Women are lower paid - because they ask lower salaries?
@ 10:09 am Lately there has been a few statistics released on jobs, salaries and gender equaliity. Or specifically gender inequality. If one compares the female workforce to the male workforce, women earn less. An interesting study on freshly graduated students came out.
Women university students in Finland who are about to graduate expect starting pay of about EUR 4,200 less a year than their male counterparts. The average expectation for annual income for women is about EUR 26,763, while men want to get EUR 30,980. The difference in monthly earnings is EUR 350. On the other hand, women with academic backgrounds want to work fewer hours than men. Women expect to work an average 38.6 hours a week, as opposed to 39.5 hours for men. A recent study by the consulting firm Universum Communications involved interviews with 4,112 students of economics, sciences, and technology in 21 universities and polytechnics. The results of the study do not differ much from those from other countries in the Nordic region. Women’s salary expectations were thousands of euros lower than those of men in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. However, the gap was greatest in Finland.
So what gives? chicken? egg? Columbus?
Maybe women simply are more realistic. I mean, how many freshly graduated students actually get a 30,980 euro salary?
Comment by N. Siinistö — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 10:49 am
but isn’t it like catch-22? We never know now what was first - they asked for less or they got paid less and due to that started to ask less.
Comment by Alex — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Finnish Myth 2081: Gender equality in Finland.
Yeh, right.
Yet another Finnish lie exposed
Comment by Finnish honesty — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
Compared to most other countries, Finland can boast about its gender equality. We still have a long way to go, though.
I just read a survey that said that, in Sweden, men have a 20% greater chance of being called back to a job interview than women do.
Comment by Anzi — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Maybe women simply are more realistic. I mean, how many freshly graduated students actually get a 30,980 euro salary?
The ones who chose the right degrees.
As for the main point of this, um, I’ll wait to see what the women say.
-BM
PS. Egg. Ask a evolutionary biologist.
Comment by Badgermushroom — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
I think that one of the reasons for this is that women and girls are still taught to be humble and to please others. It is the so-called “good girl” -syndrome at work. Women are so used to being judged and criticised that they are afraid to step up and speak up, fearing what others might think of them.
Comment by Anzi — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
“Women are so used to being judged and criticised that they are afraid to step up and speak up, fearing what others might think of them”
Those who do speak up are considered “bitches”….
I wonder if the overall pay is less partly due to maternity leaves? I know in Finland some guys also take paternity leave but that is, in most cases, for a short time. Usually the woman stays home with the child for 9 months or more. They are guaranteed their job afterwards but during that leave their salary doesn’t go up does it?
Regarding #3, I don’t think there is real gender equality anywhere. Finland IS much more equal in many respects than other places but men still rule the world for the most part. Female dominated societies are few and far between.
Comment by y — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
“I think that one of the reasons for this is that women and girls are still taught to be humble and to please others.”
Highly unlikely. My significant other has been involved with the project to map differences in brain function for about a decade now, and given the seperate “gender” structures in the pro-hemispheric (upper brain function) region of the brain combined with the significant differences in testosterone, progesterone, estrogen and esteryn (along with 21 other sex-specific chemicals), it is highly likely the large employment and class differences between men and women found in all cultures in all times throughout all known history are structurally based in brain differences between men and women. Any suggestion otherwise is given despite all known history and science.
In fact, political and popular culture being what it is, it is likely the true differnces between men and women have been artificially dampened and narrowed by “gender”* socialization. To suggest otherwise is a sad and unthinking devotion to an ancient ideology with little or no relevance to reality, and certainly not to history, science or rational discourse.
*- I put gender in quotes because it is a modern construct and highly dubious at best. What I mean are sex differences, which is scientifically accurate.
Comment by James V. — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
“Yet another Finnish lie exposed
Comment by Finnish honesty”
I think you’re exposed. Anyone with basic psychological knowledge can see right trough you. You’re a plain psychopath. What did your childhood lack?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
Women mature more early and have more realistic expectations than men.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
I think Badgermushroom hit a good point. I’d like to see what the actual differences are within specific professions rather than a holistic view.
