Why Is Fixing Sexism Women’s Work? (#TimesUp)

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,615
Reaction score
4,029
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Perhaps the solution is to improve the lot of the working poor, instead of using rare exceptions to demonise single mothers.

Very true.

My dad was the disabled one, and my mom was exceedingly limited in how many hours she could work, or how much she could make - mainly because she couldn't make enough working full-time to make up for what the benefits covered with my dad's health. (The US has a seriously SCREWED UP healthcare system - including a rule that people on medicaid can't have "preventative" dental procedures, but they'll pay for dentures once all the teeth fall out... I honestly hope that rule's changed in the years since my dad needed help.)

Benefit systems aren't structured to help people get off benefits. They're structured to penalize those who try to rise above their circumstances by cutting the safety net as soon as things start to improve. If your full-time job means that your family suffers, especially in a way which will endanger their immediate health or actual life, then why would you choose to work full time? It's a trapdoor system.
 

Albedo

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,363
Reaction score
2,924
Location
A dimension of pure BEES
People on assistance literally cannot save $10,000 in a bank (and you can't pay Disney in cash - most trips / hotel stays have to be pre-paid 45 days in advance of the planned arrival date, at least for Disney World. Never been to Disneyland.). You're restricted to anywhere between $1000 and $2000 before they start a $1 for every $2 benefit removal (meaning that if you go over the allowance, you lose $1 of benefits for every $2 you're over, on a monthly basis.) If you're over for more than a month or two (meaning maybe you got a great bonus, but it was one month and won't sustain you for the year if they pull your benefits) then they will reevaluate your status. I grew up on disability and saw the "if you've saved anything for your daughter's college, you are required to send it back to us" letter when I turned 18.

If you've got the money in cash, or if it's being saved / paid-off incrementally by several people, then that's doable *maybe*. Also, if you're putting out $10,000 for Disneyland, then you've paid *way* too much. Disney World, sure, it's easy to blow that, but it's just as easy to go the discount route and get a family trip for half that. I've planned many a DW trip, so I'm familiar with those particulars, too.
Similar to here. Australia's got the 'dole bludger' stereotype, which is basically a gender neutral copy of the 'welfare queen' in America. Someone avoiding gainful employment, to live the high life on the largesse of hard-working taxpayers.

It's so silly. Getting most payments here requires you to do triple backflips through flaming bureaucratic hoops in neverending rituals of performance humiliation, with the constant threat of being cut off for being paid too much, missing an appointment, or thinking you still have a right to privacy as a welfare recipient. It's not a party. It's a deliberately constructed hell.

And yet the ones who dump on the dole bludger next door are often the ones who have been made most insecure by the system: the ones most likely to end up on the breadline next. It's incredible how the oligarchy, aided by a pliant media, can turn the not quite poor on the poor so easily.
 
Last edited:

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,212
Reaction score
15,821
Location
Australia.
And yet the ones who dump on the dole bludger next door are often the ones who have been made most insecure by the system: the ones most likely to end up on the breadline next. It's incredible how the oligarchy, aided by a pliant media, can turn the not quite poor on the poor so easily.
Yep, this. Because otherwise the outrage would go to the political classes and the tax-dodgers where it belongs.

I seriously doubt that someone smart enough to rort the welfare system to such a brillant extent that they could achieve an engaging, work-free, rewarding life wouldn't turn their powers to other goals. Like for instance just being wealthy without the finger-pointing and shaming that welfare attracts.
 

Jan74

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
136
Location
Canada
Here's the thing w/re the bolded, and I fear something may be getting lost in a cross-border translation here, because Canada (by which I mean there are just different general expectations and cultural 'feelings' re who pays for what and government and personal 'responsibilities' and etc., IN A GENERAL SENSE).

People in the U.S. say basically the above, alllllll the time, w/re 'food stamps' (now SNAP benefits) and other things provided by the government to families or individuals. There is no shortage of 'we work hard and can't afford steak and I saw someone in the market buying STEAK and cake and ice cream with food stamps!! If someone is taking government benefits they shouldn't be spending $100 on an expensive dinner!! I don't spend that much and...' basically your post.

