#WomenAgainstFeminism

[HarmlessSquirrel]

Holy crap.

I'm not going to attempt to reply to any specific post, but there is one thing I feel the need to say. It's ridiculous to take any huge group of people, particularly if they wound up in that group by default (a gender, a generation, an ethnic group, a race, etc.), decide almost anything about that group at all, and then treat individual members of the group accordingly. People are not defined by the categories they are placed in, and they should be treated as individuals, not categories. In addition, I believe that to the extent possible, the law should always be blind to which of such groups a person belongs to.

 

[AlexLady]

If you think that is at all what I meant then there is miscommunication.

 

[LadyLuna]

The baby boomers was the largest generation and it went from 1946-1964. This is what they fought for.

Your list ends in 1964, when the oldest baby boomer was 18 according to your own dates. So regardless of whether or not you think all of the things on that list are good, none of them were done by baby boomers. They were in elementary school, junior high and high school, and many of them weren't even born yet. It was't until the late 60s, when the boomers hit college, that the "Boomer Era" began.

Your posts are not entirely coherent.

Does anyone here actually read every post?

I skim the parts that seem to be a repetition of what has already been said. But I go back to reading if the skimming notes a new point from the person. Does that count?

 

[Nordling]

The baby boomers was the largest generation and it went from 1946-1964. This is what they fought for.

Your list ends in 1964, when the oldest baby boomer was 18 according to your own dates. So regardless of whether or not you think all of the things on that list are good, none of them were done by baby boomers. They were in elementary school, junior high and high school, and many of them weren't even born yet. It was't until the late 60s, when the boomers hit college, that the "Boomer Era" began.

Your posts are not entirely coherent.

Does anyone here actually read every post?

I skim the parts that seem to be a repetition of what has already been said. But I go back to reading if the skimming notes a new point from the person. Does that count?

In controversial threads that interest me, I attempt to read every post. Especially if it's a new thread.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Find this topic interesting... How can any woman really be against feminism? ... Who supports disempowering themselves?
Certain types of feminism may/ may attempt to disempower men, but that is another story.

From a mans perspective, equality between the sexes means that neither men or women are disempowered by their gender.
A few mens issues for example may include, industrial accidents (deaths and serious injury at work), being used as cannon fodder in wars, their children being taken from them, violence issues for men (usually against other men), their are distinct issues with destroying our sexuality for instance, and being so disposable in so many areas of (western) society.
Feminism needs to include some of these issues in terms of equality too. Some of the anti-feminist movement is an attempt to do this, but it is not really up to women to stand up for mens issues, only to support those they believe are fair. As men we can also only support what is fair for feminism.

Men and women are different, we can do some terrible things to each other. One important thing to keep in mind is that these differences blend together, certain traits might be less common in one sex, but not excluse to only one sex. The government, our laws, and institutions should give those who possess whatever these traits may be the freedom to explore them. This to me is equlity between the sexes.

 

[Nordling]

I could be very wrong, but I don't think they're against feminism, but rather the word itself in some cases and the belief that the "feminist movement" has been taken over by people who aren't living up to the original intent of the movement. I don't agree but I can understand the logic.

 

[Gen]

I could be very wrong, but I don't think they're against feminism, but rather the word itself in some cases and the belief that the "feminist movement" has been taken over by people who aren't living up to the original intent of the movement. I don't agree but I can understand the logic.

This, and the fact that "empowering" is a super broad term - I don't think women who are not feminists feel they are disempowered; quite the opposite, I believe a lot feel we are equally empowered so feminism movements aren't necessary (and like Aella & others said, that modern feminism disempowers women by casting us as victims). Of course not all women would feel empowered or disempowered by the same things so how could we all agree to one label?

There are loads of reasons imo. I consider myself a feminist and respect why other women don't, even if I disagree.

 

[AlexLady]

Woman can be against feminism. I am mainly because there is no part of feminism that is about equality which we don't already have in my opinion--as far as rights go--as Americans.