Comment by The Dude — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
Yes the picture is distorted by female dominated low pay jobs like teaching, nursing, cleaning etc.
Comment by m — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
I’m shocked nobody brought up the topic that Finland ranks #1 in the EU in domestic abuse. It is a rather odd statistic for a country that claims such high marks for gender equality.
James V. - Your comment could be interesting but aside from pointing out that men and women are biologically different and allude to this being the answer to all inequalities through time, you didn’t elaborate much. And, actually, history isn’t quite so black and white with regard to gender, either, as there are a number of matriarchal societies, e.g. the Navajo nation, where men are not allowed to own property and children take the mothers name. I highly doubt women staying with abusive men or having lower expectations in life have much to do with biology and rather more learned behaviour and societal norms.
Comment by hfb — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
I’m shocked nobody brought up the topic that Finland ranks #1 in the EU in domestic abuse. It is a rather odd statistic for a country that claims such high marks for gender equality.
We don’t like to talk about it, because it discredits the official truth of the strong Finnish woman in such an ugly way.
Finnish women may be strong, but as can sometimes be seen in the comments of this blog too, many men still have a hard time with that which is when they bring out the fists.
Comment by Anzi — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Alcohol abuse can propably be seen in the domestic violence statistics too.
Comment by m — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
Alcohol abuse is a strong factor in domestic abuse.
As for differences in salaries, I think that one factor is that women think that asking a lower salary makes them more attractive in the employer’s eyes. They’re afraid of pricing themselves off the market. In reality, asking a lower salary than you deserve is a sign of insecurity, something which no employer wants from their employee.
Comment by Anzi — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
“”Your comment could be interesting but aside from pointing out that men and women are biologically different and allude to this being the answer to all inequalities through time, you didn’t elaborate much”
True, but then I thought I didn’t have to. The combination of a universal history of different outcomes even in ideologically hidebound societies such as Sweden with the known significant structures of the brain, I feel safe in making a large, general statement. In short, I didn’t really have to do more. She was the one making the open ended claim, I was merely reviewing it. The onus is on her.
I notice that although my statement/analysis was more in depth than Anzi (plus I chose to give a basis for my reasoning instead of a bald assertion) you seemed to expect more out of me. Hmm.
“And, actually, history isn’t quite so black and white with regard to gender, either, as there are a number of matriarchal societies, e.g. the Navajo nation, where men are not allowed to own property and children take the mothers name”
Actually, that’s an interesting academic story. During the early and especially late 70’s through to the mid-80’s, there were a lot of (mostly American) feminist sociologists and anthropologists making claims about matriarcal societies. A lot of the “evidence” was later reviewed in peer-reviewed journals like Anthropology Today and in many books like ‘Not Out Of Africa’ and ‘The Myth of Matriarchy’ (to name just two of dozens). They cast massive scholarly doubt on nearly every last claim put forth in “feminine anthropology”, showing them as making weak and often laughably pro-feminist interpretations where solid information on the civilizations being studied was weak or non-existant. Feminist tropes like the one you mentioned survived in a manner similar to the way Freudian ideas of the unconscious mind survived in popular culture decades after the theory itself was shown to be total nonsense.
Lastly, I don’t accept the term “gender” outside quotes. Sex is not a construct, it is a biological reality. Gender is the political notion that sex is a socially constructed entity independant of biology, and this is incorrect. “Gender” is a myth.
Comment by James V. — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
“We don’t like to talk about it, because it discredits the official truth of the strong Finnish woman in such an ugly way”
My training in social statistics makes me very leery about taking the EU study seriously. I would be VERY careful about taking cross cultural comparisons in abuse at face value. There are not only different standards of reporting, but different police proceedures in colating data and vastly different attitudes toward report of rape in different cultures. There are even varying ideas about what constitutes abuse, which tends to skew statistics massively (this is especially true of Latinate nations like Italy and Spain and France).
