Getting women (&men) to call themselves feminist

[Plu]

If people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway?

Yeah - 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.

[surly74]

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.

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.

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.

[WitchSabrina]

If people don't want to do something, why should we aim to get them to do it anyway?

Yeah - 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.

[Plu]

Getting 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? :/

[La Dolce Vita]

I 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.

[surly74]

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.

[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.

[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.

how 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.

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?)

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!

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?".

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.

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

[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.)

[Nonsensei]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

no 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 ...

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.

Agreed. That patriarchy sucks, right?

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

[surly74]

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...

[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.

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?