Feminism and Sexual Equality page 2

353 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

This all started with the feminist movement, back in the day when women had very few rights. Hence the name. Now, I would argue by attaining more rights for women and changing the norms for what women ‘should be’ in society, perhaps we can provide more room for men to not have to act stereotypically masculine all the time.

Still, I would argue that men do have more rights than women, even now. Especially because men do hold the majority of economic and political power in the US, and that’s basically how anything gets done around here.

I was there and women had rights. It was more of a man bashing thing than anything else. They did have some problems with equal pay and such, but they were after special attention. I remember the women who started it, they were so homely they would have to hang a chunk of steak around their necks to get the dog to play with them.

I remember them trying to make their little boys play with dolls, hoping them they would be more feminine and their anger when they would go to play war with Barbie or use their fingers to shoot the dolls.

I new a guy who had worked for the telephone company for his whole life. He was up for a manager job and with the law at the time he was bumped to let an inexperienced woman take it. The company I worked for at the time tried to usurp the law and hire a black woman. Didn’t work too well. They did hire a young woman for one of the projects but fired her after they found out she was servicing the men in order to go home early.

Women have the same opportunities as men. Look at Hillary, Condilessa Rice, and a myriad of other politicians. Of course there has not been a president yet, but it will come. Right now, people, including women, don’t trust a woman in the presidency. Don’’t make claims with no basis of fact.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

In the meantime, as a stopgap measure, add mandatory conscription for women. It will even out the sexes, and provide additional impetuous to overturn conscription altogether.

NO! Don’t try to make decisions for women because of your own beliefs. Not all women want to be as equal as you think they should be.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

All I’m trying to suggest is not to prejudge self-declared feminists on the basis of a preconception of what commonplace feminist activism sounds like. Yes, there are radicals, same as with every discipline or ideology, but many of the feminists I know and the ones writing today are more accurately described as gender theorists; they’re all-inclusive: male, female, trans, queer.

Personally, I’d say male activism is the wrong way to go, mainly because of the (not unfairly) strident objections by some feminists that it focuses attention away from the groups that are actively persecuted or discriminated against. Yes, men are discriminated against too, but it’s simply erroneous to argue that they are discriminated to the same degree as women, trans, queer, etc. The conflict is rougly analogous to the conflict between traditional ‘white male’ (privileged) literature and multicultural literature. Yes, we should teach both, but to argue that this ‘white male’ literature has been squeezed into a minority camp is just untrue; what’s happened in both cases is that the till-now silenced minorit(ies) has been occupying space typically reserved for the majority/privileged. They’re bumping shoulders where twenty years ago they weren’t because the minority stuff wasn’t even on the table. Hence, friction.

One book you might want to add to your reading list aside from Farell is Daphne Patai’s Professing Feminism. It’s become one of the core resources for critiquing radical western feminism, particularly the problems it’s created relating to free expression in academia, and also dumbing down the bio sciences related to sex.

Thank you. This is absolutely true.

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

This all started with the feminist movement, back in the day when women had very few rights. Hence the name. Now, I would argue by attaining more rights for women and changing the norms for what women ‘should be’ in society, perhaps we can provide more room for men to not have to act stereotypically masculine all the time.

Still, I would argue that men do have more rights than women, even now. Especially because men do hold the majority of economic and political power in the US, and that’s basically how anything gets done around here.

I was there and women had rights. It was more of a man bashing thing than anything else. They did have some problems with equal pay and such, but they were after special attention. I remember the women who started it, they were so homely they would have to hang a chunk of steak around their necks to get the dog to play with them.

I remember them trying to make their little boys play with dolls, hoping them they would be more feminine and their anger when they would go to play war with Barbie or use their fingers to shoot the dolls.

I new a guy who had worked for the telephone company for his whole life. He was up for a manager job and with the law at the time he was bumped to let an inexperienced woman take it. The company I worked for at the time tried to usurp the law and hire a black woman. Didn’t work too well. They did hire a young woman for one of the projects but fired her after they found out she was servicing the men in order to go home early.

