Male Chauvinism and/or Racism in US History

[sbrothy]

Watching the cartoon "F is for Family", which takes place in the beginning of the 70ties, there's one episode where a pregnant woman can't leave the hospital without written permission from her spouse (or another close male relative). Now obviously this is an ironic comment on historical male chauvinism (and/or racism), as it's a little too farfetched, together with the myth that women couln't open a bank account before 1974. Some pretty draconian laws were in place though. The Jim Crow Laws spring to mind; as does "getting Baker acted" which seems to still be in effect albeit with some amendments:

In June 2024, the Florida government amended the Baker Act to grant law enforcement officers the discretion to decline to detain individuals showing signs of serious mental illness, instead of requiring detention by default. Previously, the law mandated that police detain individuals exhibiting symptoms of serious mental illness if there was a threat of harm, regardless of other circumstances. The amendment now gives officers more flexibility to assess whether detention is necessary. The Baker Act had already granted judges and mental health professionals the discretion to decline involuntary commitment if they determined it was not warranted. The amendment specifies that the 72-hour examination period begins immediately upon entry into the receiving facility.

Still pretty nasty, although I can understand the premise for the Baker Act.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

EIT: 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre

 

[MindlessPieces]

Watching the cartoon "F is for Family", which takes place in the beginning of the 70ties, there's one episode where a pregnant woman can't leave the hospital without written permission from her spouse (or another close male relative). Now obviously this is an ironic comment on historical male chauvinism (and/or racism), as it's a little too farfetched, together with the myth that women couln't open a bank account before 1974. Some pretty draconian laws were in place though. The Jim Crow Laws spring to mind; as does "getting Baker acted" which seems to still be in effect albeit with some amendments:

It's strange to me, to refer to racism and sexism in USA in a historical context. As far as I understand it, it is still alive and strong today.

People typically see the racial divide, it is common knowledge that many USA people don't like the darker skinned people of African decent. (BTW all people originated from Africa, even the whiteys).

But what often goes under the radar is the bigotry against women.
My perception is that Women rank below Blacks in the hierarchy of the USA conservative bigot.
Even in the eyes of a woman USA conservative bigot, the woman ranks below the blacks.
Top of the elite rank is the White Christian Male, All shiny and polished, up on that pedestal, they have a glow about them, they are polished and clean. Suitable for president, Supreme Court Justice, religious leadership, adoptive parenthood, etc.

Next I think is the White Jewish man, suitable for everything below Supreme Court Justice, as long as they don't appear too Jewish and assimilate as if a White Christian man.

Then is the White non Christian, non Jewish man, suitable for running businesses, adoptive parenthood, but should be kept away from any political power.

Then the Black Christian man, suitable as a token representative on the Supreme Court as long as they are against DEI, and against the Voting Rights act.

Now we get to women, I'm not sure if they get subdivided into white Christian, non Christian white, and the rest. In many USA Conservative Christian eyes, women should never be President, their purpose is to support a good man, to cook, clean and make babies. In some USA Conservative Christian eyes, women shouldn't get to vote. Unfortunately this category of people that believe this nonsense are way larger in USA than it should be. In any society you are going to get crackpots, but in USA these guys are emboldened enough to be internet or public stars and are freely offering this opinion.

 

[sbrothy]

It's strange to me, to refer to racism and sexism in USA in a historical context. As far as I understand it, it is still alive and strong today.

People typically see the racial divide, it is common knowledge that many USA people don't like the darker skinned people of African decent. (BTW all people originated from Africa, even the whiteys).

Oh, I certainly wasn't postulating otherwise. Now my thread shouldn't really be taken that serious but to understand systemic racism I think a historical view is unavoidable.

(EDIT: I can't be bothered right now but shouldn't that have been "weren't? ---- https://grammarhow.com/wasnt-vs-werent/). Oh and "seriously, no?

But what often goes under the radar is the bigotry against women.
My perception is that Women rank below Blacks in the hierarchy of the USA conservative bigot.
Even in the eyes of a woman USA conservative bigot, the woman ranks below the blacks.
Top of the elite rank is the White Christian Male, All shiny and polished, up on that pedestal, they have a glow about them, they are polished and clean. Suitable for president, Supreme Court Justice, religious leadership, adoptive parenthood, etc.

Next I think is the White Jewish man, suitable for everything below Supreme Court Justice, as long as they don't appear too Jewish and assimilate as if a White Christian man.

