|
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote:
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Wrong. If you actually examined the policies that political feminism have lead to, and what they're currently proposing, you can see that they've only got one answer, and that is to label the entire world population into two categories, and then even out the books.
If you want men and women to earn as much on average, and if you want all the occupations to be evenly spread among men and women, then you're a feminist, but this has nothing to do with ppl being treated equally. You guys should stop listening to what your feminist friends say, and instead examine what the feminists in power are doing. All self-described feminists may not agree with the 50/50 concept, but if you examine political feminists, all of them are going in that direction. Not most of them. All of them. I've shown many examples of this, and I've asked you guys for examples showing the opposite, examples where political feminism tries to fix injustices by other means, but there's nothing.
If you believe that men and women should truly be treated equally, you believe in equality/humanism, which is vastly different from feminism.
Let's use the CEO issue as an example.
The feminists answer is to force companies to hire 50% female CEO's. So to counteract a few female victims (which in itself is a highly questionable opinion), they create an equal amount of victims among the male population, and then grants unfairly good treatment to the number of lucky women who applied for a job that was forced by policies to hire a woman. This doesn't help the women who didn't apply for that job, and it punishes only those men who were interested in female only job openings, while the rest of the men are not affected. Political feminism is enforced inequality and restricted freedom. Companies should have the right to hire whoever they want, without the government telling them what to do.
The ppl who believe in equality, their answer to female CEO's being underrepresented is to provide with laws that clearly states what sexism is, and then let every single case of proposed sexism injustice be decided in court. This is true equality and true justice, where a person, regardless of label can go to the court whenever they need help with solving an injustice. The legal system should provide justice for anyone who have been unfairly treated, based on gender, sexual orientation, culture, or whatever. This is the way of the future, if you believe in liberty, freedom, fairness and equality. Political feminism is an abomination to the modern justice system, and to freedom, something that our western european ancestors fought hard for.
On November 18 2013 23:44 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 23:21 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 23:01 yamato77 wrote:On November 18 2013 22:53 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote:
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept. I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.' I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer. Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level. I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive. This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations. Who holds positions of power in society, men or women? Why? Answer those questions, and you will realize what I'm talking about.
The people who are intelligent and works hard holds the power in society. Ask any successful woman that question and they will give you a similar answer.
|
I heard about some countries in Europe a few years ago passing laws mandating a certain % of women be for example on the board of directors in publicly traded companies. In the U.S. that law would be unconstitutional, ironically violating the Equal Protection Clause.
|
Out of curiosity L1ghtning, what would you suggest do (actually) tackle issues regarding sexism? It's really hard to prosecute so bringing people to court is a largely ineffective way to deal with the current existing inequalities in most cases. My cousin's wife was lined up to be promoted to partner in her engineering firm, but she got pregnant and magically didn't get the promotion. She can't PROVE that she lost it because she got pregnant but my cousin's a partner and he says that's essentially it. They picked a less competent guy. The problem with your suggestion that the people who are intelligent and work hard hold the power doesn't account for the fact that men are, on average, given more opportunities. White men especially, as we hear so often - but it's true. Women and minorities have to work harder to get equal benefits.
You say political feminism is an 'abomination' as if it had done something spectacularly bad, but they've been grossly ineffective at taking our privileges. And I agree that the 50/50 thing is ridiculous and I'm highly critical of those completely insane 'Tumblr Feminazis', but there's still work to be done and we can still get closer to equality - yet I see no convenient and easy way to get closer to equality. So you have to shuffle. The inegalitarian status quo is not necessarily inherently better than what feminist pressures could result in.
|
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
|
On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't.
And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
|
On November 19 2013 02:01 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do. How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't.And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
Because the Canadian system isn't universal?
|
On November 19 2013 00:33 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 00:28 Crushinator wrote:On November 19 2013 00:24 Shiragaku wrote:On November 19 2013 00:15 Crushinator wrote:On November 19 2013 00:04 Conti wrote:On November 18 2013 23:50 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 23:46 Conti wrote:On November 18 2013 23:37 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 23:29 Conti wrote:On November 18 2013 23:21 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations. Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have. i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it. I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me. I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument. Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point? Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage. I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here. Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.  Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible.
Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP. Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes. I'm not sure if you can speak for all or even most feminists. But if you feel confident about that, then that is great and I would probably be happy to come out and call myself a feminist. I talk to feminists everyday and we talk about these kinds of issues every day. Our group is very diverse in ideology, but ALL of us acknowledge that men are disenfranchised as well. However, many men and women will tend to have different problems for obvious reasons.
While this seems like a perfectly valid viewpoint, I don't think calling either thing a gender-specific problem is going to solve anything at all. I feel that the root of the problem for most of the "gender-specific" issues that equality activists bring up is either a natural tendency due to the actual biological differences between men and women, or not a gender-specific issue at all, but a societal problem.
