How to Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists
Focus on injustice, poverty, and women in parts of the world beyond the United States.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... ts/277179/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/how-to-get-more-women-and-men-to-call-themselves-feminists/277179/)
QuoteWhen asked "Are you a feminist?" most Americans say no. A recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll is typical: Only 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men identified as "feminist." Accomplished women as diverse as Taylor Swift, Sandra Day O'Connor, Marissa Mayer, and Beyoncé object to the designation.
The emancipation of women is one of the glories of Western civilization and one of the great chapters in the history of freedom. Why is the term that describes that heritage in such disrepute?
Some will say the movement is receding because it has achieved its essential goals. So why not let it fade from the scene? That is an understandable but mistaken conclusion. Though the major battles for equality and opportunity in the United States have been fought and largely won, the work of feminism remains unfinished. Across the globe, fledgling women's groups struggle to survive in the face of genuine and often violent oppression.
QuoteWho needs feminism? We do. The world does. But an effective women's movement needs to be rescued from its current outcast state. Anyone who cares about improving the status of women around the world should be working to create a women's movement that resonates with women. A reality-based, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world. I call it "freedom feminism."
Freedom feminism stands for the moral, social, and legal equality of the sexes--and the freedom of women to employ their equal status to pursue happiness in their own distinctive ways. Freedom feminism is not at war with femininity or masculinity and it does not view men and women as opposing tribes. Theories of universal patriarchal oppression are not in its founding tablets. Nor are partisan litmus tests: It welcomes women and men from across the political spectrum. Put simply, freedom feminism affirms for women what it affirms for everyone: dignity, fairness, and personal liberty.
QuoteHistory suggests women fare the best when the two movements--progressive and conservative--work together. What do we have today? In the eyes of many, the current women's movement has devolved into a narrow, left-of-center special interest group. The majority of women have been left behind.
Freedom feminism combines aspects of both the egalitarian and maternal traditions. It shares with egalitarianism an aversion to prescribed gender roles: Women should be free to defect from the stereotypes of femininity if they so choose. At the same time, it respects the choices of free and self-determining women when they choose to embrace conventional feminine roles. Freedom feminism stands for equality of opportunity but does not insist on equality of results.
QuoteWomen are various. Despite several decades of warnings and denunciations of traditional gender roles, domestic life remains a vital priority for millions of women. And no amount of cajoling has discouraged women from pursuing pink-collar jobs in the helping and caring professions. Although British comedic writer Caitlin Moran calls herself a "strident feminist," many passages in her funny book How to be a Woman capture the spirit of freedom feminism. What is feminism? she asks. "Simply the belief that women should be as free as men, however nuts, dim, deluded, badly dressed, fat, receding, lazy, and smug they might be."
How would the women's movement change if freedom feminism were its guiding philosophy?
First, gender gaps in wages, political leadership, and the professions would not automatically be taken as proof of discrimination. Freedom feminists allow that there could be innocent explanations for disparities. Instead, its focus would be on genuine injustice.
QuoteMy advice to today's young women: Reform feminism. Give moderate and conservative women a voice. Most of all, make common cause with women across the globe who are struggling for their basic freedoms. Supporting truly oppressed women would give today's Western feminism something it has lacked for many years: a contemporary purpose worthy of its illustrious past.
This has always been my idea of feminism, and so it pains me to hear "femi-nazi" and other words like that throw around when I say I'm a feminist. It bothers me when people say we need a new name because feminist is such a dirty word. It's not. We all just need to work together.
I'm just kinda confused that the group that aims to make the genders equal would name themselves after one of the two. I get the original idea, but it sounds really silly today.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm just kinda confused that the group that aims to make the genders equal would name themselves after one of the two. I get the original idea, but it sounds really silly today.
From my own viewpoint, I call myself feminist because around the world, women still have it worse than men. I'm not saying men don't get their fair share of injustice, but women are still behind them. We must be aware of this disparity if we are to do anything about it.
you tell me your idea of equal and i'll tell you what i think of feminism.
Quote from: "surly74"you tell me your idea of equal and i'll tell you what i think of feminism.
My idea of equal is not being discriminated against solely because I'm female. The very essence of feminism.
Did anyone actually read the article?
i'm running out now but i will. problem is "feminism" is a nebulous term which is why I can see most Americans saying no to.
I call myself a feminist, but there are waves/movements within feminism that disgusts me. Equally I call myself a socialist, but there are waves/movements within socialism that disgusts me. Labels can be tricky, particularly when covering huge philosophies that branch out in every direction, and you will always be able to find very disturbed individuals twisting something to fit their own goals.
Feminism should really appeal to men just as much as to women - and this is something a lot of feminist movements miss. We want to destroy the patriarchy - but that does not mean disempowering men - it means not forcing them to be strong, emotionless workaholics who's social respect is centered around how strong and powerful they are. Feminism, if successful, truly does as much for men as for women, as it opens more opportunities for them, like being a caring father spending time with your children. It's not about forcing women, or men, to do anything - unless you're oppressing someone that is, and if so boohoo - It's about giving everyone, regardless of gender, approximately the same shot in life to make what they want of themselves and live the life they want to live.
I don't just call myself a feminist because women objectively have it worse around the world, then I would just have been an egalitarian (which I also am). I call myself a feminist because an overall feminization of society truly is key to our survival. When women and men aren't forced into stereotypes they will meet somewhere at the middle. Without patriarchy forcing anything down men's throat's the more scary and dangerous aspects of masculinity will decrease, and become socially unacceptable! This is already well evidenced. Sweden and Norway were recently selected the two most feminine countries in the world, and we are also two of the most peaceful. Doesn't take much to see the connection there.
I'm all for womens' rights, but I'm not a feminist. I don't want to be associated with those strident man-haters.
I don't believe in God, but I'm not an atheist. I don't want to be associated with those strident God-haters.
I try not to judge based on a label alone. As atheists, we of all people should understand that a person is not a simple label. If someone asks, I say I'm atheist.....and then I'll gladly go on to explain a bit more about myself. Labels are quick and easy, but we need to understand that they are not a substitute for conveying ideas. Frankly, I'm more concerned with changing the negative view of the feminist movement than I am with coming up with a nice new name. Does anyone remember the "Brights" thing that some atheists tried to make happen? I'm not interested in all that. I want to help people see that feminists are not feminazis, and this author speaks as someone after my own heart.
This is the very reason I prefer the label freethinker instead of atheist, because atheist has a very negative reaction from so many people. The reason feminist is used is because it is concerned with rights for women that men already have. This is also the reason a lot of atheist, freethinkers, agnostics, and feminist go by the name humanist because it is all encompassing. Words only have the meaning our prejudices give them for the most part. They hide the real concepts that are important. This is the reason why there are atheists, queers, gooks, towel heads, etc. to take away the fact that they are human and things to be hated and destroyed. Labels are symbols that people react to emotionally and irrationally. Solitary
There are only so many times one can change their label until it becomes a moot endeavor. First atheist, then freethinker, then humanist.....
I find it's better to convey ideas behind the label. Those not willing to listen are not worth the time.
Years ago, I let my actions speak for me and when I was asked what I believed, I said I was an atheist. One moron called me "stupid" to my face, another person said, "Really? Can I ask what you believe in?" I told her I just didn't believe in god. And then she said, "Well, see now? There are nice atheists, too!" And that was all it took. A simple exchange of words and I changed someone's viewpoint on atheism.
And I find the same thing when I use the word "feminist". I'm done trying to find happier, more PC words. I feel like it's just blowing smoke up people's asses. Instead, I try to educate people on what feminism really is, and that most people really are feminists at heart, despite the negative connotations the word has accumulated over the years.
I'm a feminist given the way Smartz uses the term and my college professor who made me a liberal.
But I prefer the term egalitarian. depending on who says it, I can call myself a feminist.
But I prefer egalitarian because I'm for equality and that said it more clearly. also it doesn't have the association with man haters, and even though feminism has a great history and many people today who ascribe to that label, who are anything but man haters, there still is people who are man haters. i know. I've met them. fairly or unfairly its stuck and as a result many people who otherwise fit the label run from it.
also with regard to atheist, I still prefer Rationalist because we stand for reason, not for a particular belief about certain imaginary beings.
depending on who I'm with I won't say I'm an atheist. I'll say "I'm not religious" or "I'm not a believer" to keep them from thinking I'm like Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
though I feel more comfortable with the label atheist, than feminist because I think atheism does describe quite nicely how I feel about gods, whereas feminist doesn't because its women focused, and I am people focused. Egalitarian just sounds better to me. though I'll say again I know based on how many feminists use the term and see it, I fit the bill.
Feminism is only a dirty word if you listen to people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
If you think Feminist is a dirty word, you should also be ashamed of the words atheist, liberal, progressive.
Hillbilly:
I do think atheist is a pretty poor label. I love what the word's current connotations are, i.e. pro-science, pro-reason, anti-dogma, anti-BS, but that has no basis in the term itself. In regard to what I actually believe: Humanst, rationalist and anti-dogmatist (is that even a word? It should be!) describes my positions/beliefs much better.
As for feminism, I do agree that had feminism only been about equality, egaliterianism would have been a great replacement, and the arguments about how "a movement about equality that only focus on one gender is BS" would have a bit more meat on their bone - but like I pointed out above, feminism is about so much more, to name two other key points: It's opposition to patriarchy and the focus on feminizing society. I'll grant you that at least the first is a natural conclusion from egaliterianism as well though.
When someone asks me that if I'm an atheist do I believe in anything, I tell them I believe in reality as being real, not imaginary magical beings as being real, and I also don't believe in all the mythical gods. Do you? I believe in one less god than you do if you don't. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"though I feel more comfortable with the label atheist, than feminist because I think atheism does describe quite nicely how I feel about gods, whereas feminist doesn't because its women focused, and I am people focused. Egalitarian just sounds better to me. though I'll say again I know based on how many feminists use the term and see it, I fit the bill.
What is wrong with being women-focused, though?
We have gay rights movements which are focused on gay people.
We have minority movements focused on minorities.
We have child advocacy groups focused on children.
What is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
I find it strange that I really only encounter this "I'm about
people" attitude when talking about feminism.
Fuck gender roles. Is there such a term as "Manimists",?
How about let the individual decide what they want to do in life, and how about we, both women and men, agree to consent?
I think men who condemn other men for being emotional or financial supported by women are assholes too.
Evolution is a range, and evolution does not care about roles, just what works and since biological life has always been diverse, lets just agree between sexes that we are a range and also individuals.
I hate "be a man" and " a women's role" fuck that shit.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm just kinda confused that the group that aims to make the genders equal would name themselves after one of the two. I get the original idea, but it sounds really silly today.
This is also my primary problem with the word. Both genders are effected by discrimination. To name the movement that is supposed to combat that problem after only one gender implies that by focusing only on female issues the goal of eliminating gender discrimination will be achieved.
I have found that most so-called men like jocks are assholes, and can't understand why so many women are attracted to them. For three years I watched my two boys, cleaned the house, washed dishes, cooked the meals---I still do---while my wife was the bread winner. I couldn't believe how much flack I got from my father-in-law and other men. My wife started to resent it too, and still does, because she wasn't with the kids for three years. I liked doing that better than working heavy construction work or any other job I've had. If you saw me when I was younger I was in no way looking feminine---accept that I looked like a Greek god. :shock: :lol: Solitary
(//http://i.imgur.com/POM7gVk.jpg)
> I don't believe in God, but I'm not an atheist.
Yes, you are. Sorry.
> I don't want to be associated with those strident God-haters.
You may not wish to be known as an atheist, and I can understand that, since Christians have so thoroughly demonized the term. But the definition of "atheist" is "a person who does not believe in a god or gods."
That's a bit like saying, "I have a Y chromosome and all other male characteristics, but I'm not a man because some people think all men are women-haters."
Frank
Quote from: "Solitary"I have found that most so-called men like jocks are assholes, and can't understand why so many women are attracted to them.
Human sexuality has virtually nothing to do with our current societal values.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"feminism is about so much more, to name two other key points: It's opposition to patriarchy and the focus on feminizing society. I'll grant you that at least the first is a natural conclusion from egaliterianism as well though.
LOL by that definition, I'm NOT one.
I don't want to be neutered or feminized. I'm all for equal rights but I'm still a guy. :lol:
[youtube:2n5he2vm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yQ9a-hJVy0[/youtube:2n5he2vm]
oh and just because I know some folks wont get it, the above post is tongue in cheek. So hold the tomatoes. :lol:
Here's my take. people should just be themselves, whatever that may be. I don't think people should be what they're not. if you're feminin, fine, if your masculine, fine, nothing wrong with either.
I've often said, "because I believe in equality, I am not a feminist."
The problem is that those who call themselves feminists refuse to define themselves. And when I say that, I mean they refuse to confront the extremists of the movement. The response is too often NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) when an example of an extremist is brought up.
NAFALT is even more lame than No True Scotsman. At least with No True Scotsman the person using that fallacy is trying to define the group as standing for something. NAFALT is trying to have it both ways, defined both as the reasonable members that would be included if the feminist were to use No True Scotsman and also the unreasonable members.
Until feminists confront their own extremists, either to embrace them or to reject them, then it should be hard for anyone to tall oneself a feminist at all.
Back in my college years feminism was the hot topic. I have consistently been pro-feminist on most issues, but don't consider myself a feminist. Honestly it is not an issue I've really spent time on. My opinions have mostly been based on the right/wrong of an issue, not the political aspects of it.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"though I feel more comfortable with the label atheist, than feminist because I think atheism does describe quite nicely how I feel about gods, whereas feminist doesn't because its women focused, and I am people focused. Egalitarian just sounds better to me. though I'll say again I know based on how many feminists use the term and see it, I fit the bill.