It is difficult to compare statistics even in superficially similar countries like in Scandanavia. For instance, Sweden is considered by some (although I’m not an expert on the subject) to have vastly underreported domestic violence, especially in the new and huge epidemic of middle-eastern men on native women sexual violence. This is a completely different situation from next door in Norway.
I think it could very well be that Finland simply has better reporting methods, better enforcement and more incidence of women reporting their attackers. Like I said, I don’t know this to be true, but my experience cross-cultural social statistics leads me to keep open any number of explations for the numbers.
And in my individual experience in Finland (which I admit is of less value) I didn’t detect any particurly anti-female tides in society. I know that isn’t scientific, but I just didn’t get the feeling Finnish men are that abusive.
Comment by James V. — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
James V - So, in essence, you are saying that “women” are merely victims of their own, immutable biology and, by extrapolation, that femininity is a treatable disease/condition? You can theorise all you want, but I think that’s horribly incorrect. I’ve had this argument way too many times with genderqueer friends and I believe in the biological differences, but I also believe the sum is greater than the currently identifiable parts…along with all the social bits that go along with it.
And the Navajo matriarchy is not a pro-feminist interpretation but, you’ve got an agenda that I won’t waste my time dithering over facts.
Anzi - I don’t doubt that Finnish women are strong, but the two things, domestic abuse and equality, are two diametrically opposing issues. I, too, think it’s is very connected with alcohol abuse but….how do you get both in the same system? I’ve long wondered about this.
Comment by hfb — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
Come on, it is only about 5000 years since women were liberated from the safe caves…men have been roaming, getting into trouble at least 50 000 years. So those cute little dickless things cannot possible know how to behave in men’s world
Ps. In the end, both genders shall have very small dicks.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Finnish women report abuses more then others since they are free. You can show me any info you want and it won’t change the fact that macho imago is hurting women more in south. Those women are too afraid to report and thats why Finland is so high on domestic abuse.
Comment by finn — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
Well, our women can do it too. When I was living in Malmi, I knew couple african guys from the refugee reception center, which was in the next door back then. Sometimes they had to accomodate their friend overnight. He was a rather small man and had arranged himself in a hastily planned “convenience” marriage with a huge finnish woman. The big blonde used to kick the crap out of the small guy every time she was drunk…
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Wed, Jun 7th, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
Antti
That not as bad as the girl we saw with a white dress heading to the church with her shotgun hanging in the back of the pick up truck.
I could not tell if the gun was loaded.
Comment by winter — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 12:38 am
hfb & phil:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/fallujah/contract/
Watch that video and feel the shame, you do not NOT have a right to judge anything about our society you americans fucks. I do not give shit what kind of mercenaries did pull the trigger, YOU are responsible.
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 2:34 am
So “good americans”, what is your answer?
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 2:48 am
“So, in essence, you are saying that “women†are merely victims of their own, immutable biology and, by extrapolation, that femininity is a treatable disease/condition?”
Really? I said that? Wow, where? I love hearing people tell me what I’m saying. Apparently I think all kinds of interesting things I didn’t know I thought.
Actually I cut off before I even reach that point- you assume in your response that I consider varying levels of pay and differences in occupation make them victims. That, actually, is the silly Leftist assumption, one I don’t hold. I’m much more sanguine about differences than equalitarians are. I don’t expect people to be equal, not as individuals and certainly not in arbitrary aggregates like sex where any number of externalities (other factors) might come into play. Not only do I not consider women victims, I consider inequality irrelevant. It’s YOU that did that.
“I’ve had this argument way too many times with genderqueer friends and I believe in the biological differences, but I also believe the sum is greater than the currently identifiable parts”
If by that nearly impenetrable prose you mean that environment also plays a role, well, let me respond in a measured, intellectual and scientifically exact way by saying: duh. Really? Environment and genes play a role? Wow, you should write a book! Breakthrough thought!