Which, everyone is saying, first, no one knows anyone's circumstances. Someone on benefits may be getting them for a whole slew of reasons, including having taken in foster kids (also in many states child support is loaded onto the same card if collected through the state). Even if it is straight up benefits to the poor though, someone may have scrimped for two weeks, making lentil soups, their own bread, etc., to have enough left over for one special expensive meal for someone's birthday or something. That's their decision, as it's their money.

There's an episode of a show called 30 Days, which was a really good show by Morgan Spurlock (who now has some issues, but the show is good -- he or someone else, mostly someone else, spent 30 days living in a different life, basically. Like he sent a 21-year-old evangelical Christian to spend 30 days living with a gay man in the Castro in SF (it wasn't an MTV shock-value type show, they were both thoughtful people open to listening -- the Christian talked to local pastors AND went to a gay bar, they had serious chats, etc.)), in which Spurlock and his then-gf lived for 30 days in a poor area, taking nothing with them, on minimum-wage jobs. At one point, when his niece and nephew visit, Spurlock and his gf have a big fight because he wants to take the kids to the movies and buys them doughnuts and she's like 'fuck you, I'm walking to my shit job to save the $2 bus fare,' and you're all, 'hey, let's spend $4 on Twizzlers and crap?' (I'm way paraphrasing, heh). He feels they deserve a break/treat, it becomes a whole microcosmic thing.

Also, you can do Disney on WAY less than that if you plan really well. Disney tickets can be had for less if you buy them certain places, you can get extra discounts if you buy everything with Disney gift cards, which you can save an extra 10% on if you buy them correctly; buy them on an airline cc and put the miles toward airfare; you can bring food into the parks and eat mostly cheap crap like granola bars and pbj you make in your offsite hotel room, etc. There are ways to do Disney cheaply if you put in a distinct amount of effort. Some people plan for a year or two to make a Disney vacation happen for their kids.

You can absolutely easily spent $10k flying, staying onsite, eating in the parks, etc., buying souvenirs. You can also spend like 1/4 of that buying souvenirs in advance at Walmart and doling them out during the trip and planning well in advance. Same as anything -- you don't know what other people are doing.

A friend of mine owns a $3500 article of clothing. I was there when she bought it. It's real. It's from Bloomingdales designer floor thing -- that she found at one of the discount houses marked down like 5x, with the original tags on it, on a clearance rack, and she had a coupon, so it was like $100 or so (she's quite tall; we suspect shorter people figured altering it would be a pita or something). Someone who knows what they're looking at who saw her in it might think she's rich or spends a fuckton on clothes. Neither is true, but ....
I think it is getting lost in the border issue. Or maybe we just view things differently. I know people who aren't on welfare and struggle to get by, the gov't gives them nothing because they earn "too" much...which usually means they are hovering just over the poverty line. So take that person who earns(and I'm just throwing a # out there) $2000 a month they have no benefits because they work 3 jobs, no dental/drug/daycare nothing...they have 2 kids daycare can't be subsidized because they earn "too" much. Take another person who earns 1500...now that person gets all the subsidies, doesn't have to pay for dental daycare nothing. At the end of the day the person earning working 3 jobs has far LESS disposable income because they qualify for nothing. This is what drives people nuts here.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,212
Reaction score
15,821
Location
Australia.
Fantastic article from Lindy West of the New York Times.



Short read: do read.

At this point in the derail, I feel like it's only fair to reintroduce Lindy West. Discussing ways that men can undo some of the damage they've done with casual, institutionalised sexism
Time’s Up feels like an appropriately cinematic turn — it’s the third act and our heroine is angry. She’s finally stepping into her power. It’s beautiful to watch.
 
Last edited:

Jan74

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
136
Location
Canada
Very true.

My dad was the disabled one, and my mom was exceedingly limited in how many hours she could work, or how much she could make - mainly because she couldn't make enough working full-time to make up for what the benefits covered with my dad's health. (The US has a seriously SCREWED UP healthcare system - including a rule that people on medicaid can't have "preventative" dental procedures, but they'll pay for dentures once all the teeth fall out... I honestly hope that rule's changed in the years since my dad needed help.)

