Is patriarchy actually a thing? tons of women pretty much only

Guidance? You want to sit here and read a bunch of opinions on 4chan regarding patriarchy? This is something you need to decide for yourself, and the last place you should be getting help from is here.

no its not a thing
its our culture for women to look good
its not inherent
but this is what our culture is
you cannot change it overnight, because waaaa patriarchy
if societies, the ppl, believe, this is a bad thing, and women should be all physical workers, then our culture will change

feminism have failed, the ppl did not accept this new belief of stronk fat women unshackling themselfs from the mysterious patriarchy

Just make an opinion that you're most comfortable with, if people say you're wrong, you're free to study about it or just ignore them.

>>17852374
Yes and no. Yes, the patriarchy exists to the extent of oppressing women with lower wages, less job opportunities, sexual harassment etc.

But the whole narrative of "I THINK I'M FAT/I'M OBSESSED WITH MY LOOKS BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY," is stupid. You can be raised one way, but you can learn to grow out of it. Women aren't very good at this and would rather pay the victim, blame someone else and not change at all.

>>17852390
*play the victim

>>17852376
>You want to sit here and read a bunch of opinions on 4chan regarding patriarchy?

im not expecting anything great but sometimes 4chan can give good advice.

>>17852379
i feel like i have been brainwashed by my uni. i do criminology, and a lot of the lectures, and academics talk about patriarchy.

>but this is what our culture is

yeah, this is what academics would argue is patriarchy. i dont necessarily think its a bad thing, im just not sure if women have made a conscious choice to be obsessed with fashion related things or if its just culture (patriarchy) as you say.

>>17852386
yeah, i mean, its not something i ever really mention. on one offs i might say something like "women are like this because of patriarchy".

There are only individuals.

>>17852395
Universities are just circles where you wank off your professors' opinions, you're expected to nod along and keep spouting echoes of what you are told so they'd like you.

Weather through it or let it wash over you so you turn into an insufferable douchebag.

>>17852374
Look up how many women are in position of power compared to men and observe how gender roles push people in a certain directions and what this directions are. Add couple centuries of history. What do you think?

>>17852379
>no its not a thing
>its our culture
>but this is what our culture is
Nigga, what?

>>17852390
>You can be raised one way, but you can learn to grow out of it. Women aren't very good at this and would rather pay the victim, blame someone else and not change at all.

this is the part which i dont really understand because now a days we have so many opportunities to open our mind. however, i see plenty of women who have fuck all interests but clothes. i dont understand how someone can be so boring and think its ok.

>>17852374

It's biology. Looking good increases the odds of catching the attention of males. Personality and intelligence are important too, but they are invisible.

>>17852401
>Universities are just circles where you wank off your professors' opinions, you're expected to nod along and keep spouting echoes of what you are told so they'd like you.

true, writing academic essays is literally just taking what someone said and expanding on it.

its starting to take it toll on me because i have to read all this shitty liberal stuff.

No.
It would be ignorant to say that men have never abused or taken advantage of women, but to think that society systematically oppresses women is a completely absurd and baseless claim.

>>17852390

Let me just straighten out all of you young Bernie Sanders Fags out on a few things in regards to "wage gaps"

There is no wage gap.

Women make less on the market for several reasons.

1. Women traditionally take jobs with lower pay. Nurses, cosmetologists, and child care providers make less than marketing directors, architects, and engineers... deal with it.

2. Women cost more to employ. Their insurance cost is higher, their risk is higher, they take more vacation on average.

3. There are laws that forbid outright discrimination and has been for a long time.

4. Men represent a larger portion of senior management positions, yes. They also represent an even larger portion of menial labor jobs as well such as janitors and garbage truck drivers.

Equality will never exist because we are not equal.

>>17852407
I try not to blame the women for being only interested in clothes so I end up blaming fashion companies.
Marketing works by brainwashing people, they brainwash women into wanting brand products, they brainwash men into wanting to feel younger/richer, they brainwash fucking kids to want a toy they'd fiddle with for 5 minutes and never touch again but if you don't buy it for them they start throwing a fit about it.

