Feminism (that's right, I went there)

[Lucid]

I wasn't sure where to put this topic. It might also fit under general sociology, but since the issue, in large part, involves rights I put it here. Moderators, please feel free to move it if you feel it fits better somewhere else.

On this forum, and in the world in general I find that there's almost always a negative reaction (both from men and some women) to feminism.

What's strange about this, is that it often comes from men (and women) who are actually feminists themselves without realizing it.
By most standards, if you believe that women should be able to hold the same jobs that men do, for the same pay rates, if you believe that the value of a persons views or opinions is in those views and opinions and not the gender of the individual proposing them, and that people of both genders deserve equal treatment, you are a feminist. Whether they realize it or not, this actually describes most of the men I've had any kind of dealings with at all (although there are always some exceptions).

I don't hate men. Actually, I'm rather fond of them :) I don't think that most of them want to oppress me or that they think I'm stupid because I'm a woman or that I don't deserve to be treated with respect because of my gender. So the purpose of my posting this thread isn't to bash men.

However, over and over again I see feminism being met with fear, anger, mistrust, disgust, and lots and lots of eye-rolling.

It seems like feminism has become understood to mean this guerrilla man-hating femi-Nazism that was mentioned above, which is really just sexism.

Why does it seem that feminism is so widely misunderstood and met with anger and fear? What are your opinions about feminism in general? Do men encounter a certain amount of sexism too?
I'm interested to hear the thoughts of both males and females on this forum.

[Tarrick]

I think that's because when people are referring to "feminism" they are referring to a movement, and most people don't see a need for movement anymore. I think that most people think things are good as they are and only a handful of people want to push things further (and to ridiculous lengths IMO).

It's just that for most people it's "how things are" not "feminism". Since it's "how things are" there doesn't have to a specific label.

[qwerty]

Ok so it's an interesting question to think about. I guess the main reason I myself am against feminists is because they promote an unbiased system then when they get preferential treatment they claim it's all part of the game.

Example case: The biggest complaint I get from females about work is the 'boys club' mentality. Where in order to succeed you must be guy who rubs shoulders with the big boys and plays the game. Yet whenever an interview comes up these women always where the sluttiest 'professional' clothes they have, they play their own game and then cry about not being taken seriously.
At the end of the day I do believe that yes, no matter where you go your knowledge and experience isn't going to be the deciding factor when you apply for a job (unless you work by the recommendation scheme). Both sexes have their own ways to entice the HR interviewer.

[TeleportThis]

Being a female, I don't like it when the word feminism is brought up mostly because of what Terrick said. As far as I'm concerned, the feminist movement has already succeeded. I'm a female in engineering so I have to hear this shit from older females all the time. Stuff like
"Do you ever feel it's harder to succeed as a woman in engineering?"
"Did you feel pressure to go into a different (more feminine) field?"
"Why do you feel that there are a disproportionate amount of women in engineering?"

Answers: no, no, because most women aren't interested

No one worries about the lack of strait men in fashion, why should we worry about the lack of women in engineering?

They go to all this trouble trying to recruit women into engineering and then wonder why so many drop out later. Because they didn't really know what they wanted to do, and after being in engineering found out that wasn't it! The women that are interested will come...don't worry about it.

I also hate how women are considered a "minority" in my field and are therefore often times offered jobs before people more qualified. I hate affirmative action for this reason. I doesn't help the situation, it only hurts it. People are suspicious of whether or not you deserve the job you are given or were just given it to fill a certain quota. They will look more harshly at initial mistakes that might be made and it takes longer to prove your worth.

[Hdier]

Yeah, woman have been mistreated in the past, but are by no means a minority. There is (about) an equal amount of men and woman in the world, so why should one get minority status over the other?





Hdier added to this post, 1 minutes and 2 seconds later...

Please don't misinterperate me, I'm all for equal opportunity among genders and stuff, but considering woman a minority causes unequal opportunity.

[LJB]

I'm just curious about what you consider "ridiculous"?

Are these issues part of the mainstream of feminism or on the fringes? I ask only because, as we are all well aware, much of the extreme that comes out of any movement for change (whether it is gender, political, religious, academic, economic, etc.) is ridiculous.

By focusing on these fringe issues, critics have a tendency to diminish the merits of the core issues that spawned the movement in the first place.

[quentin]

I have one major beef with feminism: it focuses 90% of its energies on societies in North America and Western Europe where 90% of the problems have already been solved. The major battles have been won here, and so in a sense feminism as far as it relates to mainstream women is irrelevant.

However, there's the rest of the world: East Asia, South Asia, the Muslim world, Latin America, Africa - a good dose of feminism is very much needed there. In a world where female genital mutilation is still practiced daily, where a woman in Saudi Arabia was recently sentenced to lashings for the crime of being a rape victim, whining about not having enough females graduating with engineering degrees comes across as petty. Very, very petty. Feminists in our society would be much more useful if they used their activism to help women in the outside world. Donate and lobby for the campaign to end forcible FGM, for starters.

[Tarrick]

I'm just curious about what you consider "ridiculous"?


Shared bathrooms. Girls on guys sports teams (not saying it can't happen because I've known it to happen, personally, but rather to force the issue), forcing "equal" representation when it wasn't earned, etc. Things like that.

And yes, I'm in agreement with Quentin. America and Europe have "gotten" it. Now go to the Middle East and Asia and all the other places that are still way backwards.

[Epicurus]

As you said its pretty much useless here in the more civilized countries. Except for advocating some kind of socialism, wich all of the people calling themselves feminists are, atleast wich I've heard of... And the name is terrible, just because females are generally ''less worth'' it doesn't make it sound to good to me. Its just free political correctness-points that you get if you call yourself feminist. However I guess it cold be beneficial to call yourself all that and more, but also call yourself classical liberal/libertarian and in comparrision advocate very different ideas.

Feminazism should be more effective... Extinction of the weak and dumb people and their genes (=people with to much estrogen/or the non INTJs/unintelligent) should be the best it could get. Then it wouldn't have to see women as that much weaker and dumber when both genders got it close to minimal of that weakness.

[prometheus]

Why are you out of the kitchen? [/sarcasm]

Some good friends of mine are feminists and anarchists. I like Tarrick's idea of a shared restroom. But, more simply, if the real feminists want to play it out, why are there separate events for men and women in sports, and especially the Olympics? We are different........and I love the difference (see my avatar) with both hands as oft as I can. :P

[Jennywocky]

Example case: The biggest complaint I get from females about work is the 'boys club' mentality. Where in order to succeed you must be guy who rubs shoulders with the big boys and plays the game. Yet whenever an interview comes up these women always where the sluttiest 'professional' clothes they have, they play their own game and then cry about not being taken seriously.

Wow, talk about taking a small minority and using it to label the entire field of working women.

Professional women I know (from white-collar work) do not wear "slut clothes" to the office or to interviews. What sort of jobs are you interviewing for -- retail, with no college education?

And the old-time "feminists" that gave feminism a bad name in the 70's and 80's were almost anti-feminine and avoided their own sexuality.

[Honestly, I think it's about "who you know" in terms of interviews, regardless of gender. And then, if no one has their foot in the door, then professional qualifications come directly into play.]

Still, I can see a double standard here in my workplace, part of the software dev industry. The women managers aren't really taken seriously (although in my opinion few of them are professionally and temperamentally qualified for the position). The few women who do code usually are tom-boyish, so they sort of exude masculine traits and end up being taken more seriously. And there's still a tacit sense that the women are respected in their particular assignments if they do them well, but still not taken as seriously in a general discussion of technical issues or "code talk."

(Sort of like the "Ellen Ripley" scenario out of "Aliens.")

Some of it is just inescapable. And I suppose as long as women receive equal wages for the same quality of work, and people are trying to be inclusive, then that's the best that can be expected. (Men and women *will* be unique in some ways, due to intrinsic biological differences.)

[The Many]

I'm an individualist and a liberal(ist) when it comes to political matters. This has nothing to do with "feminism" as such, so I reject the "you're still a feminist despite what you are saying" mentality which seems to be quite common. As to actual feminism though, my main objection is that it is really nothing more than a movement of bogus philosophies. Anecdotal evidence, word games, dismissal of scientific facts and results, flawed experiments on the side of the feminists, hypocrisy and a stubborn inability to approach an issue objectively. And ressentimence. Of course, feminist "intellectuals" bore me too in their zealousness, but their personalities are less important than their ideologies...

With this said though, I obviously advocate equal rights for everyone by law, but once again this is a question of individualism, not feminism.

[Lucid]

Thanks for everyone's responses. I have gained new insight into this "anti-feminism" phenomenon.

You know, a lot of the men who have replied to this have said that they are against feminism because we no longer need a women's rights movements. That most of the work towards equalization has been done and that there's really no sexism anymore.

That's like white people saying there's no real racism anymore. It's not up to you to decide when another group is being treated fairly or not. It's up to that group, since they are the ones who have to deal with it.

You probably aren't sexist yourselves and you don't see much of it happen because you're men, so sexism against women isn't directed at you and doesn't happen much in your vicinity. I think th issue is viewed very differently by most women.

Men still get paid more for doing the same jobs. Men are still chosen over equally qualified women for high power positions. Women still have to struggle to make people listen to their ideas and opinions because many people (of both genders) don't take women seriously and don't think women can think rationally (a few even on this forum). It seems like this is becoming a minority, thank god, and we have come a long way from the way things were, but if you aren't part of a group of people, I don't think you have any business saying, "well you're treated equally now, so shut up." You have very little idea if we're treated equally or not.

Ok so it's an interesting question to think about. I guess the main reason I myself am against feminists is because they promote an unbiased system then when they get preferential treatment they claim it's all part of the game.

I've heard this before and I'm sorry, but I think it's a cop-out. I also think that women who want "equal rights" to mean "men do all the work and I reap the rewards because I look cute in a short skirt" put the whole feminism thing back abut 40 years.
Those women disgust me because they enable people like you to say that most women don't earn the things they have (despite the fact that women such as this are by far the minority), further devaluing our role in society.

However, most of the women I know have had to work their asses off for what they have (just like men do) and don't get much credit for it because of this minority of women and gentlemen such as yourself.

With respect Qwerty, anyone who thinks we don't need a feminist movement anymore should look to this example to see why we do. :)

With this said though, I obviously advocate equal rights for everyone by law, but once again this is a question of individualism, not feminism.

I agree with you here, but I think it comes down to a semantic argument. "Feminism" isn't the best word to describe the belief that everyone should have equal rights under the law, but it seems to be the (flawed) term that most people use for this idea. So please substitute, in your head, the term "Feminism" with the phrase "advocating for equal rights for both genders."


Shared bathrooms. Girls on guys sports teams (not saying it can't happen because I've known it to happen, personally, but rather to force the issue), forcing "equal" representation when it wasn't earned, etc. Things like that.

I think the people advocating these things are a minority as well and again, a minority that seems to give many people an excuse to roll their eyes when I start talking about equality among genders.
I'm not arguing for unisex bathrooms (In fact I really don't want to share a bathroom with a bunch of men :)) or that we should put women on the men's football teams (there are physical differences between men and women, size and strength being some pretty big ones). Again, you're taking the ridiculous extreme and using it to dismiss the whole idea.

And yes, I'm in agreement with Quentin. America and Europe have "gotten" it. Now go to the Middle East and Asia and all the other places that are still way backwards.

I think that many women would disagree that America and Europe have "gotten it." I can site some examples as to why, if you feel I need to.
However, I agree that there are countries that need some kind of equal rights movement MUCH more than we do. But, while I'm sure that people of the western world would be happy to help such a movement and support it, we can't force it on them. Our area of the world still needs work too, so lets do that in the meantime.

Having said all that, I also find it frustrating when "feminists" (I use the term in this sense only for the sake of conversation) expect their equal treatment and rights to be more than equal. When they expect to get stuff handed to them because of their gender. Those people disgust me no matter their philosophy, gender, race or religion. And I think it's really a shame that they have been able to influence so many otherwise reasonable people into advocating against equality.

[quentin]

Men still get paid more for doing the same jobs.

Please cite your source for this assertion. It's more or less an urban legend. A very reliable website, the Straight Dope, on this issue:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are several factors at work as to why women, on the whole, earn less than men. But blatant, outright sexist discrimination is not one of them. After all, that would be illegal.

Some research suggests that when women behave as men do--not having babies, mainly--the income gap largely disappears. If so (I won't claim the matter has been definitively settled), the question facing women is a stark one: What do you want, kids or cash?






quentin added to this post, 9 minutes and 55 seconds later...

It's not up to you to decide when another group is being treated fairly or not. It's up to that group, since they are the ones who have to deal with it.

Why not? You could reverse your logic and argue that people that aren't affected with these issues can stand comfortably outside looking in and be more objective about it all. For example, an unbiased objective observer can look at the tensions between Hutus and Tutsis, Croats and Serbs, Koreans and Japanese, with much more wisdom and common sense. However, since we are all either men or women, such unbiased objectivity is impossible.

There are plenty of minority groups in America that were once oppressed but are no longer oppressed, but some of them still act as if they are: Jews, Irish, Italians, Confederates, etc. They forget that this is 2007, not 1907. Should I take some paranoid Jewish person seriously when he feels that he's denied a job because of anti-Semitism when in reality 99.5% of Americans don't care at all, only extreme fringe group neo-Nazis that represent a small, small fraction of the population?

[Lucid]

Please cite your source for this assertion. It's more or less an urban legend. A very reliable website, the Straight Dope, on this issue:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are several factors at work as to why women, on the whole, earn less than men. But blatant, outright sexist discrimination is not one of them. After all, that would be illegal.

I'll look into it. There's some validity to saying, "which do you want, the kid or the cash," but at the same time, that's not a choice men have to make, is it? Men can have children and make lots of money. Why can't women?

I think an interesting question to ask would be, do men who take paternity leave make as much or more than women who take maternity leave? Or do they make less because traditionally men don't take paternity leave? That's unfair too and you men should riot :)

However, you're looking only at the legal aspect. Even if you remove this example there is still plenty of gender bias and unfairness to go around. Part of the problem is that many people seem to think that the issue is only a legal one. Yes, by law most companies have to hire a certain amount of women and a certain amount of minorities. What I've found is that this law (while there may be some need for it... I mean, imagine if there wasn't a law) really only gives people an excuse to say, "well you didn't earn that job or that promotion or that raise. It's just a hand out. You can't do work that qualifies you for a job, promotion or raise, so you have to make laws to get them."
This does women and minorities more harm than good. Also, the laws lead to a lot of people getting angry or rolling their eyes when you say things like, "women deserve to be treated fairly and equally."

It's a problem that, because there are these laws, many people think that all the work has been done and there is no bias or sexism anymore. This is simply not true.

What the feminist movement needs to be (and in my opinion, what it seems to be to the majority of women that I know), is a movement to earn respect and equal consideration. This means that feminists won't take things they didn't work for or earn, but instead will improve women's treatment and place in society through hard work, education, etc.
I think the problem is that many people look at feminism as if it were still a legal matter, when instead, it has become a social issue instead.

People say that sexism is dead, but I have conversations with people all the time who say, "Hillary won't get elected because she's a woman." Or, "I wouldn't vote for a woman for president because women are too emotional to make leadership decisions." I'm not saying Hillary should be president. Voting for someone because she's a woman is as bad as voting against someone because she's a woman. Gender shouldn't be a factor, that person's politics and qualifications are the only things that should matter.
But for anyone to tell me that sexism is dead in a society where gender is an issue when we choose a president is just blatantly wrong.

Here's something interesting related to this whole legality issue. Minorities often benefit from the same laws that women do, but it seems like very few people say that racism is dead in our society. Why is sexism any different? It really comes off, sometimes, as if people are saying, "Ok, fine, you have your stupid laws so shut up about it. We're not going to change how we treat you any more than we are required to by these laws and we resent the fact that you're asking us to."

Why not? You could reverse your logic and argue that people that aren't affected with these issues can stand comfortably outside looking in and be more objective about it all. However, since we are all either men or women, such unbiased objectivity is impossible.

Because I don't think people from the outside would necessarily be able to make an informed opinion. Your race, gender and religion affect how people act towards you. If you're not a race, gender or religion that is being treated unfairly then you probably don't see it much.
There are things that male friends of mine thought were sexist against men that I wouldn't have noticed until they pointed it out because I'm not male.

