Red Ajah’s International Women’s Week: Women and Equality (Discussion)

[Tamerya]

Durinax.. I live in Canada and I can definitely tell you that #3 is alive and well here too.  I work in a male-dominated industry and there is a LOT of discrimination against women.  I've been told when answering the phone that "I want to speak to a man because there's no way a woman would understand computers".  I was the first female in IT in my company and it took a long time to start to turn that thought pattern around. 

 

Then I went to another company... thinking it would be better.  I was hired into IT, but rather than given a job as a tech as I was hired, they ended up basically making me do all their cell phone billing, etc and threw me into an admin role..even though I have zero admin experience and no desire to do that.  They kept promising to move me into a tech position, but whenever a new one came over, I was glossed over.  Then I later heard the VP of IT stating that "women are only good in menial roles".

 

Plus.. it is still fact that men get hired on at higher rates than women for the same role.  I've seen that in several companies I've worked for..it's just "the way it is".

 

I know I can't speak for all companies, or be a good "source"..but can speak from personal experience on it.

[Hallia]

Back in South Carolina, I had the same trouble.  I worked at a factory, and the majority of women worked on just the regular assembly line, and some on repair, but only 1 female on the surface mount tech side.  I started on the line, but I had pretty good soldering skills, so I was promoted to repair.  I did extra work learning how the tech side worked on my own, and eventually a spot on the smt side opened up, and I applied.  I got it, and I got heckled quite a bit at the start.  The other girl said it was normal.  For a few months, you would hear that from some of the guys every now and then.  "This work ain't for girls." (That kind of stuff.)  But I did that job as well if not better than some of the fellows.

[Durinax]

I know among trades and such there is preferential treatment towards women because there arent many of them around. I would hesitate to say at higher rates, because of the complex relationship between experience education and attitude. I did some education in IT and I must say that in the IT field (at least the classes I was in) there was substantially fewer females among the classes.

 

But I have worked in other jobs where it was me and 2 ladies and I would get absolutely all the sh!t jobs and they would get the easy stuff, like running to the city for parts with the exact same job title. But I also wonder what its like for guys going into female dominated jobs as well.

[Nolder]

 

 

Here are some facts about women around the world, from dosomething.org, sourced from Amnesty International

1. Women perform 66% of the world’s work, but receive only 11% of the world’s income, and own only 1% of the world’s land.
2. Women head 83% of single-parent families. The number of families nurtured by women alone doubled from 1970 to 1995 (from 5.6 million to 12.2 million).
3. Women account for 55% of all college students, but even when women have equal years of education it does not translate into economic opportunities or political power.
4. Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government. 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.
5. Rape is consciously used as a tool of genocide and weapon of war. Tens of thousands of women and girls have been subjected to rape and other sexual violence since the crisis erupted in Darfur in 2003. There is no evidence of anyone being convicted in Darfur for these atrocities.
6. About 75% of the refugees and internally displaced in the world are women who have lost their families and their homes.

I am curious about how #1 is quantified...... seems like a very hard thing to put into a percentage.

According to The Atlantic #1 is a myth.

#4 is probably false as well. It depends on what you define as a war and what time period you're talking about. 

#6 Is usually the case because the women and children are sent away while the men fight to protect them.

[Elgee]

Durinax and Nolder, please leave the White Tower & Warders. There have been repeated warnings in this event, which you have deemed to ignore, so I have handed you both over to the admins.

 

Everyone else, go read this. Then you may carry on. Follow the directions Fnorrl and I have given you, or suffer the consequences.

 

And may I just say that this perfectly highlights the plight of women all over the world. Way to go, guys.

[Nolder]

Absolutely ridiculous. I haven't done anything wrong.

I look forward to talking to any admins about this.

[Reyoru]

 

No, he wasn't a Christian, but he is what Christianty is supposed to be based off of, which is why I mentioned the changes he really brought in.  

Unfortunately, Christianity is NOT based on the teachings of Jesus. The Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations (but not all) actually downplay

the gospels, and pay an inordinate amount of attention to the epistles of Paul. There were originally 4 sects of Christianity: Paulian (bad word, that :)), Valentinian,

Thomasian, and the Gnostics. The current church, as it stands (except for a few small, resurrected sects) have NEVER even heard of the writtings of these schisms.

Ever heard of the Gospel of Mary?? Thomas?? The hypostasis of the Archons? the Apocrypha of John??

