NationStates Jolt Archive

Feminism has been a re-occurring topic on this forum, and I've had the chance to read a wide range of views on it. Now, other than the few extreme opinions on both sides (like women shouldn't vote or work...and...well actually I haven't read any really extreme anti-men rhetoric, but I'm sure it's out there), most people seem pretty reasonable. One thing I keep coming across, however, is the qualifier, "I'm not a feminist, but...I believe in equal treatment." I'm a little unclear here.


Main Entry: fem•i•nism

Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Feminism is thus named because it began with the promotion of women's rights. Not women's rights OVER men's, but rather trying to bring women's rights up to par with men's. Things like voting, working outside the home, gaining representation in politics and so forth. The basis for feminism, however, is that the sexes should be treated EQUITABLY (fairly). This does not mean they should be treated EQUALLY (the same). We are all quite aware of the biological differences between men and women, though we may draw different conclusions from those differences. (some say women can't do heavy work, and others think many can) Feminists do not expect men to start giving birth, nor do they ask that all men stay home while women go out and work. Instead, they work from the reasonable premise that men and women, represented nearly evenly in the world's population, should be equal partners in all relationships, whether individual, or societal. Let me reiterate, aside from a few extremists, feminism does not advocate ONE over the OTHER. It asks for parity...a goal closer to being realised in the West than the developing world, but still one that does not truly exist in any nation on Earth.

Some people will continue to judge feminists by their more radical proponents...just as people will judge religions by their fanatics. The vast majority of feminists, both male and female, are not this silly. Some people just react to the word with an automatic distaste, more because of what they have heard about feminism, rather than an actual examination of it.

Perhaps feminism needs a name change...one that more obviously includes all genders (male, female, transgendered). A lot of men who agree with what feminism promotes don't want to be labeled "feminists". The fact that feminism is still a 'dirty word', however, disinclines me to push for any such name change. In the majority of the world, it is still women who need the most help in achieving equity, not men. That men are an essential component of this change should be self-evident...and I hope one day more men will feel proud to be called feminists.

In any case, I'm interested to find out from both men, women (and transgendered) what you think about gender equality. Please try to not judge feminism by a few radicals who want 'women holes' or who use 'womyn' to divest themselves of their male counterparts. Think about the actual concept of gender equity, and what you think about it.

I'm not a feminist but......Nothing. Equal rights should be banned. People should be judged by how they look the second they walk into a room and the first thing they say. Always judge a book by its cover.

I'm not a feminist but......Nothing. Equal rights should be banned. People should be judged by how they look the second they walk into a room and the first thing they say. Always judge a book by its cover.
:p
You have been judged.

:p
You have been judged.

And rightly so.

For an example of what feminism proposes:

Women have the right to choose how many children they will bear and care for. This means access to contraception, and it means not being forced into pregnancy (in many cases, just to produce a son).

Thoughts?

For an example of what feminism proposes:

Women have the right to choose how many children they will bear and care for. This means access to contraception, and it means not being forced into pregnancy (in many cases, just to produce a son).

Thoughts?
Why would anyone with half a brain oppose that. It means free love. Yay.

point is, its fine and dandy being a feminist agd nineteen and blonde - there's never going to be any real problems. its when one hits 45 and suddenly cannot rely on batting eyelashes that the glass curtain falls.....

For an example of what feminism proposes:

Women have the right to choose how many children they will bear and care for. This means access to contraception, and it means not being forced into pregnancy (in many cases, just to produce a son).

Thoughts?
I strongly endorse your statement. :)

The problem with the gender equality movement is that it moves for abolishing laws that limit the rights of women without recognizing that there are several laws that give women greater rights than men. True equality should be defined by abolishing all mention of gender in our base of laws except for a sing line in our constitution that says "Congress shall make no law that specifically limits one group or raises one group beyond others on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, religion, or place of birth."

point is, its fine and dandy being a feminist agd nineteen and blonde - there's never going to be any real problems. its when one hits 45 and suddenly cannot rely on batting eyelashes that the glass curtain falls.....

Apparently you haven't been to my college. I'm 19, (and was blonde) in a male-dominated major. I'm nearly certain that I am the only female sophomore in my major. Maybe it's because my major is computer-related. Of course, it's probably because the guys give us hell when they see us walk into a class.

For example, my first class with them was Freshman Seminar in the fall of 2003. When I walked in and sat down, the guys immediately started laughing. Finally, one walked over to me and said "I think you're in the wrong place. The Education and Nursing buildings are on the other side of campus." I glared at him, but I didn't say anything. The professor walked in about a minute later, looked dead at me, and said "Hey Bunny. How's it going?" Obviously, the guys shut up. Our professor was head of the department and a no-bullshit type of guy. He wasn't about to let the guys get away with another stupid stunt. During the previous week, when we had meetings with our major groups, at least nine other females requested major-change paperwork immediately afterward.