...And I don't believe it's our job to police other countries.


Trying to enforce people to do social "equality" on a legal side seems to just take away people's rights for everyone regardless of their gender, so that is distasteful to me. I am VERY against this. Now, legal equality such as equal rights...?




Feminists say: we want equal rights

I say: ...we have it? :|


I've heard things like, "but they say women should be in the kitchen!" You don't have a RIGHT to limit what people can and can't say. You have a right not to listen. You have a right to disagree. You have a right to form your own opinions and thoughts. You have a right not to associate or be with anyone who you don't want to be; such as people who say these things. And yes; you have a right to say "No, we don't!", but they too don't have to listen to you.

And if you agree or at least understand me there, then you see why I feel like being a proud American who believes in equality does not automatically make me a Feminist (not to say you can't be a Feminist who is also a Proud American, just that one doesn't imply the other.)



(not to sound like I'm shouting; I just really believe these things! They're an explanation of my main point and important so I bolded them.)

 

[mynameisbob84]

Woman can be against feminism. I am mainly because there is no part of feminism that is about equality which we don't already have in my opinion--as far as rights go--as Americans.

...And I don't believe it's our job to police other countries.

So would it be fair to say that it's American feminism you're against and not feminism in general? Feminism is obviously something that affects people the world over and not just America.

 

[AlexLady]

Woman can be against feminism. I am mainly because there is no part of feminism that is about equality which we don't already have in my opinion--as far as rights go--as Americans.

...And I don't believe it's our job to police other countries.

So would it be fair to say that it's American feminism you're against and not feminism in general? Feminism is obviously something that affects people the world over and not just America.

I wouldn't call it "American Feminism" as if they're different types. It seems to want the same thing everywhere; social and legal equality. But yes, I am against social Feminism becoming part of the law in America.

I guess a better hash tag would be "#Idontneedfeminism" and it's the one I've usually used on Twitter, such as saying "#Idontneedfeminism because I'm American." but yes.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I've been pretty hesitant to post my actual opinion here, but I'm going to do it anyway (and I'm not going to argue it, because I'm not trying to change any opinions). I'm not anti-feminist (everyone is entitled to their opinion) and I'm not against feminism at its core (legal equality), but I'm not a feminist by any stretch. I don't feel, as a woman, that I'm not already legally equal to men.

--

I hear a lot of "More women should be CEOs" or "Women should be paid more" or some other similar thing, but the reality is that women tend to paint themselves into a career corner by picking the wrong jobs. You don't get a big corner office by taking on roles that don't ultimately lead there. You don't get that incredible salary by not being incredibly motivated.

Maybe this is just naive of me, but I honestly feel that gender is irrelevant when it comes to employment, if you have the right qualifications, motivation and ambition, the sky is the limit.

 

[GracieHart]

I am really confused as to where people are getting their evidence from? Maybe I am not looking in the right places (or am looking too much at European evidence and would be really open to be pointed in the right direction) but I have found a plethora of robust evidence which suggests that, although things have vastly improved, today, even pre-pregnancy, women are paid less and in lower positions than men even when education levels are controlled for. In fact in Europe women are more likely to graduate from University and achieve higher grades than men and still are paid less before they ever get pregnant (the gap widens post-pregnancy)... So the inequality seems to exist today even in the western world. And I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that part of the reason that these women dont get high earning powerful roles is because they dont have the motivation, ambition or are "picking the wrong jobs" - I love that we all have different opinions but I did find that suggestion a little bit condescending

I don't know maybe its cos I am a socialist but I like a little government interference if its for the greater good. I think if the odds are that the world I live in is likely to be dominated in government and private industries etc by the stereotypical white male I have no problem with work being done to tip the balance to increase participation by women and minorities. It doesnt even have to be as extreme as positive discrimination. Women statistically (in Europe at least but I would suspect worldwide) take on the bulk of the caring responsibilities in a family (not only children but they also make up the bulk of home carers for the elderly and disabled within families) - and I will leave arguing over whether that is right or wrong or should be changed for another day. But it can mean that simple changes such as having flexible working arrangements available (staggered working times so they can start earlier and get home home earlier, condensed working hours - 4day week instead of 5, options to work at home) can make things a little easier for the working woman. I accept that this wont work in all businesses but it can (with a bit of will on the employers part) work in the majority and equality research shows it makes a huge difference in a woman's ability to carry on working and have a career in the industry of her choice while balancing other responsibilities.