Women have the same opportunities as men. Look at Hillary, Condilessa Rice, and a myriad of other politicians. Of course there has not been a president yet, but it will come. Right now, people, including women, don’t trust a woman in the presidency. Don’’t make claims with no basis of fact.

Okay. Basis of fact. Here you go, jhco.

Let’s start here. This article is from the UN, so it is a report from around the world.

in 2009 only 14 women in the world held the position of head of state or government, and of the 500 largest corporations, just 13 had a female CEO.

Concerning work issues, women aged 25 to 54 now have higher labour force participation rates in most regions as compared to 1990, but on average women are still rarely employed in jobs with status, power and authority or in traditionally male blue-collar occupations.

married women are often left out of decision-making on how their own earnings are spent. Limited access to financial resources increases women’s economic dependency on men, making them more vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53244

Women do not have the same opportunities as men when it comes to being hired.

In a three-year study of 30,996 financial-services managers, logistic regression analyses showed that women were more likely to be promoted rather than hired into management positions. Relative to men, women in higher-level positions received fewer promotions than women in lower-level positions.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?nfpb=true&&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ578875&ERICExtSearchSearchType0=no&accno=EJ578875

Do you want more? I have a lot more.

 
Flag Post

Amanda, I just wanted to warn yah, be careful about using non-intervention studies (most statistical studies are this type). It’s because, they can’t be used to say what the cause is … they can only be used to correlate with the cause, providing evidence =p.

So in other words, you would have to look towards other major possible alternatives (like for instance, women being stay-at-home moms more) as to the cause of the factors you list out. If other alternatives exist, we can’t jump straight to that it is because of unequal opportunity quite yet (because we haven’t eliminated the other possibilities).

So like, for the stat relating to 30,966, an alternative cause would be that men have more motivation (because they are working to feed their families) to try to be a workaholic and get a promotion. I’m not saying this is the case, but we have to look into other statistic first before supposing it supports our cause… because it could be based on a related factor, and not what we are talking about. Or it could be based on our factor. We don’t know at this point =p.

Sorry, I just wanted to let you know, because so many people do this one, and, it’s kind of my pet-peeve XD. Sorry.

Best of Wishes,
-TAO

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheAwsomeOpossum:

Amanda, I just wanted to warn yah, be careful about using non-intervention studies (most statistical studies are this type). It’s because, they can’t be used to say what the cause is … they can only be used to correlate with the cause, providing evidence =p.

So in other words, you would have to look towards other major possible alternatives (like for instance, women being stay-at-home moms more) as to the cause of the factors you list out. If other alternatives exist, we can’t jump straight to that it is because of unequal opportunity quite yet (because we haven’t eliminated the other possibilities).

So like, for the stat relating to 30,966, an alternative cause would be that men have more motivation (because they are working to feed their families) to try to be a workaholic and get a promotion. I’m not saying this is the case, but we have to look into other statistic first before supposing it supports our cause… because it could be based on a related factor, and not what we are talking about. Or it could be based on our factor. We don’t know at this point =p.

Sorry, I just wanted to let you know, because so many people do this one, and, it’s kind of my pet-peeve XD. Sorry.

Best of Wishes,
-TAO

This is definitely true. Since I can’t access the entire study, it is true that there could be other factors in play, both supporting my argument and opposing it. For example, the possibility you posed is possible, but so is the possibility that women were promoted less quickly because their bosses thought them to be less likely to stay and more likely to leave to raise a family. Cause that is the expectation.

So yes, there certainly could be other interpretations. But it could just as easily go either way, so I apologize for that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AmandaC4:
Originally posted by TheAwsomeOpossum:

Amanda, I just wanted to warn yah, be careful about using non-intervention studies (most statistical studies are this type). It’s because, they can’t be used to say what the cause is … they can only be used to correlate with the cause, providing evidence =p.

So in other words, you would have to look towards other major possible alternatives (like for instance, women being stay-at-home moms more) as to the cause of the factors you list out. If other alternatives exist, we can’t jump straight to that it is because of unequal opportunity quite yet (because we haven’t eliminated the other possibilities).