“And the Navajo matriarchy is not a pro-feminist interpretation but, you’ve got an agenda that I won’t waste my time dithering over facts”
Translation: “Ooops, he’s educated and actually knows something about the subject I claimed to know about, so I’ll run away but say some blustery words to cover my retreat!”
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 3:29 am
Oops, sorry, that was me what posted that.
Hey, anyone think tim loves Americans? I think someone has a crush!
As an American, time, my answer is “aw, you’re so cute when you’re frothing at the mouth”.
Comment by James V. — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 3:32 am
James V - So, then…what are you saying if ‘gender’ doesn’t exist outside of the freudian mind, that male and female are sexual differences and that these differences are also biologically dictated…? So, again, I’m not really sure what your point or relevance to “gender” equality here except that you don’t think gender exists so there can be no equality between something that does not exist. If you reduce ’sex’ or ‘gender’ to the hormones and other biological parts, you are is essence saying that it is a condition that can be treated, especially genetic aberrations and variations.
Maybe it’s because you’ve never been paid half of what your male colleagues were making as you’d probably think that was less a mere biological fact and more like your boss was an asshole. I don’t think a woman’s tits have much to do with stuff like equal pay.
Translation: “Ooops, he’s educated and actually knows something about the subject I claimed to know about, so I’ll run away but say some blustery words to cover my retreat!â€Â
Well, you clearly don’t know anything about the Navajo unless your parter is named Sean. Not everything has to fit your theory, whatever that is.
And Tim73 - Judging by the hour you wrote that I’ll bet you were drunk off your ass. Still, it makes me look forward to the time I’ll be heading home and away from the people who write shit like that and yet look at the floor when so many coutries of the EU helped the CIA and their prisoner flights. There are so many EU countries involved now that, well, there won’t be any investigations or loss of EU voting rights now. The moral high ground gets lower all the time.
Comment by hfb — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 8:58 am
Hfb, are you planning to leave Finland for the States?
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 9:06 am
I don’t know a thing about the Navaho, but IIRC the Iroquois system was one in which family ties counted on mother’s side only. A man remained a part of his mother’s family and was really just visitor in his wife’s house. But much of the power in the extended family might still be in the hands of the men, not your husband but your brothers and maternal uncles. They were family and had a claim on its property, hubby was just a f*ckbuddy.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Anon - Yes.
Comment by hfb — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Sorry to hear that, Hfb. Well hope you enjoy life more in the US.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
James V - On the one hand I’m pleased to see someone daring to mention the possibility of biological differences affecting societal roles. On the other I think you are being far too absolutist. You seem to attribute all differences in roles and conditions to biological conditions, and ignore the societal influences.
Nature vs nurture is nonsensical; the reality is, its a bit of both. As much as you dislike the term gender, it nonetheless has a place in the discussion.
Oh, and critising other people for “nearly impenetrable prose” is pretty amusing.
-BM
Comment by Badgermushroom — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Ouch! #30. You don’t have to go that far. Being a visitor at wife’s house sounds terribly like my ex and her family…
Comment by issi — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Finns in denial are F-U-N-N-Y!
I love reading their pathetic excuses and justifications that fail to explain the weaknesses of their sick society
Comment by Finnish honesty — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Recently in Helsingin Sanomat a bunch of famous finnish women and men answered why women earn less. Almost everyone had the same answer: Women don’t dare to ask for more. It’s the women who creates the problem themselves.
Comment by Billy Pung — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
This same hunting is the support of the [Fenni, i.e. Saami]] women as well as of the men, for they accompany the men freely and claim a share of the spoil… –Cornelius Tacitus, (ca. 55-ca. 117 C.E.) Roman historian
For they neither till the land themselves, nor do their women work it for them, but the women regularly join the men in hunting, which is their only pursuit. …And indeed not even their infants are nursed in the Lapps [Saami] way as among the rest of mankind. For the children of the Scrithiphini do not feed upon the milk of women nor do they touch their mother’s breast, but they are nourished upon the marrow of the animals killed in the hunt, and upon this alone. Now as soon as a woman gives birth to a child, she throws it into a skin and straightway hangs it to a tree, and after putting marrow into its mouth she immediately sets out with her husband for the customary hunt. For they do everything in common and likewise engage in this pursuit together. –Byzantine historian, Procopius of Caesarea (490?-562? C.E.)