I think a little understanding, education and thought into where inequalities exist and what we can do to "even the playing field" a bit is important.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

I am really confused as to where people are getting their evidence from? Maybe I am not looking in the right places (or am looking too much at European evidence and would be really open to be pointed in the right direction) but I have found a plethora of robust evidence which suggests that, although things have vastly improved, today, even pre-pregnancy, women are paid less and in lower positions than men even when education levels are controlled for. In fact in Europe women are more likely to graduate from University and achieve higher grades than men and still are paid less before they ever get pregnant (the gap widens post-pregnancy)... So the inequality seems to exist today even in the western world. And I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that part of the reason that these women dont get high earning powerful roles is because they dont have the motivation, ambition or are "picking the wrong jobs" - I love that we all have different opinions but I did find that suggestion a little bit condescending

I don't know maybe its cos I am a socialist but I like a little government interference if its for the greater good. I think if the odds are that the world I live in is likely to be dominated in government and private industries etc by the stereotypical white male I have no problem with work being done to tip the balance to increase participation by women and minorities. It doesnt even have to be as extreme as positive discrimination. Women statistically (in Europe at least but I would suspect worldwide) take on the bulk of the caring responsibilities in a family (not only children but they also make up the bulk of home carers for the elderly and disabled within families) - and I will leave arguing over whether that is right or wrong or should be changed for another day. But it can mean that simple changes such as having flexible working arrangements available (staggered working times so they can start earlier and get home home earlier, condensed working hours - 4day week instead of 5, options to work at home) can make things a little easier for the working woman. I accept that this wont work in all businesses but it can (with a bit of will on the employers part) work in the majority and equality research shows it makes a huge difference in a woman's ability to carry on working and have a career in the industry of her choice while balancing other responsibilities.

I think a little understanding, education and thought into where inequalities exist and what we can do to "even the playing field" a bit is important.

IMO, the problem with allowing women to have flexible working arrangements and not men, is that's not equality. It's a woman's choice to have children or not. If her job doesn't allow enough time for her children she has the option to get a new job or not have children at all. Also, by giving women those extra perks, you are telling them that their job in life is raising children. What about men who want to be stay at home dads? I can understand giving these perks to both women and men who are parents, but not just women.

 

[GracieHart]

I am really confused as to where people are getting their evidence from? Maybe I am not looking in the right places (or am looking too much at European evidence and would be really open to be pointed in the right direction) but I have found a plethora of robust evidence which suggests that, although things have vastly improved, today, even pre-pregnancy, women are paid less and in lower positions than men even when education levels are controlled for. In fact in Europe women are more likely to graduate from University and achieve higher grades than men and still are paid less before they ever get pregnant (the gap widens post-pregnancy)... So the inequality seems to exist today even in the western world. And I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that part of the reason that these women dont get high earning powerful roles is because they dont have the motivation, ambition or are "picking the wrong jobs" - I love that we all have different opinions but I did find that suggestion a little bit condescending

I don't know maybe its cos I am a socialist but I like a little government interference if its for the greater good. I think if the odds are that the world I live in is likely to be dominated in government and private industries etc by the stereotypical white male I have no problem with work being done to tip the balance to increase participation by women and minorities. It doesnt even have to be as extreme as positive discrimination. Women statistically (in Europe at least but I would suspect worldwide) take on the bulk of the caring responsibilities in a family (not only children but they also make up the bulk of home carers for the elderly and disabled within families) - and I will leave arguing over whether that is right or wrong or should be changed for another day. But it can mean that simple changes such as having flexible working arrangements available (staggered working times so they can start earlier and get home home earlier, condensed working hours - 4day week instead of 5, options to work at home) can make things a little easier for the working woman. I accept that this wont work in all businesses but it can (with a bit of will on the employers part) work in the majority and equality research shows it makes a huge difference in a woman's ability to carry on working and have a career in the industry of her choice while balancing other responsibilities.

