Gender: Roles, Stereotypes, Discrimination

[Pox Voldius]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

As for how they would choose their name, well I'm not sure. People need to be more creative imo. There's too many mr. Browns running around if you know what I mean. We have an imagination, use it.

Might be interesting if people went back to getting their surnames the way that people did in England during the 13th & 14th centuries -- occupations, places, personal characteristics, patronymics, etc. We could have Mr. Datahacker, Ms. Culdesac, Mr. Hairgel, Mr. MacCyndi, Ms. Tailgater, Ms. de Pittsburgh... or not

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by inkling7

Ear! Ear! MoD - good post! I think women take on their husbands name for a similar reason that they want the big wedding with all the trimmings etc. Most females with feminist inclinations don't seem to go in for that sort of stuff now it seems. However a lot of women have the big white wedding to please their mother's as well. I agree about a completely new name as a possibility when people start a family but how to choose this name?

I'm not sure that's true for everyone, Inkling7. I did want a big wedding with all the trimmings (not a white dress, but a red one, as per Vietnamese tradition) but I kept my own name. I'm a staunch and determined feminist, btw.

The big wedding was not to please my mother, it was what I wanted. The fact that it also pleased both our mothers was a bonus. Feminism has nothing to do with it. I don't think you can generalize "women who want a big wedding are not feminist, women who want to keep their own names are."

I do know a couple, she of Russian origin, he of Rumanian. They met and married in the USA. She first took her name plus his (let's say Oblonsky and Eghimov, though those are not what their names are.) But Natasha Oblonsky-Eghimov was much too unwieldy, so they changed both their names and became Michael and Natasha Egret. (I invented this last name too, but you get the idea.)

ETA: Funny, in Vietnamese tradition, women keep their own names all their lives, but they're known as "Mrs. John Smith" (or the equivalent) - I mean, they're known by their husband's first and last names.

Officially keeping their own names I think dates back from the days of polygamy - that's how in the vital statistics register they differentiated wives of the same man. Or Queens and concubines for that matter. It would be (to transpose) for example Queen Boleyn and Queen Seymour, both married to the second Tudor King. Ditto for official concubines. It would be Lady (we and the Chinese have a special word for royal concubines but there's no equivalent in English) Flanders, or Lady Poisson (the latter being Mme de Pompadour's birth name, Jeanne Poisson).

[inkling7]

I didn't say it was true of everyone I just implied it is true of many people. Me - if I married again I'd rather have a meal in a nice restaurant with close family and friends or a bit of a party somewhere without all the white wedding trimmings and use what money I'd saved by this simplicity to travel. That's just me of course but why waste all that money on a big white wedding when the chances are the marriage could end up in divorce as so many seem to be doing these days?

[Alastor]

In some countries (maybe most, I don't know) all existing surnames are protected by law. If couples generally took a name no-one used before, we would quite soon have a plethora of really weird names.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by inkling7

I didn't say it was true of everyone I just implied it is true of many people. Me - if I married again I'd rather have a meal in a nice restaurant with close family and friends or a bit of a party somewhere without all the white wedding trimmings and use what money I'd saved by this simplicity to travel. That's just me of course but why waste all that money on a big white wedding when the chances are the marriage could end up in divorce as so many seem to be doing these days?

That is your choice and your privilege, my dear. I was idealistic enough that when I married, I thought it would be for life. Still think so, in fact. And I did want a big party with all my relatives and friends around me to share in my happiness. I happen to have a very large extended family and a lot of friends, who came from all over the world to attend - which was very gratifying, I must say. So we had a big party and everyone, including our mothers, were happy.

Originally Posted by Alastor

In some countries (maybe most, I don't know) all existing surnames are protected by law. If couples generally took a name no-one used before, we would quite soon have a plethora of really weird names.

Not really, Alastor. They could choose a common-sounding name, not a weird one.

I added some stuff about wives or concubines keeping their birth names to my previous post. I'm mentioning it just in case it hadn't come up when you posted your responses, but you might be interested in the tradition.

[Pox Voldius]

Originally Posted by Alastor

In some countries (maybe most, I don't know) all existing surnames are protected by law. If couples generally took a name no-one used before, we would quite soon have a plethora of really weird names.

Eh, we already have a plethora of really weird given names. (You should see some of the names in the L.A. Unified School District's database of students!)