What is wrong with being women-focused, though?
We have gay rights movements which are focused on gay people.
We have minority movements focused on minorities.
We have child advocacy groups focused on children.
What is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
I find it strange that I really only encounter this "I'm about people" attitude when talking about feminism.
This.
The reason there is a movement focused on specific problems of women is that WOMEN HAVE FAR MORE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD THEN MEN.
Few people said during the civil rights movement, "Well, whites have it bad too! Why don't you support whites as well?"
Few people say, "Well, straight people have problems too! Why don't you support straights as well?"
Just because you support a group that has very obvious problems does not mean you therefor are against the opposite group. It's not a competition between men and women; feminism isn't some sports game where if you support women you therefor have to oppose the rival team, men.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"though I feel more comfortable with the label atheist, than feminist because I think atheism does describe quite nicely how I feel about gods, whereas feminist doesn't because its women focused, and I am people focused. Egalitarian just sounds better to me. though I'll say again I know based on how many feminists use the term and see it, I fit the bill.
What is wrong with being women-focused, though?
We have gay rights movements which are focused on gay people.
We have minority movements focused on minorities.
We have child advocacy groups focused on children.
What is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
I find it strange that I really only encounter this "I'm about people" attitude when talking about feminism.
speaking for me, I would prefer all these different groups join under one banner. united we stand, divided we fall. That said, I recognize that each group will have specific needs that only apply to them. (abortions for women, head start for kids, etc) So nothing wrong with some people choosing to focus on that. but then the same could be said of mens rights groups which some people seem to shit on as all being sexist even when they have good points too when bringing up specific male issues like how boys are falling behind girls in school, and college right now.
So in short if you want to focus more on specific issues women need, thats fine with me and makes sense, but its not my focus. not that I dont suport it and indeed will not vote for any sexist teabagger piece of shit.
we're ultimately on the same side, I think.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"What is wrong with being women-focused, though?
as long as it's ok for me to be men focused.
QuoteWe have gay rights movements which are focused on gay people.
We have minority movements focused on minorities.
We have child advocacy groups focused on children.
What is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
I find it strange that I really only encounter this "I'm about people" attitude when talking about feminism.
gay women don't have the same rights as straight women. gay men don't have the same rights as straight men. keeping the conversation to developed countries and the US in a truly equal capacity, where are women discriminated against for being women? I said developed countries because I do agree there are parts of the world women are treated poorly along with a whole host of issues that simple feminism isn't going to fix.
children's groups are to protect children because they can't speak for themselves. are you comparing women to children? children can't be elected to office.
QuoteWhat is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
It's hard to really put the feeling to words and this is probably going to sound really bad, but it's late, so yeah. Take from it what you will. What it comes down to me is that by focusing on the "specific problems of women" you keep trying to seperate "male" and "female" things.
Feminism is often about "women should be able to do what men can do".
And that's bull.
Anyone should be able to do what they want, and gender stereotypes can go fuck themselves. Too often do you hear people claim "women should be able to be firemen". Hardly ever do you hear people say "Men should be able to be daycare leaders".
By trying to push women into male roles we won't get rid of any gender barriers. In trying to "push women up to the level men" we pretend that one is better than the other. That's bull. There's a pointless gender divide, and the solution isn't to make women be accepted in male roles.
The solution is to make
people accepted in
all roles. For every woman that wants to be a fireman, there's a guy who wants to stay home and knit sweaters. With the other groups you mentioned (like gays, minorities, etc) there is a clear case of "group X can do what they want and group Y cannot"
That divide does not exist with gender stereotypes. Each group has a bunch of things society feels they can and cannot do. Pushing one group into the other, but not the other way around, will not end the problem. We have to deal with the general problem of people thinking there's things that someone of a certain gender shouldn't do in general.
I'd like for women to be able to do a man's job and not get stares. But I'd also like for a guy to be able to say he likes knitting sweaters and not instantly be labeled "gay". I don't want women to be equal to men. I want people to be equal to people. And for people to be able to do what they enjoy without being judged or scrutinized for them.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I've often said, "because I believe in equality, I am not a feminist."
The problem is that those who call themselves feminists refuse to define themselves. And when I say that, I mean they refuse to confront the extremists of the movement. The response is too often NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) when an example of an extremist is brought up.
NAFALT is even more lame than No True Scotsman. At least with No True Scotsman the person using that fallacy is trying to define the group as standing for something. NAFALT is trying to have it both ways, defined both as the reasonable members that would be included if the feminist were to use No True Scotsman and also the unreasonable members.
Until feminists confront their own extremists, either to embrace them or to reject them, then it should be hard for anyone to tall oneself a feminist at all.
this is true. I remember in college people celebrating feminists who thought all sex was rape, ads with sexy women are evil, men who like sexy women are evil, etc and seemed more about how men suck, than legit issues like right to control reproductive organs, oppression of women in the middle east, sexual harassment in the workplace, lower pay, etc.
this makes many otherwise feminists recoil and say "I ain't part of that shit" you wonder why many feminists don't take the label, well this is it.
My biggest problem with "feminist" is that the term has so many meanings it almost means nothing, but always seems to be used as if describing a monolithic structure. For example I have repeatedly been told that feminists want divorced men to have equal custody of children (and even that courts predominately awarding custody to women was the patriarchy trying to oppress women and force them back into the kitchen), yet the actions NOW and similar groups seem focused on preventing efforts to promote equal custody, not shaping them.
My second biggest problem is that, far too often, I see "patriarchy" used as a knee jerk, not even wrong libel--though this may come from hearing too much from the social-justice club of feminism.
Quote from: "Solitary"For three years I watched my two boys, cleaned the house, washed dishes, cooked the meals---I still do---while my wife was the bread winner. I couldn't believe how much flack I got from my father-in-law and other men.
I wish this was an issue that got more focus. I can't stand it when some father refers to watching his own child as "baby sitting." No ,it isn't; It is fucking parenting. The idea that a man watching his child is so bizarre that it should only happen if Peggy Sue from down the street is busy tonight not only reenforce the idea that a women's proper place is at home raising the children, but also creates 'Cats in the Cradle' syndrome by convincing men that earning money in more important than actually living a life with their family.
oh and seeing the fireman thing. its a basic biological fact that men on average are physically stronger than women on average.
This isn't to say there aren't really strong women and really weak men I'm speaking of averages here.
and firemen need to be able to haul 300 pound unconscious victms out of burning buildings while wearing a shit load of gear.
so when it seems to be a majority male occupation, that shouldn't be seen as sexist
seems to me its what you would expect.
that said, if a woman takes the tests needed and passes, fine by me, but I've heard of places lowering their test requirements so more women could qualify to avoid being seen as sexist. if this is true, thats asinine.
if you can't do the job, you can't do it.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"oh and seeing the fireman thing. its a basic biological fact that men on average are physically stronger than women on average.
This isn't to say there aren't really strong women and really weak men I'm speaking of averages here.
and firemen need to be able to haul 300 pound unconscious victms out of burning buildings while wearing a shit load of gear.
so when it seems to be a majority male occupation, that shouldn't be seen as sexist
seems to me its what you would expect.
that said, if a woman takes the tests needed and passes, fine by me, but I've heard of places lowering their test requirements so more women could qualify to avoid being seen as sexist. if this is true, thats asinine.
if you can't do the job, you can't do it.
A Canadian province has said it hasn't lowered standards and the number of women is probably consistent with that.
[url]http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/observer/story.html?id=c27ecfc2-2a5e-477e-b401-526a3916c991/url]
however in the UK, at least in 2011 the story is different.
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html/url]
i wouldn't qualify for the male standards, i'm 5'7 165. I might be able to become a fireman in the UK but not in Canada. I don't ask for Canadian standards to be lowered to give me a better chance.
I wouldn't qualify either. and I reconize some women would. the bottom line though is either you can or you can't. gender is moot. but if its a male dominated occupation, that seems to make sense to me, and isn't a sign of sexism. but I've had feminist get very mad at me in college over saying this.
good topic Smartmarzipan.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"though I feel more comfortable with the label atheist, than feminist because I think atheism does describe quite nicely how I feel about gods, whereas feminist doesn't because its women focused, and I am people focused. Egalitarian just sounds better to me. though I'll say again I know based on how many feminists use the term and see it, I fit the bill.
What is wrong with being women-focused, though?
We have gay rights movements which are focused on gay people.
We have minority movements focused on minorities.
We have child advocacy groups focused on children.
What is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
I find it strange that I really only encounter this "I'm about people" attitude when talking about feminism.
Feminists constantly insist that the men's rights movement shouldn't exist because feminism will solve male gender based problems as well. If that's the case, then the name should reflect the idea of abolishing all gender discrimination. I agree that women bear the majority of the problems, but I think that's a bad reason to make it the headline, for the very reasons you espouse in the argument above.
Quote... keeping the conversation to developed countries and the US in a truly equal capacity, where are women discriminated against for being women?
Pay inequality - Women make less for the same jobs.
//http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1839281/on-equal-pay-day-why-women-are-paid-less-than-men/
Glass Ceiling - Though 50% of the work force, in the last 20 years women CEOs have only gone up from 35% to 38%. Also are underrepresented at the top of pretty much profession.
//http://www.trustwomenpac.org/2012/03/gender-inequality-in-the-u-s-today-part-2/
How about the blame the victim mentality that is prevalent in American society? "Oh, she shouldn't wear such slutty clothes! Oh she was out too late! Oh...". This isn't just normal people saying this; these are public figures, politicians.
What about the war on women's reproductive and health rights?
Quote from: "Shiranu"Pay inequality - Women make less for the same jobs.
//http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1839281/on-equal-pay-day-why-women-are-paid-less-than-men/
i might have missed it but it said average women make less than average man. i didn't see a job comparison, that was in another link. does it take into account, education? experience? did the women take time off for having children? now, i know those are examples in the first article as what a naysayer says but it's relevant. also, read the comments because there seems to be a solution.
compare apples to apples. generalized stuff gets no where. lets compare women truck drivers to men truck drivers? or women coal miners to male coal miners. how about women garbage collectors to male garbage collectors. or don't women do into those jobs?
QuoteGlass Ceiling - Though 50% of the work force, in the last 20 years women CEOs have only gone up from 35% to 38%. Also are underrepresented at the top of pretty much profession.
and? maybe men make better CEO's. there are more men entrepreneurs so it stands that more men would be CEO's. I'm not a CEO and the reason is I'm probably not CEO material. do i deserve a token position? how many women CEO's actually started the company...name me one fortune 500 company started by a woman?
I mean, every once in a while a white guy is on an NBA court. How come no one ever fights to get more white guys in the NBA? why is it business? why aren't people up in arms that there aren't any women in the NFL? NBA? NHL? MLB? There are in racing but that's a different animal where it's not just performance that's taken into account. gotta get sponsors.
There's no outcry because in those sports it's purely performance related. That's why asshole athletes still get jobs. Why isn't business the same? what is it about business that isn't performance related?
Quote//http://www.trustwomenpac.org/2012/03/gender-inequality-in-the-u-s-today-part-2/
How about the blame the victim mentality that is prevalent in American society? "Oh, she shouldn't wear such slutty clothes! Oh she was out too late! Oh...". This isn't just normal people saying this; these are public figures, politicians.
if your politicians are being asshats...elect new ones. it's not men's fault they get voted in. women vote too. people are quick to bitch and protest and sign petitions asking for a "voice" you get one. vote the jackass out and vote in someone that will have your views.
do women in the US get lighter sentences for similar crimes? preferential treatment when it comes to kids? when was the last time you heard a father murdering his whole family?
why is it when rape is mentioned the guy (usually a guy) is considered guilty until proven innocent? that's the only crime where due process is thrown out the window. the only crime where there isn't a question if it actually happened. just ask some duke lacrosse players.
i can't say someone did something to me and have everyone assume the person i accused automatically did it.
QuoteWhat about the war on women's reproductive and health rights?
yeah, and there are women who have attacked women's reproductive and health rights too. it's not solely the domain of men but again, get smarter politicians, women vote.
where is testicular cancer month? or prostate cancer awareness month? you can't go October without being bombarded by pink ribbons. show me one person in the developing world that hasn't heard of breast cancer.
Quote from: "Valigarmander"I'm all for womens' rights, but I'm not a feminist. I don't want to be associated with those strident man-haters.
I don't believe in God, but I'm not an atheist. I don't want to be associated with those strident God-haters.
This was a sarcastic post.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Solitary"I have found that most so-called men like jocks are assholes, and can't understand why so many women are attracted to them.
Human sexuality has virtually nothing to do with our current societal values.
Really? Human sexuality encompasses the sexual knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors of individuals. Its various dimensions involve the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the sexual response system; identity, orientation, roles, and personality; and thoughts, feelings, and relationships. Sexuality is influenced by ethical, spiritual, cultural, and moral concerns. All persons are sexual, in the broadest sense of the word.
Sexuality is an intrinsic component of human identity. The variety of cultural beliefs, values, and customs related to sexuality has profound influence on both society and individuals. Cultural beliefs and norms are influenced and expressed through many institutions including families, communities, schools, faith-based organizations, and mass media. These institutions have an obligation to affirm sexuality in ways that support the sexual health and rights of all members of any society. Solitary
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"I've often said, "because I believe in equality, I am not a feminist."
The problem is that those who call themselves feminists refuse to define themselves. And when I say that, I mean they refuse to confront the extremists of the movement.
Um, that's simply not true.
QuoteThe response is too often NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) when an example of an extremist is brought up.
That, again, is not true.
In fact, the author in the article points out that the feminist movement needs to stop being so narrow-minded and embrace all kinds of women and pleads with others to help reform the movement for the betterment of all.