It is Paul who gave us celibate priests, creating a culture of pedophilia, secret liasons, and scandal. It is Paul who gave us women as inferior, unfit to serve as

priests or apostles, despite Mary Magdalen (who was NOT a whore, people). After His resurrection, who did he appear to first?? Mary, an inferior woman, and

the men did not believe. I believe this sets the stage for the entire development of Western Culture, which was guided and controlled (for the most part)

by the Catholic Church for the next 1800 years.

 

This is incredibly skewed by your clearly negative opinions of the Catholic Church, and I daresay any Catholic reading this would be offended.

 

Have you ever heard of the Orthodox Church? 

[Tsukibana]

 

 

No, he wasn't a Christian, but he is what Christianty is supposed to be based off of, which is why I mentioned the changes he really brought in.  

Unfortunately, Christianity is NOT based on the teachings of Jesus. The Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations (but not all) actually downplay

the gospels, and pay an inordinate amount of attention to the epistles of Paul. There were originally 4 sects of Christianity: Paulian (bad word, that :)), Valentinian,

Thomasian, and the Gnostics. The current church, as it stands (except for a few small, resurrected sects) have NEVER even heard of the writtings of these schisms.

Ever heard of the Gospel of Mary?? Thomas?? The hypostasis of the Archons? the Apocrypha of John??

It is Paul who gave us celibate priests, creating a culture of pedophilia, secret liasons, and scandal. It is Paul who gave us women as inferior, unfit to serve as

priests or apostles, despite Mary Magdalen (who was NOT a whore, people). After His resurrection, who did he appear to first?? Mary, an inferior woman, and

the men did not believe. I believe this sets the stage for the entire development of Western Culture, which was guided and controlled (for the most part)

by the Catholic Church for the next 1800 years.

 

This is incredibly skewed by your clearly negative opinions of the Catholic Church, and I daresay any Catholic reading this would be offended.

 

Have you ever heard of the Orthodox Church? 

I feel no negativity towards Catholics, nor toward their Church in general (I MAY disagree with some of their doctrine, but that does not indicate bias).

Please recall that before the Reformation, there was ONLY the Catholic Church. The Waldenses, Albingians, etc. were persecuted... Calvin, Zwicky, Luther...

the Church (the Political entity that arose following Constantine moving the capital and ceding the Empire to the Pope) had no problem smashing any

and all "heresy".

My negativity exists in the form of outrage at Christ's church, whomever they be, placing the teaching of a MAN (Paul, in this case) and political power-mongering

(as the Catholic church did), above the duty to CHRIST that they had. However, having a negative opinion about things that occured centuries ago should not

be taken as an indicator of my opinion on the current state of those organizations. For example, near to you, Rey: I disagree with the ruling policies of

Mary, Queen of Scots and her bloody persecutions... this does not mean I have a negative opinion of Elizabeth II or the ruling tradition of England!! GStQ!!

But, if you are offended (Rey, or any other reader), know that I apologize, and only seek to educate, not infuriate.

[WildTaltos]

 

 

 

No, he wasn't a Christian, but he is what Christianty is supposed to be based off of, which is why I mentioned the changes he really brought in.  

Unfortunately, Christianity is NOT based on the teachings of Jesus. The Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations (but not all) actually downplay

the gospels, and pay an inordinate amount of attention to the epistles of Paul. There were originally 4 sects of Christianity: Paulian (bad word, that :)), Valentinian,

Thomasian, and the Gnostics. The current church, as it stands (except for a few small, resurrected sects) have NEVER even heard of the writtings of these schisms.

Ever heard of the Gospel of Mary?? Thomas?? The hypostasis of the Archons? the Apocrypha of John??

It is Paul who gave us celibate priests, creating a culture of pedophilia, secret liasons, and scandal. It is Paul who gave us women as inferior, unfit to serve as

priests or apostles, despite Mary Magdalen (who was NOT a whore, people). After His resurrection, who did he appear to first?? Mary, an inferior woman, and

the men did not believe. I believe this sets the stage for the entire development of Western Culture, which was guided and controlled (for the most part)

by the Catholic Church for the next 1800 years.

 

This is incredibly skewed by your clearly negative opinions of the Catholic Church, and I daresay any Catholic reading this would be offended.

 

Have you ever heard of the Orthodox Church? 

I feel no negativity towards Catholics, nor toward their Church in general (I MAY disagree with some of their doctrine, but that does not indicate bias).