[inkling7]

Yes just look a the original names of some famous entertainers - you can't blame some of them for changing their names to a more normal sounding name for professional purposes. I had to laugh at some of the names like Mr Datahacker etc though.

Fleur may I ask what is the origin of the tradition brides wearing red? I know white is for virginal purposes but I bet many of the brides in white are not virgins. But red is an interesting one for Vietnamese.

[houseelf25]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

As I grew older and started to question things in the world, I've always wondered why many woman seem to have a real desire to take on their husband's names. The ironic thing I've noticed in the modern western world is that it seems this tradition is enforced more by woman than it is by men! I've always wondered why a woman would want to carry a tradition that started when woman were property and marriage was about fathers selling off their daughters to a suitable husband thus taking on their names. I know, this may sound radical to some but I think it's the sad truth. I know some woman find it romantic to take on the man's name. My ex girlfriend really wanted to take my name (we did plan to marry, we were young and naive) and I always secreted questioned why. I told her that it was her choice but she said how romantic it was to take on my last name. It doesn't matter to me very much to be honest. It's just a name in my opinion. I think surnames are just a way to keep your identity alive even when you die, through you're offspring.

It's a tricky issue because if a woman chooses not take on her husbands last name, she still has her father's last name, right? Really, if you look at it objectively, it would only be radical feminist if she changed her name to a completely different name altogether.

In-fact in my crazy loony radical world, the husband and wife would both decide on a special 'marriage' name that would define them as a family. Separate and unique from either of their families and something unique to them as a couple.

I feel it is absurd to judge a woman's love for her husband based on her willingness to take on her husband's name or lack of.


I am interested and maybe a female member here can answer this question:

Why do some woman find it so romantic to take on their husbands name? Is it just social conditioning, or do they gain a sense of belonging? Perhaps they feel it is a expression of their commitment and their love to their mate. But then how would the man express this same commitment?

My sympathizes go out to Yoana and the many other woman who live in areas where feminism is looked upon as a mental disorder. Many people living in the western take for granted the feminism movement and this is a shame.

I don't personally believe in marriage because I don't think it fair to put so much pressure and hopes on one person to be your love mate until the day you die and I believe it very rarely works but if love ever happens to me again (which I sort of doubt), I believe it should be a choice on the part of my mate on whether or not she would want to take my name. I'd feel guilty to pressure my mate to take on my name if she didn't want to. That's just how I would feel. You know, who am I to dictate or force my mate to take my name? Heck, I'm not even too crazy about my own last name!

In my opinion, people put far too much emphasis on names and titles. We look at people as a male or a female or doctor or a postman, as Mrs. Smith, or Mr. Green. People should not be generalized or labeled in a social context.

I think people should be looked on for who they are and not what they are.

After all, what was ever wrong with: Tom, Dick or Jane?

I'm with you on this, Master. And anyone else who's with this and said something similar that I didn't want to take the time to quote (sorry. It's late and I'm lazy)
To answer your question, I think the majority of it (in the US, anyway, I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about anywhere else) is social conditioning, which has been going on for centuries; the flowers, the dress, the name. It's all part of the "package."

LyraBlack, I loved what you said about your name having worked thus far. I think that by the time I get around to getting married (if I do. Like Master, I'm not sure if I believe in it), I'll be even more used to it than I am now, and it'd be odd getting used to a new one. I mean, why bother?

[wickedwickedboy]

1) Do you believe that men and women are inherently "different" on more than a biological level?

Sure.

2) Do you believe that gendering is a matter of nature or nurture? A combination of both?

Probably both.

3) Have you ever felt discriminated against or judged based on your gender?

Well once. Years ago, a friend of mine and I thought a great way to spend a summer would be to work in a sport's bar where they had only very good looking girls working. They were hiring servers, but they told us that they wanted only females. Now our intention was really, really bad, granted, . But we did argue with the manager about discrimination - it did us no good. He told us to sue and bascially kicked us out. We didn't sue of course; we were young and we liked going there, but it was a case of discrimination if you ask me. The one good point he had was that we would have looked pretty funny in the server outfits.

4) Do you feel that your gender is misunderstood by the opposite gender? Have you experienced an "Us/Them" scenario with regard to gender in your relationships with other people?