Benefit systems aren't structured to help people get off benefits. They're structured to penalize those who try to rise above their circumstances by cutting the safety net as soon as things start to improve. If your full-time job means that your family suffers, especially in a way which will endanger their immediate health or actual life, then why would you choose to work full time? It's a trapdoor system.

At this point in the derail, I feel like it's only fair to reintroduce Lindy West. Discussing ways that men can undo some of the damage they've done with casual, institutionalised sexism

Yes...I'm very sorry for playing any part in the derailment.

I believe as a mother to two sons, that what I can do is to teach them what is acceptable and what isn't. And that starts by not allowing it in my home. My boys may see me make supper and cook and clean and their father working more than me, however that doesn't mean they don't see us as equals. It's up to us to teach them what being in a healthy relationship is and how people ALL people regardless of gender deserve to be treated.
 

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
Perhaps the solution is to improve the lot of the working poor, instead of using rare exceptions to demonise single mothers.

But the latter is so much easier to do. ;)
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,080
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
At this point in the derail, I feel like it's only fair to reintroduce Lindy West. Discussing ways that men can undo some of the damage they've done with casual, institutionalised sexism

One thing I've been annoyed with (many) "enlightened" men about for many years is how they don't stand up to their male peers when they start spouting sexist garbage or acting like jerks to women. Needless to say they don't also take the kinds of stands she talks about in the article. How many women have we all known who can't stand some of their otherwise enlightened boyfriend's or husband's friends?

If the more enlightened guys out there stopped hanging around with the sexist jerks, it might make a difference.

And that's just on the social front. Imagine what might happen if the decent guys stopped tolerating and enabling the jerks at work? What if some talented guys refused to work for employers who were known for being bad places for women to work?

Case in point, I've known a guy (an engineer) who has been working at a small, family owned, firm for many years. His boss is incredibly sexist, so much so that this guy warns female job applicants about it--told them they'd probably hate working there.

But he still works for this sexist boss instead of finding another job, something he could certainly do after years of experience--a luxury many female job applicants don't have.
 
Last edited:

Jan74

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
136
Location
Canada
One thing I've been annoyed with (many) "enlightened" men about for many years is how they don't stand up to their male peers when they start spouting sexist garbage or acting like jerks to women. Needless to say they don't also take the kinds of stands she talks about in the article. How many women have we all known who can't stand some of their otherwise enlightened boyfriend's or husband's friends?

If the more enlightened guys out there stopped hanging around with the sexist jerks, it might make a difference.

And that's just on the social front. Imagine what might happen if the decent guys stopped tolerating and enabling the jerks at work? What if some talented guys refused to work for employers who were known for being bad places for women to work?

Case in point, I've known a guy (an engineer) who has been working at a small, family owned, firm for many years. His boss is incredibly sexist, so much so that this guy warns female job applicants about it--told them they'd probably hate working there.

But he still works for this sexist boss instead of finding another job, something he could certainly do after years of experience--a luxury many female job applicants don't have.
Agreed they def don't stand up for females.

But the latter is so much easier to do. ;)

Our province just upped minimum wage and now the war is on. Employers are taking away paid breaks, benefits and giving less hours. It's a giant mess in Ontario. So some workers want the wage increased and others are fearful of the backlash. It's been on the news every night.