I think a little understanding, education and thought into where inequalities exist and what we can do to "even the playing field" a bit is important.

IMO, the problem with allowing women to have flexible working arrangements and not men, is that's not equality. It's a woman's choice to have children or not. If her job doesn't allow enough time for her children she has the option to get a new job or not have children at all. Also, by giving women those extra perks, you are telling them that their job in life is raising children. What about men who want to be stay at home dads? I can understand giving these perks to both women and men who are parents, but not just women.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didnt mean for women only. And in any of the companies, government and private, that I have seen it implemented in it has been offered to everyone equally. However, the group it makes the bigger difference to is women just by the nature of their additional responsibilities but it is used and offered equally to both genders.

 

[SexySteph]

I am really confused as to where people are getting their evidence from? Maybe I am not looking in the right places (or am looking too much at European evidence and would be really open to be pointed in the right direction) but I have found a plethora of robust evidence which suggests that, although things have vastly improved, today, even pre-pregnancy, women are paid less and in lower positions than men even when education levels are controlled for. In fact in Europe women are more likely to graduate from University and achieve higher grades than men and still are paid less before they ever get pregnant (the gap widens post-pregnancy)... So the inequality seems to exist today even in the western world. And I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that part of the reason that these women dont get high earning powerful roles is because they dont have the motivation, ambition or are "picking the wrong jobs" - I love that we all have different opinions but I did find that suggestion a little bit condescending

I don't know maybe its cos I am a socialist but I like a little government interference if its for the greater good. I think if the odds are that the world I live in is likely to be dominated in government and private industries etc by the stereotypical white male I have no problem with work being done to tip the balance to increase participation by women and minorities. It doesnt even have to be as extreme as positive discrimination. Women statistically (in Europe at least but I would suspect worldwide) take on the bulk of the caring responsibilities in a family (not only children but they also make up the bulk of home carers for the elderly and disabled within families) - and I will leave arguing over whether that is right or wrong or should be changed for another day. But it can mean that simple changes such as having flexible working arrangements available (staggered working times so they can start earlier and get home home earlier, condensed working hours - 4day week instead of 5, options to work at home) can make things a little easier for the working woman. I accept that this wont work in all businesses but it can (with a bit of will on the employers part) work in the majority and equality research shows it makes a huge difference in a woman's ability to carry on working and have a career in the industry of her choice while balancing other responsibilities.

I think a little understanding, education and thought into where inequalities exist and what we can do to "even the playing field" a bit is important.

IMO, the problem with allowing women to have flexible working arrangements and not men, is that's not equality. It's a woman's choice to have children or not. If her job doesn't allow enough time for her children she has the option to get a new job or not have children at all. Also, by giving women those extra perks, you are telling them that their job in life is raising children. What about men who want to be stay at home dads? I can understand giving these perks to both women and men who are parents, but not just women.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didnt mean for women only. And in any of the companies, government and private, that I have seen it implemented in it has been offered to everyone equally. However, the group it makes the bigger difference to is women just by the nature of their additional responsibilities but it is used and offered equally to both genders.

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

 

[weirdbr]

Honestly, I don't understand how the idea that women "lack ambition, motivation or are picking the wrong jobs" can stand and be repeated over and over as if it were an incontestable truth: even the way it is worded sounds sexist to me.

