It is my opinion, that gender inequality still exits, but its no longer structural or malicious. Women don't earn as much as men in high paying fields. This has everything to do with perceived gender roles, and the social dynamics of men and women in the work place then it does with a conscious attempt by employers or business to discriminate against women. It is my personal opinion that men tend to be more aggressive and more physically prominent, which natural demands them more respect. Its not fair, its just how we are biologically coded. We recognize strong personalities and physically superior people as being deserving of more respect, its relates to all of our tribal ancestory and the genetic dispositions that are ingrained in us as naturally as sex. All feminist can do is make people aware of it. All any of us can do is gaurd against are more primitive biases and attempt to be open minded and objective.
There is a darker side to the feminist argument, in regards to rape statistics and sexual assault. Some of the estimate are downright appalling, suggesting as many as one in six women will be raped in their life time. And the conviction rate is abysmal. As much as I recognize that this is a problem, as everyone should, how much more can really be done to discourage and punish rape? Unfortunately not much. Its about education and cultural attitudes. Many men need to respect women's right to their own bodies. But the law cannot feasibly be further changed without violating the rights of the accused.
And finally, in regards to adds and media subjugating women; sex sells. Gender roles in our society are fixed. This exits in all cultural. The answer to this? Education, open mindedness, objectivity.
So does discrimination of women still exist, in my opinion? No. Women by and large are not discriminated against. Women, like all minorities of race and religion and other factions with social stigmas attatched to them, are subject to the individual prejudices of the people they encounter. The only thing you can do to get rid of prejudice... educate. I think some feminists don't get that. I think many people who would consider themselves not to be feminist are ignorant or in denial.
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
So many people get distracted by the origins of the word 'feminism' rather than looking at what it means. And it's simply equal rights/opportunities regardless of gender. The only reason it's called feminism is because the movement was started at a time when women were oppressed. If the situation had been reversed the word might be masculinism, but it still means the same thing.
If you are in favor of equal rights between genders then you ARE a feminist.
On December 22 2011 03:46 Zorkmid wrote: I wouldn't paint feminism with this broad of a brush. Feminism is about equality, some "extreme" feminists hijack it into shit like this, but don't lump it all together.
I am, and we should all be feminists.
This basically is all you need to read. Have women been oppressed in history? Are their still situations where we should remedy this? If you agree with these two statements, you are a feminist.
The OP has fallen victim to the trend which has turned feminism into a dirty word that means angry lesbian sociological structuralists. That's not the case.
As a child of a single mother who had to struggle with this crap and having recently seen all the misogyny and old-boys-club bullshiting that goes on in the private sector and politics, I think feminism is one of the last relevant civil rights movements.
Almost every aspect of our culture objectifies women. I don't have to prove this. We know it's true. The media doesn't do this with men. Men are valued for their skills, women are valued for their body. Men are told to strive for success, women are told to find a good man. I know this isn't universal, but I'm fairly conservative and I'll be the first to admit that this is espeicially bad in conservative communities.
Some of the stuff the girl says is a stretch, but much of it is true. The date rape song was a scary eye-opener, lol. We need to be aware of how the media is constructing gender in our society. We teach are men to be assertive and sexually predatory and (as gamers probably know) we associate masculinity with violence. Women? They're suppose to be passive, sexual object. If you look at other cultures, you learn that this doesn't have to do with genetics. It's constucted.
I'm proud to call myself a feminist, and if someone thinks feminism is bad or irrelevant they are either ignorant, stupid, or assholes. The situation is very very slowly improving, but there's a long way to go. The personal is the political, bro.
EDIT: The same girl basically sums up the straw men that the media has used to turn feminism into a dirty word:
Didn't Lindsay Lohan NOT have to report to jail when she was supposed to?
"Oh no, my flight was delayed, but I promised I'll go to jail as soon as I can! "
As if anyone wants to go to jail, unless your homeless...
Edit: I just watched some of that video. Can't stop laughing. I mean, it's fucking hollywood. IT'S SUPPOSED TO NOT BE REAL!!!!! Oh no, the writers of powerpuff girls are against women because of one character they did for one episode, even though there was gender equality blatantly displayed in the episode. "Ugh, how could these pigs write things like this!"
I mean, wouldn't women actually have a problem with this? You know, the ones that are actually playing the part? The legally blond example, that actress is actually smart. If she had such a problem about how it was "offensive", she wouldn't have done it. You're video just shows how bad feminists actually are. What's her solution, the host of this video, not allow hollywood to write what it wants?