QuoteUntil feminists confront their own extremists, either to embrace them or to reject them, then it should be hard for anyone to tall oneself a feminist at all.
DID NO ONE READ THE ARTICLE!??
it's a reasonable position and viewpoint.
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Solitary"I have found that most so-called men like jocks are assholes, and can't understand why so many women are attracted to them.
Human sexuality has virtually nothing to do with our current societal values.
Really? Human sexuality encompasses the sexual knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors of individuals. Its various dimensions involve the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the sexual response system; identity, orientation, roles, and personality; and thoughts, feelings, and relationships. Sexuality is influenced by ethical, spiritual, cultural, and moral concerns. All persons are sexual, in the broadest sense of the word.
Sexuality is an intrinsic component of human identity. The variety of cultural beliefs, values, and customs related to sexuality has profound influence on both society and individuals. Cultural beliefs and norms are influenced and expressed through many institutions including families, communities, schools, faith-based organizations, and mass media. These institutions have an obligation to affirm sexuality in ways that support the sexual health and rights of all members of any society. Solitary
What, did you copy and paste that out of a textbook? I don't come here for that. Talk to me in your own words or not at all.
Quote from: "surly74"it's a reasonable position and viewpoint.
What is?
the article but it's being self sabotaged by having feminism in the title. this freedom feminisim title doesn't do it any good because people jump to conclusions about the movement's motives.
I think this is a perfect example of the level headedness that needs to happen.
QuoteFirst, gender gaps in wages, political leadership, and the professions would not automatically be taken as proof of discrimination. Freedom feminists allow that there could be innocent explanations for disparities. Instead, its focus would be on genuine injustice.
this also flies in the face of sterotypical feminists which I applaud.
QuoteSecond, the women's lobby would muster the courage to address a root cause of poverty in America: missing fathers. Freedom feminists may well join their more progressive sisters in supporting initiatives to assist poverty-stricken single mothers; but the primary focus would be on combatting male-averse educational and social policies that have helped create a dysfunctional culture of fatherlessness.
i don't know what you call it it but a common sense revolution. allow moderate viewpoints and guys like me won't get all defensive.
The freedom feminism described in the article rejects patriarchy theory and supposes there might be a non-oppression related reason behind pay inequality and a number of other status related differences between the genders.
It also says:
QuoteFreedom feminists may well join their more progressive sisters in supporting initiatives to assist poverty-stricken single mothers; but the primary focus would be on combatting male-averse educational and social policies that have helped create a dysfunctional culture of fatherlessness.
I'm not 100% sure what is meant by that, but I assume its talking about how a man can't get single custody of a child in the United States if the mother still has a pulse and other similar issues?
Honestly this sort of viewpoint is what feminists often call male rights activism. You express these ideas, there are people who will call you an MRA (usually followed by some colorful adjective like "shitbag" or "rape supporter").
Quote from: "Nonsensei"The freedom feminism described in the article rejects patriarchy theory and supposes there might be a non-oppression related reason behind pay inequality and a number of other status related differences between the genders.
It also says:
QuoteFreedom feminists may well join their more progressive sisters in supporting initiatives to assist poverty-stricken single mothers; but the primary focus would be on combatting male-averse educational and social policies that have helped create a dysfunctional culture of fatherlessness.
I'm not 100% sure what is meant by that, but I assume its talking about how a man can't get single custody of a child in the United States if the mother still has a pulse and other similar issues?
Honestly this sort of viewpoint is what extremist feminists often call male rights activism. You express these ideas, there are people who will call you an MRA (usually followed by some colorful adjective like "shitbag" or "rape supporter").
FTFY
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I'm not 100% sure what is meant by that, but I assume its talking about how a man can't get single custody of a child in the United States if the mother still has a pulse and other similar issues?
that's how i took it.
I'm not much of a feminist, really. I'm more of a humanist.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"I'm not much of a feminist, really. I'm more of a humanist.
You're a misanthrope. :-D
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "the_antithesis"I'm not much of a feminist, really. I'm more of a humanist.
You're a misanthrope. :-D
A misanthropic humanist. I believe all people should be hated equally because they deserve it.
well...i just figured out what I am.
I agree its HBA and LDV re: egalitarianism. Everyone should be an egalitarian.
Quote from: "missingnocchi"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"though I feel more comfortable with the label atheist, than feminist because I think atheism does describe quite nicely how I feel about gods, whereas feminist doesn't because its women focused, and I am people focused. Egalitarian just sounds better to me. though I'll say again I know based on how many feminists use the term and see it, I fit the bill.
What is wrong with being women-focused, though?
We have gay rights movements which are focused on gay people.
We have minority movements focused on minorities.
We have child advocacy groups focused on children.
What is so wrong about a feminist movement focused on the specific problems of women?
I find it strange that I really only encounter this "I'm about people" attitude when talking about feminism.
Feminists constantly insist that the men's rights movement shouldn't exist
Some feminists. I think it's important to make that distinction.
Quotebecause feminism will solve male gender based problems as well. If that's the case, then the name should reflect the idea of abolishing all gender discrimination. I agree that women bear the majority of the problems, but I think that's a bad reason to make it the headline, for the very reasons you espouse in the argument above.
I think we can all agree that when
any oppressed minority does better, every one in society does better. That doesn't mean specific rights groups should change their names.
I think what people in this thread are failing to understand is that it's called feminism because it's about specifically helping oppressed women. That doesn't mean feminists ignore men, or dominate them, or aren't empathetic to their role in women's lives. We know men are important, too. But the movement is about helping women get the opportunities denied to them simply because they are female. And that's why it's called feminism. That's the label.
What I'm concerned about it changing the bad image people have of feminism, not changing the name. There needs to be a reformation within the movement. Extremism needs to be weeded out, we need to work with more men, etc. And together we can all help women who are discriminated against in all parts of the world.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "Nonsensei"The freedom feminism described in the article rejects patriarchy theory and supposes there might be a non-oppression related reason behind pay inequality and a number of other status related differences between the genders.
It also says:
QuoteFreedom feminists may well join their more progressive sisters in supporting initiatives to assist poverty-stricken single mothers; but the primary focus would be on combatting male-averse educational and social policies that have helped create a dysfunctional culture of fatherlessness.
I'm not 100% sure what is meant by that, but I assume its talking about how a man can't get single custody of a child in the United States if the mother still has a pulse and other similar issues?
Honestly this sort of viewpoint is what extremist feminists often call male rights activism. You express these ideas, there are people who will call you an MRA (usually followed by some colorful adjective like "shitbag" or "rape supporter").
FTFY
Ehm...nah. Thats perilously close to a no true scotsman argument. I admit calling someone an MRA shitbag is probably a reliable sign of an extremist, but there are plenty of non-extremist feminists who believe in the patriarchy, pay disparity is due to discrimination etc etc and will get fairly upset at anyone who challenges those long accepted presumptions.
Before you tear my penis off I should say I understand where the author of the article is coming from and I agree that it is probably a better way to achieve the goals of gender equality than what many would call the current disposition of feminism. Any philosophy for gender equality that doesn't directly or indirectly encourage women to look at men as adversaries is, in my opinion, more likely to succeed.
But the sort of accusations individuals get when expressing many of these same positions will also be leveled at this new form of feminism, which could be very divisive if taken seriously.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"QuoteHonestly this sort of viewpoint is what extremist feminists often call male rights activism. You express these ideas, there are people who will call you an MRA (usually followed by some colorful adjective like "shitbag" or "rape supporter").
FTFY
Ehm...nah. Thats perilously close to a no true scotsman argument. I admit calling someone an MRA shitbag is probably a reliable sign of an extremist, but there are plenty of non-extremist feminists who believe in the patriarchy, pay disparity is due to discrimination etc etc and will get fairly upset at anyone who challenges those long accepted presumptions.
I'm not sure what some feminists believing in pay discrimination and patriarchy has to do with extremists calling men "MRA shitbags". I'm confused why you're conflating the two since they are not mutually inclusive.
QuoteBefore you tear my penis off
Really?
Really? :-|
Look, I'm getting tired of this "no true scotsman" thing a few of you are throwing around when I try to point out that generalizing femininsts is wrong, acting as if all feminists are the same and believe that the problems females face all arise from the same sources. The one thing we have in common is that we are trying to help women overcome unfair obstacles.
I feel like an atheist explaining to religious people that all atheists aren't baby-eating assholes.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Look, I'm getting tired of this "no true scotsman" thing a few of you are throwing around when I try to point out that generalizing femininsts is wrong, acting as if all feminists are the same and believe that the problems females face all arise from the same sources. The one thing we have in common is that we are trying to help women overcome unfair obstacles.
I feel like an atheist explaining to religious people that all atheists aren't baby-eating assholes.
you may have posted this somewhere but how have you personally been oppressed or faced unfair obstacles?
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Look, I'm getting tired of this "no true scotsman" thing a few of you are throwing around when I try to point out that generalizing femininsts is wrong, acting as if all feminists are the same and believe that the problems females face all arise from the same sources. The one thing we have in common is that we are trying to help women overcome unfair obstacles.
I feel like an atheist explaining to religious people that all atheists aren't baby-eating assholes.
you may have posted this somewhere but how have you personally been oppressed or faced unfair obstacles?
Mostly I've just faced
a lot of sexual harassment throughout my life. I was also molested at a party and later told it was my fault.
My opinions have been overlooked and ignored before simply because I am female. (One particular incident stands out when someone came to inquire about Camaro Z28). I have been told that women are not good at certain jobs, like anything that requires math and science. I have been demeaned countless times for being a female. I can't drive, go make a sandwich, I'm too emotional, I'm too prudish, I dress too slutty, you're selfish and weird for not wanting children, women are only interested in money, you were asking for it, etc.
All of this pales in comparison to what many other women across the world face daily, but yes, I've had to deal with my own little injustices my entire life because of my vagina. And all the little things really do pile up.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Mostly I've just faced a lot of sexual harassment throughout my life. I was also molested at a party and later told it was my fault.
My opinions have been overlooked and ignored before simply because I am female. (One particular incident stands out when someone came to inquire about Camaro Z28). I have been told that women are not good at certain jobs, like anything that requires math and science. I have been demeaned countless times for being a female. I can't drive, go make a sandwich, I'm too emotional, I'm too prudish, I dress too slutty, you're selfish and weird for not wanting children, women are only interested in money, you were asking for it, etc.
All of this pales in comparison to what many other women across the world face daily, but yes, I've had to deal with my own little injustices my entire life because of my vagina. And all the little things really do pile up.
Are these examples of oppression? I was expecting to be told that when you started a job at the same time a guy did you started at a lower salary, or you had more experience than a guy and he got the promotion. Or that you were denied being allowed to do something because you were a woman. Even then there are going to be reasons that aren't oppression. Moslestation aside comments are one thing, they are comments. Everyone gets comments.
What I am saying is equality is a nice term but I don't know if anyone knows what that means or actually wants it. You might be good at math and science but are there lots of women wanting to go into those fields and are being kept out because they are women? I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's not, on average, something women get into. Like men that get into nursing, not traditionally a male role.
There is a difference between having comments directed at you about not being good at something and actually being denied the ability to do it.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Mostly I've just faced a lot of sexual harassment throughout my life. I was also molested at a party and later told it was my fault.
My opinions have been overlooked and ignored before simply because I am female. (One particular incident stands out when someone came to inquire about Camaro Z28). I have been told that women are not good at certain jobs, like anything that requires math and science. I have been demeaned countless times for being a female. I can't drive, go make a sandwich, I'm too emotional, I'm too prudish, I dress too slutty, you're selfish and weird for not wanting children, women are only interested in money, you were asking for it, etc.
All of this pales in comparison to what many other women across the world face daily, but yes, I've had to deal with my own little injustices my entire life because of my vagina. And all the little things really do pile up.
Are these examples of oppression? I was expecting to be told that when you started a job at the same time a guy did you started at a lower salary, or you had more experience than a guy and he got the promotion. Or that you were denied being allowed to do something because you were a woman. Even then there are going to be reasons that aren't oppression. Moslestation aside comments are one thing, they are comments. Everyone gets comments.
Gee, sorry my own personal experiences aren't "bad" enough.
Although, there are other women our there who have had to face what you just described, which is why I'm part of the feminist movement.
QuoteWhat I am saying is equality is a nice term but I don't know if anyone knows what that means or actually wants it.
Well, I think there are plenty of people who know exactly what it means.
QuoteYou might be good at math and science but are there lots of women wanting to go into those fields and are being kept out because they are women?
By over-bearing families? Absolutely. By a rogue employer who discriminates? That happens, too.
QuoteThere is a difference between having comments directed at you about not being good at something and actually being denied the ability to do it.
Yes, I know the difference.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Gee, sorry my own personal experiences aren't "bad" enough.
i'm looking for examples of oppression that you have gone through. every one has bad experiences.
QuoteAlthough, there are other women our there who have had to face what you just described, which is why I'm part of the feminist movement.
and what does the feminist movement want to do about it? gender pay gaps. what are the objectives to conqure that? otherwise it just sounds like a movement similar to the ID movement. or is it making women get paid the same amount as men? again, this is a merit based system.
QuoteWell, I think there are plenty of people who know exactly what it means.
people think that. men and women are not equal. there are things that men can do that women can't, there are things that women do that men can't. not equal does not mean one is better but men and women are not the same.
QuoteBy over-bearing families? Absolutely. By a rogue employer who discriminates? That happens, too.
to you? that's what i was asking for. how have you been a victim of employment discrimination? How was it discrimination? That's odd because my wife had a job interview last night where the 10 people interviewed were women. is it discrimination or were there no qualified male candidates? This is always a fun area, someone doesn't get their way so it must have been discrimination.
QuoteQuoteThere is a difference between having comments directed at you about not being good at something and actually being denied the ability to do it.
