The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[xoxoxoBruce]

It seem we have failure to communicate.

[DanaC]

..the fuck?

[xoxoxoBruce]

At the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor...

ANN ARBOR—When applying for a job or to college, women seek positions with fewer applicants than men, according to a new University of Michigan study.

The researchers found that the size of a competition—such as the number of applicants to a particular job or the number of people vying for a monetary reward—shapes who enters the competition.

Women prefer smaller competitions, whereas men seek larger competitions, which are typically associated with higher monetary rewards.

"These patterns of findings can contribute to a better understanding of gender inequality in the workforce," said Kathrin Hanek, the study's lead author. "The gender difference in preferences may in part explain pay gaps and the underrepresentation of women in particular fields or at the helm of large organizations."

The difference between the genders can be partially attributed to women feeling more comfortable in smaller competitions. Hanek points out that some environments offer greater opportunities for women to behave communally rather than competitively.

"Smaller social groups, even when individuals are in competition, tend to allow people to form more intimate social bonds and be more attuned to others' needs," said Hanek, who recently received her doctorate from the U-M Department of Psychology. "And these communal behaviors, in turn, tend to be more normative for women."

More

[sexobon]

... This research by no means blames women for gender inequality but rather uncovers a novel environmental factor that might contribute to inequality, ...

Mercy! Send the EPA in to straighten this situation out.

[DanaC]

A recent story in the news caught my attention.

A receptionist claims she was sent home from work at a corporate finance company after refusing to wear high heels.

Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney in east London, arrived on her first day at PwC in December in flat shoes but says she was told she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel”.

Thorp, who was employed as a temporary worker by PwC’s outsourced reception firm Portico, said she was laughed at when she said the demand was discriminatory and sent home without pay after refusing to go out and buy a pair of heels.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...c-nicola-thorp

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally never wear heels - I gave them up as a teenager because they were fucking uncomfortable and I tended to end up twisting my ankle a lot. I'm really glad I did, because regular wearing of heels can damage your feet and your spine. I know plenty of women like wearing heels, but the idea of enforcing them as a dress code for work I find ridiculous. I get the idea of a dress code - nothing wrong with insisting that your workforce look smart, or dress according to a particular style - but there is no reason why a woman can't look perfecly smart in flat shoes. There are however, compelling reasons for not wearing heels - particularly given that part of this woman's role would have been to escort guests around the office complex, meaning she would be on her feet and walking for much of the day.

Heels are not a pre-requisite for loking smart. They do however increase the sexual attractiveness of women. So - apparently, for a receptionist it is not enough that they look smart and presentable, they also have to look sexy.


Another columnist comments:

First impressions count, even for business. It’s why the reception of any building is usually the smartest part of the office. There will be brightly coloured flowers, comfortable sofas, free water and, more often than not, a pretty young woman ready to welcome you. They’ll be wearing a full face of make-up, the smartest clothes their salary will allow, and a beaming smile. They’ll know the name of everyone in the building but nobody will know theirs. They are the first thing any visitor knows about your company and the guardian of your secrets. They’re undervalued and underpaid. And no matter how good a job they do, the one thing you will judge them on is what they look like.

I know this because I spent a year welcoming guests, pouffing the cushions and answering the phone in my best cut glass accent for a finance company. At my annual appraisal they told me I’d done a great job and they were thrilled at the effort I was putting in, there was just one thing to be improved on. Could I possibly wear more lipstick?

So - wearing lipstick was not enough - she had to wear enough lipstick. Guess she wasn;t looking sexy enough to do her job?

We know how you dress is no longer a signifier of success or importance, Steve Jobs’ dedication to jeans and trainers ended that, so why do we still feel it’s necessary to dictate the type of shoes that women wear? Yes, dress codes might ask men to wear ties and not apply this rule to women but there’s one clear difference here: unless your office takes its influences from Fifty Shades of Grey, there is nothing particularly sexual about a tie. High heels on the other hand, they’re designed to sexualise women. They lengthen our legs, change the way we walk and, whether we intend it or not, make us more attractive to both sexes.