The reasons why women 'pick the wrong jobs' are varied and a few of them are well understood:
- lack of role models. For example, if I asked you about famous figures in computer science, who do you think about? You probably would say Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg , Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Allan Turing... But you probably dont think about Grace Hooper, Marissa Mayer, Susan Wojcicki (sure, she's not a CS major, but she is credited with creating Adwords and making a ton of money for Google), Ada Lovelace, all the women who worked as cryptographers/codebreakers during WW2...
- how those careers are advertised/branded. There is a reason why Google, the European Union, Verizon and many others have done campaigns to try to rebrand STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) careers in general. Sure, most of them screwed up badly (the EU campaign ended up being horribly sexist thanks to the advertising folks ignoring the feedback from the researchers; Google's 'Made with Code' campaign was criticised for using as the main example using 3D printers to produce jewellery.... Only Verizon so far has done a decent campaign that so far wasn't criticised by anyone)

The EU video (and an article about how the failure happened: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... ral-fiasco )


And the Verizon ad:

 

[GracieHart]

Honestly, I don't understand how the idea that women "lack ambition, motivation or are picking the wrong jobs" can stand and be repeated over and over as if it were an incontestable truth: even the way it is worded sounds sexist to me.

The reasons why women 'pick the wrong jobs' are varied and a few of them are well understood:
- lack of role models. For example, if I asked you about famous figures in computer science, who do you think about? You probably would say Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg , Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Allan Turing... But you probably dont think about Grace Hooper, Marissa Mayer, Susan Wojcicki (sure, she's not a CS major, but she is credited with creating Adwords and making a ton of money for Google), Ada Lovelace, all the women who worked as cryptographers/codebreakers during WW2...
- how those careers are advertised/branded. There is a reason why Google, the European Union, Verizon and many others have done campaigns to try to rebrand STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) careers in general. Sure, most of them screwed up badly (the EU campaign ended up being horribly sexist thanks to the advertising folks ignoring the feedback from the researchers; Google's 'Made with Code' campaign was criticised for using as the main example using 3D printers to produce jewellery.... Only Verizon so far has done a decent campaign that so far wasn't criticised by anyone)

:text-yeahthat:

Wonderfully put. :thumbleft: I don't feel that as a woman I am fighting a daily battle the same way my ancestors did (fighting for the right to vote, to be educated etc.) or the way other women in the developing world have to daily. However, the idea that there are no glass ceilings for women is false. Even if I never have a child, and even if I oodles of ambition, statistically speaking the odds are I will earn less than men who have the same education and experience as me.

 

[SexySteph]

Honestly, I don't understand how the idea that women "lack ambition, motivation or are picking the wrong jobs" can stand and be repeated over and over as if it were an incontestable truth: even the way it is worded sounds sexist to me.

The reasons why women 'pick the wrong jobs' are varied and a few of them are well understood:
- lack of role models. For example, if I asked you about famous figures in computer science, who do you think about? You probably would say Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg , Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Allan Turing... But you probably dont think about Grace Hooper, Marissa Mayer, Susan Wojcicki (sure, she's not a CS major, but she is credited with creating Adwords and making a ton of money for Google), Ada Lovelace, all the women who worked as cryptographers/codebreakers during WW2...
- how those careers are advertised/branded. There is a reason why Google, the European Union, Verizon and many others have done campaigns to try to rebrand STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) careers in general. Sure, most of them screwed up badly (the EU campaign ended up being horribly sexist thanks to the advertising folks ignoring the feedback from the researchers; Google's 'Made with Code' campaign was criticised for using as the main example using 3D printers to produce jewellery.... Only Verizon so far has done a decent campaign that so far wasn't criticised by anyone)

The EU video (and an article about how the failure happened: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... ral-fiasco )


And the Verizon ad:

That verizon ad... :crybaby: That is exactly why girls choose the jobs they choose. We are socialized away from them. Hell, we're socialized away from any of the hard sciences period. Math isn't even messy, dirty or dangerous and I remember only the boys really got attention for their math skills when I was in school. Girls are pushed towards reading and gentle things, boys aren't really pushed away from any fields unless they're too feminine.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I have never experienced limitations other than those that come from my own lack of motivation, so I guess I just can't see it the same way. I was always pushed to pursue whatever I wanted to and from as early on as I can remember I was told I can do whatever I want to do.