Yes, I know the difference.
and the difference isn't oppression.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Gee, sorry my own personal experiences aren't "bad" enough.
i'm looking for examples of oppression that you have gone through. every one has bad experiences.
I have never been "oppressed" as a woman. But many women across the globe have been, and I am empathetic to their cause because had I been born in their place, the same would have happened to me.
QuoteQuoteAlthough, there are other women our there who have had to face what you just described, which is why I'm part of the feminist movement.
and what does the feminist movement want to do about it? gender pay gaps. what are the objectives to conqure that? otherwise it just sounds like a movement similar to the ID movement. or is it making women get paid the same amount as men? again, this is a merit based system.
The feminist movement is FAR larger than just wage discrepancy.
QuoteQuoteWell, I think there are plenty of people who know exactly what it means.
people think that. men and women are not equal. there are things that men can do that women can't, there are things that women do that men can't. not equal does not mean one is better but men and women are not the same.
Being treated equally in society and be given the same opportunities as everyone else has nothing to do with our biological differences. Everyone should be treated equally. Just because we are not biologically the same does not mean we don't know that we want equality in society for all people.
QuoteQuoteBy over-bearing families? Absolutely. By a rogue employer who discriminates? That happens, too.
to you? that's what i was asking for.
No, not to me. Does that even matter?
Quotehow have you been a victim of employment discrimination? How was it discrimination? That's odd because my wife had a job interview last night where the 10 people interviewed were women. is it discrimination or were there no qualified male candidates? This is always a fun area, someone doesn't get their way so it must have been discrimination.
I think you're making assumptions here.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThere is a difference between having comments directed at you about not being good at something and actually being denied the ability to do it.
Yes, I know the difference.
and the difference isn't oppression.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
I know the difference between having discriminatory and demeaning comments made towards me and being denied opportunities. I have never personally been denied an opportunity to do something (to my knowledge) because of my gender, and I said as much. But I am not every woman, and many women across the world have had to deal with discrimination and oppression, which is why I'm a part of the cause to end it.
Does that clarify things for you?
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "surly74"people think that. men and women are not equal. there are things that men can do that women can't, there are things that women do that men can't. not equal does not mean one is better but men and women are not the same.
Being treated equally in society and be given the same opportunities as everyone else has nothing to do with our biological differences. Everyone should be treated equally. Just because we are not biologically the same does not mean we don't know that we want equality in society for all people.
^^This.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Look, I'm getting tired of this "no true scotsman" thing a few of you are throwing around when I try to point out that generalizing femininsts is wrong, acting as if all feminists are the same and believe that the problems females face all arise from the same sources. The one thing we have in common is that we are trying to help women overcome unfair obstacles.
I feel like an atheist explaining to religious people that all atheists aren't baby-eating assholes.
Well to be blunt the number of feminists who see men as the enemy far outnumber atheist fetus consumers.
It just comes down to the fact that you aren't personally allowed to decide who is and is not a feminist. The primary reason that I think men don't jump on board the feminist movement is because of the sorts of feminists that see men as conspiratorial oppressive potential rapists. Anyone who says they know how many of these sorts of feminists there are in relation to the overall size of the feminist movement is full of shit.
As someone with a dick who has never hurt, abused, discriminated against, or otherwise been improperly negative toward any female ever, I am NOT signing onto a movement that has an unknown number of people in it that consider me the root of the problem. You can try to slice them out all you want, but that's a fairy tale. These people are real, and theres more than enough of them to be noticeable. Thats what someone who posted earlier meant by cleaning your house. Feminism as an entity needs to not only adopt a stance that doesn't alienate a specific gender, but also needs to make it clear that the "extremist fringes" of their own movement hold views that are absolutely not acceptable.
Until that time I will continue to support egalitarianism as it relates to gender issues.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"I have never been "oppressed" as a woman. But many women across the globe have been, and I am empathetic to their cause because had I been born in their place, the same would have happened to me.
and that's fine but how do feminists affect change in other parts of the world where they aren't from? I'm not saying it's not noble to want to stand up with other women, how realistic is it? that's why i tried to keep to examples mainly in north america. Also complaining here that somewhere else is unjust is essentially useless.
QuoteThe feminist movement is FAR larger than just wage discrepancy.
i know it is but is there a wage discrepancy in North America? Feminists would say there is but there are lots of reputable reports that is now a myth. I only picked wage gap as an example. The American Association of University Women now state that instead of a gap of 23 cents per it's at six cents per dollar and the AAUA is trying to determine if it's from discrimination.
What are the other main issues that are perceive to oppress women in NA?
QuoteBeing treated equally in society and be given the same opportunities as everyone else has nothing to do with our biological differences. Everyone should be treated equally. Just because we are not biologically the same does not mean we don't know that we want equality in society for all people.
equal prison sentences? completely merit based achievements. same standards for physical jobs as men? eliminating female work place quotas? that type of equality? again, what opportunities do women in NA not have that men do?
QuoteNo, not to me. Does that even matter?
i want to try and get a feel for how discriminated against women in North America are. you haven't experienced it but assert it's happened. I'm looking for examples as right now I don't automatically believe something is happening because someone says so. I can find lots of articles from legitimate sources that talk that how things used to be
Quotehow have you been a victim of employment discrimination? How was it discrimination? That's odd because my wife had a job interview last night where the 10 people interviewed were women. is it discrimination or were there no qualified male candidates? This is always a fun area, someone doesn't get their way so it must have been discrimination.
I think you're making assumptions here.
no more than anyone else that says widespread oppression and discrimination happens in the US or Canada.
QuoteI know the difference between having discriminatory and demeaning comments made towards me and being denied opportunities. I have never personally been denied an opportunity to do something (to my knowledge) because of my gender, and I said as much. But I am not every woman, and many women across the world have had to deal with discrimination and oppression, which is why I'm a part of the cause to end it.
Does that clarify things for you?
first, i don't equate demeaning to automatically mean discriminatory when it comes to comments. The word is thrown around so much it's starting to lose meaning and really waters down people that are actually being discriminated against.
what does a world free of oppression look like?
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "surly74"people think that. men and women are not equal. there are things that men can do that women can't, there are things that women do that men can't. not equal does not mean one is better but men and women are not the same.
Being treated equally in society and be given the same opportunities as everyone else has nothing to do with our biological differences. Everyone should be treated equally. Just because we are not biologically the same does not mean we don't know that we want equality in society for all people.
^^This.
what does this equality look like?
IMHO, feminism tends to be equated with militant man hating by a lot of people. Thats why most don't identify as such.
Quote from: "surly74"what does this equality look like?
It's a fairly simple concept, no? I'm kinda stunned someone can't grasp "this equality". It means that people won't be forced into gender roles or not be allowed to reach their dream simply because they are of the wrong gender (or race, etnicity, etc.). True equality between the sexes is gender blind - but we got a long way to go there.
There are two types of quality we need to strive for:
1. Legal equality
2. Social equality
Legal equality between the sexes simply means that the law is gender blind. Which is essentially as simply as can be. Western country's are mostly quite close to this, though you'll probably be able to find sexist laws in all of these country's. (note that these laws easily can leave men as the losing party in the western world - if you need an incentive to fight for equality - how about more rights for yourself?)
Social equality is trickier. Unlike legal equality, which at least in theory can be fixed with a few penstrokes, the government can't force social behavior/norms - aside from outlawing harrashment, etc. Here we need societal change, and this is why we are currently in a transition period. Women are being more and more accepted in the work force, and we need the qoatas to create en envirement where women (and men) see that their gender can work there, does work there, etc. in other words, feel welcome and wanted. Equally it's becoming more and more accepted for men to be a caring parent. For there to be full equality what gender you happened to be born as should affect the life you want to lead as little as possible. The point of social gender equality is that women and men don't see limitations of what they can be because of their gender. There should also be the same level of acceptance and disapproval for actions/behaviors, regardless of your gender.
Note: The "feminist" state of Norway has quotas for men in professions primarily operated by women, this include psychology, and nurses studies too I believe. Like I stated above, the removal of patriarchy, and the closer we get to any sense of true equality, the better it is for men too. Depending on which culture you live in, as a man you might gain as much, if not more, on equality. The only thing you potentially can lose, as a man, is the right or heightened possibility to subjugate and oppress women - and as I don't believe you are doing that - you can only gain.
QuoteNote: The "feminist" state of Norway has quotas for men in professions primarily operated by women, this include psychology, and nurses studies too I believe.
This doesn't sound like progress to me. Nor does the opposite. If people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway? And if someone else is better at it, why should we forgo them and instead hire another because they happen to be of a different gender?
This is mostly on social equality I guess. Like you said, you can't force them. But this is an example of still trying to do just that.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteNote: The "feminist" state of Norway has quotas for men in professions primarily operated by women, this include psychology, and nurses studies too I believe.
This doesn't sound like progress to me. Nor does the opposite. If people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway? And if someone else is better at it, why should we forgo them and instead hire another because they happen to be of a different gender?
This is mostly on social equality I guess. Like you said, you can't force them. But this is an example of still trying to do just that.
I thought I explained why quite clearly above. It's the cultural push needed. It's a neccesary evil. This is done to open the gates and to make these professions desireable for a gender that before was underrepresented. It's not equality if there are social stigmas, dogmas and views on what's a profession for a man and what's a profession for a woman. When you're a child you should know that essentially all paths in life are open. As you're a man I'll use an issue for men to demonstrate my point. Isn't it wrong that men who have children (in most country's) won't even comtemplate the possibility of them being the primary parent, be it taking out paternity leave or even being a stay at home that. This is not a path in life that seems viable for men. Equally their are choices in the professional world that just doesn't seem viable to a lot of women. However, if we did demonstrate that they were viable for them, and a natural life path to take more women are likely to take up an interest/take this path, and then you'd get more qualified personell as you'd get the best from both genders, rather than just one. It's fairly easy.
Also, as society isn't (currently) gender blind there are occupations that need a fair balance between men and women. For example, if you need psychological help there are certain issues someone might be a lot less willing or comfortable with discussing with the opposite gender. In the police this is also highly important for frisking, etc. Many people are not comfortable with the opposite sex touching them in such a matter. Not to mention sensitive cases such as rape.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"How to Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists
Focus on injustice, poverty, and women in parts of the world beyond the United States.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... ts/277179/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/how-to-get-more-women-and-men-to-call-themselves-feminists/277179/)
QuoteWhen asked "Are you a feminist?" most Americans say no. A recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll is typical: Only 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men identified as "feminist." Accomplished women as diverse as Taylor Swift, Sandra Day O'Connor, Marissa Mayer, and Beyoncé object to the designation.
The emancipation of women is one of the glories of Western civilization and one of the great chapters in the history of freedom. Why is the term that describes that heritage in such disrepute?
Some will say the movement is receding because it has achieved its essential goals. So why not let it fade from the scene? That is an understandable but mistaken conclusion. Though the major battles for equality and opportunity in the United States have been fought and largely won, the work of feminism remains unfinished. Across the globe, fledgling women's groups struggle to survive in the face of genuine and often violent oppression.
QuoteWho needs feminism? We do. The world does. But an effective women's movement needs to be rescued from its current outcast state. Anyone who cares about improving the status of women around the world should be working to create a women's movement that resonates with women. A reality-based, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world. I call it "freedom feminism."
Freedom feminism stands for the moral, social, and legal equality of the sexes--and the freedom of women to employ their equal status to pursue happiness in their own distinctive ways. Freedom feminism is not at war with femininity or masculinity and it does not view men and women as opposing tribes. Theories of universal patriarchal oppression are not in its founding tablets. Nor are partisan litmus tests: It welcomes women and men from across the political spectrum. Put simply, freedom feminism affirms for women what it affirms for everyone: dignity, fairness, and personal liberty.
QuoteHistory suggests women fare the best when the two movements--progressive and conservative--work together. What do we have today? In the eyes of many, the current women's movement has devolved into a narrow, left-of-center special interest group. The majority of women have been left behind.
Freedom feminism combines aspects of both the egalitarian and maternal traditions. It shares with egalitarianism an aversion to prescribed gender roles: Women should be free to defect from the stereotypes of femininity if they so choose. At the same time, it respects the choices of free and self-determining women when they choose to embrace conventional feminine roles. Freedom feminism stands for equality of opportunity but does not insist on equality of results.
QuoteWomen are various. Despite several decades of warnings and denunciations of traditional gender roles, domestic life remains a vital priority for millions of women. And no amount of cajoling has discouraged women from pursuing pink-collar jobs in the helping and caring professions. Although British comedic writer Caitlin Moran calls herself a "strident feminist," many passages in her funny book How to be a Woman capture the spirit of freedom feminism. What is feminism? she asks. "Simply the belief that women should be as free as men, however nuts, dim, deluded, badly dressed, fat, receding, lazy, and smug they might be."
How would the women's movement change if freedom feminism were its guiding philosophy?
First, gender gaps in wages, political leadership, and the professions would not automatically be taken as proof of discrimination. Freedom feminists allow that there could be innocent explanations for disparities. Instead, its focus would be on genuine injustice.
QuoteMy advice to today's young women: Reform feminism. Give moderate and conservative women a voice. Most of all, make common cause with women across the globe who are struggling for their basic freedoms. Supporting truly oppressed women would give today's Western feminism something it has lacked for many years: a contemporary purpose worthy of its illustrious past.
This has always been my idea of feminism, and so it pains me to hear "femi-nazi" and other words like that throw around when I say I'm a feminist. It bothers me when people say we need a new name because feminist is such a dirty word. It's not. We all just need to work together.
Very. Much. Agreed.
Much!
QuoteI thought I explained why quite clearly above. It's the cultural push needed.