Here's an example. A friend of mine recently converted to Judaism. Before her conversion she was unaware that there was much anti-semitism still around. After her conversion, when she identified herself as a Jew and started going to Temple and participating in Jewish activities, she realized that discrimination and hatred towards Jews was still alive and kicking.

There are plenty of minority groups in America that were once oppressed but are no longer oppressed, but some of them still act as if they are: Jews, Irish, Italians, Confederates, etc. They forget that this is 2007, not 1907. Should I take some paranoid Jewish person seriously when he feels that he's denied a job because of anti-Semitism when in reality 99.5% of Americans don't care at all, only extreme fringe group neo-Nazis that represent a small, small fraction of the population?

So you are trying to tell me that racism is dead.
Where I live the Ku Klux Klan has rallies on the steps of the capital every year. They have every right to do so and their rallies are protected under the 1st Amendment and should be. But don't try and tell me there's no racism. Or no sexism. Or no anti-semitism. While I think there are cases when paranoid people assume that everything negative that happens to them is a result of racism or sexism, it's inaccurate to dismiss the whole thing as paranoia.
You sir, are pissing down my back and trying to tell me it's raining. :) (<--- smiley face indicates light hearted comment borne of friendly disagreement. Friendly on my part anyway)

It's not 99.5% of Americans that don't care about race, religion or gender. The number is much lower than that. Probably still more than 50%... but I don't think much more.

Actually, I think your statement about there not being racism anymore pretty much proves my point that members of one group aren't in a position to tell the members of another group that the problem has been solved and they should stop whining.

[stasis]

It's a problem that, because there are these laws, many people think that all the work has been done and there is no bias or sexism anymore. This is simply not true.
I agree with this.

In my opinion, effecting change from outside the current social order usually calls for completely different methodology than that required to effect change from within it. The first step was the campaign to bring the advancement of women's rights into mainstream acceptance, and that seems to have been accomplished (in the west) by means of what one would expect from a necessarily belligerent 'revolution'. Having been accomplished, the old militancy and radical-agitant effete is rendered pointless; it can only become a caricature of itself, to which people will understandably respond with eye-rolling and mockery. Like racism, however, that the subjugation (abuse) of women has more or less been swept away from open acceptance in the mainstream culture does not indicate a resolution of the essential problem. Sexism is still a strongly deleterious and widely existent issue. This remains something in need of feminist attention. But, an updated feminism - an effort that recognizes and actually applies the more empowered position women hold today.

[Dreamer]

I don't nescessarly oppose myself to the whole equality of gender things but
I think that they are very annoying overall,at least in the way feminists present their propaganda.


Here's an example. A friend of mine recently converted to Judaism. Before her conversion she was unaware that there was much anti-semitism still around. After her conversion, when she identified herself as a Jew and started going to Temple and participating in Jewish activities, she realized that discrimination and hatred towards Jews was still alive and kicking.
I find that ego gets in play easely once it is the "YOU" that is being targeted.Every little fringe group these days seems to be targeted by an entity bigger and more powerful then themselves (peace groups thinking that the government is out there to crush their grass-root socialist movement,anyone?),as though persecution equaled validation.
I don't think that you need to be part of a minority yourself to see discrimination and the various evils that comes with it. Certainly it needs more attention to detail, and maybe an ability to listen but unless you are completely lack situational awareness, you will pick up the clues.

Also,how much of it is merely office politics as usual and whoever got victimized took it as an affront to her vagina?:irked:

The best way to approach the whole "male vs female" thing is on a case by case basis.

[Lucid]

I find that ego gets in play easily once it is the "YOU" that is being targeted.Every little fringe group these days seems to be targeted by an entity bigger and more powerful then themselves (peace groups thinking that the government is out there to crush their grass-root socialist movement,anyone?),as though persecution equaled validation.

I'm sorry, but saying that everyone is persecuted to some extent or another (and I think that to some extent all groups have to deal with a certain amount of persecution) so we shouldn't try to fix it and improve our society is ludicrous. That seems to be what you're getting at, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument.

Of course when it's YOU being persecuted it suddenly seems a lot worse. That's what I'm saying: if it's not you being persecuted, how can you tell another group that they should just have to deal with it and it really isn't as bad as all that?


Also,how much of it is merely office politics as usual and whoever got victimized took it as an affront to her vagina?:irked:

In my opinion, not much. I've honestly only once heard a woman say that she lost her job because of sex discrimination. The job she lost was in a field where women have not traditionally been welcome. It's possible that it was in her head, but I've never her say that about any other jobs. Maybe your experiences are different from mine, but I don't think women take innocent things as "an affront to her vagina" as much as you seem to think. In addition, I would say that just because there are some people who are paranoid about it (and there are people like this in all groups), it doesn't invalidate the point that gender discrimination still happens. Although I'm not sure you were going that far with your argument.

[quentin]

Because I don't think people from the outside would necessarily be able to make an informed opinion.

Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese all hate each other in East Asia. As an outsider, I can see their similarities, and objectively evaluate (as a white American) their petty bigotries. If you were an alien from Betelguese, you would be able to objectively look at the differences between male and female homo sapiens. Biologists are able to see those differences in lower animal species such as chimps and orangutans; why are humans so different?

Sexism is still a strongly deleterious and widely existent issue.

Yes, and it goes both ways. If you argue that mainstream society and many women aren't sexist against men, then you're either willfully ignorant or just a plain liar. It seems to me that in modern America the War Between the Sexes is more or less a stalemate. I mean, in divorce courts, who usually wins?

Sorry if I'm coming across as unusually antagonistic. But this is an issue that, in my experience, tends to draw out the most extreme emotions and opinions of men and women. I mean, we're all only human - we all have problems with the opposite sex.

[xanodel]

I'll cheer the day "gender" and socially defined "gender roles" die-something which men and women can jointly contribute to, and would make me quite a deliriously happy INTJ.

[quentin]

Of course when it's YOU being persecuted it suddenly seems a lot worse. That's what I'm saying: if it's not you being persecuted, how can you tell another group that they should just have to deal with it and it really isn't as bad as all that?

I don't mean to be condescending, but I think that it would make things a lot more clarifying if you tried to expand beyond a middle class, North American perspective. There are a lot worse things in this world to be born as. I don't think that anyone born in a first world country in North America or Europe has anything to complain about as far as how "society" has treated them. 90% of the men in this world have had it much, much worse off than you. C'mon, you aren't a coal miner in Bolivia, are you? You are obviously college educated and privileged with a middle class lifestyle. You have have nothing to complain about, relative to the scheme of things.

Exactly how are you "persecuted"? I mean, really?

I'm coming across as quite angry, but the thing is, I have quite regular contact with Southeast Asians that are working for a pittance and are genuinely oppressed by their Taiwanese employers, and so in comparison white girls in North America whining about their petty "problems" aren't even a blip on my radar.

[Lucid]

Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese all hate each other in East Asia. As an outsider, I can see their similarities, and objectively evaluate (as a white American) their petty bigotries. If you were an alien from Betelguese, you would be able to objectively look at the differences between male and female homo sapiens. Biologists are able to see those differences in lower animal species such as chimps and orangutans; why are humans so different?

I think you're using analogies that don't apply. What I'm saying is that outsiders aren't able to reliably and objectively evaluate anything because their status as an outsider doesn't allow them to be aware of or informed about what injustice there is or how much injustice there is.

Yes, and it goes both ways. If you argue that mainstream society and many women aren't sexist against men, then you're either willfully ignorant or just a plain liar. It seems to me that in modern America the War Between the Sexes is more or less a stalemate. I mean, in divorce courts, who usually wins?

But you're assuming that by being a feminist it means that person is sexist against men. That's the problem I have with your views.
I'm very aware of sexism against men (although probably not as aware as they are :)) and think it should end too. In divorce cases, child custody cases, etc. This is an injustice just as much as paying women less of the same job (if that's the case). Being a feminist doesn't mean that you are "anti-man." But you seem to think that it does. Please stop ascribing to me views which I do not hold or agree with.

But most importantly, if you're upset about injustice and discrimination when it's against the group you belong to, how can you fault others for being upset about it when it's against the group they belong to??

Sorry if I'm coming across as unusually antagonistic. But this is an issue that, in my experience, tends to draw out the most extreme emotions and opinions of men and women.

It seems like you're coming across as antagonistic (and you're not being very antagonistic, IMO... you seem to be having a civil discussion) because you're presupposing that feminists hate men. That's something I have an issue with and that's why I started this thread.

I mean, we're all only human - we all have problems with the opposite sex.

This is a view point I cannot agree with. I have problems with specific men and also with specific women. Not an entire gender in general. That's the problem. Saying, "well it's only to be expected, we're all only human after all," just excuses the problem instead of trying to solve it or improve it.

[Dreamer]

I'm sorry, but saying that everyone is persecuted to some extent or another (and I think that to some extent all groups have to deal with a certain amount of persecution) so we shouldn't try to fix it and improve our society is ludicrous. That seems to be what you're getting at, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument. My humour and sarcasm is a little bit self-centered, so my apologies for not making it clear for you.

What I was getting at is not that everybody is persecuted, but quite the contrary. I instead judge that some groups are so self-centered(that fringe college peace groups that believe that the government is repressing grass-rout socialist movements) that they see persecution everywhere.


Of course when it's YOU being persecuted it suddenly seems a lot worse. That's what I'm saying: if it's not you being persecuted, how can you tell another group that they should just have to deal with it and it really isn't as bad as all that?I make no recommendation except to stop the agressive advertising.Gender issues are not in my list of important issues that will decide my vote. I hope if you are personally discriminated against in the workplace,you will take a proper course of action to rectify the situation, but beyond that,bleh.

However,it's still possible for a third party to objectively assess the situation. You do not have to be shot at to know that incoming bullets are things to be avoided.

On the ground,how does this look like?

From my ivory-tower male perspective, with anything in government, a harassment/discrimination accusation will apparently bring much discredit to your name and to your career. Statistically,in my unit, there actually is a favourable ratio of male/females in certain ranks in position of leadership(not that I care, given that the females have the nescessary competency).

A competent person will usually win over an incompetent or less competent one. David Campbell was a jew and pretty much the reason why we have cable TV today. He suceeded in a Canada that was much more openly anti-semitic then today. Greed beats prejudice.

By your own admission, you've only heard of one woman says that she lost her job because of sex discrimination.
Certainly it can't be that bad?

As I said before,the best way to go with it is on a case by case basis. There are simply too many causes that can affect why women and men earn different salaries to get anything out of this statistic(let's suppose that for the sake of argument the salary disparity is true).

Such as for example values.Fact: Females. Those without an education generally speaking do not value dangerous but paying jobs that require no degrees. While males do.

How much of it is taken into consideration,considering that the majority of the populace does not hold a university degree?


In addition, I would say that just because there are some people who are paranoid about it (and there are people like this in all groups), it doesn't invalidate the point that gender discrimination still happens. Although I'm not sure you were going that far with your argument. I did not aknowledge the alleged omnipresence of gender discrimination in the workplace.

[The Many]

I agree with you here, but I think it comes down to a semantic argument. "Feminism" isn't the best word to describe the belief that everyone should have equal rights under the law, but it seems to be the (flawed) term that most people use for this idea. So please substitute, in your head, the term "Feminism" with the phrase "advocating for equal rights for both genders."

I don't define human beings by their gender, nor do I define anyone by race, nationality, language, hair length or some other equally superficial measure. Hence I do not advocate equal rights for "genders"; I advocate equal rights for all human beings. This also includes the right to discriminate when, for instance, deciding which people should be employed - even though this discrimination usually is pretty damn stupid.

[TeleportThis]

Lucid--The reason people roll their eyes at feminism is because people like you who flitter around making a big stink about petty things and not really knowing where they stand.

We don't really know what you have a problem with.

1) Men and women are already equal under the law, except where women are considered "minorities". You restated my points saying this was unfair and only making the situation worse.

2) The myth that men make more than women for doing the same job is simply not true any more. (Exceptions being when they are allowed to negotiate salaries because men tend to be better at that, which isn't due to sexism on anyone's part)

3) Most men and women are no longer sexist or treat people differently based on their sex. Those that do tend to be older and are retiring or dieing anyway and it won't be an issue for much longer.


You get all bent out of shape when sexist comments or actions are made, but the fact remains that no matter what...there's always going to be people who are sexist. This will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The world isn't perfect. Learn to accept that it's pretty good on this issue. I don't really see any stance for complaint with where we are today. Keep in mind that these comments are coming from a female in a field that is less than 3% female. I personally have never felt discriminated against for being a woman and am generally respected by my peers.

If you can tell me more clearly what exactly you have issue with today, I would be very interested.

[logos]

Personally, when someone proclaims to be a feminist I think the same thing I think when someone says they are a christian or a jew or a republican or a democrat or any other self-label... I assume because they use the label rather than expressing their own ideas that they are a follower rather than a leader. Depending upon the context of the assertion, I may make an assumption as to how 'extremist' they are with their label, but I usually just wait and see if they prove my assumption correct or not.

The problem with labels is that when you identify with one, you are automatically associated with the most vocal people using those labels who are generally known for pushing that label to the extreme. Lots of people are christian, but not everyone is Jerry Falwell. Lots of people are feminist, but not everyone is a ball-smashing lesbian man-hating bitch.

When you identify with a label, you're starting on a negative.

[Lucid]

Lucid--The reason people roll their eyes at feminism is because people like you who flitter around making a big stink about petty things and not really knowing where they stand.

You need to watch those personal attacks.

If you don't understand what I have a problem with then how can you say I'm making a big stink about petty things and that I don't know where I stand? Seems like you need to watch that logic as well. You shouldn't make statements about a person's position if you don't understand that position.
I feel I'm being perfectly clear. If there's something I've posted that you don't understand, please bring it up and I'll be happy to clarify.

1) Men and women are already equal under the law, except where women are considered "minorities". You restated my points saying this was unfair and only making the situation worse.

I'm stating that laws to enforce equal rights are probably necessary, but that people react to these laws by saying that women and minorities don't work for the things covered under these laws, such as jobs, promotions or pay raises. I'm not sure how much clearer you need me to make that... and on reading this again, I'm not sure why you're confused or what problem you have. Maybe you can clarify?

2) The myth that men make more than women for doing the same job is simply not true any more. (Exceptions being when they are allowed to negotiate salaries because men tend to be better at that, which isn't due to sexism on anyone's part)

I didn't argue about that. I said the point may be valid so I'd look into it more. Did you actually read any of my posts, or just skim them and make some assumptions? It really seems like it was just the latter.

3) Most men and women are no longer sexist or treat people differently based on their sex. Those that do tend to be older and are retiring or dieing anyway and it won't be an issue for much longer.

Really? I think this is debatable. It certainly hasn't been my experience. I think that sexism is waning, but that it's not going to disappear with the older generation.

You get all bent out of shape when sexist comments or actions are made, but the fact remains that no matter what...there's always going to be people who are sexist.

I don't think I've gotten bent out of shape at all (until your little personal attack above... that bends me a bit.), but having a discussion where I was stating my views and listening to some opposing views from others.
YOU are the one who seems to be getting upset.

Yes, there probably will always be sexism... does that mean I should just shut up and bow my head and take it? Because it will always exist this means we shouldn't discuss it? We should just accept the problems in the world and never do anything to try and correct them? Seems like a lot of people are saying that about this topic. "Yes, there's sexism. Just shut up and get used to it." Awesome. So, by that logic, because there are no crops, we should accept that we will starve to death, rather than trying to plant new crops or find other things to eat.

If you can tell me more clearly what exactly you have issue with today, I would be very interested.

I'm happy to clarify my stance, and all you had to do was ask, rather than make nasty comments.

Maybe the only thing you care about when it comes to sexism is the legal side of the matter or the economic side of the matter. While some laws have been passed to try to ensure that women get equal treatment and equal consideration in the job market, that doesn't really solve the problem. Plenty of people still think that women are less capable then men are, less rational, less able to make decisions or to handle positions of leadership. That's what I have a problem with.
A lot of the problems with sexism can't be solved by legislation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about them.

There are lots of things I have issues with regarding the whole gender equality and sexism issue. It's a huge and complex one. You seem to be saying that because I see it as a multi-faceted problem with no clear cut solution, that because sexism can be directed to men as well as women and that's a problem too, that because I think that the solutions we've come up with already are problematic themselves, and because I'm not saying that all men are sexist that I don't know what I want.

