Sorry, all you gave me was a link without explanation. I read the first page or two of the introduction, which reads like fiction. And then I read a summary on another site which didn't lead me to believe otherwise.
What summary would that be?
I actually expected you to maybe respect my intelligence enough to assume I hadn't linked you to a fictional novel as a political/historical text. It was silly of me.
the point of the coal mining example, like the other examples given, was that so far as I can tell, feminists are not usually interested in equality. They simply want to make things better for women. If there is a desirable position or industry where there are more men than women, or unpleasant things that more women have to deal with than men, they will be perceived as inequalities. But when there are unpleasant things in which there are more men than women or desireable positions held more by women than men...those won't be perceived as inequalities.
My point with this is that you are not a good judge of this. You used coal mining as your example. That example was flat out wrong.
I agree it would be absurd. Fortunately that's not at all what I was saying, and I really have no idea why you thought that I might have meant that.
Because it was the plain text reading of your meaning. Quoting the part you used to explain the example above, "when there are unpleasant things in which there are more men than women or desireable positions held more by women than men...those won't be perceived as inequalities." You viewed coal mining as an area that is undesirable and where the lack of women wouldn't be viewed as an inequality, essentially accepting pushing men into the dangerous work while keeping women out.
Anyway, let's go back and have a real go at this stuff. Given I'm sick today, have already gotten what I need to do done and just finished my book, let's give this a bit of effort. If nothing else I can use it as a reference in the future. I've not particularly proofread this so might have to do some editing at a later date.
I assert, that speaking generally life is better in the US for woman than it is for men. Choose any area you like: finance, dating, social exchange, peer expectation, law, college, health...in most areas, women simply have a better deal than men.
Taking this one area at a time;
Finance:
I've had lengthy discussions on this before, most recently
here. But to summarise, the gender wage gap is real and substantial and dominant in practical financial differences between the sexes. Comparing like-to-like, full time employment, you have an overall pay ratio of 0.82 (using raw
BLS data). My rough and ready analysis from a few months ago showed men earning more than women in 136 out of 139 categories, with a >10% gap in 109.
Women with similar educational levels to men can expect to see lower pay levels.
Some raw data here, easy enough to eyeball. A quick graph that covers more intersectional (race/gender) angles;
In a similar vein, there is
this report, with this graph (annotated version ripped from various blogs);
Even within STEM fields there are
notable pay gaps. This pattern replicates across almost
every field and subject.
Which is all to say, comparing like-to-like, women can be expected to be earning less than men in the same or similar roles.
All this is before you take into account women more often taking part time jobs, bringing down their overall income in comparison to men and giving you the classic ~77% raw wage gap.
Dating, social exchange, peer expectation:
Going to try to go through all these at once because I view them all as aspects of the same thing; perception of women and gender roles.
To maintain some continuity with the above point, women face severe social barriers to being taken seriously within the workplace or as equals. These tend to feed into the pay gap through the way they are perceived (the peer expectation part) and treated by their employers and co-workers.
There have been
many different studies demonstrating unconscious bias against women (or those perceived as women) in recruitment/employment/promotion scenarios. These biases create greater social barriers to women trying to enter or progress through a field in comparison to men, who are granter greater benefit of the doubt. (Again, intersectional issues with race come into play here.) This has obvious relevance to the wage gap discussed above.
Further to this, personality traits that are viewed as admirable and worthy of reward in men are viewed as undesirable and punishable in women. The most high profile and obvious of these is aggression, viewed as key to male progression, status and value, but
penalised in women. There are even cases where reducing female aggression (not violence, but assertiveness) is a
goal of pre-natal hormone therapy with the explicit goal of pushing them towards acceptable "heterosexual norms", including reducing "interest in what they consider to be men’s occupations and games". NB: The treatment of the underlying disorder makes sense, but the treatment goals are just... eww.
A lot of this comes down to the classic feminist analysis of gendered traits. Feminine traits are expected from women but valued lowly socially. Masculine traits are valued more highly socially, but are not expected and to be punished when displayed by women.
This often carries over into non-workplace social situations. Women are not expected to be assertive or aggressive in interpersonal relationships, and displaying those traits makes them undesirable or unattractive. At the same time passivity is viewed negatively by wider society and condemned by men who have to 'put in all the work'. Women are caught in a catch-22 situation, where they have to choose between the risks of personal or social condemnation for their action or inaction.