Perhaps. Although I wonder how well this kind of forced push works. Forcing people to hire men/women because of law doesn't exactly sound like the proper kind of motivation.
Especially if the reason that this rule is needed is because there aren't enough people of that gender looking for the job instead of them being actively denied/discriminated against.
I mean; it might be that we don't have a lot of male daycareleaders because of discrimination. It might also just be that men don't want the job. Forcing men to be hired that aren't really qualified just because they figured "hey if I do this, they kinda have to hire me" and there's a law saying you must hire at least 1 man per 3 women doesn't give off the proper kind of social vibe I think.
So yeah; it's wrong that at many kids don't realise men can be daycare leaders and women can be firemen. But saying "But you can become a firemen now Suzy, because the government forces firedepartments to hire them" isn't really going to change that for the better. I'd rather see a big social awareness campaign over a law that you
must hire a number of people of each gender.
The first can be used to say "the genders are the same and anyone can do the job they love". The second one tells me "The genders aren't the same, but we're going to force you to hire the inferior one as well because of equality."
At least to me, that's what I interpret when I hear those rules. And I don't think that's the proper message.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"It's a fairly simple concept, no? I'm kinda stunned someone can't grasp "this equality". It means that people won't be forced into gender roles or not be allowed to reach their dream simply because they are of the wrong gender (or race, etnicity, etc.). True equality between the sexes is gender blind - but we got a long way to go there.
listen, i'm not getting snarky with anyone so no need here. I have my own vision and I want to know what yours was to see if i'm on the same page and if there are differences. This thread has gone five pages with respectful discussion because people have refrained from insulting.
when i say "what does equality look like" i ask that because I'm talking one or two countries and everyone else is talking world wide...or it seems to be. how do you force other countries to treat women equal if they don't want to?
QuoteLegal equality between the sexes simply means that the law is gender blind. Which is essentially as simply as can be. Western country's are mostly quite close to this, though you'll probably be able to find sexist laws in all of these country's. (note that these laws easily can leave men as the losing party in the western world - if you need an incentive to fight for equality - how about more rights for yourself?)
this is interesting because the law looks much more favourably to women then it does to men. longer sentences for men for same crimes for example. In the UK women could retire earlier than men (not sure if still possible) and yet men die earlier. What about men getting a fair shake when it comes to custody of their children? When it comes to legal equality women would see alot of things change to their detrement.
QuoteSocial equality is trickier. Unlike legal equality, which at least in theory can be fixed with a few penstrokes, the government can't force social behavior/norms - aside from outlawing harrashment, etc. Here we need societal change, and this is why we are currently in a transition period. Women are being more and more accepted in the work force, and we need the qoatas to create en envirement where women (and men) see that their gender can work there, does work there, etc. in other words, feel welcome and wanted. Equally it's becoming more and more accepted for men to be a caring parent. For there to be full equality what gender you happened to be born as should affect the life you want to lead as little as possible. The point of social gender equality is that women and men don't see limitations of what they can be because of their gender. There should also be the same level of acceptance and disapproval for actions/behaviors, regardless of your gender.
equality in the work place would remove quotas and be purely performance based. I don't know how anyone can say quotas provide equality because quotas only serve to handcuff one demographic. There are jobs that women are naturally (on average) going to be limited, physical jobs and yet we see standards lowered to encourage more women to enter those jobs at the punishment of men. Or if the standards aren't lowered then complaints that not enough women aren't in those jobs.
we dont't see enough women in, garbage collection, truck driving, high danger jobs. men are more likely to die on the job than a woman and that's because men work more dangerous jobs. lets get more women into those rolls instead of complaining there aren't enough women CEO's. Those that want to try and become a CEO have to face the same competition men do. That currently doesn't happen.
is it a coincidence that the vast vast majority of technical, scientific, medical, economical advancements have been made by men?
this is where equality gets tricky.
QuoteNote: The "feminist" state of Norway has quotas for men in professions primarily operated by women, this include psychology, and nurses studies too I believe. Like I stated above, the removal of patriarchy, and the closer we get to any sense of true equality, the better it is for men too. Depending on which culture you live in, as a man you might gain as much, if not more, on equality. The only thing you potentially can lose, as a man, is the right or heightened possibility to subjugate and oppress women - and as I don't believe you are doing that - you can only gain.
quotas aren't in place because people are being discriminated against, quotas are in place to encourage people who wouldn't normally go into a field because, typically they don't want to, thereby watering down the talent pool. do we need quotas to get more women into sciences? Are there lots of women trying to get into those programs and are being denied by men or is it for other reasons?
Are you saying that Norway is a feminist state and a patriarchy? is the US a patriarchy? if it was wouldn't women be doing the shittiest jobs and men would have the cushiest one? The law would be slanted to the male side. In the US have women ever been included in a military draft or have to register? Men have to.
women can kidnap their children to prevent their fathers from seeing them, imagine if a father did that. what would happen to him? Can a man just accuse a woman of something and have her go to prison? happens to men.
when cries for equality are made are there women asking for the draft registration to be changed to include women? are women asking for the laws to have equal sentencing? Are women, in an accusation of rape, saying "wait until the facts come out?".
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteNote: The "feminist" state of Norway has quotas for men in professions primarily operated by women, this include psychology, and nurses studies too I believe.
This doesn't sound like progress to me. Nor does the opposite. If people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway? And if someone else is better at it, why should we forgo them and instead hire another because they happen to be of a different gender?
This is mostly on social equality I guess. Like you said, you can't force them. But this is an example of still trying to do just that.
Yeah - like back when people owned slaves. :shock: :shock: :shock: Why did we bother to get them to see that that was wrong? Because until social pressure/ explanation came about sooooo many thought owning slaves was just hunky dory. You sure seem to advocate 'leave well enough alone' often..... aka just let people figure out for themselves without any influences?
Please explain how 'leave well enough alone' and avoid any influence helps anything. I'd like some examples of serious social change for the better where someone did Not speak out nor set example.
'Leave well enough alone' is a church-thing if you ask me. If the church had it's way we'd all still be in the 1400s.
QuoteIf people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway?
QuoteYeah - like back when people owned slaves
Hur dur. How about "because the slaves didn't want to be slaves" maybe? This seems like a very, very far-fetched comparison. Abandoning slavery
was a case of "don't force people to do something they don't want to do", except for the
slaves, not their owners. The owners were (just like in my example) the bad guys for forcing people to do things they didn't want.
I'm not even saying "leave things alone", I'm saying "don't force it, encourage it". One motivated female firemen does more than 500 forcefully hired, poorly qualified female firemen. Having people of the non-traditional gender do the job
only works if they're doing because they love the work, it's detrimental if they're all there because they couldn't find other work because they're just worthless and only there because their employer was forced to hire them. People get the idea that there's a good reason that men don't become daycare leaders. I mean; just look at how incompetent men are at it!
We already hear this story about females doing heavy physical work all the time. "Women can't be soldiers, just look, they had to lower the standards for them!". That's not equality. That's bullshit. Either you can do the job, or you can't. Coddling the unqualified because they happen to have a penis or vagina is just as bad as not allowing them in.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Isn't it wrong that men who have children (in most country's) won't even comtemplate the possibility of them being the primary parent, be it taking out paternity leave or even being a stay at home that. This is not a path in life that seems viable for men. Equally their are choices in the professional world that just doesn't seem viable to a lot of women. However, if we did demonstrate that they were viable for them, and a natural life path to take more women are likely to take up an interest/take this path, and then you'd get more qualified personell as you'd get the best from both genders, rather than just one. It's fairly easy.
QuoteI'm in that situation. I make more than my wife so she stays home, also the baby is still nursing and no amount of determination will allow me to do that. it also makes more sense for me to work because I make more. It's not viable because taking (in our case) a year off isn't a good career move for me. My employer has to hold my job but I will lose a year's worth of work, pay raise when my wife can take the time off. there are lots of factors that go into play on whether or not a father will take parental leave over his wife. My wife has to go back six weeks early to work so I'll be taking the last six weeks off.
QuoteAlso, as society isn't (currently) gender blind there are occupations that need a fair balance between men and women. For example, if you need psychological help there are certain issues someone might be a lot less willing or comfortable with discussing with the opposite gender. In the police this is also highly important for frisking, etc. Many people are not comfortable with the opposite sex touching them in such a matter. Not to mention sensitive cases such as rape.
I agree with you but if there aren't a certain gender gravitating to a certain field is trying to shoe horn someone not really interested in that field the best thing? either gender?
no one is saying there shouldn't be women police officers or women firefighters, just that they face the same physical standards men do.
Men as a whole are less concerned with what their job is rather if they have one. How many women here would date or marry a career garbage man or would they look at his career and not find him suitable? How many men here would date or marry a woman who was a garbage collector? I don't think it's a stretch that it would be easier for the man to look past what the woman does.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteIf people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway?
QuoteYeah - like back when people owned slaves
Hur dur. How about "because the slaves didn't want to be slaves" maybe? This seems like a very, very far-fetched comparison. Abandoning slavery was a case of "don't force people to do something they don't want to do", except for the slaves, not their owners. The owners were (just like in my example) the bad guys for forcing people to do things they didn't want.
I'm not even saying "leave things alone", I'm saying "don't force it, encourage it". One motivated female firemen does more than 500 forcefully hired, poorly qualified female firemen. Having people of the non-traditional gender do the job only works if they're doing because they love the work, it's detrimental if they're all there because they couldn't find other work because they're just worthless and only there because their employer was forced to hire them. People get the idea that there's a good reason that men don't become daycare leaders. I mean; just look at how incompetent men are at it!
We already hear this story about females doing heavy physical work all the time. "Women can't be soldiers, just look, they had to lower the standards for them!". That's not equality. That's bullshit. Either you can do the job, or you can't. Coddling the unqualified because they happen to have a penis or vagina is just as bad as not allowing them in.
Unless I'm mistaken - I have never suggested that a woman be given a job Simply on the factor of being a woman.
No.
What true feminism is - is that women are not discriminated against (for being women).
Period.
You going to the extreme of saying women getting jobs
Because they are women is an entirely different topic, quite frankly.
Getting a job should be based on qualification - nothing more and nothing less. But
By keeping that mindset of women NOT getting passed over Look how far we've come. We have women Hospital Administrators now. Where were they in the 60s? There are many females heading corporations now and the head of law firms or CEOs of companies worldwide. That came about because some of us fought to help make that happen.
And by the way --- there Are still jobs in the military that women are not allowed to do - based solely on their physical prowess. But when the day comes that a muscle and strong (likely larger built) female wants that job.... she should get the chance.
And believe me............... she'll show up one day.
I, for one, would like to support her. Not suppress her.
QuoteGetting a job should be based on qualification - nothing more and nothing less.
That's exactly what I've been saying. If we're in agreement, why are you saying that I'm wrong? :/
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI thought I explained why quite clearly above. It's the cultural push needed.
Perhaps. Although I wonder how well this kind of forced push works. Forcing people to hire men/women because of law doesn't exactly sound like the proper kind of motivation.
Especially if the reason that this rule is needed is because there aren't enough people of that gender looking for the job instead of them being actively denied/discriminated against.
I mean; it might be that we don't have a lot of male daycareleaders because of discrimination. It might also just be that men don't want the job. Forcing men to be hired that aren't really qualified just because they figured "hey if I do this, they kinda have to hire me" and there's a law saying you must hire at least 1 man per 3 women doesn't give off the proper kind of social vibe I think.
So yeah; it's wrong that at many kids don't realise men can be daycare leaders and women can be firemen. But saying "But you can become a firemen now Suzy, because the government forces firedepartments to hire them" isn't really going to change that for the better. I'd rather see a big social awareness campaign over a law that you must hire a number of people of each gender.
The first can be used to say "the genders are the same and anyone can do the job they love". The second one tells me "The genders aren't the same, but we're going to force you to hire the inferior one as well because of equality."
At least to me, that's what I interpret when I hear those rules. And I don't think that's the proper message.
In Norway we primarily use more subtle, less forceful approaches, like gender points. If you're applying to study for a profession primarily occupied by the opposite gender if will be easier for you to enter. We also have age points, etc.
I do get your point, note how I described it as a neccesary evil, but you seem to be missing mine. This is just temporary. It's just about 100 years since women got the right to vote (in Norway, we were one of the first) and up until very, very recently we still had extremely heavy gender roles. We just need to abolish forced genders roles as much as possible, and when they are gone, and everyone starts out as equall as they can be, there will be little to no need for quotas (except in cases were a certain amount of one gender will be neccesary regardless of interest). Gender roles still exists to a degree. People are guiden through lives by semi-invisible ropes they might not even realize are there. It's not about forcing people into professions, but making a cultural shift demonstrating that these are valid and perfectly natural/acceptable paths, regardless of your gender.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Getting a job should be based on qualification - nothing more and nothing less.
But
By keeping that mindset of women NOT getting passed over Look how far we've come. We have women Hospital Administrators now. Where were they in the 60s? There are many females heading corporations now and the head of law firms or CEOs of companies worldwide. That came about because some of us fought to help make that happen.
And by the way --- there Are still jobs in the military that women are not allowed to do - based solely on their physical prowess. But when the day comes that a muscle and strong (likely larger built) female wants that job.... she should get the chance.
And believe me............... she'll show up one day.
I, for one, would like to support her. Not suppress her.
not being alive in the 60's there was oppression of women, i will never deny that, and women are in positions now that have been dominated by men. and if women continue to do that there is no issue as long as it was merit based. getting women into those positions for any other reason isn't equality. no argument here.
as for the military, one day that muscle bound woman will have the change to get blown to smithereens like her male counterparts.