Read more carefully in the future. If you don't understand, ask for clarification and keep your insults to yourself.

I don't mean to be condescending, but I think that it would make things a lot more clarifying if you tried to expand beyond a middle class, North American perspective. There are a lot worse things in this world to be born as.

You keep apologizing for the things you say in your posts, and there's really no need to. You may hold a different view on the subject than I do, but your posts aren't coming of as rude or hostile.

I completely agree that in many ways I'm lucky, and I didn't mean to come off as saying "oh women are so ABUSED! We have it worse than anyone else in society!" So I apologize if it sounded like that. But I do think that sexism is detrimental and I wanted to talk about that. If you want to talk about conditions in South East Asia, then I'll be happy to learn more about it from you in another thread.
If the plight of middle American women (I'm using that term somewhat humorously) isn't a blip on your screen, then feel free not to waste your time arguing about something you see as a non-issue. For me it is an issue because I get tired of being told that I'm irrational, emotionally weak, bad at thinking in general, and worth less than men, simply because of gender.
So I'm going to spend some time and energy on the issue. If people want to talk about cases in which men are discriminated against and how that's wrong, I'll probably agree and be happy to discuss that as well. If you want to discuss how much worse women in some other cultures have it (and they do have it worse in many cases), I'll be happy to talk about that too! But I don't think it's valid to say that because there are other problems which are much worse, we shouldn't talk about what may be lesser problems.


By your own admission, you've only heard of one woman says that she lost her job because of sex discrimination.
Certainly it can't be that bad?

Again, it seems like everyone is saying that as long as we're not being discriminated against monetarily, it shouldn't matter. I disagree.
Many of your following points address the issue of women being paid less than men, and I agree that it's a hard thing to pin down when speaking in generalities, because there are so many variables. As I said earlier, it may be true that the pay discrepancy is a myth. To me, there are issues other than money at stake here.

I posted this originally, to talk about feminism and why it has a bad reputation and how people perceive it. And to suggest that the loudest and most extreme minority of a belief are not necessarily representative of the majority of people who hold that belief, as others on this forum have done with religion or with politics. Instead of listening to my points, it seems like some people have just ascribed to me views I don't support (but that many of the loudest and most extreme minority of the feminist belief system do) and told me that sexism isn't an issue worthy of discussion unless it hurts your bank account. If that's the way you feel then go spend your time discussing other topics.

In fact, it seems like I say, "Hey, gender discrimination is bad," and a lot of people just jumped down my throat for bring up the point and thinking that sexism is an important issue. Which is precisely the kind of thing I was talking about in my first post. Well, at least my point has been sufficiently illustrated. :)

[xanodel]

I'll stir this pot a bit. My question would be, if sexism and to a degree, discrimination based on sex does not exist, why do we still have the notion of gender roles? Not only why do we still have them, but simply why do truisms such as "women are <insert line>" and "men are <insert line>" exist, perpetuated by males and females alike? I think Lucid does bring up a valid point that in the sense of history, we haven't quite pushed away the pressure of over 5000 years of history, and what it comports to thinking and the upholding of traditions (which can in many cases be a cop-out to change).

And also to the people posting here, this is not a discussion of what you personally believe or not believe morally, but what does exist on a larger scale in society. For example, when was the last time you paid your mother for doing your laundry? And if household chores are a duty, why does such a duty automatically fall to females in many societies? Even in our developed, modern western society? Why would men who stay at home to look at children be considered a wuss or a wimp? And why can't men deal with women who are more intelligent or ambitious than males in many cases? I'm reminded of a friend of mine who absolutely refuses to open doors for women under any condition because "oh feminists, they should just open doors themselves" yet open doors for other men-he does divide it along sexual lines rather than see it as a form of polite etiquette. That's perhaps an extreme example, but such examples do exist, along with guys who simply refuse to walk through a door a woman opens for him. Those are questions I think we have yet to fully address-and I think we should address them, rather than shove the notions of sexism under a table.

And just because something is legally not allowable anymore does not automatically result in its total dissipation. One example I do recall from law would be that of rape-one of the best attacks used against plaintiffs in rape cases is to imply that she is a whore or a slut who fully led the rapist on. In many rape cases where it descends to he-said she said, the slander itself can lead many victims to not report rape (male as well as female victims), or since the law requires the plaintiff to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, it usually leads to dropped charges-even in cases where "rape" in the strictest sense did occur.

In the sense of how we correlate sex with a gender role and then continuously state because person A is of this sex and hence must act in such a role, I think there is an argument to be made that sexism does in fact, exist in action and in the mental conditioning of people-even though it may not be as blatant today.

[TeleportThis]

You need to watch those personal attacks.
If you don't understand what I have a problem with then how can you say I'm making a big stink about petty things and that I don't know where I stand? Seems like you need to watch that logic as well. You shouldn't make statements about a person's position if you don't understand that position.
I feel I'm being perfectly clear. If there's something I've posted that you don't understand, please bring it up and I'll be happy to clarify.

Oh, I understand what you have a problem with, I just don't understand why, which makes it hard for me to see exactly where you stand.

I'm stating that laws to enforce equal rights are probably necessary, but that people react to these laws by saying that women and minorities don't work for the things covered under these laws, such as jobs, promotions or pay raises. I'm not sure how much clearer you need me to make that... and on reading this again, I'm not sure why you're confused or what problem you have. Maybe you can clarify?

See, now I see that you fell the laws are necessary where I didn't see that before, which was the source of my confusion.

I didn't argue about that. I said the point may be valid so I'd look into it more. Did you actually read any of my posts, or just skim them and make some assumptions? It really seems like it was just the latter.

I know that. Yes I did read your posts. This wasn't a personal attack, I was showing my position and how it differed from yours, and trying to figure out where the miscommunication was.

Really? I think this is debatable. It certainly hasn't been my experience. I think that sexism is waning, but that it's not going to disappear with the older generation.
Well, it has been in mine, but yes of course its debatable.

I don't think I've gotten bent out of shape at all (until your little personal attack above... that bends me a bit.), but having a discussion where I was stating my views and listening to some opposing views from others.
YOU are the one who seems to be getting upset.
Oh really, now?

Yes, there probably will always be sexism... does that mean I should just shut up and bow my head and take it? Because it will always exist this means we shouldn't discuss it? We should just accept the problems in the world and never do anything to try and correct them? Seems like a lot of people are saying that about this topic. "Yes, there's sexism. Just shut up and get used to it." Awesome. So, by that logic, because there are no crops, we should accept that we will starve to death, rather than trying to plant new crops or find other things to eat.
Analogies are awesome because they always represent the situation at hand precisely and never exaggerate anything.

Seriously though, to some extent I am saying "Yes, there's sexism. Just shut up and get used to it." Although I was trying to be nicer about...you obviously didn't feel that, but whatever. Women and men are fundamentally different, and there will always be discrimination due to these differences by somebody. No, that doesn't make it right. But for me to get upset by some dude telling me that women can't drive or that I shouldn't be able to vote isn't worth it (because I can whether he wants me to or not). For me to get upset by at a company paying women half the wages of men is worth it. I feel we've already won the battles worth fighting.

I'm happy to clarify my stance, and all you had to do was ask, rather than make nasty comments.

I was using you in the group sense, not in the personal sense. Sorry, it wasn't more clear.

Maybe the only thing you care about when it comes to sexism is the legal side of the matter or the economic side of the matter.

It's not the only thing I care about, but it's the only thing that can actually be quantified.

While some laws have been passed to try to ensure that women get equal treatment and equal consideration in the job market, that doesn't really solve the problem. Plenty of people still think that women are less capable then men are, less rational, less able to make decisions or to handle positions of leadership. That's what I have a problem with.
A lot of the problems with sexism can't be solved by legislation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about them.
I'm not saying we can't talk about them, but I don't there's not much you can do to change other people's opinions once they are set, but you can control your reaction to them.

There are lots of things I have issues with regarding the whole gender equality and sexism issue. It's a huge and complex one. You seem to be saying that because I see it as a multi-faceted problem with no clear cut solution, that because sexism can be directed to men as well as women and that's a problem too, that because I think that the solutions we've come up with already are problematic themselves, and because I'm not saying that all men are sexist that I don't know what I want.

Read more carefully in the future. If you don't understand, ask for clarification and keep your insults to yourself.

Well, what do you want then? Don't accuse me of not reading your posts clearly. It's hard to get people's real meaning out of words they typed up rather quickly without seeing facial expressions. To me you want everybody to not be sexist. Well, that's not going to happen. We've done what can actually be done legally to make people equal, there's nothing more you can really do. That's why I don't really understand what you want.

[Lucid]

Oh, I understand what you have a problem with, I just don't understand why, which makes it hard for me to see exactly where you stand.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post and thought you were making a personal attack when you weren't.
I guess if you don't understand why I don't like it when people act like being a woman makes me inferior, then I'm not sure how I can effectively explain it to you. If it doesn't bother you when people treat you like that (if they do), then more power to you. But it doesn't change the fact that I don't like it and want it to change.


Well, it has been in mine, but yes of course its debatable.

On this issue I think we can only appeal to anecdotal evidence, which is less reliable and we may just end up comparing personal experiences and differing opinions, which is fine with me, I don't see that as a waste of time. But most of the sexism I've encountered against women has been from people my own age. I think that arguably, this is due to the fact that I have more contact with people of my own age than elderly people who are about to retire or die, but the sexism I've encountered from people my age was certainly enough to make me think it's a huge problem.


Analogies are awesome because they always represent the situation at hand precisely and never exaggerate anything.

Point taken, but I'm the analogy was purposefully exaggerated. I felt that was kind of the point.
Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean we should just accept it. I think we should try to change the problems in our society. We may have to learn how to live with them while we try to change them, but I don't think we can just dismiss them.

Seriously though, to some extent I am saying "Yes, there's sexism. Just shut up and get used to it." Although I was trying to be nicer about...you obviously didn't feel that, but whatever. Women and men are fundamentally different, and there will always be discrimination due to these differences by somebody. No, that doesn't make it right. But for me to get upset by some dude telling me that women can't drive or that I shouldn't be able to vote isn't worth it (because I can whether he wants me to or not). For me to get upset by at a company paying women half the wages of men is worth it. I feel we've already won the battles worth fighting.

I understand that you feel the things which have been addressed by legislation are the most important things. I also think that they are important. However, the legislation in question causes continued problems itself (as I mentioned previously). Also, the fact that some people will think you are inferior to men does affect your ability to do your job to an extent that the law can't control. I think that the degree to which it will affect your job will vary between jobs. I don't know much about engineering, but maybe the nature of being an engineer doesn't lend itself to being affected by sexism. However, there are other jobs that do.

I'm not saying we can't talk about them, but I don't there's not much you can do to change other people's opinions once they are set, but you can control your reaction to them.

That may be the case. At least on an individual scale. But I think that over a few generations we can make a huge difference (we already have made huge differences and that's very encouraging). And I think it is possible to influence people's opinions on an individual scale as well, although obviously that's harder to do and also a very slow process.

To me you want everybody to not be sexist. Well, that's not going to happen. We've done what can actually be done legally to make people equal, there's nothing more you can really do. That's why I don't really understand what you want.

I guess that with regard to this post, I wanted to converse about why feminism has a bad reputation (it's because there's a very loud and absolutely irrational minority that give the rest of the movement a bad name) and maybe try to alleviate some of the stigma that's been attached to it as a result of that minority. Not all feminists are sexist against men, not all of us are unreasonable or want to advocate for 5'1" women to play football with the Dallas Cowboys. Not all of us go around saying that women are sacred givers of life and that if women ruled the world there would be no war, and other air-headed platitudes like that. Not all of us go without bras, not all of us will get angry at men who open doors for us, etc. Things like this make the gender-bias issue worse, in my opinion.
Maybe if some of that negative knee-jerk reaction can be eased, people might actually listen to what reasonable feminists have to say.

What I want with regards to sexism in general is, as you said, for there to be no sexism. And you're right, that's probably not going to happen. But if it's possible for there to be less sexism then I'll take it. If I can do something to reduce sexism I'll be happy with that. :)

[xanodel]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'd suggest reading this, and seriously, what about women in politics?

[MichaelH]

Originally Posted by TeleportThis
3) Most men and women are no longer sexist or treat people differently based on their sex. Those that do tend to be older and are retiring or dieing anyway and it won't be an issue for much longer.

Really? I think this is debatable. It certainly hasn't been my experience. I think that sexism is waning, but that it's not going to disappear with the older generation.

I'd like to agree that sexism is waning, but I don't know if that's always the case. I was quite surprised by another thread where people gave personal information about themselves, including gender. As a white male, I'd projected my own image onto a lot of people on the board. (My exact reaction was: "XXXX is a woman?! and so is YYYY?")

In true INTJ fashion, as soon as I realized my mistake, I did my best to fix it. It took me all of sixty seconds to realize gender really didn't matter; ideas and communication skills are what's important. Still, I'm having a blast on this board, dealing with people from a variety of backgrounds in a situation where gender, skin color, and any number of other factors are removed from the interaction. Although I've always tried to treat people equally, I hope it will make me better in real life too.

[yondyr]

Thank you, very lucid, Lucid. I'm still wondering why the sexes are separated in sports, competirions, that provide no advantage to one or the other...trying off the cuff to thinks of some..comes to mind, lawn bowls, pool, etc. I can understand how the greater strength and size would advantage a male in many sports/competitions and nudge out any females, but.... And I do realise that some prefer not to compete against the other sex, a mind set from the past, perhaps..

[Lucid]

Thank you, very lucid, Lucid. I'm still wondering why the sexes are separated in sports, competirions, that provide no advantage to one or the other...trying off the cuff to thinks of some..comes to mind, lawn bowls, pool, etc. I can understand how the greater strength and size would advantage a male in many sports/competitions and nudge out any females, but.... And I do realise that some prefer not to compete against the other sex, a mind set from the past, perhaps..

Yeah, having separate leagues for pool does seem rather silly.

[yondyr]

lol if I had a competitive streak that I'd succumb to, I would be offended to be competing against only 51% of the population, rendering any victory ashes in my mouth. As it is, I prefer not to compete except intellectually (and the rare non-bot trivia game, the last of which folded some time ago).

[qwerty]

Wow, talk about taking a small minority and using it to label the entire field of working women.

Professional women I know (from white-collar work) do not wear "slut clothes" to the office or to interviews. What sort of jobs are you interviewing for -- retail, with no college education?

And the old-time "feminists" that gave feminism a bad name in the 70's and 80's were almost anti-feminine and avoided their own sexuality.

[Honestly, I think it's about "who you know" in terms of interviews, regardless of gender. And then, if no one has their foot in the door, then professional qualifications come directly into play.]

Still, I can see a double standard here in my workplace, part of the software dev industry. The women managers aren't really taken seriously (although in my opinion few of them are professionally and temperamentally qualified for the position). The few women who do code usually are tom-boyish, so they sort of exude masculine traits and end up being taken more seriously. And there's still a tacit sense that the women are respected in their particular assignments if they do them well, but still not taken as seriously in a general discussion of technical issues or "code talk."

(Sort of like the "Ellen Ripley" scenario out of "Aliens.")

Some of it is just inescapable. And I suppose as long as women receive equal wages for the same quality of work, and people are trying to be inclusive, then that's the best that can be expected. (Men and women *will* be unique in some ways, due to intrinsic biological differences.)

Heh I know it was an extreme case, but there is one woman I know in the software development field who comes to me each time before an interview and always mentions that "I'm going to be showing off the cleavage", and fortunately (for the guys she has to work with) or unfortunately (for the people she has to work with) it generally pays off.
After all the middle manager who doesn't know squat about real programming thinks either he's going to get laid or it will improve moral and maybe one of the nerds is going to get laid (honestly she's not that great at what she does).

I think this is what TeleportThis was refering to when she said

I also hate how women are considered a "minority" in my field and are therefore often times offered jobs before people more qualified. I hate affirmative action for this reason. I doesn't help the situation, it only hurts it. People are suspicious of whether or not you deserve the job you are given or were just given it to fill a certain quota. They will look more harshly at initial mistakes that might be made and it takes longer to prove your worth.