Edit: I didn't mean to come off as condescending at all, I just want to set that straight. Sorry if it came out that way, though. I'm also not trying to say that ALL (or even most) women lack motivation or anything like that, which I guess is how what I'm saying is coming across. I don't know how to fix that.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

Yea I don't really see the "women aren't motivated" thing.
I know waaay more hard working women with unemployed, lazy, boyfriends than I do the other way around. I would have to see statistics on male vs. female unemployment rate BUT it needs to exclude stay at home mothers. I count that as a job in itself and don't consider stay at home mothers unmotivated.

 

[AwesomeKate]

I actually just started watching this woman's videos on Youtube, and came across one about that Verizon commercial. I had never seen the commercial before, and it made me cry too. So did the #LikeAGirl campaign. However, I don't know how much truth there is in the message behind them. I understand the emotional reasoning; how it feels to have brothers play hockey, soccer, and baseball, and no one signs you up for any sports. Or you start going to the gym and everyone says, "Ew, just make sure you don't get too buff." There is definitely a disgruntled outcry from society when girls do things that have been labelled 'boy things'. But it works exactly the same way when boys do 'girl things'. Other people are trying to keep the sexes 'traditional', whatever that means, but we all know everything is always changing and flowing. It is your, and only your personal responsibility to ensure that you live the life you want to live. There are very few times in our First World lives where we are physically stopped from doing something or physically forced into doing something. This thread, other than the discussion on physical assault, has been mostly about mental limitations put onto girls. I believe this goes back to victimization. So, instead of saying to themselves, "I thought math was hard and didn't want to major in it." They say, "I was persuaded not to do math and science, because I was told those subjects were for boys."

My personal story involves me going to Engineering school upon graduation. And sure as shit, when I arrived on my first day, our freshmen class only had about 25% girls. I knew it was a male-dominated field and that was partly WHY I wanted to do it. And I remember when, after my first year, I went home and cried to my mom about how "My high school didn't prepare me for the math at all!" "The guys all just naturally KNOW Calculus!" And then I dropped out. I gave up. And I blamed it on anybody or anything I could, instead of just accepting that I did not give it my all, and that the other people who made it through were not given any special treatment. They tried harder than me.

I honestly did not know about the word feminist until I was much older. I believe my mom referenced it when I would talk about wanting my own career, and not having a man take care of me financially. She would say it in a really positive way to me, and get excited about what I would do with my life. So, I guess a part of me still hears 'Girl Power' when I hear the word feminist. I get all invigorated and pumped up like YEAH LET'S DO THIS LET'S BE SUCCESSFUL AS FUCK. But, I can't ignore how much proclaimed feminists talk and talk about the patriarchy, and rape culture, and injustice and do so little for anybody who is actually experiencing the injustices they're going on about. YES! We know that rape is terrible, are you volunteering at or donating to a rape education program or victim's group? And yes! There are too few girl's not pursuing math and science, are you getting a degree in those subjects?! AND OMG YES. We need more women entrepreneurs! Are you starting your own company? I want women to do these things! I want women to discuss these injustices, but then make plans and do things to change them! That's the meat of the operation after all. The action.

 

[Aella]

I haven't been reading all the replies, but I read all of this page.

Someone said that saying that women are less motivated is sexist.

I want to explain why, though. Men and women have evolved to have a basic exchange of power, because women have to spend 9 months carrying a baby and men can make as many as they want. A woman is in sexual high demand, while men are in low. A woman operates on the principle of being selective, while men operate on the principle of proving worth to earn the choice.

It shows up in today's culture, too. Men work out at the gym to prove dedication and strength, which is attractive to women cause they subconsciously think the man can fight off predators and will protect them. Women make their hair look lucious and healthy and try to get a high hip to waist ratio so that men subconsciously think they are fertile and will produce many children. Men HAVE to prove their worth if they want any chance of getting laid, much as women HAVE to prove their fertility if they want to have a good selection of suitors.