Then is the White non Christian, non Jewish man, suitable for running businesses, adoptive parenthood, but should be kept away from any political power.

Then the Black Christian man, suitable as a token representative on the Supreme Court as long as they are against DEI, and against the Voting Rights act.

Now we get to women, I'm not sure if they get subdivided into white Christian, non Christian white, and the rest. In many USA Conservative Christian eyes, women should never be President, their purpose is to support a good man, to cook, clean and make babies. In some USA Conservative Christian eyes, women shouldn't get to vote. Unfortunately this category of people that believe this nonsense are way larger in USA than it should be. In any society you are going to get crackpots, but in USA these guys are emboldened enough to be internet or public stars and are freely offering this opinion.

It's not a uniquely American situation either. God knows I have to suffer listening to a lot of predujices during a normal day. Not so much white-on-black, as (Danish, read: white)-on-middleeastern. Bigotry with respect to Judaism seems also to be a "winner". It's often obvious it's rooted in little to no education though. As soon as you get above high-school level, at least in this country, it stops; apart from a few die-hard idiots, but everyone normally recognizes those without discussion.

EDIT: But yeah, @MindlessPieces, misogyny is an insipid incipient(?) problem. Especially because it has a tendency to be overlooked because of "real" [sic.] racism.

EDIT2: OK. My post-editing OCD made sure I learned a new word: "inchoative"; and of course incipient. Which doesn't meant what I thought really. Meh.

 

[dlu]

It's not a uniquely American situation either. God knows I have to suffer listening to a lot of predujices during a normal day. Not so much white-on-black, as (Danish, read: white)-on-middleeastern. Bigotry with respect to Judaism seems also to be a "winner". It's often obvious it's rooted in little to no education though. As soon as you get above high-school level, at least in this country, it stops; apart from a few die-hard idiots, but everyone normally recognizes those without discussion.

If a group possessing particular categorizations of race, ethnicity, or whatever used to separate that group as being distinct from others, allows discrimination of its members based upon a class structure of power and wealth, does that constitute bigotry?
EX. Company A with owners of ethnicity Y hires workers of same ethnicity Y at 20% less wage rate than the norm. Is that a form of institutionalized bigotry? Yet OK, since racism against your own kind doesn't exist?
Why is it OK for some people to say the "N' word, but not others?
Who is the victim group, or oppressor group in these instances?

The continuous segregation of people into groups perpetuates the loop of oppressor/victim, whereby any perceived wrong must always have a cause of one group oppressing another, however non-factual that may be.

 

[sbrothy]

EDIT1: Isn't that basically what "bigotry" means...? EDIT2: No, I see now it has nothing to do with sociology, anthropology, or dividing groups.

EDIT1.5:Have to look it up. I'm sometimes surprised.

Unfortunately, it's just so deeply programmed; much older than Machiavelli (or ftm. Sun Tzu.): "Divide and Conquer!"

 

[sbrothy]

Well nothing is a bit much. It could well be identified as one root course.

 

[sbrothy]

I can see this dicussion either ending with a mention of a certain guy we've heard enough of, or this thread getting merged with the cosy "Eugenics & Genocide" thread.

I'm sorry if I'm a one track person!

 

[gleem]

I don't know where this thread was supposed to go.

Male chauvinism evolved from a natural order. Procreation is the prime directive of any species. Since men and women had their initial roles defined by nature, and since pregnancy and raising children are time-consuming, this further defined responsibilities and formed societal norms as civilization developed. So big surprise that this went to the male's head. It took millennia to recognize that women are more than baby machines and housekeepers.

When the human population was agrarian, the family was a cooperative effort, with both men and women sharing responsibility. They didn't need anybody else telling them what to do. Urbanization loosened the cooperation, as I see it. Time and improved health care reduced the necessity for large families, and in fact, many see large families as an environmental threat today.

The current reversion to trying to restrict women's self-determination is to be expected, particularly since three-fourths of the world is religious, of which more than half have dogmatic restrictions on women's autonomy. If you believe in the current male identity crisis, then some men have not sufficiently evolved intellectually compared to women. Some men are still like self-absorbed children and are unable to grasp the changing world. Perhaps we need a national program to help these men find and appreciate that special human characteristic of adaptability.
One thing is clear: we need to stop the perpetuation of the biases and lies of our predecessors. We need to hand over leadership to younger generations that has not been influenced by the undercurrents of these biases and lies.

