Breaking News -- Sexism Alert -- "Sir"i!!!

[Bea Arthur]

The other day I was shopping for a new pair of Birkenstocks at Nordstrom. Because of the poor customer service from the employees (who were, of course, men), I was forced to ascertain the price of my favorite footwear through my phone.

So I pulled out my iPhone 4s from the pocket of my Muumuu and asked the phone what the average price for Birkenstock sandals were. I then, much to my outrage, realized for the very first time that the voice assistant was automatically set as a female. I practically dropped my phone in disgust!! The assumption seems to be that a woman is the default gender for administrative assistance. Can't a man do this job, or is he "too good" for that?! I did some research and was stunned to notice that this same sexist standard applies to Google and every other mobile platform, including Microsoft's Cortana!!

For those of you who are as adamant as I am at opposing sexism, I strongly encourage you to adjust your settings so that "Sir"i actually becomes a "Sir" -- a male, who is almost as capable as women at handling multiple tasks at the same time. It is high time that the tech industry's rampant sexism is exposed for what it is, as an attempt to perpetuate the oppression and victimization of women everywhere in the name of "progress" -- FOR MEN!!!

[LeftistsAreRadical]

It's scientifically proven that people are more responsive and more willing to interact with a female voice than a male voice, it has nothing to do with "women are servants" and everything to do with "how can we get more people to use this feature".

[Heretek]

The other day I was shopping for a new pair of Birkenstocks at Nordstrom. Because of the poor customer service from the employees (who were, of course, men), I was forced to ascertain the price of my favorite footwear through my phone.

So I pulled out my iPhone 4s from the pocket of my Muumuu and asked the phone what the average price for Birkenstock sandals were. I then, much to my outrage, realized for the very first time that the voice assistant was automatically set as a female. I practically dropped my phone in disgust!! The assumption seems to be that a woman is the default gender for administrative assistance. Can't a man do this job, or is he "too good" for that?! I did some research and was stunned to notice that this same sexist standard applies to Google and every other mobile platform, including Microsoft's Cortana!!

For those of you who are as adamant as I am at opposing sexism, I strongly encourage you to adjust your settings so that "Sir"i actually becomes a "Sir" -- a male, who is almost as capable as women at handling multiple tasks at the same time. It is high time that the tech industry's rampant sexism is exposed for what it is, as an attempt to perpetuate the oppression and victimization of women everywhere in the name of "progress" -- FOR MEN!!!

What exactly is wrong with them being men? Why does the service person's gender matter? Why is it "of course?" Are you asserting women would have inherently helped you more? Or are you asserting that women should be working (stereo-typically) at this footwear establishment rather than men?

Within your statement there are a few contradictions, but most striking to me is how you describe "administrative work" as oppressive and too low for men, and yet menial work such as retail being an "of course men are doing it," as if it should be women instead and men are stealing it somehow. And then you state blatantly women are better at multitasking than men! I'm failing to see a feminism argument here, though one could have been made of "there's no option for a male voice for Siri, I think there should be," rather than this argument which honestly comes off as complaining about the progress women have made in society (in the 20th century, a female announcer was almost unheard of, due to them "not being serious enough," or "the man needs to reassure the public" or other such nonsense).

The ultimate goal and literal definition of feminism is the equality of people regardless of gender. Yes, the society we live in is patriarchal, and is not feminist. However, advocating its counterpart of matriarchy is not feminism either. Both oppress, and are inherently inegalitarian, the only difference being the predominant gender. Interestingly enough, it is precisely this picture that misogynists paint when they support their arguments against feminism, (men taking the place of women in modern society, and therefore oppressed). Even more interesting, and disturbing, is some "feminists" have taken this world view and decided it is the ideal! Only with women in charge instead of men can there be "equality!" Anyone who opposes is a "sexist!" And then such arguments are held to the feminist movement as a whole. Even worse, this has become internalized in common culture (one only needs to go asking students at high schools what they think of 'feminism'), leaving otherwise unbiased individuals, yes even women, misogynistic and strengthening those who are intentionally so, thus further damaging the ability of women to pursue equal careers and their ability to resist politically the ingrained reaction against them (gender equality=feminism=matriarchy=reverse misogynistic oppression=BAD in the minds of the public).

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he society we live in is patriarchal, and is not feminist.


This 'patriarchal' label can be misleading / misinterpreted since it tends to denote a *main division* within society, also reflected in the standard radical-feminist ideology, which you've described here.

