Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
I can't seem to find the study about it, but I read a paper that mentioned that at least with regards to job applications--in general, if a man fulfills something like 50% of the requirements of the job description, he will apply for it. Women in general will only apply if they fulfill something like 80-90% of the requirements. Which probably speaks to the idea of men being naturally more aggressive, and having that aggression rewarded--rather than women, who in general are taught to not be aggressive. And I don't mean aggression in a violent way, just an assertive one.
Women who are assertive and confident and aggressive are often spoken of as bossy, bitchy, or pushy. Men who are assertive and confident are 'go getters' and 'natural leaders.'
It's all in the little subtle things like that where sexism shows. It's rarely outright or purposeful. Usually it's just these little things that flow under the surface for all of us, it's just the way we've been conditioned to think. It's not that each little thing that shows up is all that hurtful in and of itself, but when each of those little things builds up on top of all the other little things--as well as the occasional really ugly big thing--that's when it causes problems.
|
It's not just wittynickname that thinks this or even just women for that matter. A phrase I commonly hear used, and have ashamedly used myself in the past to describe an assertive female is 'ballbuster'. I would like to think that I haven't used it in a mean spirited way but I know it's not a 'nice' term.
Following this thread and and the YLYL thread, I will definitely be more conscious how I post and the terms I use in general. I am actually somewhat uncomfortable and embarrassed that I probably have contributed to making people uncomfortable. I apologize for that and also want to say that I find it really sad that some of the women an here are being jumped on for nothing more than having a discussion about the topic. it was illuminating for me.