objective and official discrimination of women

NewAmerica

Banned
Mandarin
What is "objective discrimination of women"? For example, women have less physical strength, so men would have more or less discrimination against women in this?

(The "official discrimination of women" appears to be clear: women still have no right to vote in some countries)

Thanks in advance
****************************
Once Again, No Female Nobel Winners in Science
<......>
There are at least three explanations. First, oppression along with objective and official discrimination of women long relegated them to secondary roles and served to deter them from science. In Western Europe, this era is more or less over, but naturally the vestiges of it remain: although girls are reclaiming the world of science little by little, it will take several generations before they accede to positions of power beyond the administrative level.

-Scientific American

Source
 
Last edited:
  • Keith Bradford

    Senior Member
    English (Midlands UK)
    Objective = this was deliberate discrimination on the fact that they were women, not done at the whim of individuals.
    Official = it was approved by the authorities.

    An example would be that until 1878, all women (i.e. objective criterion) were officially refused admission to British universities. This would prevent them from following any studies that might lead to a Nobel science prize.

    (The equivalent date in Spain was 1608, in Sweden 1644... The China Mining and Technology University in Jiangsu province was still men-only in 2013.)
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Objective = this was deliberate discrimination on the fact that they were women, not done at the whim of individuals.
    What particular meaning of "objective" is employed here? Is it this?: "undistorted by emotion or personal bias"? I just still don't understand what the word "objective" adds to the meaning of "discrimination of women":)
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    What particular meaning of "objective" is employed here? Is it this?: "undistorted by emotion or personal bias"?
    :thumbsup:

    I just still don't understand what the word "objective" adds to the meaning of "discrimination of women":)
    Well, that depends on what type of discrimination is "normal" to you. Like always, adjectives qualify the noun or noun phrase, i.e. they provide additional and more detailed information about it.
    Context may have made it clear that this dicrimination was not random, but general and across-the-board. I guess, the writer just felt that it is important to point this out by explicitly adding the adjectives 'objective and official'.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    :thumbsup:


    Well, that depends on what type of discrimination is "normal" to you. Like always, adjectives qualify the noun or noun phrase, i.e. they provide additional and more detailed information about it.
    Context may have made it clear that this dicrimination was not random, but general and across-the-board. I guess, the writer just felt that it is important to point this out by explicitly adding the adjectives 'objective and official'.
    To me, as it stands, "objective discrimination" sounds like it is based on fair/reasonable premise. I don't understand how it could be the opposite to "random":confused:
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    To me, as it stands, "objective discrimination" sounds like it is based on fair/reasonable premise.
    I see where you're coming from and in fact, I tend to agree. I guess, that stems from the dominant use of 'objective vs. subjective' in collocation with view, opinion, stance, decision, etc. In those cases 'objective' predominantly conveys the positive idea of unbiased, fair, proper, and 'subjective' carries always the negative vibe of opinionated, biased, unjust, and the sorts.
    But that's just common usage. The adjectives in themselves are not so narrow in their meaning; you'll have to assess their intended meaning depending on context.

    "General discrimination" might be more sensible than "objective discrimination" in this case, but ultimately, the choice of words is up to the writer! (and whenever people write an article for the "science community", they do have a tendency to use fancier and more formal words than they usually would...:p I'll leave it up to you what you make of that.:rolleyes:)
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    I see where you're coming from and in fact, I tend to agree. I guess, that stems from the dominant use of 'objective vs. subjective' in collocation with view, opinion, stance, decision, etc. In those cases 'objective' predominantly conveys the positive idea of unbiased, fair, proper, and 'subjective' carries always the negative vibe of opinionated, biased, unjust, and the sorts.
    But that's just common usage. The adjectives in themselves are not so narrow in their meaning; you'll have to assess their intended meaning depending on context.

    "General discrimination" might be more sensible than "objective discrimination" in this case, but ultimately, the choice of words is up to the writer! (and whenever people write an article for the "science community", they do have a tendency to use fancier and more formal words than they usually would...:p I'll leave it up to you what you make of that.:rolleyes:)
    Also, I don't find the word "objective" on the list of adjectives used with "discrimination" in the Oxford collocation dictionary (although it has a lot of adjectives there for this word). It makes things even less obvious:)
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    I don't really know what it means either, but I think it may mean discrimination "from outside" by others, including official discrimination. It would then be contrasted to what might be called subjective discrimination, where "women's own internalization of stereotypes about themselves leads most of them to self-limit and to voluntarily reject careers connected to science and power".
     

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    An odd sentence. The discrimination of women is their ability to discriminate. (For example, being able to see the difference between Boris Johnson and somebody who would be fit to be our Foreign Secretary.) Perhaps the writer meant discrimination against women?

    Seems like the objective discrimination is what everyone generally agrees discrimination is. While subjective descrimination is what women may personally perceve as discriminarion.
    That's certainly how I understand it.
     

    bigsky888

    Senior Member
    chinese
    The word “objective” always modifies something relating to a material object, actual existence or reality. So here "objective discrimination" conveys a message that this kind of discrimination exists and it's a reality.
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    The word “objective” always modifies something relating to a material object, actual existence or reality. So here "objective discrimination" conveys a message that this kind of discrimination exists and it's a reality.
    People don't always use words as they are to be used ideally.

    Is there any kind of discrimination that doesn't exist and isn't a reality? If there were, would it be a problem that needed discussing? (I'm not trying to be funny; I want to know how you interpret this.)
     

    Keith Bradford

    Senior Member
    English (Midlands UK)
    I had assumed that objective discrimination meant routine descrimination based on the mere fact that they are women, not on the emotions of the person discriminating. I remember a long and acrimonious discussion on this about 30 years ago when my colleagues split into two camps - the "Freudians" who saw discrimination against women as being rooted in men's emotions and the "Marxists" who saw it as a function of power-structures in organisations.

    I can imagine an Englishman saying to his wife in 1900: "My darling, of course I love you. Personally I'd be delighted to give you the vote. But we mustn't be subjective about this; the fact is that women simply aren't capable of understanding politics. That's why women's suffrage is, objectively and officially, out of the question."
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    i note that the writer is French and that there is the possibility that he meant "First, oppression along with discrimination against (see Andygc above) women by seeing them as objects." i.e. "the objectifying of women."
     

    bigsky888

    Senior Member
    chinese
    People don't always use words as they are to be used ideally.

    Is there any kind of discrimination that doesn't exist and isn't a reality? If there were, would it be a problem that needed discussing? (I'm not trying to be funny; I want to know how you interpret this.)
    It's a good question. To some people, just like an Englishman in #14, the discrimination doesn't exist at all and it's just the way it is. The most difficult and also ridiculous part of this problem is that objective discrimination is not a discrimination but a widely accepted social criterion for most people.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    I had assumed that objective discrimination meant routine descrimination based on the mere fact that they are women, not on the emotions of the person discriminating. I remember a long and acrimonious discussion on this about 30 years ago when my colleagues split into two camps - the "Freudians" who saw discrimination against women as being rooted in men's emotions and the "Marxists" who saw it as a function of power-structures in organisations.

    I can imagine an Englishman saying to his wife in 1900: "My darling, of course I love you. Personally I'd be delighted to give you the vote. But we mustn't be subjective about this; the fact is that women simply aren't capable of understanding politics. That's why women's suffrage is, objectively and officially, out of the question."
    i note that the writer is French and that there is the possibility that he meant "First, oppression along with discrimination against (see Andygc above) women by seeing them as objects." i.e. "the objectifying of women."
    :thumbsup: Such nuance is vital in understanding the question in discussion.:tick:
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top