I've worked a tonne of low paying jobs, bagging groceries, boat cleaner, dishwasher, McDonalds so I know how tough these jobs are. I told my daughter the best thing she can do is work a low paying job...if that doesn't motivate you to get an education nothing will. At the age of 14 our parents made us work, I started babysitting at 12 and then at 14 I babysat and I was a dishwasher(that was one of the hardest jobs ever!) I was 90lbs and 5ft tall....I swear some of those pots were larger than me! Anyways....I do think people deserve better wages and better opportunities. My own workplace recently unionized because we saw the writing on the wall with the "for profit" home health care companies. It's disturbing. But if my company was male dominated I'm sure our wages would be better. But now I could return to hospital nursing and make gobs more money....but that ship has sailed.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
There are always going to be a few people who try to scam the system - get public assistance, hide assets, work a few jobs under the table, cadge money from friends and relatives that they promise to repay but never do. It's almost impossible to design a system for assisting those in genuine poverty that keeps them all out. It doesn't mean that we should therefore abandon those who legitimately need help.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,534
Reaction score
24,104
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
There are always going to be a few people who try to scam the system - get public assistance, hide assets, work a few jobs under the table, cadge money from friends and relatives that they promise to repay but never do. It's almost impossible to design a system for assisting those in genuine poverty that keeps them all out. It doesn't mean that we should therefore abandon those who legitimately need help.

This.

I don't want to live in a country where people starve to death, full stop. It's not like we don't have the resources.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
There are always going to be a few people who try to scam the system - get public assistance, hide assets, work a few jobs under the table, cadge money from friends and relatives that they promise to repay but never do. It's almost impossible to design a system for assisting those in genuine poverty that keeps them all out. It doesn't mean that we should therefore abandon those who legitimately need help.

True.

I live in near Boston and use The RIDE, a paratransportation plan that is part of the Boston public transportation system. When articles are written about subway and bus fares going up, people rant about abuse of The RIDE. It's a problem. When I first qualified, I just had to get a doctor's note. People would take over deceased relatives' accounts, some doctors weren't strict about giving them out, or people became able to take public transportation but didn't inform the program. And some people who legitimately need it look like they don't, which makes the watchdog public think the problem is worse than it is. But to combat abuse, clients now have to go to a central office and have an in-person evaluation (I was terrified my first time, because I don't have a common diagnosis and it's more like two big ones and dozens of small ones. Now, I have bad enough muscle atrophy that I just ask if the examiner is squeamish and show them a picture of my back). It's helped, but there is still abuse. Without that program I literally cannot go most places. I now live in fear it's going to go away, because the GOP is going to come for it and our Republican governor has never championed it (the legislature here might, though, and one of my state rep candidates is in my disability access groups asking for input. She may be campaigning, but she wants our votes and is listening and I'll take that for now). And they will always be able to cite abuse as a reason to come for it.

I keep hearing "This is America! Anyone can get rich. Anyone can work hard and get a good job with good benefits." Even anyone can (not true, but I'll go with it), not everyone can. There are always going to be people who need assistance. I'm no hypocrite. Before I ever thought I would need it, I didn't mind paying taxes for other people. I don't have kids and used to look at the big chunk of taxes I paid into the school system and thought it was a good thing.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,080
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Similar to here. Australia's got the 'dole bludger' stereotype, which is basically a gender neutral copy of the 'welfare queen' in America. Someone avoiding gainful employment, to live the high life on the largesse of hard-working taxpayers.

It's so silly. Getting most payments here requires you to do triple backflips through flaming bureaucratic hoops in neverending rituals of performance humiliation, with the constant threat of being cut off for being paid too much, missing an appointment, or thinking you still have a right to privacy as a welfare recipient. It's not a party. It's a deliberately constructed hell.

And yet the ones who dump on the dole bludger next door are often the ones who have been made most insecure by the system: the ones most likely to end up on the breadline next. It's incredible how the oligarchy, aided by a pliant media, can turn the not quite poor on the poor so easily.

Conservatives still want to cut SNAP (or food stamps), in spite of ample evidence that adults receiving the aid nearly all work, and people who take all the available aid when they need it actually become fully independent sooner than people who take, or are given, less aid. They cost the taxpayers less money overall and return to the ranks of taxpayers sooner.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rding-to-an-economist/?utm_term=.36555e85c533

Which is more proof, imo, that conservatives are no longer about fiscal responsibility but about punishment (and about protecting those who are already wealthy and powerful) and about imposing morality based on arguably literal and often misinformed interpretations of thousands of years old religious texts (in spite of our country not being a theocracy based on that, or any other, religion).