I certainly hope that the measures are only temporary, I just really hope that forcing people of a gender into a certain profession isn't going to accomplish the exact opposite of what is being aimed for.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"It's a fairly simple concept, no? I'm kinda stunned someone can't grasp "this equality". It means that people won't be forced into gender roles or not be allowed to reach their dream simply because they are of the wrong gender (or race, etnicity, etc.). True equality between the sexes is gender blind - but we got a long way to go there.
listen, i'm not getting snarky with anyone so no need here. I have my own vision and I want to know what yours was to see if i'm on the same page and if there are differences. This thread has gone five pages with respectful discussion because people have refrained from insulting. when i say "what does equality look like" i ask that because I'm talking one or two countries and everyone else is talking world wide...or it seems to be.
Ah, sorry, read that as really snarky.
Quotehow do you force other countries to treat women equal if they don't want to?
That's actually quite easy. The same way we force them to follow other human rights. Of course, this might not work in all countries, but the ones that need us for financial support, for trade and as allies will simply need to make some adjustments. For example, when you join the UN, certain rules will overwrite your laws. We have done very similar measures in the past, continue to do so, and to a degree it has been shown to be effective.
QuoteQuoteLegal equality between the sexes simply means that the law is gender blind. Which is essentially as simply as can be. Western country's are mostly quite close to this, though you'll probably be able to find sexist laws in all of these country's. (note that these laws easily can leave men as the losing party in the western world - if you need an incentive to fight for equality - how about more rights for yourself?)
this is interesting because the law looks much more favourably to women then it does to men. longer sentences for men for same crimes for example. In the UK women could retire earlier than men (not sure if still possible) and yet men die earlier. What about men getting a fair shake when it comes to custody of their children? When it comes to legal equality women would see alot of things change to their detrement.
We're talking about equality, not female superiority. Like I pointed out above the current patriarchical system is giving men a really rotten deal as well. It's in both genders best interest to crush it!
QuoteQuoteSocial equality is trickier. Unlike legal equality, which at least in theory can be fixed with a few penstrokes, the government can't force social behavior/norms - aside from outlawing harrashment, etc. Here we need societal change, and this is why we are currently in a transition period. Women are being more and more accepted in the work force, and we need the qoatas to create en envirement where women (and men) see that their gender can work there, does work there, etc. in other words, feel welcome and wanted. Equally it's becoming more and more accepted for men to be a caring parent. For there to be full equality what gender you happened to be born as should affect the life you want to lead as little as possible. The point of social gender equality is that women and men don't see limitations of what they can be because of their gender. There should also be the same level of acceptance and disapproval for actions/behaviors, regardless of your gender.
equality in the work place would remove quotas and be purely performance based. I don't know how anyone can say quotas provide equality because quotas only serve to handcuff one demographic. There are jobs that women are naturally (on average) going to be limited, physical jobs and yet we see standards lowered to encourage more women to enter those jobs at the punishment of men. Or if the standards aren't lowered then complaints that not enough women aren't in those jobs.
Agreed, 100%, but you didn't address the point of quotas. Gender quoats are inherently sexist, but they are a neccesary evil that must be used to break down barriers, because just as there might be professions that will just naturally appeal to one gender over the other, there are professions that might appeal to both - but one gender has not been made aware that it would be a natural path in life, if even a possibility. When we get to that point - which at least the western world is rapidly closing in on, just look at the changes over the last few decades - gender quotas will no longer be neccesaty (except in professions that will need a certain amount of one gender, regardless of interest from said gender).
Quotewe dont't see enough women in, garbage collection, truck driving, high danger jobs. men are more likely to die on the job than a woman and that's because men work more dangerous jobs. lets get more women into those rolls instead of complaining there aren't enough women CEO's. Those that want to try and become a CEO have to face the same competition men do. That currently doesn't happen.
is it a coincidence that the vast vast majority of technical, scientific, medical, economical advancements have been made by men?
this is where equality gets tricky.
Nope. These are the gender roles working, primarily. Women are not flocking to the sciences, despite having a higher average level of intelligence than men. This is one of the reasons we need societal equality, so that the best brains from both genders can will be attracted by science. It won't be that easy if it looks like one huge boys club.
As for high risk jobs, many might suit women just as much as men, societal equality will obviously have effect here as well.
QuoteQuoteNote: The "feminist" state of Norway has quotas for men in professions primarily operated by women, this include psychology, and nurses studies too I believe. Like I stated above, the removal of patriarchy, and the closer we get to any sense of true equality, the better it is for men too. Depending on which culture you live in, as a man you might gain as much, if not more, on equality. The only thing you potentially can lose, as a man, is the right or heightened possibility to subjugate and oppress women - and as I don't believe you are doing that - you can only gain.
quotas aren't in place because people are being discriminated against, quotas are in place to encourage people who wouldn't normally go into a field because, typically they don't want to, thereby watering down the talent pool. do we need quotas to get more women into sciences? Are there lots of women trying to get into those programs and are being denied by men or is it for other reasons?
Didn't I just say that? I never mentioned discrimination ... Well, there's obviously enough evidence to show that at least some discrimination takes place, and these quotas might help with this too, but like I elaborately went into above - it is about getting more of one gender into a profession so it will be more natural for others of that gender to seek it out.
QuoteAre you saying that Norway is a feminist state and a patriarchy? is the US a patriarchy? if it was wouldn't women be doing the shittiest jobs and men would have the cushiest one? The law would be slanted to the male side. In the US have women ever been included in a military draft or have to register? Men have to.
You seem to be confused about what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is NOT pro-man. It's as much anti-man as it's anti-women. Both genders are victims of it. Patriarchy is the system that forces men to be strong, emotionless breadwinners and family heads, while it forced women to be weak, subjugated ornaments who should just raise children and stick to the kitchen. Yes, it gives men a bit more "power and freedom", but it's the type of power and freedom you're tied to, can't give away and will become an outcast if you reject. Patriarchy is what forces men to have the dangerous and deadly jobs because in patriarchy men must be strong and women must be weak. Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!
Norway is typically considered feminist because we are working towards feminist values. Patriarchy is still present, but fading.
Quotewomen can kidnap their children to prevent their fathers from seeing them, imagine if a father did that. what would happen to him? Can a man just accuse a woman of something and have her go to prison? happens to men.
If a mother kidnaps her child she will obviously go to prison, won't she? If not your country's laws are broken. Not sure what crime women can just accuse men off that puts them in jail, it has to be proven in a court of law. If you are reffering to rape allegations most rape cases don't even make it to court, and there's rarely enough evidence to convict someone. I'm not really sure what you are talking about here.
Quotewhen cries for equality are made are there women asking for the draft registration to be changed to include women? are women asking for the laws to have equal sentencing? Are women, in an accusation of rape, saying "wait until the facts come out?".
Why are you asking what women wants? Women =/= feminists. There are tons of women in favor of patriarchy. Are you gonna ask what "whites", "blacks", etc. wants next? (that's not being snarky, just demonstrating how weird your questions were). And yes, for there to be equality the draft would obviously need to include women as well.
Quote from: "Plu"I certainly hope that the measures are only temporary, I just really hope that forcing people of a gender into a certain profession isn't going to accomplish the exact opposite of what is being aimed for.
Forcing? We are not forcing it upon the genders in the quotas. We are just making it slightly easier for some groups to get into certain professions as a temporary measure. The people who actually are trying to get the jobs kinda want them you know. They are not being forced. If you mean that we are forcing professions to give one gender a slight edge, then yes, but it's not that the people getting the jobs are incompetent, only that they might be slightly less so than some of their competition. Is that unfair? Yes! Obviously! But it's even more unfair that certain paths in life seem closed to a group. It really doesn't take that long to create change here either.
I hope so. I just see too easy a path for people to say "hey, so few of my gender take this line of work that I'm bound to get hired by law if I take it up."
I certainly wish people wouldn't be like that, but they are people.
Unless the quota is low enough that there are already enough people of that gender on the market to fill it (in which case you wonder why the quota) job openings like that are going to be a draw for people who just want "a job". Not neccesarily people who like doing it.
(I mean; I'm trying to get my girlfriend into IT for the same reason. Not because she likes it, simply because there's a good chance she'll get a job there. There's no quota or anything though, but the simple fact that there is work is enough to get her motivated to try it.)
QuoteIf a mother kidnaps her child she will obviously go to prison, won't she? If not your country's laws are broken. Not sure what crime women can just accuse men off that puts them in jail, it has to be proven in a court of law. If you are reffering to rape allegations most rape cases don't even make it to court, and there's rarely enough evidence to convict someone. I'm not really sure what you are talking about here.
In this case the kidnapping is legal. Heres a manual to all you ladies in case you end up hating the father of your child and want him to pay for child support without ever being able to visit.
1) Win custody of your child. If you have a pulse and arent a complete irretrievable psychopath, this step should pose no problem. Just say he cheated on you. You won't even be asked to prove it.
2) Let the father see the child for a few years. This establishes a child support payment history and serves as evidence that you were willing to allow the father to see the child.
3) Work on your kid. Tell them that everything that went wrong is their father's fault. Make them not want to see him anymore.
4) Refuse visitation, and say its because the child says they don't want to see him anymore. The court may wish to hear it from the child. Shouldn't be a problem.
Voila. You now have your own money slave who is obligated to pay you but has no visitation rights. You have kidnapped his child and made him pay for it. Before you start sputtering about how that can't happen, it happened with me. I was the child in this case. By the age of 13 I no longer had to see my biological father but he still had to pay all the way through college.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Isn't it wrong that men who have children (in most country's) won't even comtemplate the possibility of them being the primary parent, be it taking out paternity leave or even being a stay at home that. This is not a path in life that seems viable for men. Equally their are choices in the professional world that just doesn't seem viable to a lot of women. However, if we did demonstrate that they were viable for them, and a natural life path to take more women are likely to take up an interest/take this path, and then you'd get more qualified personell as you'd get the best from both genders, rather than just one. It's fairly easy.
I'm in that situation. I make more than my wife so she stays home, also the baby is still nursing and no amount of determination will allow me to do that. it also makes more sense for me to work because I make more. It's not viable because taking (in our case) a year off isn't a good career move for me. My employer has to hold my job but I will lose a year's worth of work, pay raise when my wife can take the time off. there are lots of factors that go into play on whether or not a father will take parental leave over his wife. My wife has to go back six weeks early to work so I'll be taking the last six weeks off.
Here the question just becomes, why would a man earn more than a woman, why would this be the norm. And yes, we already know the answer, the patriarchical system tells men that they need to be the breadwinner. When this norm changes men and women will be freer to see which one would be best suited to stay home with the child.
QuoteQuoteAlso, as society isn't (currently) gender blind there are occupations that need a fair balance between men and women. For example, if you need psychological help there are certain issues someone might be a lot less willing or comfortable with discussing with the opposite gender. In the police this is also highly important for frisking, etc. Many people are not comfortable with the opposite sex touching them in such a matter. Not to mention sensitive cases such as rape.
I agree with you but if there aren't a certain gender gravitating to a certain field is trying to shoe horn someone not really interested in that field the best thing? either gender?
Why do you think they are not interested. That's a weird assumtion. Less good at school/slightly less competent perhaps, but that says little about how interested they are in the work. And yes, if there is a need for a certain amount of one gender then they obviously need to get that amount of said gender.
Quoteno one is saying there shouldn't be women police officers or women firefighters, just that they face the same physical standards men do.
They would still obviously need to be able to do the job ...
QuoteMen as a whole are less concerned with what their job is rather if they have one. How many women here would date or marry a career garbage man or would they look at his career and not find him suitable? How many men here would date or marry a woman who was a garbage collector? I don't think it's a stretch that it would be easier for the man to look past what the woman does.
Agreed. That patriarchy sucks, right?
Quote from: "Plu"I hope so. I just see too easy a path for people to say "hey, so few of my gender take this line of work that I'm bound to get hired by law if I take it up."
I certainly wish people wouldn't be like that, but they are people.
Unless the quota is low enough that there are already enough people of that gender on the market to fill it (in which case you wonder why the quota) job openings like that are going to be a draw for people who just want "a job". Not neccesarily people who like doing it.
(I mean; I'm trying to get my girlfriend into IT for the same reason. Not because she likes it, simply because there's a good chance she'll get a job there. There's no quota or anything though, but the simple fact that there is work is enough to get her motivated to try it.)
Well, sure. But there are plenty of professions it will be easy to get hired in regardless of gender too. You just brought up IT for example. Sure, people may get an education in something they don't care for - but also note that you can be more than enough qualified for something you don't care for. Plenty of people who really had to work to get where they are can easily hate their jobs. Making it slightly easier for one gender to get a foot in the door really isn't that big of a game changer.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Here the question just becomes, why would a man earn more than a woman, why would this be the norm. And yes, we already know the answer, the patriarchical system tells men that they need to be the breadwinner. When this norm changes men and women will be freer to see which one would be best suited to stay home with the child.
in the case of my wife and I; firstly, we aren't in the same fields. I'm in Sales/Technology and she works for a public school board. To use a blanket statement that men make more than women ignores alot of factors.
This is not meant to be an insulting question but do you or have you had young children? No matter what my involvment my wife is more important to our seven month old than I am. It's just a natural thing, especially when breast fed. The little poop machine won't take a bottle. That's just life and the best thing I can do is to make money to provide for them.
What honestly are the reasons that men make more than women? My job before this I started on the same day as a woman (programming) we had the same experience (just graduated the same school) and were of the same age. We both started at the exact same salary. We both had our jobs eliminated at the same time and at the end she made $5K more a year than I did. Why? We took different career paths.
to truly say there is a wage gap, apples need to be compared to apples. for doing the same job is the experience the same? education? performance? Men make sacrifices to get to the top, longer hours, less work life balance than women, more dangerous occupations.
* i'm not picking and choosing what I'm responding too, i'm just at work...