Not really. All of my girlfriends over the years tended to tell me that they 'had me pegged' - so I assumed they didn't misunderstand me. It is a simply of talking and listening; really listening. That is one of the most attractive things I find in the opposite sex; the ability to really listen and to speak frankly (except when the game's on).

5) Are there any fundamental questions you would like to ask of members of the opposite sex? (For obvious reasons, questions must be PG-13). Any misconceptions you would like to clear up that you feel are generally accepted about your gender?

No.

6) Have you ever felt limited by gender roles or ostricized by other members of your own gender for failing to live up to stereotypes and expectations surrounding your gender?

No.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by inkling7

Fleur may I ask what is the origin of the tradition brides wearing red? I know white is for virginal purposes but I bet many of the brides in white are not virgins. But red is an interesting one for Vietnamese.

Red because it's the color of joy, luck and happiness. It's not only in Vietnam, it's also the case in China and other Asian countries. In my case, though, in church I wore a white-and-gold overcoat over my red dress, so as not to freak out the pastor.

Plain white, for us, is the color of mourning. It was actually the same thing in Europe in the Middle Ages. Just before the start of the Hundred-Year-War, several kings of France (3 brothers) died in quick succession. Their widows became known as "Les Reines Blanches" (the white queens) because they wore white in mourning.

Sorry for getting off-topic. Just responding to a question ane expounding a bit. Julie, why don't you start a thread on the significance of colors (or anything else that strikes your fancy or arouses your curiosity) on AV?

[inkling7]

Just had a quick browse on AV but couldn't remember my login stuff. I may do that.

NOW back to topic

Roles and Stereotypes sometimes seem to go hand in hand don't they. Many times women make up the majority of people involved in the nurturing type of profession such as nursing and teaching younger children and men seem to dominate professions that are perceived as more 'manly' like firefighters, construction workers. Happily this is changing and more and more people are becoming employed in professions once dominated by those of the opposite sex.

[MasterOfDeath]

Definitely, I've seen alot of males nurses and many female police officers. The world is changing.

[inkling7]

AND for the better in that aspect at least..

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by inkling7

Just had a quick browse on AV but couldn't remember my login stuff. I may do that.

Click on "I forgot my password" if that's the problem. Or I can create a new one for you (that you can change later).

NOW back to topic

Roles and Stereotypes sometimes seem to go hand in hand don't they. Many times women make up the majority of people involved in the nurturing type of profession such as nursing and teaching younger children and men seem to dominate professions that are perceived as more 'manly' like firefighters, construction workers. Happily this is changing and more and more people are becoming employed in professions once dominated by those of the opposite sex.

Yes, things are changing. Back in Victorian times, they couldn't imagine a woman doctor or architect, let alone police (or military) officer or construction worker. Now we have women in all those branches of activity.

Other examples of discrimination: When I first came to the UN, the translators were overwhelmingly men. Other staff members at higher level jobs too, for that matter. People used to ask me whether I was a secretary or a guide (the only things they thought women could do at the UN). Now it's more or less balanced, with slightly more women in translation, actually.

Staff and their family are allowed home leave to their country of origin every other year. They used to pay for husbands only if they could prove they earned less than a certain amount a year, but wives got travel expenses paid even if they were millionnaires. They paid taxi fare to go home after night shift only to women staff. It only changed in the late 1970's - Now all spouses get travel expenses paid, and all staff get taxi fare paid, men having pointed out that they, too, risked being mugged.

And they changed the title of the booklet "Every man's United Nations" to "Everyone's United Natons".

[MasterOfDeath]

Oh shucks! There goes my secret plan for male domination.

[inkling7]

Yep The Mistress of Death may have taken up the plan and made it female domination - as it should be

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Oh shucks! There goes my secret plan for male domination.

Better luck next time, MasterOfDeath!

Originally Posted by inkling7

Yep The Mistress of Death may have taken up the plan and made it female domination - as it should be

I'm not sure we've gotten quite that far yet. But we're getting there!

Or should I say we are getting back there? Amazons - be they warrior, queens or both - are mentioned in every country's legends that I know of. We know there were matriarchal societies, ans some cultures are still matrilineal these days.

Only a hundred or so years ago, no one would have thought a woman could be a chief of State or government (apart from hereditary Queens, whose political role and powers are limited anyway) and look at the world today!