And this is why women are less motivated in the workforce. A man achieving a high level CEO position indicates wealth and power, which makes them a desirable mate in a woman's eyes. If a man gets the CEO position, he immediately is fulfilling hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary work saying that he now has a higher chance of reproduction with a suitably fertile mate.

If a woman gets the CEO position, she is fulfilling no such thing. The amount her attractiveness increases is far smaller than the amount it increases for men; she is not demonstrating her fertility, and on a subconscious level increases her chances of reproducing with a suitable mate far less so.

That's why more men work hard for powerful positions than women. Hard working men get laid, hard working women just get the satisfaction of being hard working.
And that's why women work hard for beauty far more than men. Beautiful women get laid, beautiful men just get the satisfaction of being beautiful.

Of course there will always be people who find various combinations of goals and genders appealing, but we're looking at the majority here.

 

[SexySteph]

. YES! We know that rape is terrible, are you volunteering at or donating to a rape education program or victim's group? And yes! There are too few girl's not pursuing math and science, are you getting a degree in those subjects?! AND OMG YES. We need more women entrepreneurs! Are you starting your own company? I want women to do these things! I want women to discuss these injustices, but then make plans and do things to change them! That's the meat of the operation after all. The action.

In my experience activism is a HUGE part of feminism. At least for those who are serious about it (rather than tumblr fems). In my department we learned how to do activism and were required to do a campus wide activism project to pass. Everyone I graduated with is either volunteering at crisis centers, interning at places like goldieblox or helping minority teens do more with their lives than live in the cradle to prison pipeline.

People who claim to be feminist but have never really done more than develop an opinion on might not do anything but most of us that have committed our lives to it DO do things.

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

If you think that is at all what I meant then there is miscommunication.

@AlexLady: I'm not sure if you were talking to me with this since there was no quote, but it occurred to me you might be because my post came right after one of yours and this was right after mine. I wasn't actually referring to your posts at all. If anything, from your large post, I would guess that you and I pretty much agree on what I talked about.

I think if the odds are that the world I live in is likely to be dominated in government and private industries etc by the stereotypical white male I have no problem with work being done to tip the balance to increase participation by women and minorities.

The problem I have with this is it treats people as statistics instead of individuals. I am a white male, but I don't consider myself a "stereotypical" one. I don't think my views and policies (if I happened to be in charge of something) would be those you'd expect from that stereotype. Percentages don't tell the whole story, and I believe as society continues to evolve, we'll see those percentages move closer to groups being represented more "evenly." It's certainly true that in many things, women and certain minorities are under-represented based on the numbers. I think a large part of this is due to past unfair treatment of these groups and also economic factors. There is no doubt at all that women and minorities were discriminated against and not given fair opportunities in the past. I think we are doing a much better job with that now (perhaps not perfect but hugely improved), but it will only gradually appear in the numbers: all the white males in senior positions won't go away overnight, and they shouldn't be forced to unless they've done something wrong to warrant that.

While there are still many more male CEOs than female ones, there are a lot more female ones than there used to be. I think we'll gradually see more and more as time passes with everyone having reasonably fair opportunities when they start out. I'm sure there still exist some people in power who act with bias (and unfortunately there will always be some people who think other groups than their own are not as good as they are), but I think at this point most of it is not built into the system; it's just flawed individuals in charge. If we can do something to get these people to be fair, great, but I don't think a quota system or anything like it is the way to go because it treats people like numbers, which they really are not. What bothers me most about this is how it will affect people's attitudes. When I was growing up, a really big point they tried to teach us was "people are people," by which they meant, everyone deserves equal treatment. I believe this is the right message. Now sometimes the message sounds like "we need to push certain groups out of the way and push other groups in so we can make the numbers even." That's a crappy message in my opinion. It will breed resentment in some people and gives, at best, a mixed message about whether or not people of all sorts deserve equal treatment. I think what we need the most going forward is a society in which most people really believe that everyone deserves equal treatment.