>>17852414
>There are laws that forbid outright discrimination and has been for a long time.

There are laws that outright forbid killing, and yet...pepole still kill.

You make some good points, but the wage gap is still there. Women also have less negotiating power than men when it comes to salaries and to pretend that sexism in the workplace doesn't exist is ridiculous.

>>17852412
>Shitty liberal stuff

As opposed to shitty conservative stuff on the Bible and why abortion is wrong?

>>17852395
>im not expecting anything great but sometimes 4chan can give good advice.

Ok, then short version, look up some serious studies later.

Yes, patriarchy is a thing. We men are given advantages when it comes to attaining and keeping power, wealth and other stuff.

It does not mean we live perfectly and never experience any kind of problems, though. It just means that a lot of the rules play to our favor. Not all the rules, just most.

No, women don't "naturally" want to pretty themselves up any more than we men "naturally" do anything. We humans nturally need to eat, shit, sleep, and want to have sex. Now HOW we do it is a social construct.

Hope this is helpful, and don't listen to the hateful and extremist propositions from either side (men hating assholes nor women hating assholes).

>>17852423
Why does it have to be one or the other with Americans?

You have to be either 100% liberal or 100% conservative, never some of both.

>>17852416
You have it so completely wrong

Sex is nothing more than a business relationship

Women trade their excess sex for a man's excess labor.

It has been this way for thousands of years.

What has happened with feminism is when feminist "liberated sex for females" they devalued pussy. This is why modern women are going through an unprecedented identity crisis.

You see, when you sleep with a man say, on the first date, you have given him something literally any woman can give him... so what value are you to him?

Just about every woman on earth has two tits and a vagina, you need to make yours more valuable than others.

No patriarchy exists, in fact, I would say right now, it is the complete opposite because if it were up to men, it would not be this way.

>>17852414
> They also represent an even larger portion of menial labor jobs
Nobody but their own lack of skills for anything else forces them into this. Women with similar lack of skill take similarly shitty jobs.

>Men represent a larger portion of senior management positions
Due the lack of promotion for women with same skills. Different fucking situation, bruv.

>>17852401
>>17852412
Care to offer actual examples? Maybe you guys went to a shit college, because I sure as fuck never heard of anybody with a different opinion, who can also support it, having any troubles.

>>17852424
thanks. yeah, i might read a book on it with studies sometime soon.

as of right now, i think patriarchy is a thing, just not to the extent some feminists believe it is, and it is a regime facilitated by the elite rather than all men as opposed to what feminists would like us to believe.

>>17852427
american education is turning them into braindead ideologues.

>>17852429
>Care to offer actual examples?

my teachers literally say they want us to elaborate and explain what we have been taught in the lectures, and readings. i go to quite a mediocre uni.

>>17852427
Stop talking about liberalism like it's some boogeyman word, and maybe people will take you seriously.

>>17852430
>regime facilitated by the elite rather than all men

Technically, we all make the system work. Men and women, rich and poor. I mean, I've got family that's more poor than middle class, and they still preserve traditional gender roles as well as rich people do.

It shouldn't be about looking for someone to blame (that's what extremists do). It's more about paying attention to what we think of as "normal interactions" and seeing the consequences of them. Then we can decide what to change and what to keep.

>>17852434
Damn, sounds like some HS type of shit. Absolutely all of them? Was there no actually discussion going on at least in lectures before?

>>17852428

>>17852424

bloody ell

>>17852443
we have seminars but barely anyone talks. im in second year, i talked quite a lot to the teachers in first year but gave up because i felt awkward being one of the only people to talk. i live in england if that means anything.

>>17852439
There are just as many shitty liberal stuff as there are shitty conservative stuff.
Stop branding anyone that says liberal in a negative way as a conservative and immediately decide they're beneath you.