Please recall that before the Reformation, there was ONLY the Catholic Church. The Waldenses, Albingians, etc. were persecuted... Calvin, Zwicky, Luther...

the Church (the Political entity that arose following Constantine moving the capital and ceding the Empire to the Pope) had no problem smashing any

and all "heresy".

My negativity exists in the form of outrage at Christ's church, whomever they be, placing the teaching of a MAN (Paul, in this case) and political power-mongering

(as the Catholic church did), above the duty to CHRIST that they had. However, having a negative opinion about things that occured centuries ago should not

be taken as an indicator of my opinion on the current state of those organizations. For example, near to you, Rey: I disagree with the ruling policies of

Mary, Queen of Scots and her bloody persecutions... this does not mean I have a negative opinion of Elizabeth II or the ruling tradition of England!! GStQ!!

But, if you are offended (Rey, or any other reader), know that I apologize, and only seek to educate, not infuriate.

Befoer the reformatin (i.e. th oen in the 16th centuray), there ws only the Cathlic Chuch? You kno waht the (Eastern) Orthodox Church is rght? It ws a compltely seperaet entity in th eastren remins of the Roman empier for at leas 500 years befoer the protestent reformatin as far as my knowldge goes, and doin a quick read it sems firs impresiosn it ws seperate from th Latin Churchh for many moer centuris back if it ws eever even whoel with it. Rey wuold know more becuse hes membre of Orthodoc church, but jus wante to point out taht was clerly eroneous statment.

[Tsukibana]

Eastern Orthodox is NOT a reformist church... at most I would consider them schismatic. I will be clearer in the future.

[Reyoru]

I am not offended at all Tsukibana, and I thank you and Taltos both for your input. If anyone wants to discuss Church history or theology I'd be more than happy to participate in a different thread, but don't want to hijack IWW

[AesSedaiGuy]

Eastern Orthodox is NOT a reformist church... at most I would consider them schismatic. I will be clearer in the future.

While I appreciate your fervor and point, technically the Eastern Orthodox was the church, from which Rome broke away, and before that there was a schism over Christology and whether Jesus was of two forms or one form, and therefore there was the Oriental Orthodox Church, not to mention the Copts and Mar Toma Christians, both of which developed independently and of their own accord.

 

Even during the height of Catholic Church power in the West there were constant "heretical" groups. Your point is well made that the Catholic Church has been complicit with power mongering and oppression, but it doesn't help your point with statements like this, IMO. :-)

 

I just realized I have further helped derail this thread ....sorry Hall! :-(

[Tsukibana]

"from which Rome broke away" is the definition of schism, is it not?

schismatic groups break away over differences in doctrine, Reformist groups break away over differences in theology...  subtle difference, I know.

In an effort to regain topic, what are the views on women in positions that are traditionally male-dominated in the EOT??

[AesSedaiGuy]

I think calling the EOC the "schismatic" group when Rome is the one who broke off was my issue. The connotation implied the other way around. IMO

 

I won't get into doctrine vs theology here. :-)

 

Maybe I missed it, but what is EOT, and I'll be happy to comment. :)

[Tsukibana]

Oops.. I meant EOC, Eastern Orthodox Church... (oops)

[Gudrean]

I am not even close to having all the facts you guys have on the subject of Christianity, as I am more of an earth based faith girl, but I think back in the day, before the rise of Christianity, women held various positions in their villages and towns that were definitely roles of "religious" nature as well as general "doctor",  herbalist, OBGYN or better midwives, Vets (the animal kind hehe) and many more =D

[Reyoru]

 

Eastern Orthodox is NOT a reformist church... at most I would consider them schismatic. I will be clearer in the future.

While I appreciate your fervor and point, technically the Eastern Orthodox was the church, from which Rome broke away, and before that there was a schism over Christology and whether Jesus was of two forms or one form, and therefore there was the Oriental Orthodox Church, not to mention the Copts and Mar Toma Christians, both of which developed independently and of their own accord.

 

Small correction, the Coptic Orthodox Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox Church :)

[AesSedaiGuy]

I stand corrected. :)

[Moon Sedai]

In the early days of Christianity, it was a fairly equitable faith. When compared to the other "Roman Cults" that were chief competitors. 

The cult of Mithras, the "#2 contender" had almost similar teachings, but did not allow women. 

The allowance of women into Christianity helped it survive the early Roman days-- Women were more likely to marry men who shared their faith.