If the main divide in society *is* that of gender then that means that all men would gain some common -- unspecified -- advantage from the everyday oppression of women, by gender, due to their established, collectively-self-conscious organized 'patriarchy'.

But aside from the *lack of oppression by gender*, men as a whole *do not benefit* from the disempowerment of women because the capitalist system is one of *exploitation of labor* -- men would continue to be exploited (expropriation of surplus labor value) whenever they worked, regardless of *women's* status in society. This reality immediately points to a fundamental *class* division, because not all men -- or women, for that matter -- *need* to work for their daily existence.

So I think we should be careful with the 'patriarchy' term -- sure, there's empirical *inequality* by gender, but gender does not confer any kind of 'group member benefit', the way *class status* does, which is economic as well as socio-political and social. 'Patriarchy' doesn't just mean 'inequality' -- it tends to *compete* with class for being the main division in society, which gender *isn't*.





However, advocating its counterpart of matriarchy is not feminism either. Both oppress, and are inherently inegalitarian, the only difference being the predominant gender. Interestingly enough, it is precisely this picture that misogynists paint when they support their arguments against feminism, (men taking the place of women in modern society, and therefore oppressed). Even more interesting, and disturbing, is some "feminists" have taken this world view and decided it is the ideal! Only with women in charge instead of men can there be "equality!" Anyone who opposes is a "sexist!" And then such arguments are held to the feminist movement as a whole.


This point serves to illustrate that there is *no solution* to the gender divide within the context / framework of *capital-based* social relations -- capitalism.

Because of social ills by gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, age, etc., there will always be *competition* for advantaged social status by any demographic category since such myriad social divisions imply a *dominant* / hegemonic social status (rich white males), and many 'minority' social demographics.

Since 'patriarchy' implies a purported social dominance by gender alone, the inevitable conclusion -- a *flawed* one -- is that if the *minority* social group, women, can just better-compete, they would *overturn* the assumed male-power base and would have a chance to bring 'equality' to society as a result.

Upon reflection, though, one would probably realize that *any* kind of intra-capitalism competition just brings about further destructive factionalism, politically, while the underlying labor-exploitation basis of the system continues to function regardless of demographic group-identities (identity politics).

So the correct conclusion should be to unite on a *class* basis so that wasteful political competition -- especially *among* different social-minority groups -- doesn't continually serve to refresh the hierarchical / class-favoritism basis of society, as through wealth ownership and control of the overall (bourgeois) social paradigm / social production. A proletarian revolution is *required* to bring social production into the control of *everyone*, which will also wipe out all other social divisions like sexism at the same time since any *post-capitalist* social status will not be able to confer any kind of special, elitist-type 'power' or 'influence' over social production, entirely.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How come you people haven't realised the OP is just a troll yet and has been for ever? Just read that frigging OP. It's a mockery, a joke.

[MonkeyQueen]

Why would that be the case that people are more responsive and willing to interact with a female voice as an assistant rather than a man's? I think that you narrowly assume that because it *is* that there should be no investigation as to socially *why* that is. You should reexamine this more closely.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

Why would that be the case that people are more responsive and willing to interact with a female voice as an assistant rather than a man's? I think that you narrowly assume that because it *is* that there should be no investigation as to socially *why* that is. You should reexamine this more closely.

The human willingness to interact with female voices isn't limited to "assistant" and I never said anything like that. In general, no matter what the context and/or lacking context at all, people are more willing to interact and respond to a female voice than a males, presumed by psychologists to be due to a subconscious distrust/fear of males.

[Heretek]

How come you people haven't realised the OP is just a troll yet and has been for ever? Just read that frigging OP. It's a mockery, a joke.

And the response to trolls is to ignore them and let them conflate the board with nonsense? Or have you missed the last three most popular sections? You're a supposed moderator. Faced with you and your ilks lack of action others must act instead.

But perhaps that's the point, we the people taking our board and our autonomy into our own hands?

[Sea]

How come you people haven't realised the OP is just a troll yet and has been for ever? Just read that frigging OP. It's a mockery, a joke.Allow me to quote a post that I made 3 years ago, in September of 2013. Check out BCBM's reply, lol.
Bea, if you started out on this forum as a tankie instead of as an anarchist you'd have a lot more opportunities for trolling. Just saying.I miss Avanti, honestly. That was some primo vaporwave trolling, and at least Avanti didn't make go out of their way to specifically mock the struggle against sexism.