>>17852454

You are in second year, you are still forming the base of the knowledge for the discussion. Doesn't mean your professors aren't pushing some sort of agenda, but understand that some people have been reading and writing, stuying all this stuff for a long time.

A 20-something that gets current gender dynamics from 4chan and personal experience can't really argue with peer reviewed papers (again, doesn't mean they are always right, but don't overestimate your own knowledge either.)

>>17852439
>>17852456
both liberals, and conservatives can talk shit. im birtish anyway so the conservatives here are quite different. having said this, not a single lecture or reading has been conservative.

>>17852439
If you ever make $100k/year and then see $30k go to taxes, you will hate it too

>>17852459
>Peer Reviewed Studies

Funded by Government Grants

No thanks

>>17852460
Real life has a liberal bias. If you want conservative lecturers, something like business is the best option.

>>17852439
Bro that's what we Americans do.

Liberal doesn't even fucking mean anything anymore in it's colloquial use.

>>17852466

Great to hear you have the integrity to produce better material AND the interest in developing the field.

I'm sure you are currently working on that, right? I really hope you don't limit your efforts to arguing of internet forums, when real discussion at an academic level is influencing laws and government decisions.

>>17852459
>Doesn't mean your professors aren't pushing some sort of agenda, but understand that some people have been reading and writing, stuying all this stuff for a long time.

i agree, my lectures are a lot smarter than me for obvious reasons. i have so much to learn and study in this world. i still think they talk shit sometimes though, well mostly in relation to political stuff. i read quite a lot of history, and some philosophy in my spare time.

an example of something i thought was ridiculous - one of my teachers was advocating for 16 year old's to be able to vote

>>17852470
You are correct

Classic Liberal=Libertarian

Modern Libertarians are exact opposites of Modern Liberals

>>17852464
I'm so sorry that you can't afford a larger boat.

>>17852464
How horrible, only having 70k left with functional roads, almost no crime, law enforcement, free healthcare and whatever else.

>>17852472
You don't have to agree with everything and to something like that, there is no real right answer.

Why is 16 more ridiculous than 18? How about max voting age? Most people stay mostly politically illiterate in the first place and vote on sound bits they heard here and there.

>>17852472
>i still think they talk shit sometimes though

Yeah, of course. Part of the journey at Uni is learning to deal with people in power and their crazy ideas.

> one of my teachers was advocating for 16 year old's to be able to vote

They recently passed a law for that in my country. So while I think it's really dumb, your professor isn't alone. That's the thing with ideologies, almost all of them have followers.

>>17852475
>>17852477
>hi I'm in my early '20s, I've been a student my entire life, and I have no concept of the real-world value of money
>Now let me stand atop my moral high ground and lecture you about personal economics

protip: If he's got a family, nobody's buying a boat on $70k a year unless they plan to live on that boat

>>17852477
>Functional roads
Paid for by gasoline excise tax
>Law Enforcement
Paid for by fines, Car registration, and city sales tax
>Free Healthcare
LOL

Income tax goes directly to the interest on the federal deficit which was spent on entitlement programs and the military (Liberal/Conservative programs)

>>17852475
What I do with the money I earned after 15 years in my field is my business. Just because you are your Bernie Sanders butt buddies go to a ballot box and force money out of my pocket, doesn't make it any less malicious than a common thief.

And the $30k is only federal income tax. That doesn't include property tax, sales tax, city tax, state tax, tax on interest on my investments (investments made to companies creating jobs for others BTW), environmental tax....should I go on?

Taxation is theft no matter how you slice it.

>>17852487
Shit, how do people with much lower income manage to have a family...

>>17852489
You earned the money because society provided you with the opportunity to, it's only logical that you contribute a bit back so others will have the same chance. Take welfare idiots love to bitch about so much, take that away and you have 20 poorfags robbing you on the way to work and back, while 20 others are gangbanging your wife.

>>17852467
>Real life has a liberal bias.

This so much.

Climate change isn't a political issue. It's a fact.