(for the sexual attraction aspect of heels see: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S10...122-5/abstract)

The columnist continues with an acknowledgement that heels can feel empowering, adding height and stature, but only when you are wearing them by choice.

For some reason I don’t believe that Portico wants its female employees to feel empowered by their shoes, if they did they wouldn’t have minded so much when one of them pointed out the company’s blatantly sexist policy. So why is it so wedded to this outdated dress code?

Perhaps it’s because even now in 2016, nearly 100 years after women got the vote, 50 years since we were entitled to equal pay and more than 10 years since Sex and the City stopped trying to convince us that heels were independence in shoe form, what we really judge success on is the attractiveness of the woman attached to it. It’s not enough to have a professional, competent receptionist welcoming your guests, she also needs to be sexy.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-...rkplace-sexism

[xoxoxoBruce]

The reality for receptionists is they are in the same boat with actors, salespeople, and TV talking heads, appearance is primary. But If heels are a requirement, she should argue the company should provide them, like hard hats, earplugs and safety glasses.

[DanaC]

Difference being that alll those items promote safety and well being, where heels actively damage health.

It is perfectly acceptable for an employer to demand a particular dress code. It is not acceptable that they demand a dress code that could damage the health and well-being of their employee.

Employers have a duty of care to their employees, to ensure that their employees are as safe as practically possible. That means, according to law (in this country) that every effort be made to mitigate risks associated with work and the workplace - so, for example, desks and computer set-up are supposed to take account of the risks to health and employees given training on posture and proper usage in order to minimise risk of RSI and eye strain. Workers in dangerous environments are to be provided with appropriate safety wear, such as hard hats and steel toecap boots. Nurses are not supposed to try and lift paralysed patients on their own, they're supposed to work in twos when lifting.

Insisting that an employee wear a smart suit, or that they only dress in black or navy is acceptable - insisting that they wear an item of footwear which could cause long term damage to their feet, when it is not necessary for them to take such risks in order to perform their jobs is not acceptable.

[DanaC]

Ffs. Here we go again:

Iron Man 3 could have been a very different film if director Shane Black had got his way.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) squared off against main villain Killian (Guy Pearce) in the superhero movie, but it should have been Rebecca Hall's character.

Why was this changed? Because, apparently, Marvel didn't think a female toy would sell.

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/iro...-wouldnt-sell/

This is such utter bollocks, it makes my blood boil. I cannot believe we are still having this debate now. I'm guessing their 'consultation' wasn't with the kids or parents who might buy the toys. And I'm guessing they just assume all the toys bought would be for boys anyway.

[Happy Monkey]

I wonder whether it originated* with Marvel corporate, or Disney corporate.

Because Disney is already pretty bad on this front.


* The article says it came from Marvel corporate, but it could have been passed down from the parent company.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They are probably basing it on past performance of action figures in the market place, but I suspect much of that is self fulfilling. Girls are to be saved, not save.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I wonder whether it originated* with Marvel corporate, or Disney corporate.

Because Disney is already pretty bad on this front..

Bloody hell, you're not kidding.

The Disney Store have been selling Iron Man 3 tshirts for boys/men and girls/women - the boys tshirts have the slogan 'Be a Hero' whilst the girl's tshirts say 'I Need a Hero' and 'I Only Kiss Heroes'. In light of a bunch of negative feedback they've removed the 'I Only Kiss Heroes' one, but are still only selling 'I Need a Hero' for the girls and 'Be a Hero' for the boys.



And in other Superhero toy news ....

In Age of Ultron, there is one truly kickass female character - Black Widow. There is an iconic scene in the movie in which Black Widow exits the Quinjet on a black Harley.