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
If someone called you misogynistic for trying to "right" the fact that males statistically have a shorter life span (which may be true statistically, but I don't think it's something you can fight for, necessarily - and I disagree with some of your other examples), they'd be wrong - I believe the term mysognist is anti-women rather than pro-men, and there is a difference.
congrats on being blessed with Mr. Bitters posting in the thread OP.
Ripps, I disagree with you.
When I look around in the world we live in don't see women being discriminated against anymore than men.
The fact is, that individuals in a species compete with each other and they will do any and everything they can to survive at others' expense, regardless of race and gender etc. Being a social species we also help others that we subconsciously feel will return the favor.
In the far majority of cases, when women get raped, it's not because the perpetrators hate women. It's because their primal instincts are overriding their self control. What I am trying to say is that if those rapists were gay, they would be raping men instead.
I think most issues that are labelled as gender based discrimination are not actually cases of discrimination at all, just a case of people being shitheads to each other.
I actually think feminists are doing a terrible job at ensuring equality for women. Some of them portray men in a bad light which gives the rest a bad reputation (eg what the OP said) and the very act of declaring that there is inequality (whether there is or not) antagonizes a lot of men who would otherwise support their cause. In short it polarizes opinions between genders rather than bringing the two together.
Instead of going on about women's rights or even men's rights, we should be preaching the rights of the individual. The right to fair pay, the right to feel safe, the right to have access to fresh clean water, the right not to get raped etc.
In the UK at least, women and men still have very contrived gender roles. However, that doesn't make the situation automatically women < men.
I'm still at school, and I've been told in a few assemblies that currently boys are performing 30% worse than girls in almost all subjects across the board (woodworking, PE and computing being the exceptions) in Scotland, and girls are more likely to go from full-time education straight to a well-paying job. We have also been told that women have a higher average peak income per annum in the UK over the course of their lives.
Of course, that could all be bollocks (when has the education system ever been wrong before...?) but just something to bear in mind.
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
If someone called you misogynistic for trying to "right" the fact that males statistically have a shorter life span (which may be true statistically, but I don't think it's something you can fight for, necessarily - and I disagree with some of your other examples), they'd be wrong - I believe the term mysognist is anti-women rather than pro-men, and there is a difference.
Of course you can fight for having the same lifespan in exactly the same way you can fight for things like equal wages or womens maths. If women have lower wages because they are mistreated why can't we say that men have lower lifespans because they are being mistreated? Men also have higher mortality rates in every age category so the difference even must be systematic all throughout the system! So, we just have to add extra resources and campaigns supporting specifically mens health till the lifespans are equal, it is quite simple.
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
If someone called you misogynistic for trying to "right" the fact that males statistically have a shorter life span (which may be true statistically, but I don't think it's something you can fight for, necessarily - and I disagree with some of your other examples), they'd be wrong - I believe the term mysognist is anti-women rather than pro-men, and there is a difference.
Of course you can fight for having the same lifespan in exactly the same way you can fight for things like equal wages or womens maths. If women have lower wages because they are mistreated why can't we say that men have lower lifespans because they are being mistreated? Men also have higher mortality rates in every age category so the difference even must be systematic all throughout the system! So, we just have to add extra resources and campaigns supporting specifically mens health till the lifespans are equal, it is quite simple.
The thing is, equal wages is a product of culture, the concept of money being an arbitrary social construction with no natural value - therefore one can plausibly say, there is no inherent, permanent connection between human beings and the concept of currency, so why exactly is it that on multiple reports, women earn less than men in the same jobs? While it's also impossible to separate the issue of lifespan from its cultural (or, say, environmental) context, it has a lot more to do with biology, so one might say: males and females are biologically different, therefore this leads to differences in average life span in the long term (drawing on examples, perhaps, from the natural world - species in which one sex is documented to live longer than the other). You could then try to campaign for extra resources specifically supporting men's health, but you'd probably have to acknowledge somewhere that this would more or less equate being male to having some kind of congenital disability (although, depending on who you ask, this might not be a far stretch ... just kidding). See the difference?
On December 28 2011 18:52 Selendis wrote: It's because their primal instincts are overriding their self control. What I am trying to say is that if those rapists were gay, they would be raping men instead.
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
If someone called you misogynistic for trying to "right" the fact that males statistically have a shorter life span (which may be true statistically, but I don't think it's something you can fight for, necessarily - and I disagree with some of your other examples), they'd be wrong - I believe the term mysognist is anti-women rather than pro-men, and there is a difference.