So like, for the stat relating to 30,966, an alternative cause would be that men have more motivation (because they are working to feed their families) to try to be a workaholic and get a promotion. I’m not saying this is the case, but we have to look into other statistic first before supposing it supports our cause… because it could be based on a related factor, and not what we are talking about. Or it could be based on our factor. We don’t know at this point =p.

Sorry, I just wanted to let you know, because so many people do this one, and, it’s kind of my pet-peeve XD. Sorry.

Best of Wishes,
-TAO

This is definitely true. Since I can’t access the entire study, it is true that there could be other factors in play, both supporting my argument and opposing it. For example, the possibility you posed is possible, but so is the possibility that women were promoted less quickly because their bosses thought them to be less likely to stay and more likely to leave to raise a family. Cause that is the expectation.

So yes, there certainly could be other interpretations. But it could just as easily go either way, so I apologize for that.

Yes, I’d agree, both are possible. It’s why I wish I could like take an in-dept look into every study, but unfortunately, that’d take up tons of time =P.

In any case, don’t worry about it, tis fine, I just don’t want someone else to catch you with that one when you get in a debate with somebody. ;-).

 
Flag Post

When confronted with, say a robbery, a man may take action in retaliation where a woman will look for a way to flee. In my wife,s case she screamed bloody murder.

No. This has much more to do with temperament than gender. There are many passive males out there like myself, often “geek” types, who would probably hide or flee in such a situation. And there are many strong-willed and driven women who would take action in such a situation (though, being raised in a society where women are expected to be passive may influence this to be less likely than for men).

The belief that men are all supposed to be tough is very foolish.

 
Flag Post

Amanda, as I have said, I lived through this era. Some women acted like lunatics, holding signs and screaming at people as they walked by. Because of this and seeing where you are going with this, I don’t care to participate a second time. I may add something from time to time, but this is losing my interest fast.

 
Flag Post

As if women/gays have been the only ones acting like lunatics and holding signs, screaming at other people as they move by.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

As if women/gays have been the only ones acting like lunatics and holding signs, screaming at other people as they move by.

Good point. We all have been, at a time. ;-).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

As if women/gays have been the only ones acting like lunatics and holding signs, screaming at other people as they move by.

Especially given the original suffragist movement used nearly identical tactics to secure equal citizenship rights.

 
Flag Post

Well, roughly equal rights. It was a good start, but there is still some ways to go, on all sides of the equation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Well, roughly equal rights. It was a good start, but there is still some ways to go, on all sides of the equation.

No, politically men and women have equal rights, enshrined in the Constitution. That battle’s been won.

Socially (including job discrimination and women serving in politics) is another story, and for the last eighty or so years that’s been the primary focus of feminist movements.

 
Flag Post

(and excluding the rights of women to strike men without penalty)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

(and excluding the rights of women to strike men without penalty)

Which part of “some ways to go, on all sides of the equation” did you have difficulty understanding, Dark?

 
Flag Post

Was I replying to your post? No. I was replying to

“Socially (including job discrimination and women serving in politics) is another story, and for the last eighty or so years that’s been the primary focus of feminist movements.”

which clearly shows a bias in the feminist movement.

 
Flag Post

Not really.

If it requires more work, then it makes sense to focus on it.

 
Flag Post

Read some Warren Farrell – you’ll find that this requires a significant amount of work, and men, socially, are where women were in the ‘60s. If you think my claim is outlandish, Farrell is a feminist as well. (Yes, males can be feminists.) The Myth of Male Power. I’m dead serious, go read it.

 
Flag Post

If you’re referring to me, no thanks, I’d rather have an accurate summary, I don’t really feel like reading books.

Slaying Dragons and assassinating Emperors is more interesting.

 
Flag Post

“Men’s weakness is their facade of strength; women’s strength is their facade of weakness.”

 
Flag Post

And this ties in to men being worse off how?

 
Flag Post

Ah so you’re trying to pidgeon-hole me into something I didn’t say. Feel free to quote where I said that.

 
Flag Post

Huh, I was under the impression that you think men are worse off than women.

 
Flag Post

Feel free to quote where I said that.

 
Flag Post

I think that saying ‘men are where women were in the 60s’ certainly implies that women have gained and men have lost, in your view, Dark.