I've heard this before and I'm sorry, but I think it's a cop-out. I also think that women who want "equal rights" to mean "men do all the work and I reap the rewards because I look cute in a short skirt" put the whole feminism thing back abut 40 years.
Those women disgust me because they enable people like you to say that most women don't earn the things they have (despite the fact that women such as this are by far the minority), further devaluing our role in society.

However, most of the women I know have had to work their asses off for what they have (just like men do) and don't get much credit for it because of this minority of women and gentlemen such as yourself.

With respect Qwerty, anyone who thinks we don't need a feminist movement anymore should look to this example to see why we do.


It's a fair call, and I believe that someone who reaches a point in their career based on their merits has done the honorable thing; however it's extremely rare to see a career driven person reach the top of the pyramid by doing the honorable thing. Be they men, women, blacks, whites, asians, gay or straight. At the end of the day you need to understand that humans have a built in mechanism that will lie, cheat, steal and do every other dishonorable thing they can to get ahead.

So it's not that I think feminism has failed I think it's more a case that it has worked as well as it can for honorable career paths, it's the upper level management that will not embrace it has politically accepting an ideal is a sign of weakness.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" this is statement that this discussion reminds me of. There will always be some form of discrimination, I think our biggest concern should be that which affects most people - and right now I still do not believe feminism is the biggest problem in the working world.

[logos]

Not to rekindle any freshly dead embers here, but...

..Why does being treated differently have to imply a perception of inferiority? Men and women are different. Being different, even being submissive, does not make you inferior.

Who perceives men who stay at home with kids to be 'wimpy'?? No one I know. I would love to be this guy -- King of the jungle as it were. His job? Knock up the females, protect the pride and its territory, sleep, and eat when dinner is served. The lionesses do all of the 'breadwinning' and cub rearing. A man should be grateful to be so fortunate! My dad did this for a number of years when I was a child -- stayed at home doing the housework and cooking and taking care of us four kids. Truthfully, even though mom took over again after she decided she liked staying at home better than her career, I wished dad had stayed at home. Not that I don't love my mom, but dad was a better cook and a better teacher. No one would dare to call him a wimp then or now, and this was back in the early 80's. :P

[yondyr]

I would suggest logos that gender was not a part of that disposition of activities. The one most suited did the job they both agreed to - an ideal solution rather than a typical gender based allocation.

[MichaelH]

Why does being treated differently have to imply a perception of inferiority? Men and women are different. Being different, even being submissive, does not make you inferior.l

In theory, logos, you're correct. I would argue that women's health care is generally better than men's. (See the attention given to breast cancer versus prostate cancer for an example.) In practice, however...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The wikipedia article is talking about mainly racial segregation, but the principle applies. For instance, health classes in schools used to be segregated by gender. They'd have one discussion with the girls, and a different discussion with the boys. This was, frankly, a disservice to both genders. Boys didn't learn as much as they should about the female anatomy; the same was true for girls of boys. At least, I'm assuming; my health class was delivered unisexually. (That sounds so dirty...)

I'm not a sports person, but it's easy to see there's a lot more money thrown at men's football and basketball than women's version of the same sports. Football isn't integrated for safety reasons, but it's still a shame.

Any time you split things up, it's almost impossible to really do it equally. Just ask a group of seven-year-olds when it comes time to distribute pie for dessert. :cheesy:

[Tsuru]

Why does it seem that feminism is so widely misunderstood and met with anger and fear? What are your opinions about feminism in general? Do men encounter a certain amount of sexism too?
I'm interested to hear the thoughts of both males and females on this forum.

I have negative associations with feminism. Because there are a lot of feminists that advocate the government using force to coerce private businesses and individuals and/or violate their rights for the sake of their agenda. As long as feminists talk about affirmative action or governmental measures to make "enforce" equality in pay or interfering with strict job requirements (ie physical requirements for things like firefighting) to accommodate for women or illegalizing pornography because it demeans women, I'll consider those sorts feminists a negative force and a threat to liberty.

From a more psychological standpoint, a lot of them constantly espouse a victim mentality. Instead of talking about how to empower women and improve their standing through sociological means (because there IS still plenty of sexism to be battled in the private sphere), they ruminate on patriarchy, "oppression," and the like. Women can vote. Women can hold any career they choose. Women can go to any college they choose. Women can hold any political office. Stop. You're not oppressed any more. The legal battle is over. There are women in the middle east and Africa that are SERIOUSLY oppressed, and it's insulting to them to say that you live in a male-dominated tyranny.

Now, there are plenty of feminists who simply want to make people aware of issues like pay discrepancy and lingering sexist attitudes in society and glass ceilings in some areas without a political agenda attached, and those feminists are great. So I guess my point is, if you want to understand why there is still a negative reaction to feminism from a lot of people, don't look towards the transparently sexist man-haters (though they certainly don't help): look toward the academics.

As far as sexism from the male side, men encounter it quite a bit (In general, I think in a far more crude and primitive - but less personally and economically damaging - form than women are subjected to), I just think they don't realize it or just don't talk about it. It's still widely acceptable to be sexist towards a man. The attitudes towards male homosexuals, crossdressers, "effeminate" (ie, not tough and hard-assed, sensitive, emotional), ect particularly make it pretty clear when you compare it to responses to women of the same persuasion. Look at any sit-com and the husband is ALWAYS a helpless idiot who is un-deservedly graced with a wife that has everything together - when was the last helpless somewhat dim-witted wife since Lucy from the 50s? It's perfectly acceptable for women and men to RAIL against men if they don't fit gender stereotypes, where someone doing the exact same towards a woman would be shunned as a complete barbarian. You know where I'm going here probably. ;o

[Danisty]

Just because someone does agree with feminism doesn't mean they don't support gender equality. Some of us happen to believe in equality without a label.

Personally, I don't like feminism. It may have started off as a good idea and I certainly believe it was necessary, but I just don't like what it's become. Feminists tell me all the time that the whole movement can't be characterized by a few people, but so far in my experience, the reasonable feminists are the minority. I often wonder why they don't just abandon the label (which clearly leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths) and fight for equality on different terms. I have a hard time even accepting a word like feminism as equal. The word itself is promoting females.

Of course, I'm also a woman who doesn't really like women in general.

[xhaan]

Take note that I haven't read through all the posts.

Something that is, is, and there are 'isms' for everything under the sun. I feel there should be NO NEED for a movement. If a particular woman makes a good scientist, and wants to be one, then she shall be! If she is a chess master, then she shall be! I do not find it 'unusual' at all, it just simply is.

Yes, women can have physiological differences, but there are also differences in the same gender too. To say something is a "man's job" (or a "woman's job") is absurd, it's a job for whoever can do the damn job, and should be treated as such. There may be and are particular instances where women are "better in general" at someting, but that does not make it an absolute rule. (I'm saying this outside of learned gender roles, only going by physiological tendencies)

Anyways... </rant>
Edit:
This also goes for the 'other side of the coin', I feel that the inverse is logically derived and has no need for explanation. (just so nobody says "you forgot about men!")

As far as sexism from the male side, men encounter it quite a bit (In general, I think in a far more crude and primitive - but less personally and economically damaging - form than women are subjected to), I just think they don't realize it or just don't talk about it. It's still widely acceptable to be sexist towards a man. The attitudes towards male homosexuals, crossdressers, "effeminate" (ie, not tough and hard-assed, sensitive, emotional), ect particularly make it pretty clear when you compare it to responses to women of the same persuasion. Look at any sit-com and the husband is ALWAYS a helpless idiot who is un-deservedly graced with a wife that has everything together - when was the last helpless somewhat dim-witted wife since Lucy from the 50s? It's perfectly acceptable for women and men to RAIL against men if they don't fit gender stereotypes, where someone doing the exact same towards a woman would be shunned as a complete barbarian. You know where I'm going here probably. ;o


This sort of thing you speak of bugs me to no end.
Yes, I am male. Yes, I have "male tendencies", because I'm male (duh), but not all males have the same tendencies. I can be "tough, and barbaric", which are considered stereotypically male, but I can also be "empathic, and compassionate", which are often stereotypically female. Some people suspect me of being homosexual, due to me not being afraid to show qualities that are perceived as "feminine", I find it absurd, not because of an aversion or stigma of homosexuality, but because it is simply incorrect. I also get the "dumb male who doesn't understand things" treatment, which is sometimes true, but is more due to cliquishness and "you wouldn't understand it anyway." Well how the hell can I understand it if I'm precluded from knowing it in the first place?

[prometheus]

Take note that I haven't read through all the posts.

Something that is, is, and there are 'isms' for everything under the sun. I feel there should be NO NEED for a movement. If a particular woman makes a good scientist, and wants to be one, then she shall be! If she is a chess master, then she shall be! I do not find it 'unusual' at all, it just simply is.

Yes, women can have physiological differences, but there are also differences in the same gender too. To say something is a "man's job" (or a "woman's job") is absurd, it's a job for whoever can do the damn job, and should be treated as such. There may be and are particular instances where women are "better in general" at someting, but that does not make it an absolute rule. (I'm saying this outside of learned gender roles, only going by physiological tendencies)

Anyways... </rant>
Edit:
This also goes for the 'other side of the coin', I feel that the inverse is logically derived and has no need for explanation. (just so nobody says "you forgot about men!")



This sort of thing you speak of bugs me to no end.
Yes, I am male. Yes, I have "male tendencies", because I'm male (duh), but not all males have the same tendencies. I can be "tough, and barbaric", which are considered stereotypically male, but I can also be "empathic, and compassionate", which are often stereotypically female. Some people suspect me of being homosexual, due to me not being afraid to show qualities that are perceived as "feminine", I find it absurd, not because of an aversion or stigma of homosexuality, but because it is simply incorrect. I also get the "dumb male who doesn't understand things" treatment, which is sometimes true, but is more due to cliquishness and "you wouldn't understand it anyway." Well how the hell can I understand it if I'm precluded from knowing it in the first place?

OK I'll call bullshit on this. Women physiologically are weaker, they have poorer night vision, they are poorer at percepting movement.......etc....


There are PROVEN differences, try to kiss their elbows all they want, we are different.

Embrace the differences, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be married to a man.

[xhaan]

OK I'll call bullshit on this. Women physiologically are weaker, they have poorer night vision, they are poorer at percepting movement.......etc....


There are PROVEN differences, try to kiss their elbows all they want, we are different.

Embrace the differences, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be married to a man.

Yes, there are COMMON differences, which are proven. That does not make them absolute, or happening every time, or to the same extent always. I've known women who are stronger than me (I'm not super strong, but not weak either, I used to work in masonry and can throw around cement bags pretty easily), known some who were more coordinated (I used to be a fairly competent ice hockey player), faster, smarter, etc. etc, and I just consider them as women who were better than me at something.

[prometheus]

Yes, there are COMMON differences, which are proven. That does not make them absolute, or happening every time, or to the same extent always. I've known women who are stronger than me (I'm not super strong, but not weak either, I used to work in masonry and can throw around cement bags pretty easily), known some who were more coordinated (I used to be a fairly competent ice hockey player), faster, smarter, etc. etc, and I just consider them as women who were better than me at something.

I was saying if you want to make generalizations (averages), there are differences. I was also saying just because they (women might be weaker, or stronger) does not make them LESSER.

What I was saying is we are different and that is a GOOD THING. Those feminists that want to "make believe" away any differences are smoking crack on the sidewalk. and they need a good swallow

[yondyr]

Are you arguing over the application of the law or just discussing the average capabilities of each gender, when in truth there is a great deal of overlap outside of the 'norm'.

[prometheus]

Are you arguing over the application of the law or just discussing the average capabilities of each gender, when in truth there is a great deal of overlap outside of the 'norm'.


[anarchist laugh] The law? What are you speaking of? I judge each individual as an individual.

[xhaan]

Are you arguing over the application of the law or just discussing the average capabilities of each gender, when in truth there is a great deal of overlap outside of the 'norm'.

I was saying that laws should not even be necessary. There should be no NEED for laws to enforce equality, or rights to advance, or not be harrased, or anything else. That includes affirmative action and other such rubbish. Let whoever do what they are suited to and choose to do, and go as far as they can go with it, male, female, both, neither, whatever. We are of the same species and should be treated as such, men have differing talents between them, and are placed accordingly, same with women. It should be extended to humans in general, whoever is suited for whatever, does that thing.

I was saying if you want to make generalizations (averages), there are differences. I was also saying just because they (women might be weaker, or stronger) does not make them LESSER.

What I was saying is we are different and that is a GOOD THING. Those feminists that want to "make believe" away any differences are smoking crack on the sidewalk. and they need a good swallow

I apologize, but it seemed to me you were saying otherwise, and then trying to say *I* was saying otherwise. I never did say there were not differences, or averages, or anything else. what I WAS saying, however, is that an average should not be made into a generalization. i.e. just because women *tend* to be not as strong as men, that doesn't mean they are LESS, and it also doesn't mean that ALL women are weaker, or that a woman being stronger is abnormal.

And furthermore, there is a difference between an average, and a generalization. You obtain an average from actual, collectible data, then seek what this average is derived from, i.e. x% of women are weaker than x% of men, and this is due to hormonal, chromosomal and genetic tendencies, and then you show and prove your data and your sources. This can be like a generalization, but genaralizing is often based on incomplete or no data, casual observation, or even preconceived notions.

Also, if I may ramble on a bit further, I make this distinction because many decry the lack of women in certain fields, and I feel that this is often not due to sexisim, but as was mentioned earlier in another post, due to a lack of interest, or in what I'm pointing out, a lack of women who naturally have the ability. Take firefighting, as exampled in another post. I'm not against women firefighters, but I don't believe in lower standards just so more women can fight fires, if I'm trapped in a fire, I want someone who is fast, coordinated and buff enough to carry my smoke-inhaled ass out of there, whether it is a man or a woman, I could care less.

[logos]

..Why does being treated differently have to imply a perception of inferiority? Men and women are different. Being different, even being submissive, does not make you inferior.

In theory, logos, you're correct. I would argue that women's health care is generally better than men's. (See the attention given to breast cancer versus prostate cancer for an example.) In practice, however...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The wikipedia article is talking about mainly racial segregation, but the principle applies. For instance, health classes in schools used to be segregated by gender. They'd have one discussion with the girls, and a different discussion with the boys. This was, frankly, a disservice to both genders. Boys didn't learn as much as they should about the female anatomy; the same was true for girls of boys. At least, I'm assuming; my health class was delivered unisexually. (That sounds so dirty...)

I'm not a sports person, but it's easy to see there's a lot more money thrown at men's football and basketball than women's version of the same sports. Football isn't integrated for safety reasons, but it's still a shame.

Any time you split things up, it's almost impossible to really do it equally. Just ask a group of seven-year-olds when it comes time to distribute pie for dessert. :cheesy:

Yes but racial segregation there is no logical reason to split them up. With gender, there is. For example, In most pro sports, without a separate league for women, they would not be able to play because of their physical differences which are limitations for those sports. Male leagues get more money? They have more draw. It's economics not discrimination. If women leagues got an 'equal' portion in such a situation, it would clearly be unfair.

If you're going to compare gender segregation to racial segregation then I say males are the blacks. Everything I can think of that is "separate but equal" women have an equal, superior and/or a "women only" option while they can still opt to use the gender neutral version. Not man male restrooms have baby changing stations, but for every mother there is a father. Women have all-women gyms, all-women martial arts classes, and here there is even an all-women version of a combat pistol training course and they get Saturday. Men have to go on the weekdays, which both men and women can attend. None of these are because women have special needs in these areas. Rather, they are created because some women feel more comfortable doing these things out of the view of men. I can think of no such male equivalent in any area of interest. Women even get free club access and/or limited/free drinks on "ladie's night" because where women go, men will pay to go.

Maybe men should take up an "-ism" for equal treatment. :P

[Rohsiph]

Ah, lots of memories from an amazing semester in a split grad/undergrad "Feminist Philosophy" class. Surprised by some of the reactions to a few of Lucid's positions, but perhaps I shouldn't be . . .

Lucid has already done an excellent job pointing out most of the complexities regarding feminism in the Western world. Chief problem: the mainstream perception is that the feminist movement is no longer necessary (and some have said, pretty much word-for-word, just that).

Now, I think most of us agree that the specific feminist movement of 30-40 years ago is no longer necessary . . . Lucid has pointed out how the situation has changed. Indeed, I remember learning about another distinction of a "second wave" of feminists, that was mostly (if I recall correctly) composed of women who tried capitalizing on the policy changes established thanks to the "first wave"--these are the women who have made the pay-difference argument less important, among other things.