Besides past bias, the other thing I mentioned as a reason for the statistics being out of balance is economic reasons. There are a disproportionate number of minority people in financial distress. A lot of this likely comes from past generations being poor and not given fair opportunities, which in turn makes it harder for their children to succeed, and so on. Women who entered the workforce when it was badly biased against them or who run a single-parent family (also hard for men, but currently there are far more women in this position) are also more likely than average to have financial difficulty. Although I do not consider myself a socialist, I do believe that it's appropriate for government to give financial aid to people who need it badly, both for living expenses and education (Yes, the U.S. does have some of this but probably not enough and not administered in a sensible way. Of course other countries differ, but I think the same idea applies conceptually). I have an idea of how to pay for it, but that is another debate entirely. I think this aid should be given out based on need though, not based on race, gender, or any other arbitrary group. Because a large percentage of the people currently in need of this aid are minorities and women, a large percentage of this aid would go to minorities and women. But it should go to exactly the people who need it, not to everyone who is a member of a group with a "bad percentage" and to no one who is a member of a group with a "good percentage." I'm pretty sure Oprah doesn't need any help, and poor white males do exist.


*And, yes, I am incapable of writing more than a few sentences without using parentheses.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

I fully agree with the post above. Very well said!

 

[PlayboyMegan]

Yea I don't really see the "women aren't motivated" thing.
I know waaay more hard working women with unemployed, lazy, boyfriends than I do the other way around. I would have to see statistics on male vs. female unemployment rate BUT it needs to exclude stay at home mothers. I count that as a job in itself and don't consider stay at home mothers unmotivated.

I just realized I said "stay at home mothers" when I should have said "stay at home parents," instead. My apologies.

 

[AlexLady]

If you think that is at all what I meant then there is miscommunication.

@AlexLady: I'm not sure if you were talking to me with this since there was no quote, but it occurred to me you might be because my post came right after one of yours and this was right after mine. I wasn't actually referring to your posts at all. If anything, from your large post, I would guess that you and I pretty much agree on what I talked about.

Ok! Thanks for that. I was just worried that the part about discriminating against a feminist if she was in trail for something simply because she believes strongly in feminism was about me for I hadn't seen many others even mention the word "law" as strongly as I have in this subject.


Another thing on the CEO statistic: when counting how many males and females there are, keep in mind that many people work until they're in they're 50's or even late 60's. If there are more females in their 20's than males it'll change drastically over the next few years. I have no clue what the states are nor do I care myself, but all I mean is that it's very, very easy to make a bunch of statistics that show only part of a message; especially a part the person collecting the statistics had a goal in mind (such as checking to see if they were right.)





A note on me just because it might help explain why my opinions are so strong on this subject: politically I'm very libertarian and while I may not talk politics on cam I keep up on it closely.

 

[Leon_Omega]

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

That's the way it is over here. Hell, we even call it Parental Leave (and have for as long as I can remember). Both parents have the exact same rights in this regard.

 

[SexySteph]

In a few countries paternity leave is just as long and common as maternity leave. And I don't think that implies that anyone's job is raising children anymore than companies not offering that implies that no one should have any kids.

That's the way it is over here. Hell, we even call it Parental Leave (and have for as long as I can remember). Both parents have the exact same rights in this regard.

I was thinking the Netherlands was one! I think it's such an amazing concept.

 

[sexyvee_x]

I'm from the U.K I hate maternity rights here, I got 52 weeks of maternity leave & 42 weeks of that was paid, £136 so $222 per week, my S.O could only take 2 weeks of paternity 1 week was holidays, What if a woman wants to go back to work straight after having a baby? Men should have the choice to take the maternity leave instead it's like women HAVE to be the primary carers in societies view, I was raised by my dad, and S.O was raised mostly by his mum with little input from his father because she views childcare as a womans job it's taken many months to educate him that childrearing can be shared between a couple. This needs to happen WORLDWIDE