–http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/dieda/hist/early.htm
However, many modern Saami women are struggling through problems of social sexual equality. The Finnish/Saami author Kirsti Paltto asserts “that Christianity has made women easy to subjugate because it teaches that women should be men’s servants (Helander and Kailo, 29).”* (And of course, Christianity is heavily rooted in many ancient Greco-Roman ideals that were ludicriously misogynistic.)
*–http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/dieda/hist/women.htm
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
“I love reading their pathetic excuses and justifications that fail to explain the weaknesses of their sick society”
It’s obvious that you have serious mental problems. Anyone reading your comments will notice that they’re nothing but blatantly racistic diatribes. You’re nothing but a troll with loads of obvious mental problems. You should seek help and learn to control your hostilities. It’s plain as day that you’ve been traumatized by something that happened to you.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jun 8th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
“James V - So, then…what are you saying if ‘gender’ doesn’t exist outside of the freudian mind,”
You have trouble reading. I was likening one type of mistake (indian gender equality) with another (Freudian body/mind theory). Jesus, is english even your first language?
“So, again, I’m not really sure what your point or relevance to “gender†equality”
Yeah, it is ABUNDANTLY obvious you’re not following things very closely.
“If you reduce ’sex’ or ‘gender’ to the hormones and other biological parts, you are is essence saying that it is a condition that can be treated, especially genetic aberrations and variations.”
No, you’re saying that. I’m saying it doesn’t matter what you do and that it’s not a problem to be solved anyway. It’s you that makes all these crazy associations. And, before you make up something else, I’m not advocating a. holding women out of professions, b. holding men out of them, c. saying women should be barefoot and pregnant, or d. advocating they be killed en masse by throwing them in ovens. I give you this list because you seem to be able to infer ANYTHING from my words.
“Maybe it’s because you’ve never been paid half of what your male colleagues were making as you’d probably think that was less a mere biological fact and more like your boss was an asshole.”
Try to stifle it…try…can’t..do it….YAWN.
At least when you were incoherent you were slightly interesting. Alas, now you’re turned into another hack and the boring commences.
“Well, you clearly don’t know anything about the Navajo unless your parter is named Sean. Not everything has to fit your theory, whatever that is.”
Ok, look here cupcake. What you’ve done is taken bits and pieces of certain indian tribes and inferred (that word again- it seems to be a favorite when you’re involved). As the Myth of Matriarchy made clear, general (and specifically Navajo) cultures were massively what we would call “anti-woman”. There were a FEW details that might suggest some complexity, but real researchers without an axe to grind admit that it was probably completely overwhelmed by a general male domination. The Navajo feminism is a myth they sell to gullible people like you.
As for tim, why not just be amused?
Comment by James V. — Fri, Jun 9th, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
“James V - On the one hand I’m pleased to see someone daring to mention the possibility of biological differences affecting societal roles. On the other I think you are being far too absolutist”
Sigh. Go look upstairs when I started where I mentioned that Finnish society (actually, general Scandanavian society) probably smothers actual difference based in biology. Now, if you’re astute you’ll note that IMPLIES NURTURE AS WELL AS NATURE. I’m arguing biology because I was up against nurturist arguments. See how that works?
Comment by James V. — Fri, Jun 9th, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
This is a favorite slippery argument of silly ideological types everywhere:
“And of course, Christianity is heavily rooted in many ancient Greco-Roman ideals that were ludicriously misogynistic”
But, then, that hardly made it unique among ancient civilizations or their religions, does it? Interesting how the one religion to build the idea of rights and evolve enough to allow for an advanced society gets blamed like it was the originator of the problems it help overcome. I’m not a christer, but I do recognize its unique historical role in the advancement of the human race. Which, of course, fools like this ignore because it suits their sad, pathetic little point scoring politics.