For instance, the statistics showing men serve longer than women for a similar crime, show that this is particularly true for black males, whereas white males don't have it nearly as bad. Insofar as I could see (I admit I didn't read through the paper all that carefully), this accounts for a significant portion of the 63% more jailtime they found for men than women. Now I'm not saying that that is okay, but the root cause seems to be racism here, rather than sexism... and it is hardly news that black people are given longer jail sentences than white people: this is a very real problem that needs addressing.
On the feminist side, I still feel that women are not inherently blocked from becoming a CEO, but the current manner of leading a business requires characteristics that are generally associated with men, and not women. Not saying women cannot do that, but there are simply more men that fit the bill. Note that I'm not saying that the current general practice for running businesses is the right way, or even a good way, but it's not sexist that women don't have those positions: it's simply that it is more likely that the owner of the company will find the characteristics he is looking for in a CEO in a man, than in a woman.
|
On November 19 2013 02:04 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 02:01 Djzapz wrote:On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do. How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't.And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain. Because the Canadian system isn't universal?
Yes but I'm saying it's not a choice that can be made by the government itself. If people want to elect more women, more women need to run and get elected.
|
Northern Ireland25019 Posts
In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
|
On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
Yeah Wombat because men banning women's shit is how we'll progress in society.
Northern Ireland is not even a place that exists and I have no intention of getting murdered by a crazy woman who's in gossip withdrawal because of your shenanigans.
|
On November 19 2013 02:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 02:04 Grumbels wrote:On November 19 2013 02:01 Djzapz wrote:On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do. How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't.And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain. Because the Canadian system isn't universal? Yes but I'm saying it's not a choice that can be made by the government itself. If people want to elect more women, more women need to run and get elected.
Now I don't know about the Canadian system, but in Sweden the parties purposefully put women on the top of their lists. Unless you as a voter actively tick men on your ballot you will automatically get about even representation due to that. I had a research article turn up that dealt specifically with the differences between the Canadian and Swedish systems, but I never read it sínce it wasn't what I was looking for. I'm sure you can find it on scholar.google.com if you're interested.
|
On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
Oh god yes.
|
I say we end this discrimination with one simple action. Kill off every human being on the face of the planet so no one bumps nearly two year old threads. There, all human issues solved. You can thank me later.
On a more serious note. Lets put down the anger and dislike and pick up a nice good book and read about how to build rockets and further space travel.
On a non-derailing thread note:
There is a small % of women in the feminist movement (probably equivalent to the amount of men that think women shouldn't be allowed to vote) that think men cause all of societies problems. Interacting with those women causes people to think all feminists are like that. Sadly that is what the internet allows, for a small tiny group to make a lot of noise so people think that is the majority of the group.
This can be easily seen in the online community of where when I woman starts talking people go, "TITS! OMG! CHICK! MARRY ME!" and people mistake that for 90% of the male online community when in fact it is more like 5-10%.
|
On November 19 2013 03:00 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 02:10 Djzapz wrote:On November 19 2013 02:04 Grumbels wrote:On November 19 2013 02:01 Djzapz wrote:On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote:
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do. How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't.And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain. Because the Canadian system isn't universal? Yes but I'm saying it's not a choice that can be made by the government itself. If people want to elect more women, more women need to run and get elected. Now I don't know about the Canadian system, but in Sweden the parties purposefully put women on the top of their lists. Unless you as a voter actively tick men on your ballot you will automatically get about even representation due to that. I had a research article turn up that dealt specifically with the differences between the Canadian and Swedish systems, but I never read it sínce it wasn't what I was looking for. I'm sure you can find it on scholar.google.com if you're interested.
Well the bottomline is Sweden uses a proportional representation system whereas Canada uses a single winner representation system. In Canada, there are no 'lists' for MP's. The electorate is divided in circumscriptions. There are as many circumscriptions as there are seats in parliament. Each MP is elected in his circumscriptions, and the party with the most seats forms the government.
There is no way to 'put women at the top of the list' in this case, the best you can do is have more women run for your party in the circumscriptions where they're likely to win, but you can't easily do it. The parties could dump men in favor of women or slowly replace them, though. But they still need to be elected directly by the electorate of their specific circumscription.
|
On November 19 2013 02:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 00:33 Shiragaku wrote:On November 19 2013 00:28 Crushinator wrote:On November 19 2013 00:24 Shiragaku wrote:On November 19 2013 00:15 Crushinator wrote:On November 19 2013 00:04 Conti wrote:On November 18 2013 23:50 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 23:46 Conti wrote:On November 18 2013 23:37 Crushinator wrote:On November 18 2013 23:29 Conti wrote:
[quote]
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have. i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it. I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me. I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument. Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point? Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage. I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here. Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club. Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible.
Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP. Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes. I'm not sure if you can speak for all or even most feminists. But if you feel confident about that, then that is great and I would probably be happy to come out and call myself a feminist. I talk to feminists everyday and we talk about these kinds of issues every day. Our group is very diverse in ideology, but ALL of us acknowledge that men are disenfranchised as well. However, many men and women will tend to have different problems for obvious reasons. While this seems like a perfectly valid viewpoint, I don't think calling either thing a gender-specific problem is going to solve anything at all. I feel that the root of the problem for most of the "gender-specific" issues that equality activists bring up is either a natural tendency due to the actual biological differences between men and women, or not a gender-specific issue at all, but a societal problem. For instance, the statistics showing men serve longer than women for a similar crime, show that this is particularly true for black males, whereas white males don't have it nearly as bad. Insofar as I could see (I admit I didn't read through the paper all that carefully), this accounts for a significant portion of the 63% more jailtime they found for men than women. Now I'm not saying that that is okay, but the root cause seems to be racism here, rather than sexism... and it is hardly news that black people are given longer jail sentences than white people: this is a very real problem that needs addressing. On the feminist side, I still feel that women are not inherently blocked from becoming a CEO, but the current manner of leading a business requires characteristics that are generally associated with men, and not women. Not saying women cannot do that, but there are simply more men that fit the bill. Note that I'm not saying that the current general practice for running businesses is the right way, or even a good way, but it's not sexist that women don't have those positions: it's simply that it is more likely that the owner of the company will find the characteristics he is looking for in a CEO in a man, than in a woman.
Ah, I was mostly referring to portrayal in media and culture. I do agree with what you are saying for the most part though.
|
Northern Ireland25019 Posts
On November 19 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite. Yeah Wombat because men banning women's shit is how we'll progress in society. Northern Ireland is not even a place that exists and I have no intention of getting murdered by a crazy woman who's in gossip withdrawal because of your shenanigans.
An unfortunate but necessary consequence of my plan.
I'm being a bit facetious in that, obviously you couldn't do it. Not do on the positive effects though.
More women in Parliament? More CEOs? How many women respect or know of figures in these positions? At least in the UK (as NI doesn't exist after all) politicians are roundly despised, and bar people who keep an eye on such trends, female boardroom percentages mean fuck all to most people. The masses on the other hand, do spend an inordinate amount of time reading the aforementioned publications, and IMO are actually influenced by them. This is not to say that everyone who reads Cosmo becomes a blabbering moron, but there's an aggregative negative influence across society. Unless ofc you believe that media solely reflects society and doesn't shape it.
An oft neglected aspect of this equation is that it's not males in the corridors of power, but (to generalise)- white males, often from positions of socio-economic privileg.
Black and from a deprived area? Having a penis is not enough leverage to overcome the advantages likely to be enjoued by your equivalent white woman from the affluent suburbs.
Not to say you can't end up on top in such a situation. You can finish ahead, you're merely that you're starting the race a bit later. That narrative is fine for individual cases, but population-wide it's not a deficit that is always recovered.
|
On November 19 2013 04:04 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 02:55 Djzapz wrote:On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite. Yeah Wombat because men banning women's shit is how we'll progress in society. Northern Ireland is not even a place that exists and I have no intention of getting murdered by a crazy woman who's in gossip withdrawal because of your shenanigans. More women in Parliament? More CEOs? How many women respect or know of figures in these positions? At least in the UK (as NI doesn't exist after all) politicians are roundly despised, and bar people who keep an eye on such trends, female boardroom percentages mean fuck all to most people. The masses on the other hand, do spend an inordinate amount of time reading the aforementioned publications, and IMO are actually influenced by them. This is not to say that everyone who reads Cosmo becomes a blabbering moron, but there's an aggregative negative influence across society. Unless ofc you believe that media solely reflects society and doesn't shape it.
The proportion of women CEOs and MPs or representatives matters in that the lack of women in positions of power perpetuates the notion that men run the world. And it's kind of a problem. Public perception about politicians being dicks and general apathy doesn't really matter.
|
Northern Ireland25019 Posts
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
|
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
My big question is how do we reach that ideal though. I think a great society is one where we wouldn't artificially force a demographically representative society but where it could naturally converge toward that ideal, without ever reaching perfection (that would be strange). I could say the same about the representation of women in positions of power within private companies.
In other words, my question is, how do we facilitate the convergence toward more equality, without 'affirmative action' stuff that would 'oppress' men in favor of women. I could ask the same question about racially motivated discrimination and inequalities. Obviously it's a completely different can of worms and much of the issue can be traced back to social shit that needs to be worked on... The problem is a lot more complex to solve than people seem to give it credit.
And it's not a rhetorical question here, I truly don't have a solution and I keep dealing with women who think the simple fix is fuck men they've had it easy those chauvinistic bastard, and on the other side you have those good souls who are currently high as fuck 'don't worry man it'll figure itself out yo'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