I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.
Also, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true, but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"We're talking about equality, not female superiority. Like I pointed out above the current patriarchical system is giving men a really rotten deal as well. It's in both genders best interest to crush it!
to me we already have female superiority when it comes to laws. also, we can't be in a partriarchial system and have men penalized by it. that's the very definition and contradictory.
QuoteAgreed, 100%, but you didn't address the point of quotas. Gender quoats are inherently sexist, but they are a neccesary evil that must be used to break down barriers, because just as there might be professions that will just naturally appeal to one gender over the other, there are professions that might appeal to both - but one gender has not been made aware that it would be a natural path in life, if even a possibility. When we get to that point - which at least the western world is rapidly closing in on, just look at the changes over the last few decades - gender quotas will no longer be neccesaty (except in professions that will need a certain amount of one gender, regardless of interest from said gender).
when i read this i keep thinking "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink". quotas give one segment an unfair advantage over another and that's not equality. this seems to be a forced equality for the sake of having equality.
QuoteNope. These are the gender roles working, primarily. Women are not flocking to the sciences, despite having a higher average level of intelligence than men. This is one of the reasons we need societal equality, so that the best brains from both genders can will be attracted by science. It won't be that easy if it looks like one huge boys club.
a woman didn't invent facebook, google, apple, microsoft, any tech company really. The inventors of the black berry were men. There are opportunities to be on the leading edge of technological advances and they are all men. This is not because of an old boys club, or a woman who is being held back because she is a woman from inventing something. Women on average aren't naturally drawn into these fields. Women aren't in sciences to the numbers of men not because they can't be but because they don't want to be. If women, as you say, have higher average intelligence as men, aren't going into these fields, it's because they don't want to. Artificial incentives aren't going to change that.
QuoteAs for high risk jobs, many might suit women just as much as men, societal equality will obviously have effect here as well.
This is exactly my point but women dont' go into them or have the physical requirements needed but should be paid the same as a man who does for a different type of job? This "anything you can do I can do better" is simply not true.
Why has no one looked at the most lucrative jobs out there? professional sports? why are they excempt form the equality argument? Professional sports are no different than real life except the people get paid alot more money. The same factors apply.
QuoteYou seem to be confused about what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is NOT pro-man. It's as much anti-man as it's anti-women. Both genders are victims of it. Patriarchy is the system that forces men to be strong, emotionless breadwinners and family heads, while it forced women to be weak, subjugated ornaments who should just raise children and stick to the kitchen. Yes, it gives men a bit more "power and freedom", but it's the type of power and freedom you're tied to, can't give away and will become an outcast if you reject. Patriarchy is what forces men to have the dangerous and deadly jobs because in patriarchy men must be strong and women must be weak. Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!
when i looked up the definition in google i came up with this:
Noun
A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
The second part is not consistent with what you want the definition to be. We can't be in a patriarchy and at the same time have men suffer from it. if men are suffering as a whole it, by definition is not a patriarchial society...it's matriarchial.
Partiarchy does not force men to have dangerous jobs. I'm a man and I don't have a dangerous job. Dangerous jobs exist because things are dangerous and it takes a certain type of person (mentally and physically) and typically that is a man. Working on an oil rig is dangerous and physically demanding, not every man is cut out for it but some are and they do it.
QuoteWomen will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!
no, if we were in a partiarchial society women would get harsher sentences, again the by the very definition. you can't say we are in a societal environment that benefits men while at the same time we are victims of it.
QuoteWhy are you asking what women wants? Women =/= feminists. There are tons of women in favor of patriarchy. Are you gonna ask what "whites", "blacks", etc. wants next? (that's not being snarky, just demonstrating how weird your questions were). And yes, for there to be equality the draft would obviously need to include women as well.
ok, i'll change the "women" to "feminists" to make things more clear. stipulating that I really was asking what feminists want makes the questoins valid again. having said that, I don't hear alot of lobbying by feminists to have draft registration changed, sentencing laws changed while at the same time there are lots of noise for pay equality and so on.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.
because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.
QuoteAlso, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true, but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?
it is true. it's just life so i can understand why courts are less lilely to award custody to fathers but there times when it should be done and it wasn't.
this comes back to men and women physically not being equal. i can't breast feed no matter how much that offends you. In the middle of the night when the baby wakes up and is hungry, my wife gets up. could happen 5 times a night. I sleep, why? because I get up for work in the morning and she doesn't. i didn't decide that, she did. on the weekend it's a whole different story because I don't work weekends.
I'm not unfit, or unable to take care of my three kids but there are times that a baby just wants it's momma. Are you offended (no snark intended) that in the delivery room once the baby is born it goes to the mother first? if you have ever seen a baby just born then you will understand when I say...fine with me. it's a natural bond baby has with mom. i don't see that i have less of a bond with my three kids...it's just different but no matter how much wishing takes place that's life.
i don't know how gay couples do it. it must be hard.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"We're talking about equality, not female superiority. Like I pointed out above the current patriarchical system is giving men a really rotten deal as well. It's in both genders best interest to crush it!
to me we already have female superiority when it comes to laws. also, we can't be in a partriarchial system and have men penalized by it. that's the very definition and contradictory.
Before I reply to the rest, how is this in any way contradictory? Patriarchy isn't pro-man. It's not about giving men the best benefits. It's about viewing men as the strong protectors that got to fight to survive, and women as their "possessions" who should be taken care of and not have any power. Within patriarchy women are seen as weak, defenseless and often (if not "corrupted") "innocent". It makes perfect sense that this could lay the foundation for preferential threatment of women by the law in a huge number of instances. So again, what is the contradiction here if what you claim is the case (which it clearly isn't in huge portions of the world, but let's not even address that. We need to get a certain understanding of what patriarchy is!).
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.
because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.
Exactly! And that is why we need drastic change! You don't find this wrong and harmful - for both genders?
QuoteQuoteAlso, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true, but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?
it is true. it's just life so i can understand why courts are less lilely to award custody to fathers but there times when it should be done and it wasn't.
this comes back to men and women physically not being equal. i can't breast feed no matter how much that offends you. In the middle of the night when the baby wakes up and is hungry, my wife gets up. could happen 5 times a night. I sleep, why? because I get up for work in the morning and she doesn't. i didn't decide that, she did. on the weekend it's a whole different story because I don't work weekends.
I'm not unfit, or unable to take care of my three kids but there are times that a baby just wants it's momma. Are you offended (no snark intended) that in the delivery room once the baby is born it goes to the mother first? if you have ever seen a baby just born then you will understand when I say...fine with me. it's a natural bond baby has with mom. i don't see that i have less of a bond with my three kids...it's just different but no matter how much wishing takes place that's life.
i don't know how gay couples do it. it must be hard.
The baby either gets used to the bottle or you can use very simple technology that simulates breastfeeding. Not hard. A father doesn't have to be as useless as you think.
And since you bring it up, why not bring it to the father first? Would that change anything? Ruin the kid? Of course, the woman just spend hours getting it out, so it makes sense she wants to hold it first, but I doubt it would be that destructive and dangerous for the father to bond with the child first.
Quote from: "surly74"QuoteAgreed, 100%, but you didn't address the point of quotas. Gender quoats are inherently sexist, but they are a neccesary evil that must be used to break down barriers, because just as there might be professions that will just naturally appeal to one gender over the other, there are professions that might appeal to both - but one gender has not been made aware that it would be a natural path in life, if even a possibility. When we get to that point - which at least the western world is rapidly closing in on, just look at the changes over the last few decades - gender quotas will no longer be neccesaty (except in professions that will need a certain amount of one gender, regardless of interest from said gender).
when i read this i keep thinking "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink". quotas give one segment an unfair advantage over another and that's not equality. this seems to be a forced equality for the sake of having equality.
Are you reading my posts? I have already pointed out on numerous occasions that it's not eequality, and that it's sexist/a neccesary evil. I have also explained time upon time again why it's needed. It's not equality, it's a process that leads to equality becoming a reality much sooner than otherwise.
QuoteQuoteNope. These are the gender roles working, primarily. Women are not flocking to the sciences, despite having a higher average level of intelligence than men. This is one of the reasons we need societal equality, so that the best brains from both genders can will be attracted by science. It won't be that easy if it looks like one huge boys club.
a woman didn't invent facebook, google, apple, microsoft, any tech company really. The inventors of the black berry were men. There are opportunities to be on the leading edge of technological advances and they are all men. This is not because of an old boys club, or a woman who is being held back because she is a woman from inventing something. Women on average aren't naturally drawn into these fields. Women aren't in sciences to the numbers of men not because they can't be but because they don't want to be. If women, as you say, have higher average intelligence as men, aren't going into these fields, it's because they don't want to. Artificial incentives aren't going to change that.
Again? Reading my points. You are writing eexactly the same as I am, only with a different slant. The fact that women aren't currently naturally drawn to the sciences was the entire point of what you are replying too ... This is why we need to make it tempting for them. Make them see it as a viable choice.
QuoteQuoteAs for high risk jobs, many might suit women just as much as men, societal equality will obviously have effect here as well.
This is exactly my point but women dont' go into them or have the physical requirements needed but should be paid the same as a man who does for a different type of job? This "anything you can do I can do better" is simply not true.
I don't understand this reply. I never stated that all high risk jobs were equally suited for both genders, or that the average woman has the potential to be as strong as the average male has the potential too. I never claimed any of that. I said that some high risk jobs might be suited for women, and that societal change making it natural for women with fitting abilities to go after such jobs would make it more likely for women to do so. Your replies don't seem to match what I write.
QuoteQuoteYou seem to be confused about what patriarchy is. Patriarchy is NOT pro-man. It's as much anti-man as it's anti-women. Both genders are victims of it. Patriarchy is the system that forces men to be strong, emotionless breadwinners and family heads, while it forced women to be weak, subjugated ornaments who should just raise children and stick to the kitchen. Yes, it gives men a bit more "power and freedom", but it's the type of power and freedom you're tied to, can't give away and will become an outcast if you reject. Patriarchy is what forces men to have the dangerous and deadly jobs because in patriarchy men must be strong and women must be weak. Women will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!
when i looked up the definition in google i came up with this:
Noun
A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
The second part is not consistent with what you want the definition to be. We can't be in a patriarchy and at the same time have men suffer from it. if men are suffering as a whole it, by definition is not a patriarchial society...it's matriarchial.
Partiarchy does not force men to have dangerous jobs. I'm a man and I don't have a dangerous job. Dangerous jobs exist because things are dangerous and it takes a certain type of person (mentally and physically) and typically that is a man. Working on an oil rig is dangerous and physically demanding, not every man is cut out for it but some are and they do it.
There are numerous definitions of patriarchy, we are talking about the one making sense in the current discussion. And no, women getting the most benefits would not be matriarchy. Women being the natural choise as the heads of families, leaders of states, etc. because they were women - would be a matriarchy. A society where men are expected to be the breadwinners/leaders while women have more rights/benefits, would still be a patriarchy.
And yes, not all men are being forced into dangerous professions, but patriarchy is what makes this a much, much more natural choice for them.
QuoteQuoteWomen will always be viewed as victim's, this is why they get shorther sentences, etc. Removing patriarchy removes all of this!
no, if we were in a partiarchial society women would get harsher sentences, again the by the very definition. you can't say we are in a societal environment that benefits men while at the same time we are victims of it.
Incorrect. Being viewed as victims is not the same as always being the victim.
QuoteQuoteWhy are you asking what women wants? Women =/= feminists. There are tons of women in favor of patriarchy. Are you gonna ask what "whites", "blacks", etc. wants next? (that's not being snarky, just demonstrating how weird your questions were). And yes, for there to be equality the draft would obviously need to include women as well.
ok, i'll change the "women" to "feminists" to make things more clear. stipulating that I really was asking what feminists want makes the questoins valid again. having said that, I don't hear alot of lobbying by feminists to have draft registration changed, sentencing laws changed while at the same time there are lots of noise for pay equality and so on.
In Norway we just recently got a majority vote on making the draft gender neutral. I believe sentencing laws are the same. We also have state sponsored safe houses for battered husbands, and we often have women get the blame and jail time for spousal abuse.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.
Exactly! And that is why we need drastic change! You don't find this wrong and harmful - for both genders? [/quote]
this will probably blow your mind but no. if a woman wants to make the same scarafices as a man to become a partner at a law firm go for it (example). They will make partner. I have no issue with people working however they want to work. i have issue with wanting the same thing (prestige, pay, power) someone else has without doing the same thing to get it no matter male or female.
family important to you? spend time with them, don't get as large an increase as someone who didn't spend time with their family? no discrimination.
QuoteThe baby either gets used to the bottle or you can use very simple technology that simulates breastfeeding. Not hard. A father doesn't have to be as useless as you think.
if you don't mind my asking...how old are you?
I'll tell my seven week old that, as well as my wife who has gone through this twice before this that it's not hard and that Charlie should be weaned off the breast and on to the bottle to asauge the feelings of someone on the internet. That's snark over.
QuoteAnd since you bring it up, why not bring it to the father first? Would that change anything? Ruin the kid? Of course, the woman just spend hours getting it out, so it makes sense she wants to hold it first, but I doubt it would be that destructive and dangerous for the father to bond with the child first.
i'll repeat...you haven't seen many babies the second they come out of the womb have you? It's not like in the movies. I take it you also haven't spent nine months with a woman who is pregnant. They go through alot, and I don't fear my wife but I will not tell her that I get to hold the baby first after what she went through just so I can make a social statement.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Quotebecause high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.