Of course you can fight for having the same lifespan in exactly the same way you can fight for things like equal wages or womens maths. If women have lower wages because they are mistreated why can't we say that men have lower lifespans because they are being mistreated? Men also have higher mortality rates in every age category so the difference even must be systematic all throughout the system! So, we just have to add extra resources and campaigns supporting specifically mens health till the lifespans are equal, it is quite simple.
The thing is, equal wages is a product of culture, the concept of money being an arbitrary social construction with no natural value - therefore one can plausibly say, there is no inherent, permanent connection between human beings and the concept of currency, so why exactly is it that on multiple reports, women earn less than men in the same jobs? While it's also impossible to separate the issue of lifespan from its cultural (or, say, environmental) context, it has a lot more to do with biology, so one might say: males and females are biologically different, therefore this leads to differences in average life span in the long term (drawing on examples, perhaps, from the natural world - species in which one sex is documented to live longer than the other). You could then try to campaign for extra resources specifically supporting men's health, but you'd probably have to acknowledge somewhere that this would more or less equate being male to having some kind of congenital disability (although, depending on who you ask, this might not be a far stretch ... just kidding). See the difference?
Can you prove that the age difference is mostly biological and not cultural? And can you prove that the wage gap is mostly cultural and not biological? Same with why women are not prominent in the sciences? Lots of edit: I mean, I could easily argue that the lifespan difference is almost solely due to our culture pressing men to be more macho, take more risks and live more stressful while ignoring their pains and you wouldn't be able to disprove me, simply because research in the area is non-conclusive at the moment.
And about the wage gap, it is not only cultural, men and women have several innate differences and these could easily result in a wage gap that big. Men are better at taking advantageous risks which leads to a higher total income. In addition people have more respect for people with deeper voices no matter the sex. So we are programmed to take women and children less seriously which of course leads to a wage gap, you pay more to people you think as serious.
Now, my point isn't that we shouldn't work on womens issues or that we should work on mens issues. My point is only that both sides are more or less ignoring the issues of the other side using arguments they themselves dismiss when used against themselves. I am against ignorance, thinking that the life expectancy is mostly a product of biology is very ignorant, same with thinking that wages impossibly could depend on what genes you were born with.
The most plausible explanation is that there are small genetical differences behind most of the inequalities which then gets magnified by society. Newborn girls might slightly favour dolls while newborn boys might slightly favour mechanical things, so society markets dolls for girls and mechanical things for boys and we get the strong dichotomy we have today.
Can you prove that the age difference is mostly biological and not cultural? And can you prove that the wage gap is mostly cultural and not biological?
The funny thing is that, at least to some extent, the reason for both could be the same. The risk-taking and aggressive behavior men exhibit leads them to die far more in accidents and violently. This same aggression and risk-taking behavior also may lead them to greater success. Of course, men also outnumber women greatly as homeless and in prison (generally considered failures). The potential for great success and great failure has always been more the province of the male: Genghis Khan spread his genes across the world in an almost unfathomable way, but for genghis khan to exist there were millions of massacred and failed men.
Of course, men also die more in the womb and as infants, but that's simply due to evolution having favored higher mortality rates for men, common through most species that have sexual dimorphism and differing reproductive investment. Men get 'weeded' out because there isn't need for so many of them.
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
If someone called you misogynistic for trying to "right" the fact that males statistically have a shorter life span (which may be true statistically, but I don't think it's something you can fight for, necessarily - and I disagree with some of your other examples), they'd be wrong - I believe the term mysognist is anti-women rather than pro-men, and there is a difference.
Of course you can fight for having the same lifespan in exactly the same way you can fight for things like equal wages or womens maths. If women have lower wages because they are mistreated why can't we say that men have lower lifespans because they are being mistreated? Men also have higher mortality rates in every age category so the difference even must be systematic all throughout the system! So, we just have to add extra resources and campaigns supporting specifically mens health till the lifespans are equal, it is quite simple.
The thing is, equal wages is a product of culture, the concept of money being an arbitrary social construction with no natural value - therefore one can plausibly say, there is no inherent, permanent connection between human beings and the concept of currency, so why exactly is it that on multiple reports, women earn less than men in the same jobs? While it's also impossible to separate the issue of lifespan from its cultural (or, say, environmental) context, it has a lot more to do with biology, so one might say: males and females are biologically different, therefore this leads to differences in average life span in the long term (drawing on examples, perhaps, from the natural world - species in which one sex is documented to live longer than the other). You could then try to campaign for extra resources specifically supporting men's health, but you'd probably have to acknowledge somewhere that this would more or less equate being male to having some kind of congenital disability (although, depending on who you ask, this might not be a far stretch ... just kidding). See the difference?