Comment by James V. — Fri, Jun 9th, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
hfb, you’re unhappy, that much has become clear. And by now we all know that your unhappiness has nothing to do with your personal qualities but with the obnoxious Finns and their bodily fluids. Take your racism back to the States as soon as possible, please!
Comment by spendler — Sat, Jun 10th, 2006 @ 10:46 am
By the way, women are paid less because they work less during their work career. Hire a young woman and take the risk that she will start having children as soon as the work contract is signed. She will also have more days off because of her own sickness or that of her children. On average a female worker costs about 10% more for an employer. Surprisingly that’s the percentage women get paid less than men. (Actually the equation is a bit more complicated but that’s pretty much the big picture.) The gap is slowly closing down, though, because of women’s higher education.
Comment by spendler — Sat, Jun 10th, 2006 @ 11:31 am
RE: #41, James V.
But, then, that hardly made it unique among ancient civilizations or their religions, does it?
I didn’t say it was unique. Church doctrine is heavily influenced by Greco-Roman ideals, so the attitudes of those particular cultures is relevant to a discussion of the impact of Christianity (and it’s attitudes towards women) upon historical and modern sexual equality in Sami society.
Why do you assume that I’m saying the misogynistic attitudes of the Greco-Roman is unique to them???
Interesting how the one religion to build the idea of rights and evolve enough to allow for an advanced society gets blamed like it was the originator of the problems it help overcome.
I brought up the Greco-Roman influence as to not place all the responsibility for those attitudes within Christianity upon the Church.
I never said that Christianity was the originator of the all of these problems. As for “problems it help overcome,” how did it help Saami people? Has the Church helped humans overcome problems of pre-Christian misogyny? I was only expounding upon the reflections of contemporary Saami’s, anyway.
I’m not anti-Christian in any sense, but it is historical fact that historically the Church has repeatedly and historically abused peoples, and taught that women are inferior and shameful compared to men. This might have some kind of impact on contemporary society.
Yes, the Church has also helped people and societies, and assisted in political unification and education, and so forth.
The fact is, contemporary Saami’s (and others) are saying that Christianity taught them to be ashamed of themselves. Then we see the historical accounts that say Saami women hunted alongside the men, and acted in an equal manner to their husbands, which represents a very different attitude towards femaleness. I’m not saying this is true of every culture.
And I don’t think this is the only advanced society. There are many different perspectives on what is advanced. By the way, I’m not anti-Western, modern society, so please don’t read that into the above. Besides, we also have a plethora of huge problems that accompany our advancements. It happens.
Why do you assume that I’m saying Christianity is to blame for all the world’s problems (that it “helped overcome”)???
“I’m not a christer, but I do recognize its unique historical role in the advancement of the human race.”
I do too. Where did I say that Christianity doesn’t a “unique historical role in the advancement of the human race”? You’re reading something into this that wasn’t there.
Why do assume that I don’t think Christianity didn’t have a “unique historical role in the advancement of the human race”???
“Which, of course, fools like this ignore because it suits their sad, pathetic little point scoring politics.”
The thing is, I recognize the good and the ill brought on by the Church in the world. Is it wrong of Saami’s to discuss that fact that priests taught them to be ashamed of themselves, to be ashamed of women? It seems like if we are to keep evolving, we must recognize what works and what doesn’t.
I’m not point scoring anything. I’m but relating what others have experienced and analyzed of their own history.
I don’t know why you assume I’m “point scoring” just because I say that historically Christianity has taught women to subjugate themselves to men. It’s the truth. Not the be all, end all of the Church, but a facet of its history.
Why do you assume that I’m saying that the Church has had no positive impact on the world???
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Jun 10th, 2006 @ 11:42 am
(sorry I took so long to respond. I just now saw this)
“I didn’t say [the Church role in oppression] was unique”
Then why single it out unless you were just engaging in standard left-liberal toss away boilerplate? Why bring it up at all? It is so off the wall to think it’s part of a lazy political narrative?