>>17852481
>Why is 16 more ridiculous than 18?

both are likely to fall for propaganda, and i doubt there is a significant different in their political knowledge. however, its the incentive behind why i think 16 year olds shouldent vote. 16 year olds are still developing, and it is going to give more votes to propaganda, while 18 year olds can be a problem, adding to the problem wont make things better. if a 16 year old is interested in politics, i think he should consider why most 16 year olds cant vote. im not even sure if i agree with democracy desu but i can see the advantages

>>17852487
My pops makes $80k a year and has a Bentley. He could definitely afford a boat if he wanted to.

>>17852487
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm

On average, you're still putting away 14k a year with 70k after taxes. Anyways, if the luxury goods argument applies to the poor, then it sure as shit applies to the middle class. Cry more that you can easily earn enough to safely put away a hefty cushion in savings, and still afford plenty of pointless shit.

That's also assuming their wife does jack shit but sit at home and wipe dirty assholes.

op here. i would like to thank you all for contributing towards this thread. i will think about everything that has been discussed.

>>17852501
18 year olds are still developing too, the line is pretty arbitrary. (Also what about semi-senile old people?) Besides given how lazy young people are at voting, I doubt the problem would be that big. Sure, there will be some idiots but most of them will just stay home while a politically educated 16 year old can give a vote for some shit he/she wants.

Take Brexit and Trump, both huge events yet not enough millennials who opposed the stuff turned up, even though statistics indicate that if they would, both outcomes would be different.

Now if there was compulsory voting, forcing kids into it sounds a lot more problematic.

> im not even sure if i agree with democracy
Well, that'd be another question and again something with many cons and pros.

Yeah it is. But it's not as malevolent as feminism makes it out to be. People who challenge the patriarchy's existence are usually the first idiots to say feminists are just fat and ugly, this shallow thinking unfortunately proves the feminists right. Men almost always see women and their issues from the perspective of their penises.

But a patiarchy just the natural order for our species. We should be evolved enough to give women options like being the breadwinner for the family and having a career and such, but I think it goes a little far when the worst problem women have today is whether or not "body diversity" and promiscuity are being applauded.
They're trivialities that exist in capitalism and as a challenge to social convention. Your hardly a warrior for any kind of justice if your flag is about casual sex for everyone.

>>17852522
>I doubt the problem would be that big.

i agree that it wouldent be massive because most 16 year olds wouldn't vote. problems here is that kids are not taught anything about politics so most 16 year olds that would vote, would be reiterating rhetoric from their parents, and i bet most kids interested in politicals would be higher class so the poor would have less of a vote. its more or less the same with 18 year olds, the line is thin as you said, i just think allowing 16 to vote is unneeded and the arguments behind it are not convincing enough, and its just furthering an issue i believe we already have.

>>17852582
>We should be evolved enough to give women options like being the breadwinner for the family and having a career and such

this would be nice. i agree with what you have said. i just have something to ask, do you think women have cucked themselves with feminism because being a stay at home mum must be a lot easier than having a career. i think they should have the option to have a career regardless but women know think its compulsory for them to have a career as well as the man

>>17852584
But then again, how many 30 year olds never once stepped outside of that same rhetoric their parents used?

>>17852584
Well, as a pro argument would be that some issues that affect the younger voters more, so giving them a voice doesn't sound too bad.

While it might indeed worsen the general problem, it's not exactly logical to stop at them. Illiterate idiots and people who are easy to influence are allowed to vote already, so stopping another group of most uneducated voters doesn't sound too fair. Unneeded? Perhaps.

>so most 16 year olds that would vote, would be reiterating rhetoric from their parents
My granny and most of her friends voted for CDU because they heard other friends only talking about this party. Neither knew A SINGLE point of their program and most of their views went against it.

Given the average political education of most voters it's a fucking wonder we're not living in a complete dystopia.

>>17852598
>>17852602
you are both right regarding the average person being politically uneducated, i just think that life experience will give them something to go off rather than nothing.