Western feminism is at the beginnings of a third stage that is almost entirely (and necessarily) concerned with hard-to-define social perceptions. Most people, from this point, will look back at the first stages of feminism and quickly decide that the "hard work" is done, that the most difficult battles have been won . . . but this is quite false. Feminists have a lot more trouble deciding what their collective goal really is, are almost entirely without help from mainstream opinion, and can't really hope to see the wider effects of their work for generations. The first battles were very important, don't get me wrong, but it'll be a long, slow, uphill journey until effective "individualistic" perception buries gender-biases once and for all.

Perhaps, to hypothesize why feminists are perceived as they are nowadays (in response to Lucid's original post), the problem is that identifying the things still needing to be changed requires understanding a number of different, complicated, abstract realities: modern feminists will need to effectively reinvent a great deal of social traditions that many people feel validated by, such as the itemization of "attractive" women, the dominant place of men in initiating dating rituals, and (already discussed) reconciling generalized physical differences between the sexes.

I think most people would rather consider other, more immediate problems . . . as Quentin suggested a number of posts ago. This is not because modern feminist concerns aren't as important, but rather, I assert, because not as many people (thinking back to the earlier "waves") have the necessary perspectives & abilities to understand the depth of the remaining problems.

Shifting to a recent direction in posts here:

I wrote my final paper in the class I mentioned on the existence (actually, arguing against the existence) of "male sexism." Through a good portion of that class, I considered a variety of arguments in support of such a "reverse" problem--wondering if feminism has caused problems.

However, by the end of the course I found that, fundamentally, nearly any example one can cite of sex-based discrimination against males will either have a similar example with more severe consequences against women, or will actively stem from a severe problem for women. I can try pulling out my paper (and sources) if anyone would like.

[logos]

Ah, lots of memories from an amazing semester in a split grad/undergrad "Feminist Philosophy" class. Surprised by some of the reactions to a few of Lucid's positions, but perhaps I shouldn't be . . .

Lucid has already done an excellent job pointing out most of the complexities regarding feminism in the Western world. Chief problem: the mainstream perception is that the feminist movement is no longer necessary (and some have said, pretty much word-for-word, just that).

Now, I think most of us agree that the specific feminist movement of 30-40 years ago is no longer necessary . . . Lucid has pointed out how the situation has changed. Indeed, I remember learning about another distinction of a "second wave" of feminists, that was mostly (if I recall correctly) composed of women who tried capitalizing on the policy changes established thanks to the "first wave"--these are the women who have made the pay-difference argument less important, among other things.

Western feminism is at the beginnings of a third stage that is almost entirely (and necessarily) concerned with hard-to-define social perceptions. Most people, from this point, will look back at the first stages of feminism and quickly decide that the "hard work" is done, that the most difficult battles have been won . . . but this is quite false. Feminists have a lot more trouble deciding what their collective goal really is, are almost entirely without help from mainstream opinion, and can't really hope to see the wider effects of their work for generations. The first battles were very important, don't get me wrong, but it'll be a long, slow, uphill journey until effective "individualistic" perception buries gender-biases once and for all.

Perhaps, to hypothesize why feminists are perceived as they are nowadays (in response to Lucid's original post), the problem is that identifying the things still needing to be changed requires understanding a number of different, complicated, abstract realities: modern feminists will need to effectively reinvent a great deal of social traditions that many people feel validated by, such as the itemization of "attractive" women, the dominant place of men in initiating dating rituals, and (already discussed) reconciling generalized physical differences between the sexes.

I think most people would rather consider other, more immediate problems . . . as Quentin suggested a number of posts ago. This is not because modern feminist concerns aren't as important, but rather, I assert, because not as many people (thinking back to the earlier "waves") have the necessary perspectives & abilities to understand the depth of the remaining problems.

Shifting to a recent direction in posts here:

I wrote my final paper in the class I mentioned on the existence (actually, arguing against the existence) of "male sexism." Through a good portion of that class, I considered a variety of arguments in support of such a "reverse" problem--wondering if feminism has caused problems.

However, by the end of the course I found that, fundamentally, nearly any example one can cite of sex-based discrimination against males will either have a similar example with more severe consequences against women, or will actively stem from a severe problem for women. I can try pulling out my paper (and sources) if anyone would like.


Because I don't understand how women are not getting a fair shake across the board, it is a failure in my perception? That may be true as I am limited to discussing gender discrimination in The United States and it is an international forum, but as it relates to my nation I very strongly disagree. I would be most interested in seeing any trends anyone can illustrate that support this idea that people are treated unfairly simply because their gender is female.

[Rohsiph]

I would be most interested in seeing any trends anyone can illustrate that support this idea that people are treated unfairly simply because their gender is female.

I decided to look through the work I did for my feminist philosophy course. I think the papers I wrote are a little too focused on specific articles to offer something of value that might be easy to see without too much outside study.

However, I found a reading summary I completed on a chapter of Jennifer Mather Saul's Feminism: Issues & Arguments:

Jennifer Mather Saul discusses issues of feminine appearance in the fifth chapter of her Feminism: Issues and Arguments. Saul begins her chapter noting misconceptions about feminists rejecting, “adornment and attractiveness of any sort” (140). After dismissing such stereotypes, Saul notes how the issue is perplexing at its surface level: many women claim to enjoy the activities of applying makeup, shopping for dresses, and dieting to achieve certain body types. If women enjoy these things, then who are feminists to argue against what women enjoy?

Saul asks whether it would be right to criticize foot-binding if the activity became fashionable and those who practiced it claimed to enjoy the practice (142). It seems criticism would be the proper reaction to such an activity. Saul uses this example to present the arguments of Susan Bordo, who suggests many of the activities employed by women for pursuit of some form of attractiveness are culturally defined to appeal to a single ideal. Advertisements pervasively present this ideal across all forms of media, until females of all races, ages, financial positions, etc. strive to achieve a single physical form.

The ideal becomes a commonly-desired norm, presenting the “right” body type, facial features, clothing, and movement a woman must strive for. It seems women are encouraged to endure constant dieting to lose weight, undergo dangerous procedures to reduce facial wrinkles, spend inordinate amounts of money on clothing, and take on subordinate forms of movement (148-51). These norms amount to “a key message [. . .] that women are, by and large, simply not good enough” (152).

Saul explores the complex methods of modern women’s magazines: how many articles that seem to try pulling away from the prevalence of the largely unattainable ideal of physical beauty are placed alongside advertisements featuring models who present the possibly destructive ideals. Regardless of the messages the editors of women’s magazines may want to present to their audiences, advertising revenue is often too important to pass up. What this means is women find mixed messages that seem to do even more harm than might a clear, unified message. Women are encouraged by the advertisements to try to look like the perfect model, while also hearing messages that suggest striving in such ways are wrong.

Saul recognizes that the norms she notes are often internalized—in both men and women. Thus, many have trouble identifying that there is a problem at all. Much like the way the structures of work and home are so intricately woven into the basis of Western society, so too are the messages that imply the desire for a woman to be beautiful are necessary for women. Saul quotes a passage from Susan Bordo noting how the enjoyment women claim to take from focusing on appearance are linked directly with an internalized belief in inadequacy (160).

Saul acknowledges that the issues she discusses may be to the benefit of some women. She notes women who undergo cosmetic surgery often rationalize their decision based on choosing the lesser of two evils, and how the statistics of women who undergo such surgeries generally suggest that they are happier with themselves after the surgery. Saul offers that the best way to deal with the issues of feminine appearance, whether they be destructive or beneficial, is to become self-aware of the issues as they exist in the individual. Acknowledging the self-policing conditions many women (and, increasingly, men) employ, one can more accurately base decisions about beauty in line with his/her individual desires.

(I think the section I italicized may be particularly helpful here.)

Saul's text was very interesting, always offering at least some degree of both sides of any problem or issue. I haven't gone out of my way to hunt down more Feminist texts since taking the course, and it's possible there are better, more current books available, but I recommend at least browsing through a few chapters of Saul's book at a library if you're interested.

[iamnotspock]

Classical feminism is what got women the right to vote, drive, etc. I support that.

But now we have Neo-Feminism. And I don't like it. It's about women getting ** more ** than their share. For example in divorce cases. I just saw Eddie Murphy ranting on this in the 80's last night. He was wondering what Johnny Carson's wife did in ten years to earn half of his $300 million.

What I've seen in reality is Boomer Era feminist women abusing their power in the workplace just as men did before them. For example, a private bathroom for the ladies, men have to go outside. Asking men to do all the heavy lifting, when it's not in the job requirements. Regurgitating endless sexist stereotypes (50 universal truth's about men) and on and on.

Turn on the TV, you see the denigration of men everywhere by an overly estrogenized society. We are allegedly stupid sex-hounds who live for beer and sports. Etc.

All of this is driven by a small but extremely vocal and litigious group of "Feminist" women. At the top of this pack is someone like Hillary Clinton. Notorious for her all female coterie. Playing strongly for the female vote. Etc.

So I view their movement very negatively. And I can't help agreeing with Quentin that these feminists are sipping five dollar lattes and complaing about invisible pay discrepancies while their sisters are starving in Africa, pimped out in Asia, and kept under lock and key in the Middle East. This new feminism smells a lot like narcississtic lust for power and money and attention.

[Rohsiph]

So I view their movement very negatively. And I can't help agreeing with Quentin that these feminists are sipping five dollar lattes and complaing about invisible pay discrepancies while their sisters are starving in Africa, pimped out in Asia, and kept under lock and key in the Middle East. This new feminism smells a lot like narcississtic lust for power and money and attention.

Please read Lucid's posts, and possibly also mine. If you still have a strong argument against the kind of feminism we discuss, I'm interested in hearing it.

[logos]

However, I found a reading summary I completed on a chapter of Jennifer Mather Saul's Feminism: Issues & Arguments:
(I think the section I italicized may be particularly helpful here.)

With regard to sexual attraction, sight has replaced smell for males of our species. Feminists cannot reasonably fault women for using this to their advantage; nor can they 'blame' men for 'forcing' women to try to look attractive. It is a distinct biological difference, not a result of social programming. The only thing social programming has done is put men at a disadvantage in that the 'tricks' women use to attract mates can (and do) become quite involved. Because of this, it has become a lot more than a little bit of red lipstick and rouge (which simulates female sexual arousal if you didn't know).

Men face the same exact struggles in finding a mate. Like women, they have to present themselves as what the other gender desires. Instead of needing to be visually appealing though (which is what most men desire), men need to offer whatever it is that women desire. Men have a disadvantage here in that what women desire varies greatly from woman to woman but that is counterbalanced by the fact that these things don't have to possessed to be displayed. In other words, men can deceive in excess. Women can only take their deception (or 'enhancement' if you prefer) [makeup etc.] so far. A man has the option to boldly lie about how rich, adventurous, generous, kind-hearted, humorous, reliable, and/or loyal he is. Of course, somewhere along the line he must prove these things, but usually a bit of evidence is all a liar needs to get what he wants, which has ruined it for those of us who are these things but don't 'sell' it.

Why men are the aggressors is also not social programming. Rather than elaborate what may end up being a book, I would instead refer anyone interested to read about the rapidly different development paths taken by the hypothalamus and amygdala based on testosterone exposure in the womb.

It would seem based on the arguments presented so far that the struggle of modern feminism is to eliminate biological gender differences. Should we develop a process by which we introduce testosterone inhibitors into the brains of fetuses so that all males become females in the body of a man? It's the only solution to these "problems" without eradicating all males and it works in rats supposedly.

[Rohsiph]

It would seem based on the arguments presented so far that the struggle of modern feminism is to eliminate biological gender differences. Should we develop a process by which we introduce testosterone inhibitors into the brains of fetuses so that all males become females in the body of a man? It's the only solution to these "problems" without eradicating all males and it works in rats supposedly.

You identify one of the major problems . . . indeed, there are no easy answers. That's just it though: moving forward with "feminist goals" has become more of a philosophical issue than a political issue (although still remains a very social issue).

Your solution is perhaps the only short-term solution . . . but I think there is a lot to be done in achieving a more viable long-term solution: primarily, working on the systems of education available to the public at large to introduce teaching everyone the "natural" biases that should (philosophically) be changed.

The solution in my mind is to raise the problems to as many people as possible--to do what I/we can to educate that we might slowly change unfair widespread "natural" perspectives.

It's unreasonable to expect such change will happen within the next few decades . . . but I think it's worthwhile to help people identify the issues, so that perhaps such change will happen within the next few centuries.

[The Many]

Haha! Now this discussion has turned very interesting - kudos to Rohsiph and Logos for your insightful posts.

As regards the issues discussed here though, freedom of choice both is and will remain the most important thing. Every person can only live their own, subjective lives, so is it then really a bad thing if women want to wear make-up? Is that choice up to feminist theorists (who tend to ignore biology, I may add), not the person who is going to wear it? This so-called "feeling of inadequacy" among women as Saul mentions it is rather a question of lacking testosterone and confidence in oneself (I have more theories on this too, but those are out of topic here) than a question of social patterns; were they more assertive they would merely ignore following the "ideal".

But still, this behaviour is of course destructive, and women are, of course, individual human beings. They are free to do whatever they may wish and look whichever way they may wish - the fact that most tend to conform is however reality, even despite the fact that creating an individualized look even might attract those an individual woman wants to attract, rather than everyone. I mean, why did these advertisements even appear in the first place? As a way for the patriarchy to assert their dominance? Of course not, they appeared because they sold well...

[Rohsiph]

Excellent job showing how difficult the issues become very quickly, The Many :)

I think what helped me reach my current opinions was abstracting about the place of women in history as I know it, reaching as far back as possible. I think that recognizing the political successes of the earliest feminists is a sign that one is on the right path . . . but understanding the nuances of where feminist philosophy is pointing, in opposition to where human society most likely started, is a few steps beyond that.

Where I discuss my own idea for a solution above, I think where this discussion is going right now is a paramount example of what I mean: making people think about both sides of the issues.

Truthfully, I feel that I prefer living in a society that, to some degrees, "itemizes" females. When I think about the abstract side of myself that I let speculate about a "more perfect" gender-bias free society in the future, it's a very foreign place considering aesthetic direction.

The problem is deeply rooted . . . so deeply that it will take extraordinary circumstances to substantially change things for hundreds of years (by my estimate). In the meantime, I think it's important to occasionally talk about whether women should feel empowered by cultural tendencies that emphasize their physical features well beyond their mental capabilities (as one example).

It's a difficult subject . . . one that I've had a lot of trouble getting deeply involved with since finishing my undergrad course . . . if nothing else, I like it whenever I see someone get past the common "speed bump" of suggesting that feminism is "no longer important." :)

[logos]

You identify one of the major problems . . . indeed, there are no easy answers. That's just it though: moving forward with "feminist goals" has become more of a philosophical issue than a political issue (although still remains a very social issue).

Your solution is perhaps the only short-term solution . . . but I think there is a lot to be done in achieving a more viable long-term solution: primarily, working on the systems of education available to the public at large to introduce teaching everyone the "natural" biases that should (philosophically) be changed.

The solution in my mind is to raise the problems to as many people as possible--to do what I/we can to educate that we might slowly change unfair widespread "natural" perspectives.

It's unreasonable to expect such change will happen within the next few decades . . . but I think it's worthwhile to help people identify the issues, so that perhaps such change will happen within the next few centuries.

So we're clear, it is a philosophical 'issue' that I find to be counterintuitive. To argue that physical/biological differences are 'unfair' seems to me, and I'm being kind here, to be a fruitless endeavor. To what/whom do you lodge your complaints of 'unfairness'?.. to some deity of evolution/creation? The solution I proposed was to illustrate its inherent ridiculousness. Another similarly ridiculous solution would be using cloning or some kind of egg-egg splicing as reproduction, effectively eradicating all males. (You don't have to kill them; if they can't reproduce there will be no more men born.)

People of both genders accept that there are strengths and weaknesses that come with each gender. They are different but still equal; definitely not separate though. Like it or not, we're all in this survival thing together.

Women were treated unfairly in the past by the more dominant gender (so I'm told) but they've won their battle and asserted their equality. This is the world I have been raised in as well as most of the people in this forum. (By the age poll, 27 [my age] is apparently old around here.) In this nation, anyone can grow to be whatever they want to be. Gender does not play a role in your options anymore, only your motivations.