 

[MindlessPieces]

If a group possessing particular categorizations of race, ethnicity, or whatever used to separate that group as being distinct from others, allows discrimination of its members based upon a class structure of power and wealth, does that constitute bigotry?
EX. Company A with owners of ethnicity Y hires workers of same ethnicity Y at 20% less wage rate than the norm. Is that a form of institutionalized bigotry?

That would be outright racism.

It is true that minorities are generally disadvantaged with regards to hiring practices. People tend to hire people of the same race as themselves because they are on the same wavelength and perhaps because if the referral system is being used, that means more people of the established race are beign referred, simply because people generally tend to have more friends and es work colleagues of the same race. This same factor disadvantages women too. Men tend to have much more men friends and collegues and so women aren't as often referred to a job. In my opinion, companies should always go to the open job market to get employees and should go out of their way to make sure minorities are aware of the available position. Also there should be an intermediate person in the hiring process to ensure at least some minorities and women make the short list.

If their is a disparity in pay for the same job then the company should look into that further and find out if it is fair or not.

Yet OK, since racism against your own kind doesn't exist?
Why is it OK for some people to say the "N' word, but not others?

Personally, I don't think it is OK for people to use racial slurs, even people that the slur is used against. It doesn't go in the favour of blacks to have a reputation of getting aggressive and/or violent against non blacks for using the N word.
However I do understand somewhat the atrocities that blacks have endured and are enduring in USA. If they want to own the N word, then so be it. Let them at least have control over that. Otherwise, perhaps if you want to negotiate with them to take that away from them, then give them something in exchange, reparations perhaps, land, money etc,
The USA Indians are very hard done by too.

Who is the victim group, or oppressor group in these instances?

The blacks in USA have been victims for many centuries, and still are. At the moment the Republicans and the SCOTUS are taking away their vote.
They have generational poverty, they are underrepresented in jobs and especially in higher up jobs, over represented in prisons, their are many USA people, including people in power that are working tirelessly to subjugate blacks and to promote Confederate symbols (MAGA!)

The continuous segregation of people into groups perpetuates the loop of oppressor/victim, whereby any perceived wrong must always have a cause of one group oppressing another, however non-factual that may be.

It's pretty factual that in USA, blacks have been oppressed by whites for centuries. Women have been oppressed by men for mellenia.

 

[Patxitxi]

with the myth that women couln't open a bank account before 1974.

Women in Spain were NOT able to open a bank account in their own name without the authorization of their husband or father until May 2, 1975...

 

[Patxitxi]

Watching the cartoon "F is for Family", which takes place in the beginning of the 70ties, there's one episode where a pregnant woman can't leave the hospital without written permission from her spouse (or another close male relative). Now obviously this is an ironic comment on historical male chauvinism (and/or racism), as it's a little too farfetched, together with the myth that women couln't open a bank account before 1974. Some pretty draconian laws were in place though. The Jim Crow Laws spring to mind; as does "getting Baker acted" which seems to still be in effect albeit with some amendments:



Still pretty nasty, although I can understand the premise for the Baker Act.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

EIT: 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre

For European context, in Spain they had to modify Civil Law (only since 2000) mandating that involuntary commitment for mental disorder require judicial authorization BEFORE it occurs.

 

[sbrothy]

In Denmark "commited on yellow or red papers" colloquially, refers to "forced commitment" (Danish).

[...] The prospect of recovery or a significant and decisive improvement of the condition will otherwise be significantly impaired (so-called health indication). Here "yellow papers" are used, or The person in question presents an imminent and significant danger to himself or others (so-called danger indication) where "red papers" are used. [...]

In law terms, again in Danish I'm afraid:

Executive Order on the Act on the Use of Coercion in Psychiatry, etc

 

[sbrothy]

That would be outright racism.

It is true that minorities are generally disadvantaged with regards to hiring practices. People tend to hire people of the same race as themselves because they are on the same wavelength and perhaps because if the referral system is being used, that means more people of the established race are beign referred, simply because people generally tend to have more friends and es work colleagues of the same race. This same factor disadvantages women too. Men tend to have much more men friends and collegues and so women aren't as often referred to a job. In my opinion, companies should always go to the open job market to get employees and should go out of their way to make sure minorities are aware of the available position. Also there should be an intermediate person in the hiring process to ensure at least some minorities and women make the short list.

If their is a disparity in pay for the same job then the company should look into that further and find out if it is fair or not.


Personally, I don't think it is OK for people to use racial slurs, even people that the slur is used against. It doesn't go in the favour of blacks to have a reputation of getting aggressive and/or violent against non blacks for using the N word.
However I do understand somewhat the atrocities that blacks have endured and are enduring in USA. If they want to own the N word, then so be it. Let them at least have control over that. Otherwise, perhaps if you want to negotiate with them to take that away from them, then give them something in exchange, reparations perhaps, land, money etc,
The USA Indians are very hard done by too.


The blacks in USA have been victims for many centuries, and still are. At the moment the Republicans and the SCOTUS are taking away their vote.
They have generational poverty, they are underrepresented in jobs and especially in higher up jobs, over represented in prisons, their are many USA people, including people in power that are working tirelessly to subjugate blacks and to promote Confederate symbols (MAGA!)

It's pretty factual that in USA, blacks have been oppressed by whites for centuries. Women have been oppressed by men for mellenia.

I remember a Family Guy episode where Stewie (together with Brian), on either Arlington National Cemetery or Gettysburg National Cemetery, out of the blue tells a black man that: "He's welcome. We sacrifized quite a lot!". The black man dryly comments that considering the events that went before he'd rather call it "kinda" even".

Stewie disagrees: "No, we paid more."

 

[MindlessPieces]

Women in Spain were NOT able to open a bank account in their own name without the authorization of their husband or father until May 2, 1975...

Oh, wow, I just looked this up in the context of NZ.

International Women’s Day: How can we have equity when we don't have pockets?

Does International Women's Day mean we can relax and reflect on progress? Yeah, nah, says Niki Bezzant.

www.rnz.co.nz

As International Women's Day rolls around again, women can sit back, relax and reflect on all the amazing progress that's been made in the past year.

Kidding!

...

We may laugh now at the quaint idea of The Ladies' Bank (opened in 1958 by the BNZ and widely mocked at the time). But it's worth remembering: it's only within my lifetime that women have been able to take out mortgages or even open bank accounts in their own right. As recently as the 1980s in Aotearoa, single women wanting to buy property were either refused mortgages or only given mortgages when a male relative guaranteed the loan.

It's crazy to me to see that this garbage happened in my own country.

 

[sbrothy]

I don't think any country is passed by by these... abhorrent events and/or ideas. I know a small country like "my" Denmark isn't.

EDIT: Thinking about it, New Zealand isn't much bigger, is it?

 

[fresh_42]

EDIT: Thinking about it, New Zealand isn't much bigger, is it?

DK : NZ = 43,000 sq km : 270,000 sq km

If you add Greenland and the Faroe Islands, then the ratio changes in the opposite direction. The population size is comparable.

 

[sbrothy]

I don't really count either. And to be brutally honest I'm not sure they themselves do. Ironically, maybe Greenland. They really do seem to love the monarchy.

 

[sbrothy]

Perhaps because of the sporadic visits from the royal family. Our present king made the Sirius Patrol more than once (and I'm not denigrating that. That route is tough as nails!). Still I wonder how much of that is "staffage"?

I think there's a better word, but I'm carrying the trash down now. Apropos.

Sirius Dog Sled Patrol - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The physical and psychological demands for acceptance into the unit are exceptional.

EDIT1: I'm searching for women who conquered this challenge but so far I only found:

Neuroscientist and long distance runner had to quit Greenland challenge

Trine Lisberg Toft is one of 18 women on the television series Sled Patrol, fighting to prove that she is strong enough for the elite naval unit Sirius.

uniavisen.dk

EDIT2: Still one of 18 must've completed, wouldn't ya think?

EDIT3: I remember from either reading or watching documentaries that your gun has to be tied to you hip so that if you're dragged off course by dogs you don't loose it and call kill them before you're dragged into a crevasse or into no-mands-land.

EDIT4: No it's certainly no walk in the park that's for sure.

 

[sbrothy]

"Women can apply, but none have yet".

National Geographic: The Cold Patrol.

As the stew simmered, Jesper finally had time to examine his wound. He wriggled out of his ski pants, and it was only then he saw the deep gash in his leg and the blood that had spilled—and continued to ooze—and he knew for certain he'd landed on his knife.

Jesper hardly reacted. He was a Sirius patroller, after all. He simply took out the first aid kit. He cleaned up the blood. And he patched himself up.

Like something out of Rambo (or Diehard) the movie!

 

[MindlessPieces]

I don't think any country is passed by by these... abhorrent events and/or ideas. I know a small country like "my" Denmark isn't.

EDIT: Thinking about it, New Zealand isn't much bigger, is it?

NZ is slightly larger than the UK, in landmass.
We only have about 5 million people though.

Not really sure what size has got to do with anything though.
NZ was the first self governing country to give women the right to vote, that was in 1893. But we lagged on giving gays the right to marriage, our abortion laws were lacking until 2020,

 

[Patxitxi]

It's crazy to me to see that this garbage happened in my own country.

Not hsppened. Some happen still today!

In Spain, the gender retirement gap remains significant, with women receiving roughly 20-30% lower pensions than men, driven by earlier part-time work, career breaks for caregiving, and lower salary averages, despite a narrowing trend.

The average pension for a Spanish woman is approximately €420–510 lower per month than that of a man, making it one of the higher gaps in the EU.

Spain is not Afghanistan but this is nothing we spaniards can be proud of!

 

[Patxitxi]

NZ was the first self governing country to give women the right to vote, that was in 1893.

The Second Spanish Republic granted women the right to vote on October 1, 1931, almost 40 years later. However, women only went to the polls twice, in 1933 and 1936.

Following Francisco Franco's victory in the Spanish Civil War, NEITHER women nor men could vote in national elections until 1977, two years after his death.

 

[sbrothy]

[...]
Not really sure what size has got to do with anything though. [...]

Nah, good point. I just naively thought that as a country gets smaller corruption is perhaps more difficult to hide and so would government endorsement of nepotism and misogony. But yes. What the secret services are doing is still completely opaque. And I mentioned elsewhere that when "our" king was still a prince he just happened to throw a cosy dinner for the entire military high command. Infantry, artillery, airforce, navy etc... claiming they were all friends of his.

In Denmark the monarchy is forbidden to get involved in politics but then again they could just have been discussing medals. Although that's not what was said to the tabloid press....

 

[Patxitxi]

What the secret services are doing is still completely opaque.

A transparent secret service would be a walking oxymoron. Oder?

 

[sbrothy]

I don't really count either. And to be brutally honest I'm not sure they themselves do. Ironically, maybe Greenland. They really do seem to love the monarchy.

It's true. Greenlanders seem to have a closer relationship with the monarchy than Danes. Historical reasons I guess.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/in-greenland-love-for-denmark-s-royals-clashes-with-independence-dream/71510563

 

[sbrothy]

A transparent secret service would be a walking oxymoron. Oder?

True I admit. Though Bellingcat does a good job for a public intelligence service in which anyone can participate.

 

[sbrothy]

NZ is slightly larger than the UK, in landmass.
We only have about 5 million people though.

Not really sure what size has got to do with anything though.
NZ was the first self governing country to give women the right to vote, that was in 1893. But we lagged on giving gays the right to marriage, our abortion laws were lacking until 2020,

It's again because of my theory that the smaller a country is the harder it is to hide nepotism and corruption. I have nothing to base it on though. It just seems obvious to me.

Managing the Link Between Bribery and Wealth Based on Corruption Perception Index (CPI) and Gross National Product (GNP) per Capita

Trade intensity, country size and corruption

Last one is behind a paywall presumably.

EDIT2: Not the best examples, I realize: You do you: corruption as a function of GNP or country size


EDIT3: Haha "GNP". Not "BNP". Language ef-up. I used the Danish abbreviation"

English: Gross National Product
Danish: Brutto National Produkt

 

[Grinkle]

It's again because of my theory that the smaller a country is the harder it is to hide nepotism and corruption.

I believe that citizens of any country are aware of most nepotism and corruption that goes on. They have to be, in order to get things done, if that is the way things are done where they live or in the circles they move in.

Can you find evidence that corruption and nepotism requires being hidden from non-benefactors in order to be widespread? I suspect there would be little correlation, but since by definition I can never know what is hidden, I can only see what is exposed, it seems a difficult thing to really assess.

Surely Trump displays his nepotism publicly, and he is not the first US president to do so - JFK's AG was his brother, for goodness sake.

 

[sbrothy]

I strongly suspect that there have to be a minimum amount of corruption and sleeze sleaze in every human settlement. As an example I could mention that it's obvious that the state (of Denmark at least) is trying to get rid of cash. The capitalist survelliance state obviously want's to monitor every cent.

In the end though we'll just each have a nugget of gold we'll whittle pieces off to buy the things we don't want the state to know about. Or pay workers without paying taxes. It's a battle they can't win but they sure are trying!