As one old cigarette ad for women used to say "We've come a long way, baby!" - but not far enough yet. There is still gender discrimination, and there's still no equal pay for equal work in many countries. We're progressing, though. One step at a time.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

Yes, things are changing. Back in Victorian times, they couldn't imagine a woman doctor or architect, let alone police (or military) officer or construction worker. Now we have women in all those branches of activity.

Does that mean women could also not imagine being doctors or architects? Or by "they" do you mean "men"? I hate to say this, at the risk of sounding.... well, I'll just say

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

Other examples of discrimination: When I first came to the UN, the translators were overwhelmingly men. Other staff members at higher level jobs too, for that matter. People used to ask me whether I was a secretary or a guide (the only things they thought women could do at the UN). Now it's more or less balanced, with slightly more women in translation, actually.

Do you have any statistics for the rate at which women attempted to become translators compared to men? Do you have statistics for the average number of new translators hired in a given time frame? I'm not just going to take your word that people at the UN didn't think women could be translators, if it's all the same. Obviously if you became one, that wasn't the opinion of the people who matter.

What probably was the case, and it's a distinction you did not make, is that people didn't expect to see a woman as a translator.

You may call that discrimination, you may not. I call it laziness. People often don't really anticipate things they haven't seen before. That is to say, knowing a woman could have just about any job, but assuming she has one of the jobs that most of the other women have. I'm not endorsing that behavior, but it isn't the same thing as believing that women MUST be secretaries or guides, since nobody with any critical thinking skills could truly believe that. Some people do believe it in spite of what they know on a rational level, don't get me wrong, but they believe it because it's advantageous for them, and propagating the belief is a good way to keep a male-dominated establishment for male generations to come. But that is not what I believe is happening based on what you described.

I have two alternative scenarios, and questions for those of you who do not often ponder discriminatory behavior against men.

Firstly: I have worked a lot of office jobs over the years, and women certainly do dominate them. I don't mean secretaries and clerical work, I'm talking sales, counseling, real estate, lots of fields that I don't associate with any particular sex or gender. That's all fine, and I don't believe there's any female conspiracy. But why then, am I, as often the only or (one of the few) men in the office, always, ALWAYS responsible for lifting and carrying things. I wish I were in some way exaggerating, but it's pretty consistent from job to job. Female co-workers and managers treat me like a piece of equipment. I probably wouldn't ever have thought much of this, except that they always say something like "hey, we need a big strong man to carry this, oh, Bill, we need your help", and then it turns out to be a fax machine that weighs 8 lb..

Second: I have a rather relevant personal anecdote, but do you, or does anyone rather, believe that the ease with which a woman can get a man fired for sexual harassment is troubling? I was dismissed from a job once within fifteen minutes of a third party reporting that I had sexually harassed someone. I'm not saying sexual harassment isn't real, but telling a joke in the office just is not it. I would even tell the joke here, though it's not family friendly. If I did I'm sure some of you out there would say, "of course that's sexual harassment," but I promise that it wasn't, because I, and only I know what my intent was when I said it, and the fact that the party in question never mentioned it again is evidence enough for me that it wasn't received in that light.

To put it in some perspective, I was the only male worker in an office area (a mail room with some spillover from the call center) with roughly 25-30 other employees. I had to listen to jokes about male uselessness, I was told repeatedly that expectations for my work were lower because I was male. I had to hear daily grossly inappropriate personal stories about sex and anatomy. I was called "token" by several co-workers, presumably because I couldn't have gotten the job through my own merit (it wasn't a very challenging job). Any of those things individually wouldn't bother me much, but all of them together did start to get on my nerves. Especially when I was fired for the one time I made a joke that happened to be about a woman. Does that seem right to anyone else? I call it pure discriminatory expurgation, because I as a male was so objectionable that co-existing with me was impossible, apparently. Now, presumably, it's the femail room.

(Let me also add that I'm not speculating about one thing--the woman/third party who reported me told me she was manipulating the system to get me fired, but she did so in advance in a rather cryptic way, so I didn't see it coming.)

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Does that mean women could also not imagine being doctors or architects? Or by "they" do you mean "men"? I hate to say this, at the risk of sounding.... well, I'll just say

I meant both men and women - who were conditioned to think they couldn't actually work outside the house except as nurses, governesses, housekeepers, cooks or maids.