>>17852379
>its not inherent
>but this is what our culture is
>literally the definition of patriarchy
Do you even Gloria Steinem m8?

File: sexism.png (215KB, 816x1056px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 816x1056px

>>17852374
Depends what you define as patriarchy
>Option A: Men run the world and are viewed above women
>Option B: Men make all of the decisions and women are only meant to look good for them
>Etc.

If you look at the U.S. culture genuinely, you'll see that it's an odd split between yes and no, mostly leaning towards no.

Men in this culture are measured by their ability to please their girlfriends and the ability to socialize

Women are measured (in many instances) on exterior beauty and their intelligence. (strangely enough, women judge women more than men do)

Men and women are highly dependent on one another (though in personal experience, the women usually wear the pants in modern relationships).

As far as lower wages and such, entirely false.
Women out earn men in their 20's by 8% annually, however if you look at it over the course of their lifetime it gets distorted due to maternity leave and off days (which women do take more of)

It really comes down to viewing the culture around you and recognizing an extremist agenda versus the reality of the situation.

>>17852591
if women usually worked in construction or other hard manual labor jobs i might agree with you but as someone who's been both at work and a stay at home mother, the job is much easier. Being a stay at home mother is a sacrifice. It's chaotic, isolating, and there are schedules to follow. Once you have a child or two in their toddler years where tantrums are an almost hourly thing, you will understand stress like no other. Not to mention that nowadays, at any moment CPS will come crashing down on you because say a neighbor heard one of your child's tantrums and decided that you were abusing your children. Maybe one of your inlaws doesn't like you and makes up bullshit. Do you know what it's like to deal with CPS coming over every week to check that you've been keeping the place spotless and that you've been a perfect parent? Making you go to parenting courses even though you've never laid a hand on your child? Making up these discipline plans that you have to follow to a T that don't even work because 3 year olds don't understand reasoning and can't plan ahead? Being a parent in today's society is a fucking crap shoot. And the odds aren't in your favor.

But anyways I'm all about choice. But I do think that maybe if women didn't compete with men for jobs in the first place we might be in a better situation with regards to the viability of the single income family.

>>17852374
The only way for anyone to better their chances at attracting a mate via biological means is to be relatively fit and young and have good genetics. This applies to men and women both. Plenty of fat women can dress in fancy clothing and be passed up for the slim blonde with long hair and cute face wearing Wal-Mart jeans and a $10 shirt. Fashion is a cultural/human invention. If you aren't in good shape or have terrible genetics you're less likely to attract somebody. Thats how I see it anyways.

File: fuck patriarchy.png (1MB, 820x1018px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 820x1018px

Anyone who says "patriarchy" unironically has subscribed to an organized religion of recent founding.

>>17852642
thanks for the insight

>>17852499
It's a political issue when the funding for it's research comes from government that turns around and uses the data to justify Carbon Taxes

>>17852700
So how do you propose to deal with it?

>>17852642
>Chaotic, Isolating, Schedules, hourly tasks

Like every job in existence.

>>17852703
Free Market

>>17852654
>Fashion is human invention

The term, yes. The application, no. Choose any mammal in nature (Peacocks feathers, Deer Antlers) and you will see that fashion exists at it applies to that specific species in the the interest of propagation.

>>17852706
true dat
yep, at the very least it is a job like every other job in existence.

and yeah in retrospect i think i'd take a screaming toddler over a passive aggressive catty coworker. the toddler's only like that for 3-4 years. the bitch next to me has been like that for a lifetime.

>>17852374
I doubt there are many women who want men and kids nowadays and that can be natural if the planet is overpopulated. Our ancestors might have lived through times of famine and overpopulation and it just doesn't make sense for everyone to have kids if the area is crowded.
Also, there have always been hermits, loners, asexuals, obsessed geniuses/regular people and so on. Evolution doesn't have plans, it tries out every possible combination, just some of them carry on the genes. But even that can be more complicated than we think - even though one person doesn't produce any offspring and is gay, asexual or a woman who doesn't want children, their contribution can make the lives of others better. Childless people take care of the children or their tribe, invent something, so genes similar to them are carried on.