I’m saying, why go after the Church at all? Saami society is clearly regressively similar to other (Finnish) social models, which mean that most societal influences are not religious. I don’t have a problem with your reaching back into Christianity’s origins, I was asking why you went after religion in what is a mostly a secular society. There is a similar strange political attack going on in a Canadian child abuse scandal right now with the same narrative to it: the Church is somehow responsible for a huge (ten times the society at large) amount of male pedophilia in Indian reservations. The Church was the narrative until it was noted that fewer than 15% of the Indians were actually Catholic (and that attacks on boys were uniform through socviety, not concentrated among Christians) it eventually was shown to be a long standing societal problem among the tribes since before they were Christian. So when I see another set of Church-based accusation levelled at another minority, I notice a trend.
“I [recognize the unique role of the Church] too. Where did I say that Christianity doesn’t a “unique historical role in the advancement of the human raceâ€Â?”
By enlisting it as the role of oppressor of Saami women, an idea I find highly dubious (and find your source a rather boringly predictable example for Finnish media to focus on: Finnish higher political society being fans of the more agressive French ‘le secularisme’ instead of the more neutral secularist position of the anglosphere).
Oh, and speaking of that article there was an honest miscommunication with that:
me: ““Which, of course, fools like this ignore because it suits their sad, pathetic little point scoring politics.â€Â
you: “I’m not point scoring anything.”
Argh. I should have noted that I meant the report was point scoring, not you. I’m actually impressed you didn’t fly off the handle. You kept an even keel in responding when you thought it was you. Good on you. Sorry. I did mean the report, not you. It’s not that I don’t do it, but I would like the credit for it when I do. Not you, them.
Ok, I’ll assume I was wrong in my accusation that you were trodding down a well-worn ideological path. Let’s say for argument it wasn’t a frontal attack on the Church- do you see how easily one could assume from the sparcity of your comments and the complete lack of other context how it looks like that?
Comment by James V. — Wed, Jun 14th, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Menopause’s Secret Phytoestrogen Natural Plant Estrogen Rebalances Women Men Hormones Level Pueraria Mirifica Natural Plant Estrogen
Comment by Phytoestrogen — Fri, Sep 22nd, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Pueraria Mirifica Thai Herbs, Herbal Safe Natural Breast Enhancement Increase Size and Beauty Your Bust. Free Breast Spray $ 40 For Breast Enhancement
Comment by Breast Enhancement — Sat, Sep 23rd, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.
Comment by Breast Enlargement — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 7:12 am
Thousands Now breast enhancement Who Never Thought They Could
Comment by Breast Enhancement — Fri, Oct 27th, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Yes YOU Too Can Learn How To Butea Superba With Ease!
Comment by Butea Superba — Sun, Nov 5th, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Great New Discovery Helps You Pueraria Mirifica In Less Than Breast Enhancement
Comment by Pueraria Mirifica herbs — Tue, Nov 7th, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
A Startling Fact About How To Breast Enhancement …In Less Than Breast Enlargement
Comment by Breast Enhancement Herb — Wed, Nov 8th, 2006 @ 9:56 am
It Seems Incredible That You Can Breast Enhancement In Only Breast Enlargement
Comment by Natural Breast Enhancement — Sat, Nov 11th, 2006 @ 7:15 am
How To Breast Enlargement In Only Breast Enhancement Starting From Scratch
Comment by Breast Enlargement Producct — Mon, Nov 13th, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Proven Advice To Breast Enlargement — By An Expert
Comment by Breast Enlargement Mask — Sat, Nov 18th, 2006 @ 5:23 am
You Can Laugh At Natural Breast Enlargement Worries — If You Follow This Simple Plan
Comment by Natural Breast Enlargement — Fri, Nov 24th, 2006 @ 6:31 am
A Startling Fact About How To Natural Breast Enlargement …In Less Than Breast Enhancement
Comment by Natural Breast Enlargement — Wed, Nov 29th, 2006 @ 8:57 am