And that's hardly the only social catch-22 they face. Literally any action taken by a woman can be condemned from either side. Wearing makeup or generally spending time on their appearance can be condemned as being 'fake' or trying to trick men into thinking they are attractive. Failing to put in such time or effort is nearly universally condemned, as women are so often valued and judged solely on their attractiveness (or rather, their ability to fall into an acceptable socially acknowledged definition of attractive).
This valuing of women by their attractiveness and nothing else complicates dating further. Men who are after an attractive women - either for casual sex or as a status symbol - are unlikely to place much value on other aspects of the woman. This results both in the absurdities of
internet dating spam (I've known multiple women who have abandoned multiple sites because they are made worthless by such users) and a complete disregard for women who can be dismissed as ugly or even just flawed. Pointing out minor flaws in a woman's appearance to degrade and devalue her is such a common trend as to be recognised and satirised even outside feminist circles.
Generalising into non-dating social interactions, women on the internet can expect abuse simply as the cost of existing.
This is pretty well documented. Comparing with myself, I've been fairly hostile and engaged in politically/emotionally charged debates online, on a range of sites with a range of moderation policies, etc, and never once had a death threat. I think I've been directly threatened with physical violence once, and that was in a League of Legends post-game lobby where it's almost cliché. Women who take far more moderate positions than myself, on less hostile websites, get far more aggressive responses as the norm.
This extends into real life more than might be expected from the usual defences/justifications of internet bad behaviour. I've had unwanted advances before in person, but never felt physically threatened or unable to decline them. Conversely I've had multiple women ask me to serve as a pretend boyfriend to escape someone who either won't accept no for an answer or who they don't feel safe turning down.
Going back to the appearance point for a moment, the tie between a woman's appearance and personal worth is so close that even mentioning a woman's appearance (positively or negatively) can devalue her in other's eyes.
Name It Change It's appearance survey showed a negative impact on a hypothetical political candidate's poll ratings based solely on adding a description of her appearance (positive, negative or neutral), actually swinging the pretend election towards her opponent while damaging her ratings in every key trait and favourability rating measured. Actively countering this description repairs the damage done
among women but men retain unfavourable views of her regardless.
Combine this with a social and media obsession with analysing the appearance of every woman who comes on a screen or page and you have a recipe for devaluing the contributions and capabilities of women across the board.
Law, health:
Assuming we are solely looking at the USA here I don't think you can detangle the two.
Generally, legislatively, there is near perfect equality now. Sex discrimination laws in the US are written to apply equally, and even previously female-focused laws (eg, definition of rape) are being neutralised at a rather rapid rate when compare to the fixing of past inequalities.
That said, there are still trends that are problematic for women. While
women are gaining parity in law degrees, they are nowhere near equally represented in judicial or senior legal roles.
While this dominance of male views in such positions can benefit women, it tends to only do so when aligned with otherwise harmful stereotypes and gender roles. Women are rewarded for conforming to expectations and often punished for deviating from them. Any advantage they have is conditional on following a patriarchal script. As has been pointed out previously, this is something opposed by feminism in general, even when it may appear to advantage women.
This also carries into
state legislative bodies where women only make up roughly a quarter of all representatives. All too often laws directly primarily at women are being written, voted on and judged/enforced largely (even near exclusively in some areas) by men.
And that results in horrific anti-woman laws in many cases. Anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws are the current weapon of choice. The laws that have come into force have resulted in clinics closing, denying both abortion and general healthcare in entire regions of the USA. Some of the clinics concerned -particularly Planned Parenthood ones - were the only ones available to low income women for any medical purposes, not just reproductive health.
Under the ACA it's been primarily women's healthcare that has been singled out for attacks. From
Hobby Lobby's successful challenge on certain contraceptives (very likely to be expanded to all 20 covered under the law) to the complete exclusion of abortion services, its services targeted at women that have become political, legislative and litigation footballs.
As an aside, I would view the exclusion of male contraceptives from the ACA as a policy mistake and a crisis, but one that
generally harms women as well as men. It reinforces the concept that contraceptives are a woman's responsibility and a woman's problem.
Here is the Guttmacher Institute arguing against that and the generally more limited guidelines for preventative reproductive care for men also mentioned in the Mill's article. I'm going to assume anyone half familiar will Mills or Guttmacher knows why I chose those two sources for this point...