I am feminist but don't really take "patriarchy" so seriously. It is used more for ranting and making inside jokes. Patriarchy =/= men and that's why those conservative or nonpolitical women who complain directly about all men being pigs (nice and clean animals) are actually much more judgmental. Feminists at least admit that it is the society and gender roles that make some men act like assholes.

>>17852710
Not sure if meming but it's 4chains...

It knew about climate change since at least the 80s, what steps were taken beyond spending millions into propaganda?

As a related issue, how did the tobacco companies deal with the discovery that smoking is bad?

>>17852734
Society and gender roles didn't appear out of a vacuum, dear.

>>17852464
I'm from former Soviet Union country where the government took ultra right approach (economy wise, not religiously), because everyone was afraid that even a little bit equality is socialism that will bring back communism. The result is that people pay taxes around 40-45% of their salary from the very beginning. Officially, 33% which is health insurance is paid by the employer but it comes from your salary. At the same time, there is no company tax, only tax on dividends (20%) which means rich people pay lot less and huge companies can transfer their profits to another country and take it out almost tax free.
30% sounds like heaven for me. I wouldn't mind if really poor people pay lot less.

>>17852750
There are some that are biological but evolution is much more diverse than we believe. There are people born with genitals of one sex and genes of another. The same way people in one sex/gender are very different from each other, although there can be some averages. But the average shows the characteristics of exactly that, the average person in that group.

What I meant in my previous answer were the roles that are only learned, for instance, being a bro, which is very specific to American culture, bragging how many women you have fucked, just being an asshole, treating women like bitches. Or in case of women, being a bimbo, gossiping with your girlfriends, golddigging, wearing exclusively pink, having fake boobs and fake lips. It is not attractive, masculine, feminine or even accepted in every culture.

File: 1481133541365s.jpg (10KB, 250x231px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x231px

>>17852374
The patriarchy, for those who don't understand it well, can best be described as an "invisible grid" that fits over society and keeps people in place. People can move outside their set quadrants on the grid, but there will be met consequences. For men, the patriarchy polices masculinity. If a man steps outside his quadrant, he may be called a sissy or fag. If a woman steps outside a quadrant, say by having a child out of wedlock, society polices her by calling her a whore. Stepping a little bit outside the quadrants can meet with disapproval or ridicule. Stepping very far outside of the quadrants ie: trans people, can result in death. Patriarchy seeks to jostle everyone back into their quadrants and keep them there. This is based on the assumption that "it's for their own good." When feminism says they want to "smash the patriarchy," they are really talking about doing away with this grid because it's too restrictive.

>>17852778
>There are people born with genitals of one sex and genes of another.

A super minority. We're talking a percentage of one percent, making them an anomaly to be disregarded in terms of forming ideas.

OP -

You already know the answer. You're questioning what you've been spoon fed at university, because something in that pablum just didn't sit right with you.

Something 'similar' to the patriarchy exists - it's called biology.

Men and women are very different, humans are a dimorphic species.

Feminists will try to tell you that these differences are miniscule, and even that they apply only to physiology. But men and women are different in their heads as well, and in their low level values.

Men are smarter - but also much more likely to be borderline moronic. Men take more risks, men are more apt to lead, men are more violent and aggressive, the differences go on and on.

Gender roles exist for a reason. They are enshrined in our cultures because they are the response to thousands of years of observations into the behaviour of men and women.

So does it exist? Sort of. Is it a bad thing? Not really, and it's also inevitable.

>>17852872

So you are an example of the borderline moronic brand of male, eh?