Exactly! And that is why we need drastic change! You don't find this wrong and harmful - for both genders?
this will probably blow your mind but no. if a woman wants to make the same scarafices as a man to become a partner at a law firm go for it (example). They will make partner. I have no issue with people working however they want to work. i have issue with wanting the same thing (prestige, pay, power) someone else has without doing the same thing to get it no matter male or female.
family important to you? spend time with them, don't get as large an increase as someone who didn't spend time with their family? no discrimination.
Your complete disinterest in everything I write is becoming beyond tedious. Please, please, I never mentioned discrimination. Why aren't you reading what I am writing???I agree with everything you just said - which is obvious as you just rewrote my entire argument and made the same point I did. In the society we currently have women aren't as interested in working and making sacrifaces as men. This is patriarchy working. Or regardless of what you want to call it, these women are being raised and given experiences different from the men that causes them to do this. This is the reason why we need societal change.
Can you please start reading what I write now. What you are putting forward is the reason society needs to change!
QuoteQuoteThe baby either gets used to the bottle or you can use very simple technology that simulates breastfeeding. Not hard. A father doesn't have to be as useless as you think.
if you don't mind my asking...how old are you?
I'll tell my seven week old that, as well as my wife who has gone through this twice before this that it's not hard and that Charlie should be weaned off the breast and on to the bottle to asauge the feelings of someone on the internet. That's snark over.
I'm not saying that you're forced to stay at home, I'm certainly not saying that we should force it to be 50/50, and I'm even more certainly not saying that anyone should do or not do anything because my feelings about what a random couple does makes me sad ... It does not offend me in the least. What I stated was offensive was your comment that father's are useless in regard to infants and can't take care of them as well as a mother can. At the very least you must see how this is you spitting in the face of gay parents! As well as stay at home fathers or single fathers! Men are not useless, men can be caring, men can take care of their infants. Your family arrangement seems to be working out fine, I have no problem there, but if father's had more of an incentive to do it I'm sure they could handle it just fine - as many demonstrably do right now.
On the topic of babies...
a) Breastmilk is better than powdered milk, so breastfeeding is better for the child than bottles. And men don't make it, so it's on the mother. At least if you want the best of your kid.
b) You could give the baby to the dad first, and the mother would still have a +-7 month head start. Bonding begins long before birth. Which is also why mothers can quiet a child a lot better, the child has already bonded with them, not so much with the dad.
c) The bonding goes both ways. It's generally much harder for the mother to leave the child behind than it is for the father. As such, mothers are far more likely to give up their job to stay home than fathers.
Fathers can handle and raise the child just fine, but the mothers simply have a huge headstart and more of a vested interest. That's not gender discrimination, that's simply how a real pregnancy works.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I'm not saying that you're forced to stay at home, I'm certainly not saying that we should force it to be 50/50, and I'm even more certainly not saying that anyone should do or not do anything because my feelings about what a random couple does makes me sad ... It does not offend me in the least. What I stated was offensive was your comment that father's are useless in regard to infants and can't take care of them as well as a mother can. At the very least you must see how this is you spitting in the face of gay parents! As well as stay at home fathers or single fathers! Men are not useless, men can be caring, men can take care of their infants. Your family arrangement seems to be working out fine, I have no problem there, but if father's had more of an incentive to do it I'm sure they could handle it just fine - as many demonstrably do right now.
regarding everything we've gone back and forth on: it's a good discussion but may have run it's course. lots of quotes, lots of back and forth. I'm will to agree to disagree and if there is another line to take it disucss it. i may be missing points and might be best to take a break.
i never said I was useless as a father or that father's are useless (you said that), i just said there are things I can't do that my wife can and that there a times the baby wants mom and not me. i change diapers...some really really horrible diapers plus i also have a two year old and a nine year old so while my wife focuses on the newest screamer I have the other two. such is life. I also work 40 hours a week, spend two hours a day in the car to get to work and back, coach on two football teams (american football not that other thing), and find time to spend with my family. I'm not complaining, wouldn't have it any other way. I also do the grocery shopping, cook most of the meals, half of the laundry. my day starts at 6:00am when i get up for work (5:00am in September) and ends sometime around 11:00pm. I do it because the baby doesn't sleep through the night, my wife is up with it when it needs feeding. she could be up at 4:00am and back to sleep at 6:00 only to have the two year old wake up at 7:00. by then i'm off to work.
you take what I say i do with the seven week old baby and wonder aloud why I don't do this or that. Most fathers (including me) want to be at home more but that is the price for having my wife not have to work...as most fathers probably find as their situation and if they have other kids as well, they need to be cared for too. the good dads, have plenty of incentive.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I'm not saying that you're forced to stay at home, I'm certainly not saying that we should force it to be 50/50, and I'm even more certainly not saying that anyone should do or not do anything because my feelings about what a random couple does makes me sad ... It does not offend me in the least. What I stated was offensive was your comment that father's are useless in regard to infants and can't take care of them as well as a mother can. At the very least you must see how this is you spitting in the face of gay parents! As well as stay at home fathers or single fathers! Men are not useless, men can be caring, men can take care of their infants. Your family arrangement seems to be working out fine, I have no problem there, but if father's had more of an incentive to do it I'm sure they could handle it just fine - as many demonstrably do right now.
regarding everything we've gone back and forth on: it's a good discussion but may have run it's course. lots of quotes, lots of back and forth. I'm will to agree to disagree and if there is another line to take it disucss it. i may be missing points and might be best to take a break.
i never said I was useless as a father or that father's are useless (you said that), i just said there are things I can't do that my wife can and that there a times the baby wants mom and not me. i change diapers...some really really horrible diapers plus i also have a two year old and a nine year old so while my wife focuses on the newest screamer I have the other two. such is life. I also work 40 hours a week, spend two hours a day in the car to get to work and back, coach on two football teams (american football not that other thing), and find time to spend with my family. I'm not complaining, wouldn't have it any other way. I also do the grocery shopping, cook most of the meals, half of the laundry. my day starts at 6:00am when i get up for work (5:00am in September) and ends sometime around 11:00pm. I do it because the baby doesn't sleep through the night, my wife is up with it when it needs feeding. she could be up at 4:00am and back to sleep at 6:00 only to have the two year old wake up at 7:00. by then i'm off to work.
you take what I say i do with the seven week old baby and wonder aloud why I don't do this or that. Most fathers (including me) want to be at home more but that is the price for having my wife not have to work...as most fathers probably find as their situation and if they have other kids as well, they need to be cared for too. the good dads, have plenty of incentive.
I never said you didn't do anything, nor did in any way even imply that your arrangement with your wife wasn't the best option. You were the one stating that it should be the mother and that you can't even figure out how a gay couple could do it - but they do.
My sole point is that it's damaging to society and to everyone involved that men and women don't have the same incentive to be the one staying home with the child. Yes, certainly, women might in general have more instincts and a closer bond to the child than men. I have absolutely nothing against the majority of people choosing to stay at home is the mother - what I do care about is that it's the person most qualified - and that both parents, regardless of gender, will be able to come to this decicion without the pressure of gender roles.
Re: Plu. I did not mention discrimination, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I agree that the evidence support most of what you are saying in regard to instincts and bonds - and I never argued anything different. All I want is for gender roles to stop limiting people.
At this point you're in water treading mode. This is utterly pointless. Everyone decided long ago to "win" this argument and when that happens no minds will be changed. This thread is just furious masturbation now.
Well, I've decided to get my points accross, but if faced with logical arguments/facts I'm still open to change my mind on any aspect here - I hope the rest are as well, as long as they read what I write that is. :P
I think the most important aspect of this debate is to clear up some people's fundamental misunderstanding of how patriarchy can work. That a societal system where men are expected to be in positions of power, be the breadwinners, etc. neccesarily leads to women getting the short end of the stick in every single aspect of life - and that anything else is a contradiction and shows that patriarchy doesn't exist - is absurd.
So if it absolutely has to be all about winning points:
Within patriarchy men are considered strong, women are considered weak - One perfectly natural conclusion from this is that women need more protection. The man's place is to support of protect the weaker members of his household - and this was a very common view in Europe way back when women were just property without any rights at all. Just read the old fairy tales about knights slaying dragons and risking their lives' saving a maiden. You can hardly deny that societies where essentially every position of power had to be held by a man and where women were to be seen, not heard, was anything but a patriarchical society - yet they obviously cared for women, and their romaticized literature essentially shows that they viewed a "pure" woman's life to be more valuable than men's. Of course this wasn't exactly the reality of the times, but it showed their views.
Go back to 50s USA. That was patriarchical right? Again women were to be seen, not heard. Men where the only ones expected to do any kind of valuable work above secretary. Yet, I'm sure you could even then - in a pretty much 100% patriarchical society, find that the law in many instances went easier on women commiting crimes.
Of course this is not what happens in all patriarchical societies. Patriarchy can lead to numerous completely different outcomes, as it's just a very basic starting point. I have heard people who don't believe in patriarchy argue that you can't sight one thing as the explanation of opposites - but that's just ludicrous and not at all true. For example, look at Germany before Hitler took power, out of the troubling economic times grew both communism and nazism. They were caused by the exact same causes, but had very different aims.
As it's all about winning I believe I have demonstrated my point to be correct. YAY me.
:popcorn:
Its easier to read what you write when you keep it short. Only angry people are willing to read your PhD dissertation length posts and respond to them point for point. Everyone else just looks at the clusterfuck of text and leaves.
It's a complicated issue, I don't think I'm dragging it on that much. If you think some short paragraphs is a dissertion I'm a bit worried about you though. But ok, cut down:
Surly's claims:
Patriarchy cannot exist as women get off easier for the same crimes men commit, etc. He thinks if Patriarchy existed men would have it the best and come out the winner everywhere in society.
My reply:
Patriarchy only means that men are the breadwinners/in the positions of power. That's a basic premise that can be taken in pretty much every direction. In patriarchy women are considered weak, while men are considered strong. Men are also (generally) expected to provide for and protect their women. As a woman is considered weak and someone that needs protection her getting off easier for crimes than a man would is a pretty reasonable conclusion as she is not seen as a threat.
The above post which you described as too long had some examples of 100% patriarchical societies of the past, and their views on women - that would contradict Surly's conclusion.
Bonus
The concept that men should be the breadwinners, etc. also places a lot of pressure on men and it should hardly be considered pro-man. Putting them up as the protector can also jeapordize their lives. And there are tons of other consequences of patriarchy that are just plain destructive to men. But I talked about that in my very first post on the subject. Patriarchy is against, and limits both genders!
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I was not referring to wage differences within a profession, but the choices of professions that still lead to men taking higher paid jobs than women. In other words, why don't women have a similar average incentive to get higher paid jobs. In other words, I'm not talking about discrimination, but rather what choices come natural to members of a gender because of the society they live in.
because high paying jobs required long hours, away from family, more risk, more everything of what the average women typically doesn't do. that's life.
QuoteAlso, making the blanket statement that babies need their mother's more than their father's is rather insulting to men. Could be true, but I don't buy it. And how would gay couples solve this if they used a surrogate mother? Exactly how terrible and unfit to take care of their children are fathers of infants?
it is true. it's just life so i can understand why courts are less lilely to award custody to fathers but there times when it should be done and it wasn't.
this comes back to men and women physically not being equal. i can't breast feed no matter how much that offends you. In the middle of the night when the baby wakes up and is hungry, my wife gets up. could happen 5 times a night. I sleep, why? because I get up for work in the morning and she doesn't. i didn't decide that, she did. on the weekend it's a whole different story because I don't work weekends.
I'm not unfit, or unable to take care of my three kids but there are times that a baby just wants it's momma. Are you offended (no snark intended) that in the delivery room once the baby is born it goes to the mother first? if you have ever seen a baby just born then you will understand when I say...fine with me. it's a natural bond baby has with mom. i don't see that i have less of a bond with my three kids...it's just different but no matter how much wishing takes place that's life.
i don't know how gay couples do it. it must be hard.
All three of our girls were handed to their daddy immediately out of the shoot. We had discussed that other than the Dr the first human touch should be their father. Why? Because the first touch - first hug - is so important and I had already had them quite a bit to myself being the pregnant one. We also put each one of them on One bottle per evening that daddy gave so he was also a source of nutrition and comfort since we were breast feeding.
Years later when my husband and I were briefly separated I made sure that his money was His and mine was mine. We both worked and we both *paid* for whatever our girls needed. No balance sheet was kept nor discussed. When my attorney started the "I can get you this and I can get you that" sort of talk I reminded him:
(1) You work for me. We'll do it my way or not at all.
(2) You are speaking about the love of my life. There will be no ugly insinuations. Just because we're having trouble doesn't suddenly make him some sort of asshole.
(3) This is the father of my children and we will discuss him with respect. I will only agree to joint custody for this trial separation.
The true power that belongs to women is in the defining of their world. Not letting outside sources dictate (whenever possible) how she designs her existence. If More women would simply stand up for what IS equal and what IS right - feminism would run strong and true. Fairness and respect are the only needed ingredients. Whenever a women has the chance to live as
no victim - she should do so. And in that time period she should prove what fairness and respect are by making good choices.
I have only been a victim twice in my lifetime. Both were crimes of violence - rape. My victimization was unavoidable and out of my hands. But since those were only moments in my long and happy life........ I've enjoyed living as No Victim. The reason I support feminism is to explain to women that they, too, can live as no victim. But - to truly have that - they must break free from old school thinking and Think and ACT for themselves and others around them.
When I travel and give lectures - I start with "Do you wish to be treated with respect?" The rest of the talk explains how THEY Must first SHOW respect - design their lives using respect for other people - then and only then will they become respected themselves. (I also discuss the healthy self respect that comes when you treat others fairly)
sorry.......... think I was just rambling in this thread.
Wow! I'm so sorry Sabrina! Why is it that the people that have had it the hardest in life are usually pleasant to know, while the people that have it made are such jerks? :evil: Solitary