If you still feel the need to be involved in some kind of feminist movement, I would suggesting doing so in nations where women actually are treated unfairly.

[Rohsiph]

Gender does not play a role in your options anymore, only your motivations.

I'll agree with this for the most part--particularly to do with political freedoms.

If you still feel the need to be involved in some kind of feminist movement, I would suggesting doing so in nations where women actually are treated unfairly.

I suppose it is silly to call it a "movement" per say . . . but I felt it was a very enlightening process (for me) when I began considering the fundamental roots of the motivations behind both genders, particularly when attempting to do so from a neutral perspective. And, indeed, I agree that effectively "spending" resources should be saved to try helping the women of less "developed" countries.

However, it's a disservice to oneself to turn one's nose against an idea if one has time to think about it. It is an assumption to think that everyone would have time to think about things that aren't particularly pragmatic . . . but, like I said before (and you acknowledged), this is getting into philosophy--which concerns itself with what should be, even if it might look impossible to reach any specific ideal.

[The Many]

Excellent job showing how difficult the issues become very quickly, The Many :)

I think what helped me reach my current opinions was abstracting about the place of women in history as I know it, reaching as far back as possible. I think that recognizing the political successes of the earliest feminists is a sign that one is on the right path . . . but understanding the nuances of where feminist philosophy is pointing, in opposition to where human society most likely started, is a few steps beyond that.

Where I discuss my own idea for a solution above, I think where this discussion is going right now is a paramount example of what I mean: making people think about both sides of the issues.

Truthfully, I feel that I prefer living in a society that, to some degrees, "itemizes" females. When I think about the abstract side of myself that I let speculate about a "more perfect" gender-bias free society in the future, it's a very foreign place considering aesthetic direction.

The problem is deeply rooted . . . so deeply that it will take extraordinary circumstances to substantially change things for hundreds of years (by my estimate). In the meantime, I think it's important to occasionally talk about whether women should feel empowered by cultural tendencies that emphasize their physical features well beyond their mental capabilities (as one example).

It's a difficult subject . . . one that I've had a lot of trouble getting deeply involved with since finishing my undergrad course . . . if nothing else, I like it whenever I see someone get past the common "speed bump" of suggesting that feminism is "no longer important." :)

Third wave feminism is essentially the only thing of any intellectual interest at all that is discussed in Sweden today (and I may add, 95% of the time from a feministic point of view). I've read a lot about it.

I do however predict that the feminist movement will go the way that the socialist one has gone, sooner or later it is going to implode due to simply contradicting human nature. Both have, however, brought some very important results, even though the movements in themselves ultimately have been pushing their goals too far. I mean, I am all for an individualization of sexuality and appearances, but there is a reason of why they have developed the way they have - heteronormativity lies at the core of sexuality, due to the simple fact that the main purpose of sex is reproduction, not pleasure. And reproduction does quite necessarily take certain forms, at least unless you want to extinguish all men...

[logos]

However, it's a disservice to oneself to turn one's nose against an idea if one has time to think about it. It is an assumption to think that everyone would have time to think about things that aren't particularly pragmatic . . . but, like I said before (and you acknowledged), this is getting into philosophy--which concerns itself with what should be, even if it might look impossible to reach any specific ideal.

The ideal you speak of, though, reaches far beyond feminism. It's homogeneity. Where do we draw the line? After the gender differences are solved and every person is born somehow the same, what then? Some people will be taller, smarter, stronger, more symmetrical, etc. and that's simply not fair. This kind of 'progress' can continue on until every human is exactly the same, a clone of some 'perfect' genderless specimen.

But why stop there? After that we can start working on the things around us. Why should this human, who is exactly the same as me, get to live by the beach and I can't? That's not fair. This can continue ad infinitum until the entire universe is one homogeneous soup.

Instead, it would seem prudent to simply accept that there is order yet to be discovered amidst all this chaos; that just because we haven't measured and documented all natural laws does not mean that these laws are not working, forever keeping the entire universe in some kind of balance. Celebrate diversity of all kinds as we are all manifestations of the same source. Even religious people can accept this idea (by giving the source a name). This perspective very much tempers feelings of superiority. I suspect it does the same thing for feelings of inferiority.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for a group hug. :lovestruck:

I do however predict that the feminist movement will go the way that the socialist one has gone, sooner or later it is going to implode due to simply contradicting human nature. Both have, however, brought some very important results, even though the movements in themselves ultimately have been pushing their goals too far. I mean, I am all for an individualization of sexuality and appearances, but there is a reason of why they have developed the way they have - heteronormativity lies at the core of sexuality, due to the simple fact that the main purpose of sex is reproduction, not pleasure. And reproduction does quite necessarily take certain forms, at least unless you want to extinguish all men...

Agreed. When I see extremist/watchdog groups out there with ideals with which I generally agree but who take it way too far, I generally accept that it is thus in order to strike a balance against the opposing forces. For example, I think a lot of what the NAACP does here in the states and a lot of their perspectives are racist bullshit, but I accept their need to do so to strike a balance against the opposing racism which sadly is very much alive and still organized in different ways although not mainstream. Feminist groups seem to me to have nothing left to oppose; like a rescued fighting dog that just won't let anyone pet it; unnecessarily vicious but worthy of my empathy.

[iamnotspock]

Agreed. When I see extremist/watchdog groups out there with ideals with which I generally agree but who take it way too far, I generally accept that it is thus in order to strike a balance against the opposing forces. For example, I think a lot of what the NAACP does here in the states and a lot of their perspectives are racist bullshit, but I accept their need to do so to strike a balance against the opposing racism which sadly is very much alive and still organized in different ways although not mainstream. Feminist groups seem to me to have nothing left to oppose; like a rescued fighting dog that just won't let anyone pet it; unnecessarily vicious but worthy of my empathy.

Logos,

I agree with you completely on all your posts which are very eloquently stated. Except this one. Have you considered the backlash these groups generate?

For example, a parallel issue might be gay marriage and gay clergy. I'm not on one side or the other. But it's clear that this issue creates a massive backlash which turns out votes for the opponent. By advocating gay marriage and gay clergy, gay rights people mostly motivate the political base of their opponent. Setback is the cost of their over-reaching. LIke a small amount of virus which activates a powerful immune system.

I see the same thing amongs feminists. They already won. But if they don't stop fighting, people will no longer consider the history that made that dog vicious. So instead of empathy, it will just scare people away.

Philosophically, while your tolerance is probably noble, I cannot personally abide a movement that is solipsistic, representing only its own constituents, in what becomes a zero sum game. It is not anymore a movement for justice, liberty, freedom, etc. But rather *entitlement* for one single group. I always wondered why we needed a Women's Study dep.t and a Afro-Am dept., when plain old history and psychology is good enough for the Irish, the Asians, the Jews, etc. And I don't think a dept. for every once-opressed group is the answer.

In the end, such movements can end up as lynch mobs, which is what happened recently at Harvard, when the president's comments were twisted around his neck. It also happened to the players on the Duke Lacross team. And elsewhere, too.

So that little angry dogs starts to howl, and pretty soon becomes a pack, that stands in the way of Truth, Justice, Liberty, and all that good stuff we like to sprinkle on our Cheerios. That is why I cannot stomach it overall.

[yondyr]

Backlash or not, limiting groups also limits free speech... it's the response that is uncivilised.

[logos]

Logos,

I agree with you completely on all your posts which are very eloquently stated. Except this one. Have you considered the backlash these groups generate?

For example, a parallel issue might be gay marriage and gay clergy. I'm not on one side or the other. But it's clear that this issue creates a massive backlash which turns out votes for the opponent. By advocating gay marriage and gay clergy, gay rights people mostly motivate the political base of their opponent. Setback is the cost of their over-reaching. Like a small amount of virus which activates a powerful immune system.

I see the same thing amongst feminists. They already won. But if they don't stop fighting, people will no longer consider the history that made that dog vicious. So instead of empathy, it will just scare people away.

Philosophically, while your tolerance is probably noble, I cannot personally abide a movement that is solipsistic, representing only its own constituents, in what becomes a zero sum game. It is not anymore a movement for justice, liberty, freedom, etc. But rather *entitlement* for one single group. I always wondered why we needed a Women's Study dep.t and a Afro-Am dept., when plain old history and psychology is good enough for the Irish, the Asians, the Jews, etc. And I don't think a dept. for every once-opressed group is the answer.

In the end, such movements can end up as lynch mobs, which is what happened recently at Harvard, when the president's comments were twisted around his neck. It also happened to the players on the Duke Lacross team. And elsewhere, too.

So that little angry dogs starts to howl, and pretty soon becomes a pack, that stands in the way of Truth, Justice, Liberty, and all that good stuff we like to sprinkle on our Cheerios. That is why I cannot stomach it overall.

I don't think I disagree with you in your opinion of these groups. I understand where these groups come from and feel sorry for people who get wrapped up in them, though. Personally it makes sense to me that if you give these extremists nothing to oppose, they will disappear all by themselves (the decline of feminism is evidence of this), but unfortunately not every movement can be headed up by a Gandhi or a Dr. MLK. I guess I just have a lower opinion of people in general and therefore lower expectations of them. I can't stifle their rights to trip themselves up all over the place, so while I hope for reason, I can only remain idle and watch the conflict play out taking solace in the fact that the people in the middle are right about where they should be if that makes any sense.

[Danisty]

Logos,

I agree with you completely on all your posts which are very eloquently stated. Except this one. Have you considered the backlash these groups generate?

For example, a parallel issue might be gay marriage and gay clergy. I'm not on one side or the other. But it's clear that this issue creates a massive backlash which turns out votes for the opponent. By advocating gay marriage and gay clergy, gay rights people mostly motivate the political base of their opponent. Setback is the cost of their over-reaching. LIke a small amount of virus which activates a powerful immune system.

I see the same thing amongs feminists. They already won. But if they don't stop fighting, people will no longer consider the history that made that dog vicious. So instead of empathy, it will just scare people away.

Philosophically, while your tolerance is probably noble, I cannot personally abide a movement that is solipsistic, representing only its own constituents, in what becomes a zero sum game. It is not anymore a movement for justice, liberty, freedom, etc. But rather *entitlement* for one single group. I always wondered why we needed a Women's Study dep.t and a Afro-Am dept., when plain old history and psychology is good enough for the Irish, the Asians, the Jews, etc. And I don't think a dept. for every once-opressed group is the answer.

In the end, such movements can end up as lynch mobs, which is what happened recently at Harvard, when the president's comments were twisted around his neck. It also happened to the players on the Duke Lacross team. And elsewhere, too.

So that little angry dogs starts to howl, and pretty soon becomes a pack, that stands in the way of Truth, Justice, Liberty, and all that good stuff we like to sprinkle on our Cheerios. That is why I cannot stomach it overall.Wow, this is one of the best posts on the subject that I have read. I completely agree with everything you said. :thumbsup:

[Antares]

I don't know what to make of this, but I've heard that in my country, the expectations are higher on standardized tests for women because (they say) it is becoming a problem that more women are accepted into University than men. I know a very high achieving friend who is taking double bachelor's degree and recently made an exchange student. He told his mother that among the exchange students in his group, he is the only male and many of the females are going for double masters degree and some, even double PhD's.

Any thoughts on this? Do you think it's fair that women are graded more harshly than men?

[Lucid]

How depressing that most people responded to this thread by dismissing the problem of sexism and making a lot of negative assumptions about the beliefs and attitudes of those arguing against it.

The argument, "Well I don't encounter sexism, so everyone else should shut up about it" is really depressing. I, personally, don't deal with much racism, but I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't work to reduce racism just because it hasn't been a problem for me.

OK I'll call bullshit on this. Women physiologically are weaker, they have poorer night vision, they are poorer at percepting movement.......etc....

There are PROVEN differences, try to kiss their elbows all they want, we are different.

Embrace the differences, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be married to a man.

There are proven physical differences, but there's a lot of gray area about how drastic those differences are. Also, as it's been pointed out, the differences vary between individuals.
With regard to your specific post: why are all the things you mentioned "here's how women are weaker and poorer?" It seems like it would benefit your argument to point out areas in which women are stronger or better (and there are a few ways :) ).
However, I don't think anyone here is arguing for physical sameness. I didn't get that from the post you quoted at all. In fact, xhaan actually stated that that there are differences. So it seems strange to me that you'd leap to the conclusion you did.

However, I think that a lot more emphasis is put on these differences than they warrant. Quite frankly, women can become body builders and men can lactate. While each gender may have some things they are naturally better at, it doesn't change the fact that anybody can be anything. It just may take a little more work.

It seems like many people are dead set in their assumptions and are unwilling to even entertain the idea that there may be some validity to trying to improve things for everyone (I think now I'm speaking about sexism in general). That makes me a sad panda. :(

As others have stated, it seems like modern feminism is about getting rid of gender based stereotypes and blind adherence to gender roles. Also, I personally don't like it when social rules for one gender are different from social rules for the other gender (and, although it may surprise some of you, it pisses me off when women benefit unfairly over men just as much as when it happens the other way around). These are things that I think need to be changed in our society and a lot of it comes from personal responsibility, individual actions and the like.

In any case, while it is something I feel strongly about, it's ok with me if others disagree. We can still be friends.... just get used to me trying to change your mind about what feminism is (or maybe what it should be). :)

[thod]

In just about everything I can think of from IQ tests, to chess grandmasters, to disabilites you get more men at the the extremes. The average may be the same but the spread isnt. So you get more ultra smart men and more ultra dumb.

So if you are running for president, which require extreme attributes, you will always have more male candidates. They are not their because of inequality, they are their because they realy are better at it.

[Lucid]

In just about everything I can think of from IQ tests, to chess grandmasters, to disabilites you get more men at the the extremes. The average may be the same but the spread isnt. So you get more ultra smart men and more ultra dumb.

So if you are running for president, which require extreme attributes, you will always have more male candidates. They are not their because of inequality, they are their because they realy are better at it.


Thanks for proving my point.

But to address yours, as prometheus said, there are several differences inherent between men and women. As I've heard these differences, women are better at communicating, they are better at compromising, they are less physically aggressive and competitive but more aggressive and competitive in more social arenas. It seems like most of the differences (as I've heard them) make men much more adept at physical activities (like hunting or fighting) and women are much more adept at social activities. How much hunting skill is required to be president? How much social and communications skill?

But, quite frankly, I think that women can become good hunters or good fighters and men can become very socially adept and good at communicating. And to argue one's suitability for a particular job (unless it's something like, weight lifter, or wet nurse) from gender is a mistake.





Lucid added to this post, 768 minutes and 55 seconds later...

You know, I was thinking about this at work, there's a lot of inconsistencies and logical failures on both sides of the gender equality issue:

If you're going to say that women are less competent in the working and business world then you need to be prepared to pay your x wife alimony. If you're going to say that women are just as capable in the working and business world as men are, then you need to kiss your alimony check goodbye.

If you believe that women are biologically better suited to raise children and be nurturers then men are then you must stand by the court's policy to award mothers custody over fathers, regardless of if the mother in question is shown to be abusive, neglectful, emotionally and mentally unstable or addicted to some substance or another, when there's a perfectly capable father who wants custody. If you think that either gender is capable of raising children and that such a decision should be made based on the individual in question, not their gender stereotype, then you need to be ok with the idea that men will be awarded custody.

If you think it's ok for a woman to cut off a man's penis because he abused her, then you must also allow the removal of the clitoris for social or religious reasons.

It seems that's where the whole thing goes astray, when we make different social rules based on gender stereotypes.