>>17852374
>is this because of patriarchy or because women naturally want to look good s
Both

>>17852374
>Is patriarchy actually a thing?


not in this era we are under a feminist era where men are suffering the most right now. also how can you even call it patriarchy when women have the luxury of having long nails in the first place? sound more like a status symbol that women don't have to work as hard as men if they don't have to worry about breaking a nail.

>>17852632
this image is right and wrong at the same time. The reason why young childless women out earn men, is because they are more likely to be college graduates(most college graduates today are female)

however, patriarchy still comes into play here, because in our society we expect women to be the primary caregivers of children. Moreover, we expect caregiving for cheap or free most of the time. This is why the man who cleans the streets in the morning earns more than the babysitter/nanny.

The problem gets even worse when it's a single parent, trying to raise kids and make money. Sometimes this situation happens to men, but more often it happens to women.

>>17852882
Nothing to say but insults. Very nice.

>>17852872

>he thinks tendencies ought to form the basis of rules.

so you're not much of a fan of individual agency, huh?

>>17852374
>Is patriarchy actually a thing?
no
all this feminism, racism, every other sort of ism that people are spamming on social media are symptoms being used and manipulated to serve as a distraction from the only ism that really matters- classism. wealth disparity. its classic divide and conquer and everyone is just eating this shit up. get all the poor people fighting amongst each other, all the while the rich get richer.

>>17852897
Women have more advantages than men because some can have long nails.

4chains never disappoints.

File: Screenshot_20160823-181702.jpg (302KB, 500x925px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 500x925px

>>17852420
Although I do not disagree that sexual presence is much more higher with females in the workplace.

I do disagree with the fundamental way how the wage Gap was calculated in the first place. The wage cap was calculated not on the job by job by gender basis but on an overall number statistic of every single females wage on average compared to every single males wage on average. regardless of which field they worked in. This is why I say the ways God has been debunked many times.

As an employer it's too much of a risk for a lawsuit to Payless for female employees to male employees for the same job.

>>17853110
That was the "LOOK HERE, WE GOT A PROBLEM" number. It still exists even when compared with equal jobs/education, just is in single digits territory AFTER you subtract "female extra costs".

>As an employer it's too much of a risk for a lawsuit
Not really, specially if it's a smaller company that won't get too much attention.Besides, they could always come up with some bullshit excuse, at worst they'd have to pay a little fee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
A much, much bigger deal than paying females lesser and the fee they had to pay was a pure joke.

the patriarchy does exist in that it's a description of a social force
I genuinely recommend looking into some academic writing on colonialism and the way the view of gender has changed over different periods of history, cause I started reading up on this shit a few years ago and it's interesting how little of our current interpretation of gender actually has any historical basis

wrt to women/clothing/makeup

it's impossible to untangle genuine desire to look good from social forces due to being taught from a young age that to be ugly is to be worthless , and it's a lot easier to decide you like something that's fucking you over than to protest against a social force that permeates most of your life. Gay women wear makeup and present themselves within our societies idea of beauty so the pressure to present oneself well is more than attracting a man.

plus when we look at a women obsessed with makeup and clothing, we don't see a patron of the arts or a hobby artist, we see a shallow women obsessed with herself and how she looks

and like let's be real we treat conventionally attractive well dressed women better than an average women, especially in contrast to how we treat conventionally attractive well dressed men vs average men

so it's got to be easier to try to be conventionally attractive and well dressed and get treated better in most social situations

lemme sum this up
-women experience a great deal of pressure in professional, academic and social situations to be conventionally attractive
-this pressure is part of the set of social rules and culture that makes up the patriarchy
-women try to deal with this (consciously or not) however they can

feel free to ask me any questions op I'll try to find some articles and papers that explain this a bit better

>>17853309
>it's interesting how little of our current interpretation of gender actually has any historical basis
elaborate?

>>17853309
op here.

i agree that women feel pressured by society to pertain to a certain level of beauty. thanks for the post

do you know any good academic books i could read?

File: equity.gif (202KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 750x563px

>>17852420
>to pretend that sexism in the workplace doesn't exist is ridiculous

Indeed.