This might explain their opposition to programs that help women become more financially equal to men. Confident, financially independent women are harder to cow and punish.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,534
Reaction score
24,104
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
This might explain their opposition to programs that help women become more financially equal to men. Confident, financially independent women are harder to cow and punish.

Oh, I think it's more fundamental than that - they believe confident, financially independent women won't have anything to do with them.

In an awful lot of cases, of course, they're right.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
because if you want something done right.....

sorry that was really sexist of me.

frig...my sarcasm hits again...lol. :e2zipped::sarcasm

No...no...you're on to something here. Don't run away from it.

It's up to women to fix sexism because men are too much the beneficiary of it to be expected to undertake the deep and long soul-searching for them to acknowledge the advantages that comes from having a piece of meat dangling between ones legs.

It's up to women to fix sexism because they are one most affected by it. Those that created the shackles that bind you aren't going to give you the key to free you. Women shouldn't ask their oppressors for equality, justice and simple human dignity. They should expect it, demand it and start collecting scalps when they don't get it.

We raised our daughter to be a fighter, not a supplicant. We told her to respect everyone but fear no one. We told her to ask nicely first and save the "Shut the fuck up and pound your bullshit up your ass" for the Plan B. Offer the carrot. Whack 'em with the stick. Don't ask 'em if they like it. Tell them they like it and that's the end of the conversation we weren't having anyway.

Why is fixing Sexism Women's Work? Because if you want something done right and you don't want any hidden agendas, conditions, concessions and half-assed half-steps which offer the sparkling sheen of a Brave New World but are only an Empty Barrel of Broken Promises...

You do it your damn self. The Slavers who put and keep women in chains are not going to the Liberators will not set you free out of an overactive guilty conscience or the milk of human kindness trickling down to their parched little hearts.

You got to come and get it yourself. If you're not ready to go that far and that close to the edge, just how much Time has to be Up before you will be? And how many more women from crawling infant to upwardly mobile adult will suffer in the interim while you try to come to a decision?

Just curious.
 

jennontheisland

the world is at my command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
7,270
Reaction score
2,125
Location
down by the bay
Besides, men seem to have no clue what actually needs to be fixed anyway. That and they've had the power to fix things for thousands of years and haven't done it. Kinda makes you wonder if they want it fixed but don't want to go through the hassle and they've really been waiting for us to take over and get shit done. It's almost like the dishes... they let them sit there, knowing it's their turn, not wanting to do them, knowing that if they hold out and wait long enough we'll eventually get sick of seeing them and load the dishwasher... It's time to clean house.

First step: the polls. Voting. https://www.womensmarch.com/power-to-the-polls/
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,080
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
No...no...you're on to something here. Don't run away from it.

It's up to women to fix sexism because men are too much the beneficiary of it to be expected to undertake the deep and long soul-searching for them to acknowledge the advantages that comes from having a piece of meat dangling between ones legs.

This is very true. The majority of men are too invested in a system that benefits them in ways they aren't even consciously aware of in many cases (just see it as How Things Are). How many people voluntarily relinquish power and status they have relative to someone else? Some do, but not the majority.

Which is why it's been down to women to band together and refuse to wait any more. Women are slightly more than half the population. If we rebel en masse, things will change.

Rebelling en masse means a lot of things, not all of them easy or comfortable. Some of them could be blatantly unsafe. Some of them may mean risking things we do have, like our jobs, our freedom, our standing as law-abiding citizens, our relationships, even our lives.

Women went to jail and went on hunger strikes, once upon a time, for the right to vote. Some of them died.

Maybe this is the time to ask ourselves what we're willing to risk and sacrifice for complete social and economic equality. And of course we need to ask ourselves what complete social and economic equality will even look like, and what laws and social institutions are needed to achieve these goals. There are many inequalities that are invisible even to many women.

Besides, men seem to have no clue what actually needs to be fixed anyway.

[/url]

This too. Even male allies are often unclear on the nature and depth of a problem they only witness indirectly. Many (possibly most) men have no idea about the things women have to deal with.
 
Last edited: