some stuff I thought was interesting

[wb256]

We were having some discussions in my cultural geography class, and I thought I'd share them here and see what you guys all thought. They might arouse some interesting discussions here as well.

The discussion was based largely in feminist geography, and it dealt with the notion that the world is built by heterosexual men, for heterosexual men and for the purpose of keeping the privilaged position of the heterosexual male.

An example of this resides in the layout of tradition european homes. The kitchen (the place where the woman traditionally worked and spent most of her time) was small and in the back of the house, symbolizing her inferiority and keeping here seperated from the rest of the home.

Another example involves the mass movement of the middle class into the suburbs. Women (who by and large did not have access to vehicles when this trend began in the post-war era) were forced to be kept seperate from society, as they had no means of travelling to city centers.

As for sexuality, many areas that homosexuals occupy are crime ridden and hold the image of being "slums".

So what do you all think? Is/was this actually an issue? Was it done intentionally, or just in ignorance? Also, can anyone think up any other ways in which this sort of spatial segregation occours (especially in regards to gender and sexuality issues)?

[piper]

I just think its feminists beating the dying drum, they know their time is long gone and over and they are grabbing at straws that will keep them in the spotlight. Women are already empowered and all that jazz, so they really gotta get over it.

[wb256]

At the same time, the way we construct landscapes can have a large impact on the way certain sectors of the population live. Not just to Women and Homosexuals, but to members of a variety of ethnic and cultural groups. For example, the elimination of land for the Roma (commonly known as Gypsies) to temporarily settle on in many European cities is causing a lot of problems for their population.

A good example of such is Wheelcahir access. Until recently, disabled people were kept in the sidelines of society. With further wheelchair access, they are increasingly becoming incorperated into society.

Even if it is not occouring now in our society right here (this is an international issues forum; if you think women are empowered worldwide you couldn't be further from correct), this may have played a role in history (as it likely did in North America during the post-WW2 era) and in other places of the world at this time.

Also, this type of thinking is far from new. The study of the effects of spatial relationships has been going on in geography for a long time, and comes close to being the core of that area of study.

[Bub]

In regards to the first post in this thread, in my opinion I think you can put spin on any situation to show what you want. I don't think it was done on purpose and that overview is one perticular spin of the issue.

As for the wheelchair/disabled access point just above I believe that was unintential discrimination against them in some cases, and it's good to see all types of people catered for in building construction these days. Although thats just my spin on it ;)

[wb256]

In regards to the first post in this thread, in my opinion I think you can put spin on any situation to show what you want. I don't think it was done on purpose and that overview is one perticular spin of the issue.

As for the wheelchair/disabled access point just above I believe that was unintential discrimination against them in some cases, and it's good to see all types of people catered for in building construction these days. Although thats just my spin on it ;)

But if it was unintentional, it may still serve to continue the lesser position of women and homosexuals in the world today. Just as disabled people were once barred from much social activity and economic prosperity, so are other groups at this time (like Gypsies, as mentioned earlier).

[Bub]

But if it was unintentional, it may still serve to continue the lesser position of women and homosexuals in the world today. Just as disabled people were once barred from much social activity and economic prosperity, so are other groups at this time (like Gypsies, as mentioned earlier).
To my knowledge we don't have 'Gypsies' here in NZ (Although we may I just don't know). In regards to that as well I'm not 100% sure what Gypsies are (couldn't think of non plural spelling).

As for the lesser position of women in NZ, I don't believe that to be the case. Our Governer General, Prime Minister, Many Cabinet Ministers, Monarch are all female. As well as many corparate CEOs being female. We even have fathers here who have taken on the role of looking after kids at home whilst the mother goes to work.

To an extent I would even disagree on homosexuals having a lesser position now days, granted not to the extent of women but not by much.

But that is just my view on how society down here views those things. I do understand that in some other countires/cultures both of the said above have no position and are looked down on.

[wb256]

To my knowledge we don't have 'Gypsies' here in NZ (Although we may I just don't know). In regards to that as well I'm not 100% sure what Gypsies are (couldn't think of non plural spelling).

As for the lesser position of women in NZ, I don't believe that to be the case. Our Governer General, Prime Minister, Many Cabinet Ministers, Monarch are all female. As well as many corparate CEOs being female. We even have fathers here who have taken on the role of looking after kids at home whilst the mother goes to work.

To an extent I would even disagree on homosexuals having a lesser position now days, granted not to the extent of women but not by much.

But that is just my view on how society down here views those things. I do understand that in some other countires/cultures both of the said above have no position and are looked down on.

I realize that they are, but can you think of any ways in which spatial relationships harm homosexuals?

I'm not really talking about the main subject of "are women/homosexuals oppressed?", it's more of "do spatial relationships cause oppression in these cases"

[funkyfairy]

Having a kitchen at the back of the house is no excuse for someone to be seen as oppressed. If they feel oppressed they have 2 feet and a voice and I'm sure they could start a campaign protesting the location of kitchens in houses if they felt the need. One person may see it as oppression but some people just like cooking. I just see it as being a pain in the butt because it's further to walk before I can feed my face. It's just where the kitchen is. :p

Seriously though, I can't think of any way in which a "spatial relationship" harms homosexuals. Maybe I'm just blessed with living in a city which openly celebrates being gay/bi/whatever for a few weeks every year, but really when it comes down to it they choose to live in those areas. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says 2 guys/girls in a relationship can't go out and live in a big house in the suburbs with a nice car, a dog, cat, a pet monkey and even a kid these days if they're seen as being suitable parents, as long as they can afford it.

[wb256]

Having a kitchen at the back of the house is no excuse for someone to be seen as oppressed. If they feel oppressed they have 2 feet and a voice and I'm sure they could start a campaign protesting the location of kitchens in houses if they felt the need. One person may see it as oppression but some people just like cooking. I just see it as being a pain in the butt because it's further to walk before I can feed my face. It's just where the kitchen is. :p

Seriously though, I can't think of any way in which a "spatial relationship" harms homosexuals. Maybe I'm just blessed with living in a city which openly celebrates being gay/bi/whatever for a few weeks every year, but really when it comes down to it they choose to live in those areas. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says 2 guys/girls in a relationship can't go out and live in a big house in the suburbs with a nice car, a dog, cat, a pet monkey and even a kid these days if they're seen as being suitable parents, as long as they can afford it.

I think the situation is a bit different when you're forced to stay in the kitchen, and your husband is legally allowed to smack you if you complain. Try to think of this other than in just your neighborhood. The rest of the world is quite different (and society throughout time has undergone countless changes). If you want an example of where homosexuals and women are oppressed, take a trip to Iran.

An example of how spatial relationships can harm homosexuals? How about locating resource centers for such groups in slums?

Also, by not locating daycares in good locations, you're limiting the area where single women can work.

[Agnew]

An example of this resides in the layout of tradition european homes. The kitchen (the place where the woman traditionally worked and spent most of her time) was small and in the back of the house, symbolizing her inferiority and keeping here seperated from the rest of the home.

Having a kitchen in the back of the house is convenient. You can see the yard and keep an eye out for pedophiles. Guests don't have to see the kitchen when they come over for dinner. It'd be quite messy. And kitchens aren't that small. In Europe, their houses aren't that big anyways. And today, kitchens are large and elegant places. You almost don't want to cook in them. Maybe that's why fast foods become so popular.



Another example involves the mass movement of the middle class into the suburbs. Women (who by and large did not have access to vehicles when this trend began in the post-war era) were forced to be kept seperate from society, as they had no means of travelling to city centers.

As for sexuality, many areas that homosexuals occupy are crime ridden and hold the image of being "slums".

If the woman wanted to go to the store and shop, she could take a bus, taxi, walk, or nag on her husband. If she wanted to go visit someone, she could do the same thing. You can't say that women were 'stranded', there are many modes of transportation. And women run the house hold and always have. The mans just the figure head.

As stated before, if you're gay, what's stopping you from moving into a nice little house in a nice little neighbourhood? If I was a woman or homosexual in Iran, I think I'd move somewhere where life is much easier. Why would you want to live somewhere you get beaten all the time?


I think the situation is a bit different when you're forced to stay in the kitchen, and your husband is legally allowed to smack you if you complain. Try to think of this other than in just your neighborhood. The rest of the world is quite different (and society throughout time has undergone countless changes). If you want an example of where homosexuals and women are oppressed, take a trip to Iran.

It's not like alll women everywhere have always been like cowards, and just taken a beating. Women are smarter than that. Even thousands of years ago.

And in Iran, women aren't oppressed as much anymore. That was more so in the past. Same with homosexuals. I believe the greeks were homosexuals back in there day. Women were for reproduction. And cooking your supper. And nagging on you when you didn't compliment them and their cooking.

Remember, women have 3 great leverages. Cooking, Nagging, and 'The Silent Treatment'! The last one's said to be the most intolerable! :cool:

Blergh! Fewajahuy Maruidbd!

[wb256]

Having a kitchen in the back of the house is convenient. You can see the yard and keep an eye out for pedophiles. Guests don't have to see the kitchen when they come over for dinner. It'd be quite messy. And kitchens aren't that small. In Europe, their houses aren't that big anyways. And today, kitchens are large and elegant places. You almost don't want to cook in them. Maybe that's why fast foods become so popular.



If the woman wanted to go to the store and shop, she could take a bus, taxi, walk, or nag on her husband. If she wanted to go visit someone, she could do the same thing. You can't say that women were 'stranded', there are many modes of transportation. And women run the house hold and always have. The mans just the figure head.

As stated before, if you're gay, what's stopping you from moving into a nice little house in a nice little neighbourhood? If I was a woman or homosexual in Iran, I think I'd move somewhere where life is much easier. Why would you want to live somewhere you get beaten all the time?



It's not like alll women everywhere have always been like cowards, and just taken a beating. Women are smarter than that. Even thousands of years ago.

And in Iran, women aren't oppressed as much anymore. That was more so in the past. Same with homosexuals. I believe the greeks were homosexuals back in there day. Women were for reproduction. And cooking your supper. And nagging on you when you didn't compliment them and their cooking.

Remember, women have 3 great leverages. Cooking, Nagging, and 'The Silent Treatment'! The last one's said to be the most intolerable! :cool:

Blergh! Fewajahuy Maruidbd!


You're thinking of this from the perspective of our society. In Europe in the pre20th century, a woman's place was in the kitchen. It was in the back to keep her away from other affairs.

As for public transit...what public transit to the suburbs (in the 1960's)? What about the kids? There's no daycare....

I think you (as have anyone else who's posted in here) missed the point. If you're implying that women have never been oppressed, you're speaking lies.

And yes, greeks did allow homosexuality...so what? I don't think you understood the question. What's keeping homosexuals out of the suburbs? The attitude of those within the suburbs? Just because this isn't a problem where you are, dosn't mean it's not a problem everywhere.

And yes, Iran has gotten better. The punishments are less severe. However, women are still held as inferiors in society.

[grass_roots]

I think modern day suburbs here In canada would be comparable in the sense that they are supporting class segregation. Here in southern Ontario it seems that while our suburbs have boomed and the middle class has picked up and left our urban centres that public concern for Urban renewal has dropped(the city become out of sight and out of mind for the burbs)and therefore the cry for affordable housing is being ignored. Furthermore the push to attain that suburban lifestyle is driving MANY families right into bancrupcy and onto the streets, thus increasing that homeless demographic and compounding the rich poor/divide and the resulting issues. Suburbia in general REALLY disturbs me, it's an ever booming and very unsustainable lifestyle that we can afford only at the expense of those less fortunate.

In regards to the original subject I think it should be noted that gender roles(ie a woman having her work in the kitchen/house)is not neccessarily discriminatory. Gender roles are for many cultures a way of fufilling thier societies needs, it doesn't neccessarily mean that one gender is viewed as being inferior(although this is often the case in many cultures). What alarms me is that in North America and the Western World we've become so obsessed with equality that we've thrown away gender roles and the vital nurishment and stability they gave the family structure before we could find any viable alternatives.

Sorry if my views lacked refference to spatial issues, that's your field not mine ;)

[wb256]

Actually, your views are really interesting. I realize that gender roles in some societies are completely necessary, especially societies practicing more traditional folk cultures. The inuit, for example, relied upon a division of labour to survive.

Many of my examples obviously apply only to middle class western women. Their lesser sociatal role was due less to cultural need and more to an incorrect notion that women were not as intelligant as men were (due to a whole bunch of the same cooky "scientific" research that justified racism, like the smaller female skull size). This psuedo scientific research was used to justify denying women the right to vote, denying them the right to education and denying them corperate positions that they deserve. Therefore, in the context of western corperate/popular culture, I think feminism is a just cause.

I believe that attempts have been made to remove gender roles (such as making not only maternity leave but also paternity leave available, and providing childcare facilities at new schools). However, such services need to be improved to actually be a viable alternative to rasing children by keeping the wife at home.

[piper]

I agree, a kitchen is located where it is located, not for some subliminal women-degrading reason. And in Canada, we have had women GG's, a woman PM (for 100 days or so :p ), women CEO's, woman in the CF, in the police, in business etc etc etc. Get the picture...I'm not seeing any discrimination against women here in the west. In other parts of the world it is a different story, but thats cuture for you. And as to homosexuals, they can rise to be just as important (CEO's etc),we have a gay MP (Svend Robinson) here in Canada too. The simple way for gays to avoid harrasment is to...you guessed it...keep it to themselves. If I dont walk around telling people about my private life and have my wedding watched by millions on national TV, why do they have to? Homosexuals bring alot of unwanted harrasment on themselves, most people in society just dont care (let them do it, just as long as it dosent affect me), but if they want to provoke the bigots, its their own fault. In the west, the holding down of women and gays really is not an issue anymore.

[HammerOfHope]

The simple way for gays to avoid harrasment is to...you guessed it...keep it to themselves. If I dont walk around telling people about my private life and have my wedding watched by millions on national TV, why do they have to? Homosexuals bring alot of unwanted harrasment on themselves, most people in society just dont care (let them do it, just as long as it dosent affect me), but if they want to provoke the bigots, its their own fault.
Let's not make sweeping generalizations. Homosexuality shouldn't be a dark secret that a person keeps to him- or herself, lest they be found out and brutalized - it's the bigotry and needless hate that needs to be removed. I think the parades and banner-waving in the last decade or so has been to that effect.

On the other hand, I agree that one's sexual orientation shouldn't be his or her defining characteristic, either. There have been televised heterosexual marriages too, and under more frivolous circumstances, no less. Hopefully things will simmer down eventually, with some kind of legal provision and more people will realise that homosexuality isn't some kind of contagious disease.

[wb256]

I agree, a kitchen is located where it is located, not for some subliminal women-degrading reason. And in Canada, we have had women GG's, a woman PM (for 100 days or so :p ), women CEO's, woman in the CF, in the police, in business etc etc etc. Get the picture...I'm not seeing any discrimination against women here in the west. In other parts of the world it is a different story, but thats cuture for you.


Yes, some women CAN occupy these jobs, but it's far more difficult for them to do so then men. If not, more than 9% of the parlimentary representatives in the MDW would be women.

And it's not a subliminal message...it's a practical way to keep women out of the way. We're speaking historically here, something none of us would have experienced. Just because it isn't happening NOW dosn't mean it's irrelevant. But whatever, most people seem to have trouble thinking outside of the box that is post-modern society

[Bright Eyes]

I think it's funny that no women have actually posted in this thread that is about feminism, more or less.

It's true that in the Western world women can work at and do almost anything that they want, but some highly technical occupations still remain male dominated (like engineering.) Is it because women are opressed or they just don't feel comfortable in such a field being the only woman in their class? I really can't say. I'm going into a field that is traditionally dominated by women, so I guess I'm part of the problem in that way ;). As far as equal treatment in the workplace is concerned, a full time working woman (on average) makes only 3/4 as much as a man does.

Why is this? Occupations traditionally held by women pay less than those that men hold. Women also tend to be less competitive when naming their salary because they (sometimes) have had lower paying jobs in the past, whereas negotiations for a man in the same position may be more competitive. Also, women sometimes go into lower paying fields of work in return for more flexible hours and working arrangements should they need to care for children or aging relatives. If they take time off work to do those things, then they have less seniority, and that reflects poorly in their paychecks. Studies have shown that if women behave as men (and don't have babies, mainly) the income gap largely disappears. It would stand to reason that in a married couple, if the man took maternity leave to look after the children and other issues that may come up, and the woman worked straight through, then the working incomes would be reversed. So ... equality in the workplace is a myth because women and men inherently have different roles.

I think homosexual geography is derived from the feeling of "community." People tend to congregate in groups of similar people, as we see in areas where all the families are seniors, or young families, or all of an ethnic origin. Naturally, people feel the need to "belong" and have a sense of community, so they move into these social and geographical niches. In the case of homosexuals in particular, a lot of their problem with social integration comes with neighbourhoods not wanting "that sort of people" living next door. The slogan, "No queers living around here" comes to mind. Kris just made a post to that effect. Would you move into a community where you weren't accepted and you were alone, or would you prefer a place where the people were like you?

I think homosexuals tend to live in cities and specifically the city's downtown core because they are generally more liberal than suburbs where most of the families live. Not that the people downtown are any more liberal, but you tend not to know your neighbours or really care what they're doing. Known homosexuals tended not to get hired for jobs with high pay, so they had lower incomes and had to move into the lower standard housing projects. They did choose to live there, but was there really any other choice? Others in a similar situation moved to those places and then you have a gay community in a housing project on the north side. Sometimes homosexuals are recommended to move into the slummy sections of town as in this link to a news story right here --> http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030805-020323-1313r So, as with many things, it's a combination of personal choice, dictated by social concerns that make people do the things that they do.

[SmileForMe]

This sounds like my sociology class ALL over again! :) I am simply going to say I agree with BL. She put it in a good way and I don't think there's any reason to repeat all of that. I had to do research for my sociology class and it's true.. even in my hometown.. women make an average (full time, same number of hours as men) make $29,935 while men in my hometown on average (again, same number of hours, full time) $44,607.

[Logan]

This sounds like my sociology class ALL over again! :) I am simply going to say I agree with BL. She put it in a good way and I don't think there's any reason to repeat all of that. I had to do research for my sociology class and it's true.. even in my hometown.. women make an average (full time, same number of hours as men) make $29,935 while men in my hometown on average (again, same number of hours, full time) $44,607.
just a couple questions on the statistics 1) is that over-all average ie all men and women in the city, 2) does that specify types of employment and the % of that field occupied by males and female.

because its all fine to take an average of everyone and say women make less but if the higher difficulty and paying jobs are occupied mostly by men then thats not really an accurate or fair statement. if however that statement is for a certain field then its my opinion thats, it is not fair that 2 people in the same job with the same quals should be paid differently unless its over time in the company.

[wb256]

just a couple questions on the statistics 1) is that over-all average ie all men and women in the city, 2) does that specify types of employment and the % of that field occupied by males and female.

because its all fine to take an average of everyone and say women make less but if the higher difficulty and paying jobs are occupied mostly by men then thats not really an accurate or fair statement. if however that statement is for a certain field then its my opinion thats, it is not fair that 2 people in the same job with the same quals should be paid differently unless its over time in the company.


The point is that women don't have as many high paying jobs as men. It's not that they don't do the same work...many could if they'd get hired for the jobs.

[Bright Eyes]

just a couple questions on the statistics 1) is that over-all average ie all men and women in the city, 2) does that specify types of employment and the % of that field occupied by males and female.
I would assume it's close, as it was done for a school project. Just as Warren said, and I said above, most of the higher paying jobs are occupied by men. Woman CEOs are few ... but there are a lot of woman secretaries.

if the higher difficulty and paying jobs are occupied mostly by men then thats not really an accurate or fair statement.
It's a completely different statement that is saying women don't get hired for high paying jobs. Now we have to find out why.

its my opinion thats, it is not fair that 2 people in the same job with the same quals should be paid differently unless its over time in the company.
Exactly. Mostly it is over time in the company because women generally take time off to have children or other such things and men continue to work through and support their wives.

[N. McKay]

It's true that in the Western world women can work at and do almost anything that they want, but some highly technical occupations still remain male dominated (like engineering.) Is it because women are opressed or they just don't feel comfortable in such a field being the only woman in their class? I really can't say.

If you think it through, one year at a time, you'll see that the engineering profession will not be 50% women until about 40 years (the length of a person's career, for the present purpose) after the last engineering school graduates a class of 50% women. UNB, when I finished my degree, was around 25% women.


I'm going into a field that is traditionally dominated by women, so I guess I'm part of the problem in that way ;).

Why is there a problem? Statisticians seem to have an awfully hard time with the idea that everyone should pursue the career of his or her choice, not the one that will contribute to every occupation being a perfect mirror for the demographics of the population.


As far as equal treatment in the workplace is concerned, a full time working woman (on average) makes only 3/4 as much as a man does.

Why is this? Occupations traditionally held by women pay less than those that men hold. Women also tend to be less competitive when naming their salary because they (sometimes) have had lower paying jobs in the past, whereas negotiations for a man in the same position may be more competitive. Also, women sometimes go into lower paying fields of work in return for more flexible hours and working arrangements should they need to care for children or aging relatives.

I'm not sure about that one. It seems to me that, as far as full-time work is concerned, the better-paying jobs wopuld tend to be more flexible (on the premise that better-paying jobs tend to involve more enlightened employers, more authority on the part of the employee, more favourable collective agreements, etc.)

[Chief Hoult]

Some professions have turned around though, just for a point...I'll ask my Mom when he gets back...but when she graduated from the School of Optometry in '77, I think she said there were 10 women or so in the class (out of a class of 60).

The profession, I believe, is now dominated by women. And it's a doctoral degree!

CH

[Chief Hoult]

I just consulted my mother, and she gave me the following stats:

When she graduated in '77, there were 12 females in her class out of 60. Currently, more than 60% of this years class is female. While the profession as a whole is not female dominated, it will be in the near future.

Medicine (I was surprised by thisw stat) is more than 50% women in today's graduating classes, and Physio is about 90% (although it's normally been female dominated).

[Bright Eyes]

If you think it through, one year at a time, you'll see that the engineering profession will not be 50% women until about 40 years (the length of a person's career, for the present purpose)
I didn't mean that all professions should be 50/50 gender ratios. I just used engineering as a classical field that is usually dominated by men.

Why is there a problem?
Oh I don't think it's actually a problem. I was joking. I don't think that all jobs should be 50/50, but some people do. Then you have everyone being resentful when men aren't hired because they need women to fill their woman quota. That's causing a lot of tension now in a lot of jobs where they have quotas of ethic people. I know when my brother thought about entering the RCMP the recruiter told him that as an English speaking white male he shouldn't even try until he had at least a college degree under his belt.

It seems to me that, as far as full-time work is concerned, the better-paying jobs wopuld tend to be more flexible (on the premise that better-paying jobs tend to involve more enlightened employers, more authority on the part of the employee, more favourable collective agreements, etc.)
Sometimes. But on the way up the ladder to the flexible high paying jobs you have to work a lot of really bad ones to gain enough seniority. That's where the problem lies. In the prime age where men are climbing up the ladder in the workforce, women are chasing around children.