Some few women did try, often they had to disguise themselves as men to study medicine or whatever. Up until the 1950's, the "conventional wisdom" was that women, even if they were doctors, didn't have steady enough hands to be surgeons. I heard it around me more than once, and coming from women.

Women were also conditioned to think that if they were sexually assaulted, it was somehow their fault and their shame. It's still true in some cultures - but I'm veering slightly off the topic, not of this thread, but of this exchange of posts.

Do you have any statistics for the rate at which women attempted to become translators compared to men? Do you have statistics for the average number of new translators hired in a given time frame? I'm not just going to take your word that people at the UN didn't think women could be translators, if it's all the same. Obviously if you became one, that wasn't the opinion of the people who matter.

I apologize, I expressed myself badly, or to use a currently fashionable word, I misspoke (or miswrote in this case).

Let me try again: When I came to the UN, the majority of translators at the UN were men, because at the time (I mean the time before I came in, talking about my senior colleagues who had been there 20+ years) men were the breadwinners, women rarely worked outside the home. Plus, in this particular case, working in the French Translation Service in New York, you had to be an expatriate, and at the time the wife would follow her husband abroad (either she didn't work outside the home, or had a lesser-paying job), not the other way round. I'm not sure of the men/women ratio in UN offices in Paris or Geneva, but I do know the staff in general was overwhelmingly male in the offices in Africa and Asia. That changed after the 1980's.

I was stating a fact the roots of which was not gender-discriminatory by itself, but the result of discrimination in the "outer" world.

I didn't say people at the UN didn't think women could be translators. It was the people outside who asked me whether I was a secretary or a guide. Though, actually, the day I showed up to report for work in the "Professional" Category Recruitment office, the person in charge (a woman) first told me to go to "General Services" Recruitment. When I said but I'm reporting in as a translator! She said "Oh, I'm sorry Mademoiselle, but you look so young I thought you were a secretary." - So in this case, it was not my gender, it was the fact I looked barely out of high school.

And in all fairness, the Translation Services are the most gender-egalitarian in the whole Organization. Recruitment is through competitive exam (the year I took and passed it, they picked 7 people out of 400 candidates). The copies are anonymous, so the people who grade them don't know whether the candidate is male or female. They only find out if you pass the written test and go in for a personal interview, where they check your knowledge of languages and of the UN workings. My "class" so to speak was equally divided gender-wise. And we get paid exactly the same when at the same level (trainee, translator, reviser, senior reviser).

What I said about home leave and taxi fares after night shift, and "Every Man's United Nations" is still true.

Sorry I have to run, my husband wants to go out for lunch (and btw, he's the one who does most of the chores at home!!)

See you all later.

ETA: To answer your question of the number of translators hired in a given time-frame. It depends on how many vacancies there are in the Service, but there is a competitive exam held world-wide every year. Then we pick the best of the bunch, in the numbers needed to fill the vacancies.

And btw, you could have asked the question not so aggressively.

[Pox Voldius]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

But why then, am I, as often the only or (one of the few) men in the office, always, ALWAYS responsible for lifting and carrying things. I wish I were in some way exaggerating, but it's pretty consistent from job to job. Female co-workers and managers treat me like a piece of equipment. I probably wouldn't ever have thought much of this, except that they always say something like "hey, we need a big strong man to carry this, oh, Bill, we need your help", and then it turns out to be a fax machine that weighs 8 lb..

8 lbs! Wow. I don't even ask for help until it weighs a good 40 or 50 lbs at least. My boss at the office that I'm currently stuck temping in has felt the need to tell me not to move certain large boxes full of papers without getting someone to help me with them. And more than a few of the [mainly older] people in the office were impressed that I could carry a mail bin full of papers down the hall. (But then, I've got an art dept background, and on small indie crews, art dept gets stuck moving a lot of heavy stuff around.)

Getting one of my guy friends to help me move recently, though (he has a pickup truck, which is quite helpful for moving)... I started out going for some of the boxes of books, and then he was like "oh no, no, no! I'll get those -- you take care of those bags over there!" And I'm sitting there thinking, "well...if you really want to do all the heavy lifting yourself...be my guest!"