[quentin]

You've come a long way, baby.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

You've come a long way, baby.

word! I've seen that magazine article before. It makes me laugh :)

[danalaina]

I have one major beef with feminism: it focuses 90% of its energies on societies in North America and Western Europe where 90% of the problems have already been solved. The major battles have been won here, and so in a sense feminism as far as it relates to mainstream women is irrelevant.

forgive the slight hijack...i agree with you that we tend to ignore the plight of women in other parts of the world. our culture is so insular and ethnocentric. that said, i can't quite agree with your assessment that the big battles here are done with - perhaps i just fell into that backwards 10%.

when i was living in Texas, i worked in several traditionally male-dominated industries. one of my bosses once made plans to entertain a client (the guest list was to be my boss and his wife, myself and a guest, the client, and an out-of-town visitor to the company). i didn't pay much attention to where we were being taken that night, but the intended destination turned out to be a strip club. O.o

this was 1999 at the very earliest. not exactly the dark ages.

you could call this an isolated incident and this boss a nut...i'd certainly agree with the latter. but set this extreme incident aside, and i've still dealt with twenty or so years of Bubba-esque and/or misogynistic bosses...thoroughly inappropriate sexual advances, misguided attempts at chivalry, assumptions about my abilities, questions about my success. i've been the target of rumors ranging from "she's sleeping with the boss" to "she sleeps with all the guys in the office" - with less than zero truth to either. i've been propositioned by clients as though i were a call girl. all manner of things that really have no business in the workplace. not every workplace has been like this, but the good ol' boy thang is alive and well in Texas (and in a lot of other portions of the south).

if i were reading this, my first thought would be, "she's got to be doing something to call it on herself." well, you tell me:

contrary to the idea of the sexy provocateuse i saw mentioned earlier in the thread, i always tried to dress down. i never dressed provocatively, but once crap like this started happening, i went out of my way to be dull. in a blue-collar atmosphere, it was shapeless t-shirts and jeans. in a white-collar place, i usually aimed for tidy but boring and sexless (one of my bosses actually told me i dressed like an old schoolmarm). makeup in either case is minimal.

when at work, while polite, i don't flirt. i stick pretty much to business and don't talk much about my personal life beyond the most basic things. i avoid fraternizing with work friends off the job. i never encouraged coworkers who tried to flirt. and probably most importantly, i don't at all hate men or expect this sort of stuff is going to happen.

if you can spot the gigantic bullseye i must have been wearing (other than ostensibly having a vagina), please let me know. i honestly haven't been able to figger it out. since moving, it hasn't really been an issue. the only logical conclusion i came to is that substantial portions of the south are way behind the times.

feminism might not be an important issue around you, but it seems still to be an issue in some parts of the country.

[yondyr]

Parts of Australia are the same, not condemning all. But when I go into a hardware store and ask for an item and get in return the question that would never be asked of a male..What do you want it for?...it rankles. Minor, you say? Perhaps, but typical, and all too prevalent.

[logos]

If someone in a position of authority treats someone more favorably because they are sexually attracted to them, it is attributable to a character flaw, NOT a social epidemic, regardless of the gender or sexual preferences of the individual. This flaw is more prevalent in men because of biological differences previously mentioned.

[Lucid]

What I think is interesting about feminism is that people seem to think that because a lot of progress has been made and because of affirmative action the problem has been solved.

Well, affirmative action also applies to ethnic minorities, and we don't have segregated drinking fountains for "whites" and "coloreds" anymore. Does that mean we've solved the racism issue and no one should talk about it anymore? Why are the rules different when it comes to sexism?

[iamnotspock]

Good point. It's high time to end affirmative action. There is no place for racial bias in hiring or schooling. And I never understood why it applied not only to blacks and native americans, who faced real discrimination, but also hispanics? What's their excuse?

And why does the federal 8a minority contracting laws even favor Indians and Asians?

It's all absurd. We need one equal and level playing field. Not official government sanctioned discrimination.

[logos]

Good point. It's high time to end affirmative action. There is no place for racial bias in hiring or schooling. And I never understood why it applied not only to blacks and native americans, who faced real discrimination, but also hispanics? What's their excuse?

And why does the federal 8a minority contracting laws even favor Indians and Asians?

It's all absurd. We need one equal and level playing field. Not official government sanctioned discrimination.

I wholeheartedly agree. I come from a very poor and large but white family. No one in my family has ever gone to college and of the six of us, I'm the only one who got a High School Diploma and I've been working full time since I was 14 years old. Where is my United Negro College Fund?

[rwyatt365]

Well, affirmative action also applies to ethnic minorities, and we don't have segregated drinking fountains for "whites" and "coloreds" anymore. Does that mean we've solved the racism issue and no one should talk about it anymore? Why are the rules different when it comes to sexism?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I see Lucid's post as asking "Has sexism been eliminated? If not, why shouldn't it be discussed like racism is still being discussed? What makes it different?" I don't see her post as being a blast against race-based affirmative action.

Good point. It's high time to end affirmative action. There is no place for racial bias in hiring or schooling. And I never understood why it applied not only to blacks and native americans, who faced real discrimination, but also hispanics? What's their excuse?

And why does the federal 8a minority contracting laws even favor Indians and Asians?

It's all absurd. We need one equal and level playing field. Not official government sanctioned discrimination.
I agree, there is no place for racial bias in schools and employment, neither supporting nor (and importantly) denying. As you say, we do need one equal and level playing field – I just don't agree that this is the case in the US (i.e. it is neither completely equal, nor is it level – it's better, but not completely).

I wholeheartedly agree. I come from a very poor and large but white family. No one in my family has ever gone to college and of the six of us, I'm the only one who got a High School Diploma and I've been working full time since I was 14 years old. Where is my United Negro College Fund?
The UNCF was created by black, for blacks. It does not (to my knowledge, by I would be happy to research this) receive government funding and receives its monies from charitable donations. So, if you want a UNCF-like fund for disadvantaged white people you are more than welcome to create one.

[Lucid]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I see Lucid's post as asking "Has sexism been eliminated? If not, why shouldn't it be discussed like racism is still being discussed? What makes it different?" I don't see her post as being a blast against race-based affirmative action.

That's exactly right. In my opinion affirmative action has ended neither sexism nor racism. That was my point. I was not taking a stand on whether we should do away with affirmative action or not.

I agree, there is no place for racial bias in schools and employment, neither supporting nor (and importantly) denying. As you say, we do need one equal and level playing field – I just don't agree that this is the case in the US (i.e. it is neither completely equal, nor is it level – it's better, but not completely).

Agreed. Everyone seems to think that because things have improved a lot, it's now an equal playing field and I just don't think that's the case. What I think is really strange about this thread is that I'm sitting here saying, "There is still sexism. I have personally experienced it." And people are responding with, "No you haven't." Which is not only ridiculous... but just downright weird.

[rwyatt365]

Agreed. Everyone seems to think that because things have improved a lot, it's now an equal playing field and I just don't think that's the case. What I think is really strange about this thread is that I'm sitting here saying, "There is still sexism. I have personally experienced it." And people are responding with, "No you haven't." Which is not only ridiculous... but just downright weird.
I call it "the Ostrich Syndrome"; if I don't see it, it doesn't exist. Many American think that daily starvation and abject poverty don't exist either - because we generally don't see it...but it's still out there.

[Snuggles]

I call it "the Ostrich Syndrome"; if I don't see it, it doesn't exist. Many American think that daily starvation and abject poverty don't exist either - because we generally don't see it...but it's still out there.

It completely exists... I once dipped a banana in my chocolate ice cream and my friend (whom is quite racist) said "don't do that"...

It really sucks that it still exists... but do you know why it still exists?

I really hate to speak like this, seperating people because of race/sex/whatever... but what it comes down to is if someone isn't a white male, and they accomplish something... it's all over the place.

Look at last years superbowl... Tony Dungee... what was the FIRST thing they said?

"First African American Coach to win the superbowl"

Now... really... REALLY ask yourself, was this at all necessary? Why did we have to attach race to this? He's a good football coach, what in the hell does race have to do with anything? Now there is this whole thing with "not enough black head coaches in football." I mean... stuff like this is pointed out and acted upon, its that particular 'group' segregating itself.

Now that you all see me as racist, I might as well come off as sexist too...

If you read one of my other posts, I'm going to reference the same friend... she was one of 2 female electrical engineers (out of 13 total students mind). She treated the whole thing like 'poor me... I'm the only female here, do you know how hard it is to be in a room full of guys like this? wah wah wah...'

I mean... you chose a male dominated major. Why is it dominated by males? I have no clue.

Also in college, what does every company look to hire for interns??? "Minorities" this fully includes women when you're in the engineering field. We actually made this girl cry and leave the room when we discussed how unfair it was that we were unable to get positions/research oppurtunities because they had enough of 'us' (us being white males).

You know what would happen when we brought this up to the other girl? She'd laugh at us and say "yep." She knew, and we all knew, she was fully capable of all the work and needed no excuse or boost... it was given to her, and she went with it, but she didn't need it. The other girl... she completely needed, relied on it, and denied it was there.

That's the worst situation... when a resounding party denies the fact that it exists for them.

I look at where I am now, and what my company looked like over the summer. Again... sorry about this, but this is 100% observation, and 100% truth about how this 'world works' to give 'equal oppurtunity'...

This summer at my place of employment... I'm going to throw out... 90% of the interns were not white males... well... guess what happened when school started? My company is back to, I'd say... 80% (maybe more) white males.

I could go on and on and on and on and on about this topic. It's disgusting, it's degrading, and it's useless. I cannot wait til we are all one color and asexual... I'd love to hear the excuses then for why "x doesn't make more then y"... if you're capable, you're capable. If you're not... you're not. That fact that race and sex are thrown in there is moronic and the fact that racism exists is disgusting... wow... I hate the world again.

[Lucid]

I could go on and on and on and on and on about this topic. It's disgusting, it's degrading, and it's useless. I cannot wait til we are all one color and asexual... I'd love to hear the excuses then for why "x doesn't make more then y"... if you're capable, you're capable. If you're not... you're not. That fact that race and sex are thrown in there is moronic and the fact that racism exists is disgusting... wow... I hate the world again.

What you seem to be saying is that racism and sexism and all the other "isms" still exist because there are some idiot women (or insert ethnic minority or religion or nationality here) who can't do shit for themselves and whine a lot. Those people piss me off as much as they piss you off. Quite possibly more, since they make it that much harder for me to be taken seriously and respected. However, I will point out that you shouldn't judge an entire group of people by their lowest common denominator (if that's what you're doing, and I'm not sure that's the case). That's what racism and sexism and other isms are about. Judging an entire group by a few craptastic jerkoffs who shouldn't be allowed out without a safety helmet.


She treated the whole thing like 'poor me... I'm the only female here, do you know how hard it is to be in a room full of guys like this? wah wah wah...'

we discussed how unfair it was that we were unable to get positions/research oppurtunities because they had enough of 'us' (us being white males).

With respect, you do see the problem with these statements, right?

This summer at my place of employment... I'm going to throw out... 90% of the interns were not white males... well... guess what happened when school started? My company is back to, I'd say... 80% (maybe more) white males.

Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying... but if your company is 80% white males then is it really that hard for white males to get jobs?

Either way, all those are problems with your specific arguments. I'm not going to say that white males have it that much easier or get things handed to them. I don't really think that's the case. I think most people work for what they have and that has little to do with gender or race.

[Snuggles]

Yeah, there are flaws in what I say, it's just really tough to word some of these things.

What you seem to be saying is that racism and sexism and all the other "isms" still exist because there are some idiot women (or insert ethnic minority or religion or nationality here) who can't do shit for themselves and whine a lot. Those people piss me off as much as they piss you off. Quite possibly more, since they make it that much harder for me to be taken seriously and respected. However, I will point out that you shouldn't judge an entire group of people by their lowest common denominator (if that's what you're doing, and I'm not sure that's the case). That's what racism and sexism and other isms are about. Judging an entire group by a few craptastic jerkoffs who shouldn't be allowed out without a safety helmet.

Yes, that is what it looks like I'm saying... I suppose... however, I do not base judgments of an entire group of people off one person. The point of 'x vs. y' is to say that all people play the blame game when something doesn't go their way. A dumb example: I'm in a bowling league (I got tricked into joining, don't ask)... one guy takes it super serious and another guy not at all. Well, the non-serious guy started using serious guy's ball, and the serious guy started blaming his poor performance on the other guy using his ball. I'm just sick of excuses in areas where they should not be used.

And yeah... I see the flaws in that argument seen at face value... her complaint about being in a classroom full of males is the awkwardness she feels being ogled by the guys. There were other females in the class, she just wanted this excuse (that no other female I know used...) to further her 'poor me'-ness. All the teachers loved her and treated her with the utmost respect... I can only assume she went to their offices with the same spiel and they fell for it.

This discussion we had was about how advantages are given to women in the science/engineering field. She was denying it existed and we pointed out several examples. Sure this probably would have been more appropriate with an even distribution of males/females, but I don't think other females would argue against the case, and as I said, our other female EE buddy would just say 'yep' and laugh it off.

My fault for not clarifying the points.

Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying... but if your company is 80% white males then is it really that hard for white males to get jobs?

Either way, all those are problems with your specific arguments. I'm not going to say that white males have it that much easier or get things handed to them. I don't really think that's the case. I think most people work for what they have and that has little to do with gender or race.

I probably wasn't clear enough here either. It isn't 'hard' for white males to get jobs. It's just more difficult for 'us' (I hate that term since I certainly don't identify myself with all white males) to get scholarships/internships/co-ops which lead to getting better jobs.

The point of my 'ratios' statement is this: companies will hire minorities for internships so they can meet quotas, but when it comes to permanent employees, they go with the white male. Where this hurts 'us' is what really pushes you in an interview is your interning experience. If I hadn't received an internship, I doubt I'd get a position (my roommate is in this position RIGHT NOW)... and I have this whole story of 'anti-white male' racism from our schools career counselor, but that's neither here nor there.

So that statement, was to say, there is prevalent racism/sexism in large corporations on a two-way scale... which side is worse? I think that they are both awful.

I could go off on another rampage about 'inner city scholarships' and the entire backward hand slap that system is, but I'm glad I'm out of college and no longer have to surround myself in this garbage or isms.

[Lucid]

Yes, that is what it looks like I'm saying... I suppose... however, I do not base judgments of an entire group of people off one person. The point of 'x vs. y' is to say that all people play the blame game when something doesn't go their way. A dumb example: I'm in a bowling league (I got tricked into joining, don't ask)... one guy takes it super serious and another guy not at all. Well, the non-serious guy started using serious guy's ball, and the serious guy started blaming his poor performance on the other guy using his ball. I'm just sick of excuses in areas where they should not be used.

Yes, I do see your point. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss all complaints of racism or sexism this way.
An example from my life: I used to cash checks at this 24-hour, no ID required place in a REALLY bad neighborhood in Denver. In order to cash the check in question we'd have to call the bank issuing the check and verify that it had enough money in it to cover the check. Often, the account wouldn't have the money and I'd have to tell people that I couldn't cash their pay checks. I can't tell you how many times I heard, "it's because I'm black, isn't it?" Well no. It wasn't because they were black and I was offended that they'd suggest I was a racist. But just because some people blame everything that goes wrong in their lives on sexism or racism, it doesn't negate the fact that these things do exist and doesn't mean that all claims of racism or sexism are bullshit, or that all women or minorities do this.
I don't think that's what you were trying to say, but what I'm trying to say is that there are idiots of both genders who will use any excuse not to have to take responsibility for themselves. It's not a valid justification to treat people unfairly.

The point of my 'ratios' statement is this: companies will hire minorities for internships so they can meet quotas, but when it comes to permanent employees, they go with the white male. Where this hurts 'us' is what really pushes you in an interview is your interning experience.

Well it sounds like that hurts everybody. White males don't get the internship experience they need and minorities and women don't get careers. I didn't know that happened. How shitty :(

So that statement, was to say, there is prevalent racism/sexism in large corporations on a two-way scale... which side is worse? I think that they are both awful.

I agree with you completely.

[rwyatt365]

So that statement, was to say, there is prevalent racism/sexism in large corporations on a two-way scale... which side is worse? I think that they are both awful.
There is sexism (just as there is still racism) in the corporate environment, and both are wrong. Whether one is on the "inside" or the "outside", whether it works to one's benefit or detriment; institutionalized "-isms" hurt people in a myriad of ways. Those females (or, pick your minority) that are admitted solely on the basis of their minority status – without regard to qualification, but simply to fulfill a quota – may not perform adequately, or be a long-term asset to the organization (I say "may not" because that outcome is not guaranteed). But, if the organization sets a particular diversification goal and then intelligently, and sensitively applies itself to achieving that goal then both the minorities admitted (or hired) and the organization itself will benefit.

Unfortunately, this is often not the case. So, do we need "feminists" around the beat the drum about sexism? I give a qualified "yes" to that.