Having previously left Black Widow out of the toy line for the Avengers movies, the toy makers have now included both the Quinjet and the Harley, which comes out f the the bottom of the jet just ;like it does in the film, so that kids can recreate that iconic scene - except with either Captain America or Iron Man riding it.

So they have erased Black Widow from her own iconic scene.

I get that boys might not want to buy girl toys. But there is no reason at all, why boys would not want a complete set of characters, including the female character. And there is no reason at all to assume that only boys will be playing with these toys. The fact that Disney made a tshirt for girls and women at all is a tacit acceptance that girls and women are wanting superhero film merchandise.

Time and again, the toymakers remove the female characters from their line up. They did not include Rey initially in their Star Wars Force Awakens line up, despite her being one of the central characters - they replaced her with minor characters and characters from previous films.

They did not do this in the 70s! The Princess Leia figure was there in the line up for the original Star Wars toys - my best friend, David had them all (including the Millenium Falcon and one of those things with the giant legs). Nobody thouight it would be a good idea to remove the only key female character - they just sold all the characters, and they all sold just fine. I remember the Princess Leia figure - she was done in exactly the same style as Luke and Solo - with a gun in her hand (the later figure sets granted, did opt more for the Leia in a gold bikini sex slave figure). It wasn't an issue. And that was back before anybody thought about girls wanting to buy the toys - they just put out the key characters for the film. And boys bougth and played with them (and so did some girls as it happens)

This kind of over the top gendering of toys is a new thing.


Here are the Disney tees

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

This is such utter bollocks, it makes my blood boil. I cannot believe we are still having this debate now. I'm guessing their 'consultation' wasn't with the kids or parents who might buy the toys. And I'm guessing they just assume all the toys bought would be for boys anyway.

Listen, it's like everything else--the girls will play with the boy toys, but the boys* simply won't go for the girl toys. The parents might even say they would buy them in interviews, because they would feel like it's the right answer. But they absolutely wouldn't buy it when they're standing alone in the toy store. And maybe that's society's fault, or the parents' fault, or whatever... but I have children, and I know a ridiculous number of children, and I have been to countless birthday parties in a very liberal city with a healthy rejection of gender norms and the highest gay percentage second only to San Francisco, and I am telling you: the girl-villain action figure would not sell even a fraction as well as the boy-villain.

Honestly, I think the bigger crime here is dictating the plot of a movie based on toy sales. Like Marvel doesn't have enough money already?


*as they currently exist today, not some inherent biological programming. But Marvel is selling toys to boys as they currently exist today. You can argue that they should make a girl toy because it's the right thing to do, but you can't claim that the girl toy would sell as well.

[DanaC]

Maybe many of the boys won't buy a female villain figure - I suspect they might though if that is just a figure in a range of toys from a movie. It's different to expecting boys to play with the toys that are aimed at girls. I wouldn't expect hordes of prepubescent boys to buy Frozen characters - but I bet a fair few of them have alll the Star Wars figures, including the female characters

Also - if Marvel have more and better female characters in their movies, then maybe more girls will get into them and want to buy those figures. If they play the long game they could increase sales of their toys by nurturing the girl market which they have hitherto ignored. Girls are a rapidly growing demographic for comicbook and sci fi films.



You're right though - the sales of toys should not be dictating plot of film.


But as an aside here's what happened when the toymakers decided to stop being dicks and include the main female character in their toylines (having at first pretty much left her out, despite her being one of the key heroes of the film)

http://www.mtv.com/news/2688307/fema...s-selling-out/

[Clodfobble]

Yes, but don't forget Star Wars relies heavily on adult nostalgia. Grown men who aren't afraid of their sexuality are buying the Ray dolls. Iron Man 3 is still only being bought by/for children. It will change, it IS changing, but we're not there yet, and getting there requires companies doing the right thing rather than the monetary thing.

[DanaC]

I think they may find that if they market to the girls as well, they can increase their sales overall. They just have to do it in a way that doesn't put the boys off.