Can you prove that the age difference is mostly biological and not cultural? And can you prove that the wage gap is mostly cultural and not biological? Same with why women are not prominent in the sciences? Lots of edit: I mean, I could easily argue that the lifespan difference is almost solely due to our culture pressing men to be more macho, take more risks and live more stressful while ignoring their pains and you wouldn't be able to disprove me, simply because research in the area is non-conclusive at the moment.
And about the wage gap, it is not only cultural, men and women have several innate differences and these could easily result in a wage gap that big. Men are better at taking advantageous risks which leads to a higher total income. In addition people have more respect for people with deeper voices no matter the sex. So we are programmed to take women and children less seriously which of course leads to a wage gap, you pay more to people you think as serious.
Now, my point isn't that we shouldn't work on womens issues or that we should work on mens issues. My point is only that both sides are more or less ignoring the issues of the other side using arguments they themselves dismiss when used against themselves. I am against ignorance, thinking that the life expectancy is mostly a product of biology is very ignorant, same with thinking that wages impossibly could depend on what genes you were born with.
The most plausible explanation is that there are small genetical differences behind most of the inequalities which then gets magnified by society. Newborn girls might slightly favour dolls while newborn boys might slightly favour mechanical things, so society markets dolls for girls and mechanical things for boys and we get the strong dichotomy we have today.
You see, there is nothing biological about the wage gap. There's nothing biological about wages. Captalism is cultural. Money is cultural.
I did mention in my above post that there are species in nature in which one sex outlives the other significantly and consistently. That's not cultural, that's biological.
I'm not saying that life expectancy is entirely a product of one or the other - I am saying that the wage gap is entirely cultural.
Unfortunately, the idea that men are inherently, naturally "better" or "more suited" to some things and women are to others tends to be the fundamental rationale used by misogynists to further their argument, which to me is the same as saying that we are meant to eat meat because look at the way our teeth have evolved. You don't think we've reached the stage in civilisation where we should be able to rise above our biology, and be vegetarians if we want, or strive for equality if we want?
On December 22 2011 05:16 Wegandi wrote: Further, MEN have higher unemployment than women.
This is somewhat structural, actually.
Women on average are more willing to work part-time and casual labour, and that is unfortunately what is not getting cut as much in this economy. Also womens' labour force participation rate is lower.
yep and they are recession figures and the recession has had a greater negative effect on men's jobs than women's. explanations can go on and on and on about what these figures mean. it's absolutely ridiculous for someone to suggest a figure like that means that sexism is ending and feminism has accomplished its purpose
The very existence of the word "feminism" is anti-equal rights, because you're fighting for ONE specific groups rights, because you think their rights are more important. Either fight for everyone's rights, or admit to being prejudice, because it is prejudice.
FYI, as an American, you're spelling labor incorrectly. Labour is how Canada and the U.K. spell it.
This is so dumb. Fighting for equal opportunity for one gender is fighting for equal opportunity for both.
Not true at all, if we have two categories of people; "A" and "B", and I manage to win the fights for A's rights in every situation where A were disadvantaged but ignore the rest then the result is that B will have all the disadvantages hence A>B. For example I could fight for males in all areas where males are disadvantaged (males have more dangerous jobs and thus face more accidents, judges are harsher against males, males do worse at school, males are more often voilence victims, males die earlier, males got the short end of the stick in the dating game and so on) while ignoring or trivializing all the areas where males are advantaged. However if I do that then I would be called a misogynist or antifeminist even though all I do is fighting for equality...
If you only fight to remove the disadvantages from your gender then you're not fighting for equal opportunity. Fighting for equal opportunity also includes removing the advantages which your gender has (which may simply mean providing the opposite gender with the same advantage), if that's possible.
It's impossible to argue that equal opportunity for one gender isn't equal opportunity for both. The only situations in which one gender can have an advantage over the other in a truly equal opportunity society are ones in which one gender actually can't have access to a certain advantage that the other has. Usually this involves the biology of the two genders. The easiest example is that men are typically physically stronger and therefore will always have greater opportunity in positions where physical strength is involved.
Who knows though, maybe the future will have us all as androgynous beings with no distinct biological differences :O
EPT
"
