Sexual desire, while in some cases creepy, is not sexism. Also: Sexism in sailing? How widespread could that possibly be in a nation of 300,000,000? Not defending it, but you need to play the odds when playing the sexism card.

Men and women are NOT the same. They deserve equal respect and equal pay for equal work, sure, but they ARE different. And that is the beauty of it.

Very well put. The legal protections that are in place to ensure that women are (to ensure that everyone is) treated fairly in the professional world, in academics, and with respect to the law are vitally important. But I don't think we should - and, truthfully, most people don't - take those to mean that men and women are identical.

Your husband is a lucky man.

Because she sounds HOTT! Bringing home the bacon, frying up in the pan, never ever letting him forget she's a woMan...

Feminists don't take the stance that women and men are identical. But they do object to fallacious charges of difference in abilities that have nothing to do with lifting heavy weights, etc. You know, like, that women can't do math, or chair a corporation, or whatever, or that men are by nature incapable of nurturing behavior.

All of which have been presented recently by seemingly reputable sources as legitimate examples of "non-identicality."

Nobody ever said that women can't run a corporation or that men are incapable of nurturing behavior. If a "reputable" source made such a claim, he or she should lose his or her reputation.

If you go looking for something to be outraged at, of course you're going to be able to find it. And I stand by my statement that her husband is a lucky man ... not sure why it bothered you so much.

I think they're both lucky...

The equal pay for equal work issue usually means that a secretay thinks that the work she does ( scheduling meetings and making sure her boss is reminded) is as vital to the organization as his policy making, over-seeing the day to day operation and the fact that he is utimately responsible for how the business succeeds is.

Firefighters, police officers, teachers, wait staff, and union jobs, (and where I work job classification) determine the pay, not the gender of the person filling the job.

So...correct me if I'm wrong: Some sailors on a forum were lusting after an attractive 17 year old female....THEREFORE, HRC's lack of support results from sexism of males toward females plus the ignorance of younger women....that.... HRC is ACTUALLY the better candidate even though they prefer Obama??

Could it be that saltwater shrinks your brain, Degsme?

You are simply the WORST ONE on this forum for indulging in interpreting a preference for Obama as sexism. THE WORST! ESPECIALLY in the face of so many negatives about HRC; as we've discussed before--I mentioned her lying, and her near-maniacal lust for winning office, at ANY price. Since our discussion she has expressed those worrisome character traits TO THE HILT! Have Richardson and Reich, high level Clinton appointees, abandoned her because they're sexist?

Reich is just pissed 'cos he's too short to join the navy

ARe you serious? Ever get a room full of women together, or on a chatroom of mostly women? They objectify men just as much as men objectify women. Women talk an awful lot about Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt, and it usually doesn't revolve around their acting ability. Women do the same thing, time to stop acting like its above the fray when your sex does it. I bet you do the same thing all the time, and don't even think about it. See, the "Young feminists" that I know, have chosen to let men talk about them that way, they simply talk about men the same way. Your post is thought provoking but ultimately misguided, women do the same thing, its human nature. I KNOW you and your girlfriends don't get together and talk about how sexy that guy/gals mind is. Sorry, it just doesn't happen (you might be a lesbian so I added gals.)

I picked the firehouse example very consciously and carefully. Yes it was a recent experience, but more importantly, the firehouse is a place where Affirmative Action and very pro-active anti-discrimination policies have been put in place. Furthermore it is very much a "meritocracy" as far as "pulling your weight" goes. And recently a female firefighter either won or placed in the national championships, which highly rewards endurance as well as physical strength.

So if there was going to be a segment of our society where "traditional" male discrimination was going to show the kind of amelioration of bigotry that the "neo-feminists" who reject the assertions of Robin Morgan claim has taken place, the professional firehouse is one place where you would expect to see this change.

And yet the sexual double standard is rampant.

There is an element of the "fuck you don't tell me what to do with my body" in there. But while that may apply to that 17 year old on Daytona Beach with an underdeveloped OFC, she is indirectly taking her cue form the Courtney Martin's of the world who's ability to reason about the consequence of such hyper-sexualized behaviour SHOULD be a touch more sophisticated. And yet the Martin's of the world are acting as though the world has changed in ways it has not.

Running a corporation requires credibility.

If a woman's legitimate criticisms are ALWAYS discounted as "whining"

If hermale competitors legitimate criticisms are seen as attempts to improve the system

Then she will never get the credibilty to run a corporation. And this is precisely the way gender discrimination works. And it is precisely what is going on in the dislike of HRC.

There is a difference of consequences. Since men have the power in the system, objectifying women results in women not getting an even shake based on merit (BTW I'm male).

The issue then becomes how that objectification translates into the workplace. Such as assuming that criticisms from women are "whining" where as from men they can be "legitimate critique".

It is the blindness that you exhibit in how these proceses extrapolate that are the problem

degsme:

Running a corporation requires credibility.

If a woman's legitimate criticisms are ALWAYS discounted as "whining"

If hermale competitors legitimate criticisms are seen as attempts to improve the system

Then she will never get the credibilty to run a corporation. And this is precisely the way gender discrimination works. And it is precisely what is going on in the dislike of HRC.

The think is Degsme this just isn't the case, unless the idea of sexism is so ingrained in you that you see it in everything...like you appear to. If HRC was a man you would not be able to ascribe sexism as the reason people don't like her. Because she is a woman it is the FIRST conclusion you reach. It is THIS bias that is the problem...not rampant sexism.

Or alternatively it is the case - especially if sexism is as ingrained as I see it. If HRC were a woman, she would be seen as a tough competitor. Consider one of her opponents here: McCain. He has at least as many credibility issues as HRC. Recently he repeatedly (even after being corrected) asserted (contradicting the NIE) that Iran was funding Al Qaeda in Iraq. Sure this is something that is red meat for his base, but it is every bit as much a distortion as HRC's "mis-speaking" about sniper fire.

If HRC were a man, she would not be held to the standard she is being held to anymore than Limbaugh would have held up a picture of her child as the "new whitehouse dog" if that child were male.

related discussion here: <link>