable to your workers, but says a woman's place is in the kitchen, thereby convincing the observer of the book who owns the local Thneed Mill to hire men, so they can take care of those little lambs. And it's their little slice of heaven and providence, so they don't take kindly to government or any other overforce telling them who they should hire or why. It's their little Napoleon way of controlling the environment around people who disagree, to make them comply and do as desired. Pigeonholing them to do as specified by them, who are doing it on behalf of what the book or the doctrine thinks is best. Men and women have cultural expectations by people afraid to let them down and be ostracized for doing it, and some lovingly wait their turn to stomp on people lower than them.
Speaking of what some blowhard arbitrates as the law of the land, we come to the more isolated movers and shakers in society. How about those guys that don't operate under the pretext of the book, but still use their agency and leverage in industry, business, real estate and etc. to push a social agenda when they can? Be it redlining districts to keep the negros out, ensuring their buddies get all the lucrative jobs because they network and know a guy, ensuring people they don't particulaly like can't network and get those jobs, they then make sure only certain people with a certain amount of money can afford to live in certain places. The rest of the places? They couldn't care less if somebody build a lead refinement plant there. They're bound by zoning laws, the law of the land and the government, but only when they can't use money as a lever to pressure a community or an industry or an entire region to do what they want. And this can be used to push opinions on a man and a woman's place. And often is. They dominate fashion, they dominate music, they dominate the Good Life and all the things and glitz and glamor the poor and middle class aspire to.
And finally we have the actual on paper laws and the policies and the amendments of a nation or community's rules. These are static, as opposed to dynamic, and resistant to change. It's hard to make a rule an operand that will affect all of society, and it works best when all these working parts agree to it, because laws are static while people, organizations and businesses are dynamic. They will move goal posts around to try and keep doing what they want. And if they have a vested interest in keeping things a certain way, or rolling back the privileges a group (women) enjoy, they'll do it. Bugger what the rules on the books say if they can loophole, build around or skirt them. Some have penalties so minor they don't even care about them and will continue to do what they want.
These are the things, all working separately and sometimes coincidentally together, that make sexual equality difficult to observe, perceive, grasp, manipulate and balance. The idea that video games, comic books and bad movies are subtly altering all men's expectations of women beyond their consciousness of it, and that somehow contributes to all of society's oppression of women, is juvenile and patronizing at best. There are way, way more important and insidious gears in the machine than Short Circuit, Peter Pan or Double Dragon to think about.
tl;dr: Pimps, whores and the clergy.
|