An example from my life: I used to cash checks at this 24-hour, no ID required place in a REALLY bad neighborhood in Denver. In order to cash the check in question we'd have to call the bank issuing the check and verify that it had enough money in it to cover the check. Often, the account wouldn't have the money and I'd have to tell people that I couldn't cash their pay checks. I can't tell you how many times I heard, "it's because I'm black, isn't it?" Well no. It wasn't because they were black and I was offended that they'd suggest I was a racist. But just because some people blame everything that goes wrong in their lives on sexism or racism, it doesn't negate the fact that these things do exist and doesn't mean that all claims of racism or sexism are bullshit, or that all women or minorities do this.
I don't think that's what you were trying to say, but what I'm trying to say is that there are idiots of both genders who will use any excuse not to have to take responsibility for themselves. It's not a valid justification to treat people unfairly.
I am angered and ashamed when I hear that, "It's because I'm Black", phrase being used. I can't think of anything more ignorant and pitiful to use as an excuse as that. Often times I want to scream out, "No shithead! It's because you're being stupid!!"

Even if it IS because "you" are black, rise above that! Make the person that is trying to "hold you down" understand that your race is NOT what should be considered. Force them to recognize your humanity and intelligence rather than focus on your race. Give them a reason to respect you!

If you feel that you deserve something because of your minority status then you will always be recognized as a minority – you will always be defined by your minority status. But if you feel that you deserve something because you have achieved some milestone then you have a legitimate claim to the reward you seek.

[Lucid]

I am angered and ashamed when I hear that, "It's because I'm Black", phrase being used. I can't think of anything more ignorant and pitiful to use as an excuse as that. Often times I want to scream out, "No shithead! It's because you're being stupid!!"

Even if it IS because "you" are black, rise above that! Make the person that is trying to "hold you down" understand that your race is NOT what should be considered. Force them to recognize your humanity and intelligence rather than focus on your race. Give them a reason to respect you!

I feel the same way when I hear some feminists blaming all their troubles and all the troubles of the world on men. If people won't take responsibility for what's wrong in their lives then of course you'll never get ahead or make any progress. No, the fact that you became a stripper instead of a lawyer isn't because men were trying to oppress you or keep you down. It's because you started smoking crack and dropped out of college.

If you feel that you deserve something because of your minority status then you will always be recognized as a minority – you will always be defined by your minority status. But if you feel that you deserve something because you have achieved some milestone then you have a legitimate claim to the reward you seek.

I couldn't have put it better! I don't want things handed to me because I'm a woman, I want the opportunity to work for them. I want the opportunity to earn people's respect, rather than have them give it to me automatically or withhold it automatically because of my gender. I think that's what most minorities want too.

[logos]

I couldn't have put it better! I don't want things handed to me because I'm a woman, I want the opportunity to work for them. I want the opportunity to earn people's respect, rather than have them give it to me automatically or withhold it automatically because of my gender. I think that's what most minorities want too.

May I infer from this statement that you identify yourself as a feminist because you do not feel that fair opportunities are yet available to you in some aspect of your life because of your gender?

If so, this is where we disagree and I still need some kind of illustration to persuade me that women aren't getting a fair shake.

If not, what is your specific goal/purpose as a feminist?

Feminism still seems to me to have shifted from an equal rights organization to some kind of supremacy group. I really would like to understand why I'm wrong if indeed I am and you seem the best candidate to explain it to me. You're a self-identified feminist who started this thread which indicates your very well-versed and interested/active as a feminist. You are the same age I am and from the same nation, so we grew up in pretty much the same culture; watching the same things on television, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like living just outside of Denver all of your life would somehow be culturally vastly different than the places I've lived (just outside of Hartford & Tampa).

[yondyr]

I think we're maligning strippers here - a perfectly acceptable profession and like lawyers, done well, not easy. However..I digress.

[Lucid]

May I infer from this statement that you identify yourself as a feminist because you do not feel that fair opportunities are yet available to you in some aspect of your life because of your gender?

If so, this is where we disagree and I still need some kind of illustration to persuade me that women aren't getting a fair shake.

If not, what is your specific goal/purpose as a feminist?

I think it depends on what you mean by fair opportunities. Do I feel like I've been passed over for jobs or promotions because I'm a female? No.

In fact, there are situations where I'd get preferential treatment because I'm a woman, such as child custody. I think that's also bullshit. It's unfair to men and it can be harmful to the children in question.

Do I feel like often I have to work harder than men do to make people take me seriously or treat me with respect because I'm female? Yes. And it pisses me off.

I feel like I've already explained a lot of what you're asking earlier in this thread. Here are some another post I made on this same topic:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Please let me know if you've already read the past posts and just need clarification, or elaboration.

There are some crazies who seem to want to turn an equality thing into a female dominance thing. This is not my goal. I'll quote from something I posted previously:

I guess that with regard to this post, I wanted to converse about why feminism has a bad reputation (it's because there's a very loud and absolutely irrational minority that give the rest of the movement a bad name) and maybe try to alleviate some of the stigma that's been attached to it as a result of that minority.
Not all feminists are sexist against men, not all of us are unreasonable or want to advocate for 5'1" women to play football with the Dallas Cowboys. Not all of us go around saying that women are sacred givers of life and that if women ruled the world there would be no war, and other air-headed platitudes like that. Not all of us go without bras, not all of us will get angry at men who open doors for us, etc. Things like this make the gender-bias issue worse, in my opinion.
Maybe if some of that negative knee-jerk reaction can be eased, people might actually listen to what reasonable feminists have to say.

So what are my goals with feminism? To represent females in as positive a manner as I am able to. To work hard for the things I have, rather than ask that they be given to me because I'm a female, to be rational and emotionally stable, to be self-sufficient and responsible for my own actions. I hope that I can change the minds of a few people I encounter about some of the negative stereotypes about women and prove that we can be just as rational and capable as men. That's the direction I think feminism needs to be taking. Then hopefully, we won't need affirmative action laws and no one will be able to say to us, "you're still not as capable. the only reason you have that position is because the company had a quota to fill and passed over some better qualified man for you."

It seems from your other posts that you think that abolishing affirmative action laws wouldn't make a difference as to the opportunities available to women or to minorities. Is this the case?

[iamnotspock]

Lucid, isn't it true that feminists represent only the interests of women?

What would you think of a group that represented only the interests of men?

If you are truly concerned about fairness wouldn't you want to be something like an equality-ist?

It is feminists, after all, that put together those "bullshit" (your quote) child custody laws.

I just don't see how you can join a group that is only representing itself, and attacking the rest of society.

[Lucid]

Lucid, isn't it true that feminists represent only the interests of women?

What would you think of a group that represented only the interests of men?

If you are truly concerned about fairness wouldn't you want to be something like an equality-ist?

It is feminists, after all, that put together those "bullshit" (your quote) child custody laws.

I just don't see how you can join a group that is only representing itself, and attacking the rest of society.

Actually, the bullshit custody laws are the result of a stereotype of women as being more suited for caring for children than men are. This is not feminism, this is the same rigid gender-role bullshit we've been dealing with for the last century or two. But, custody aside, there have been some things done by some feminists that are bad. Does this mean that all feminists will agree with those actions? Obviously not. Are all republicans against gay marriage? No. Are all Germans Nazis? Are all men oppressive and abusive to women? Of course not. Use some common sense, here.
I think you should read the rest of this thread... maybe you have, but from your response it sure doesn't seem like it. :)
If you're trying to say that because I call myself a feminist and am concerned with how women are perceived and how they are treated, I am not also concerned with how men are treated, then you need to check yourself.
A group that only represented the interests of men would be fine with me. Just as groups that only represent the interests of African Americans or Jews are fine with me, although I am neither of those things. Do you have a problem with groups that represent only the interests of groups of people that don't include you?
I suppose that some feminists only represent the interests of women. But I think you're taking a word and really stretching it in some ways, while limiting the people who use this word to describe themselves in others. Yes, I am concerned with issues of how women are treated so I consider myself a feminist. But while I am concerned with improving things for women, I don't see how that has to mean I can't also be concerned with improving things for men as well.
Wanting to make things better for one group doesn't necessarily mean you have to want to make things worse for another group. You're taking this negative definition of feminism that comes from some man-hating psychos and just refusing to let go of it. Perhaps an equality-ist would be a better word, but until now I've never heard it used. Since the real idea behind feminism is to promote womens station in life and in society until it is equal to that of men's, I think you're just arguing semantics based on some assumptions and prejudices that you seem reluctant to let go of.

[rwyatt365]

Wanting to make things better for one group doesn't necessarily mean you have to want to make things worse for another group. You're taking this negative definition of feminism that comes from some man-hating psychos and just refusing to let go of it. Perhaps an equality-ist would be a better word, but until now I've never heard it used. Since the real idea behind feminism is to promote womens station in life and in society until it is equal to that of men's, I think you're just arguing semantics based on some assumptions and prejudices that you seem reluctant to let go of.
Actually, I like the word equality-ist (aside from the fact that it is awkward to say). I think it captures what you're saying in the bolded part above. The word FEMINist emphasizes that the speakers focus is on females (and implies that this focus is to the exclusion of any other). Many people that use this take on that zealot attitude, to the detriment of those that have a more balanced approach. Semantics aside, words have a tendency to mold people's actions and perceptions, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly.

Saying "Equality-ist" (damn, that's hard to say!) puts focus on seeking (as you say above) to make men and women equals in society. It also implies that equality for all is the "agenda". Some might say that this waters-down the focus by spreading it so thin, and there is truth in that. But if we think of it more along the lines of a coalition of causes it could gain strength.

Actually, the bullshit custody laws are the result of a stereotype of women as being more suited for caring for children than men are. This is not feminism, this is the same rigid gender-role bullshit we've been dealing with for the last century or two.
Custody and alimony are two very sore spots with me. I've been taken to the cleaners on both accounts and I think they are one of the more ruinous suppositions perpetrated by the court system since "Separate but equal". 'Nuff said else I have to go out and kick a puppy.

But, custody aside, there have been some things done by some feminists that are bad. Does this mean that all feminists will agree with those actions? Obviously not. Are all republicans against gay marriage? No. Are all Germans Nazis? Are all men oppressive and abusive to women? Of course not. Use some common sense, here.
Let's play nice now folks!

[Lucid]

Actually, I like the word equality-ist (aside from the fact that it is awkward to say). I think it captures what you're saying in the bolded part above.

Saying "Equality-ist" (damn, that's hard to say!) puts focus on seeking (as you say above) to make men and women equals in society. It also implies that equality for all is the "agenda". Some might say that this waters-down the focus by spreading it so thin, and there is truth in that. But if we think of it more along the lines of a coalition of causes it could gain strength.

All week I was actually thinking of explaining my stance using a term closer to equal-ist (which is difficult to say), but ended up deciding against it. I think that perhaps "feminism" may be an outdated word, but if you approach people and say, "I'm an equalist" they have even less of an idea of what you're talking about. I'd rather take "feminism" back, if you know what I mean :)
I still don't understand the idea that advocating better treatment for one group necessitates the subjugation of another group.

The word FEMINist emphasizes that the speakers focus is on females (and implies that this focus is to the exclusion of any other). Many people that use this take on that zealot attitude, to the detriment of those that have a more balanced approach. Semantics aside, words have a tendency to mold people's actions and perceptions, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly.

While I see your point, I think that people use words all the time to mean something other than what the word actually means, but which is more widely understood. With regard to your suggestion that word have a tendency to mold people's actions and perceptions... well I think that's valid. But we often use terms inexactly or incorrectly without even knowing it. One example that comes to mind and is especially relevant to this topic is men calling each other "girls" in a derogatory way. This is a term that I myself use when mocking my male friends because I don't take terms like that very seriously (which is probably why I'm ok with the term "feminism" being used to describe my viewpoints), but if we look at it through the same lens that you're using to look at the term "feminism," the implication is that females are weak and whiny and incompetent. I'm not saying that we, as a society, should stop using this term in that way because I like to think of myself as a good sport, but I think it's something worth being aware of. :)

All of that aside, while I do call myself a feminist, I would happily call myself a masculinist as well, if such a term were used at all.
Maybe we INTJs should start a coalition of equalists.

Let's play nice now folks!

I thought I was! :embarassed:

[logos]

There were too many things to which to reply so I'll just start writing....

Whether you are a feminist, a member of the NAACP or a neo-nazi, you're advocating some particular group that you feel needs better treatment than they are currently getting contrasted against everyone else (those not part of the group you advocate). While I don't have a problem with groups that are advocating equality for a particular group that doesn't currently have equality, it seems to me that in our society, these groups are no longer necessary as there is nothing left to fight for unless your goal is supremacy.

I can, though, understand the continued existence of certain race/culture-based advocacy groups that seek to equalize lingering imbalance because while they have legally achieved equality there are still differences that will take generations to iron out. In other words, if you're born black today in the U.S., because of the history against you (the unfair way it used to be), you're more likely to be born into a poor under-educated family with less opportunities than if you were born white today in the U.S. Feminism, though, does not share this lingering imbalance.

Lucid, from your expressed viewpoints (and yes I have kept up with the whole thread) you don't seem to advocate women's rights so much as some utopian ideal of equality that applies to all people which I think so far we all have agreed upon. I at least agree and I'm definitely not a feminist. Perhaps the idea of "equality-ist" isn't such a bad idea.

[Lucid]

In other words, if you're born black today in the U.S., because of the history against you (the unfair way it used to be), you're more likely to be born into a poor under-educated family with less opportunities than if you were born white today in the U.S. Feminism, though, does not share this lingering imbalance.

I guess what it comes down to, at the end, is that I disagree with you on this point.

[iamnotspock]

I think you should read the rest of this thread... maybe you have, but from your response it sure doesn't seem like it. :)


Actually, I've **posted** in the rest of this thread in numerous places ;-))

Maybe we INTJs should start a coalition of equalists.

I second the motion! Who else is onboard? rwyatt365? logos?

I would seriously give money to a politician that took this line, instead of pandering to specific interest groups.

[Lucid]

Actually, I've **posted** in the rest of this thread in numerous places ;-))

Yes, but posting and reading are two different things and your earlier post seemed to be bringing up issues I'd already addressed. Since I'm not the type of person to jump to the conclusion that someone is accusing me of dishonesty or misrepresentation of my beliefs (which it seemed like you were doing), I thought it was the result of just not reading my posts.

As I keep saying, the majority of people who call them feminists (at least in my experience) have beliefs which are similar to mine and which might better be called "equalists." You seem arguing that the crazy, yet loud, minority which you describe as "promoting itself while attacking the rest of society" embodies the "true spirit" of feminism and that the rest of us should therefore change what we call our beliefs about sexism, which I disagree with.
In addition, you seem to be saying that the technical definition of the word "feminism" is to promote the interests of women and women alone. I certainly don't dispute that, but my problems with your argument against feminism based on the semantic use of the word itself is that language is a fluid thing and that it's not uncommon for a word to mean something completely different in common usage from what its technical definition is. Not to mention the issue of why promoting the interests of one group necessitates the subjugation of another (which I've mentioned before but don't want to leave out here).
You seem to be insisting that all feminists be lumped in together with the crazies. Do you also believe that all Christians should be lumped together with those who bomb abortion clinics? That all Muslims be lumped in with Al Queda? If not, it seems like you have some kind of personal issue with the term "feminist" that causes you to make it an exception.

Those are the issues I have with your argument against feminism, but I bring them up mostly in an academic sense. I like the "equalists" thing and I think that using a term like this might get more people of all kinds on board. Which would be great! :)

[iamnotspock]

"Feminist" is a loaded term that conjures threatening images of women the same way "disgruntled postal employee" makes one think of a crazy guy with a gun. This despite the fact that most feminists -- and most disgruntled postal workers -- are not a problem.

So that is the attraction of an alternative label like "equalist" which offers a fresh slate and separates the bad apples from the bunch.

Maybe such a group could focus on attacking discrimination -- as opposed to promoting specific groups. It could attack discrimination against women, minorities, and even white men where it occurs.

Instead of automatically assuming the innocence of a particular group, it could compare data from past scenarios to determine the probability that an injustice occurred.

For example, what is the probability that a gov. dept. that is all white males between age 40 - 60 has fair hiring practices when 18% of applicants are minority or female? Or, what is the probability that a minority female with substantially lower grades and test scores was hired under the same criteria as her peers?

A data driven approach would not be splashy like MLK or Susan B Anthony -- but it might be more appropriate to today's world.