Speaking about health more generally, healthcare tends to come in two flavours; woman exclusive (generally focused on reproductive) and male-focused. I mentioned this before, but the default medical model is
the male body, often to the detriment of women who are subject to procedures only practised or tested on men. One example that has been broadly shared in recent years is that heart attack symptoms - widely publicised to attempt to improve recognition and treatment - are widely different for men and women.
Even many doctors don't recognise the signs in women because they are taught to look for the male indicators.
The life expectancy is itself a complex topic. I
linked this before to demonstrate it is closing over time (or rather, improvements for men and women are more rapidly progressing in men). It's not clear to me how much is biological and how much is social, but either way the problem is relatively minor and decreasing over time. And, as I've argued above, is despite a male-focused medical system.
Further the social aspects are primarily topics that are topics of study and criticism for feminists, while often not addressed outside the movement often at all. Where there is social progress in this area I would give feminism at least some of the credit.
Before I linked bell hooks'
work on the
topic, but the concept of
toxic masculinity gets a fair amount of play among feminists. It's basically the idea that patriarchal standards of masculinity (or just desirable/admirable/reinforced male behaviour) are harmful to the men who embody them as well as those around them. The examples in that wiki are pretty solid. The obvious example of male violence being expected and anger being the only acceptable emotional response are directly relevant to male health, especially when combined with concepts of emasculation.
This 2006 AlterNet article is a particularly expansive exploration. It focuses mostly on the social aspects, but extrapolating to health/lifespan is relatively easy.
I've actually seen arguments that toxic masculinity as a concept came from the
mythopoetic men's movement, which had a drive towards a positive/deep masculinity. I'd disagree strongly with many of their positions and their emphasis on ritual and strong gender roles/essentialism, but some of the positive aspects have relevance today. The emphasis on male socialisation and cooperation over competition and emotional expression are particularly relevant. That said, it is the feminist movement that has taken and progressed the concept, especially through the modern third wave anti-essentialist views.
College:
I'd argue that the primary apparent female advantage in college - more women entering and graduating - are actual representative of completely different issues and that colleges themselves are not biased towards women. Indeed, in many ways they are still biased against them.
Starting with applications, more women than men are applying. As was discussed
previously in this thread, there is evidence of (limited and localised, and likely illegal) affirmative action in the favour of male applicants. See also
Mother Jones, and
the Washington Post. The issue with the numbers of men at universities has little to do with the universities themselves. The leak lies further up the pipeline.
I'd argue much of this goes back to the concept of toxic masculinity, but there is also an economic argument.
Go way back to the charts of women's earnings against men's in those spoilers above. Women have to be more qualified than men to expect similar earnings. A man out of highschool can expect greater earnings and self sufficiency in a wider range of employment options than a woman can. Women simple have fewer options outside university, pushing them to apply in greater numbers. I'd say this is particularly visible in the UK, where rising tuition fees and more vocational/apprenticeship schemes made university a less attractive option.
The decrease was considerably higher among men than women.Now I personally view this as a problem, and one that needs addressing on both levels; making the barriers to college lower (for everyone, but with a view to especially benefiting men) so that more men see it as viable while also making more jobs available and accessible to women out of high school so they don't feel forced into the one path. But I also see this as largely separate to colleges themselves being biased against women or women having it better, something I don't believe is true.
Talking about colleges more broadly, the employment factors come back with a vengeance when talking about women in academia. Particularly in science where the
leak in the pipeline has been receiving particular attention. Essentially women are seen as fine students, but not regarded highly at all as academic faculty or even non-student researchers. Combine this with studies such as
this one linked above which demonstrate an unconscious bias towards male students from faculty and I feel relatively secure in saying that there is a substantive and real barrier to women in academia that men just don't experience.
I hate to get into personal experience, but I have reasons to believe that similar biases and prejudices operate against female students on all levels. A lot of it comes back to men simply getting the benefit of the doubt from educators more often, with women's work being viewed more sceptically or critically. Again, the strongest evidence I have of this are studies like the above. There is also the fact that college admissions test have been deliberately
designed to favour men - with sections that favoured women being 'balanced' till men scored higher again - in the past, and many of those who designed such tests are still designing and running college courses and exams. I fully believe in an unconscious and blind favouring of men in course design at college, particularly in fields where faculty representation lags behind being representative of the student body.
I'll admit that I have far less first hand experience in the arts, and what I say is less relevant to areas with greater female representation in the faculty. But given there are
broad representation gaps across all of academia, increasing as you go up in seniority, I would suggest that the issues are the norm with primarily female (or woman designed) courses being a minority at best.