The only reason most of my professors are so protective of me is because of repeated sexual harassment reports -- one guy walked up to me in the hall,looked dead at me, and blurted out "nice boobs." I mean, where the hell did that come from?! Of course, the problem is most likely that I'm surrounded by college-aged males with no manners..or common sense. At any rate, things are still kind of ugly for a 19 yr old. I may not be losing employment opportunities because of my gender (I'm losing those because of financial aid), but I don't think having my breasts loudly complimented in the halls or having my ass grabbed on the way to class is any easier.

If radical feminists hate men so much why do they look like men?
On a more serious note, there's no reason why certain jobs should be split 50/50 among men and women. Their salaries within those jobs should be about equal, but with jobs like air traffic control, there are next to no women in that field, because their brains simply are not wired for it

Apparently you haven't been to my college. I'm 19, (and was blonde) in a male-dominated major. I'm nearly certain that I am the only female sophomore in my major. Maybe it's because my major is computer-related. Of course, it's probably because the guys give us hell when they see us walk into a class.

For example, my first class with them was Freshman Seminar in the fall of 2003. When I walked in and sat down, the guys immediately started laughing. Finally, one walked over to me and said "I think you're in the wrong place. The Education and Nursing buildings are on the other side of campus." I glared at him, but I didn't say anything. The professor walked in about a minute later, looked dead at me, and said "Hey Bunny. How's it going?"

The only reason most of my professors are so protective of me is because of repeated sexual harassment reports -- one guy walked up to me in the hall,looked dead at me, and blurted out "nice boobs." I mean, where the hell did that come from?! Of course, the problem is most likely that I'm surrounded by college-aged males with no manners..or common sense. At any rate, things are still kind of ugly for a 19 yr old. I may not be losing employment opportunities because of my gender (I'm losing those because of financial aid), but I don't think having my breasts loudly complimented in the halls or having my ass grabbed on the way to class is any easier.

Oh my God, that's terrible!! I didn't have it anywhere near as bad as you, thankfully (it probably helped that I studied Art History, which is almost all women!) but I do sort of know what you mean...my first day of orientation freshman year I heard two guys at a table next to mine in the student union saying, "You can totally handle physics, even my girlfriend got an A." Now that could have just been that the girl in question was dumb, but it left a bad taste in my mouth either way. I also had a sociology class (14 guys, 2 girls, male professor) in which the statement, "Maybe men are just smarter than women" went unchallenged by everyone except me, and the professor did not discourage this kind of sexist remark by classmates.

The laws have been amended a lot to help give women equality but anyone who thinks there's no discrimination against women anymore is fooling themself.

If radical feminists hate men so much why do they look like men?
On a more serious note, there's no reason why certain jobs should be split 50/50 among men and women. Their salaries within those jobs should be about equal, but with jobs like air traffic control, there are next to no women in that field, because their brains simply are not wired for it

Not true. Maybe the women who are interested in such work simply haven't heard of the job openings.

Oh my God, that's terrible!! I didn't have it anywhere near as bad as you, thankfully (it probably helped that I studied Art History, which is almost all women!) but I do sort of know what you mean...my first day of orientation freshman year I heard two guys at a table next to mine in the student union saying, "You can totally handle physics, even my girlfriend got an A." Now that could have just been that the girl in question was dumb, but it left a bad taste in my mouth either way. I also had a sociology class (14 guys, 2 girls, male professor) in which the statement, "Maybe men are just smarter than women" went unchallenged by everyone except me, and the professor did not discourage this kind of sexist remark by classmates.

The laws have been amended a lot to help give women equality but anyone who thinks there's no discrimination against women anymore is fooling themself.

I had a similar problem. We were working on something in our Honors Seminar, and the guys were all yapping and grunting about the website, and how "sweet" it was going to be when it was finished. I had repeatedly volunteered to do the html for the website, as long as they had the text and the graphics prepared. They rolled their eyes and said "Women can't make websites. Everyone knows you're not programmed that way." They never even started. When I put my laptop in front of them, they asked where FrontPage was -- these guys didn't know a bit of html. I finally snatched the computer back from them, grabbed the disks, and sat down on the floor, absolutely fuming as I worked on the site. I must admit, its layout was simple, but very clean, and it worked well with the graphics. They got an A.

The professors don't seem to be the problem here. They don't let me play dumb. When I bomb a test, I'm told "What the heck were you doing on this test? You knew this material in class -- you even taught a lesson!" The professors generally do the same thing to everyone who has an unusual grade change.

Unfortunately, men cannot produce babies. If men could, then there would be no need for us to have this debate. The basis of men wishing to subjugate women derives from their perceived ownership of the vessel which carries their offspring. Biologically, success for males is pinned on their ability to spread their seed. The more virile a male is, the more respect he gains for extending his family tree. A man feels satisfaction from successfully passing his traits and domain on to his offspring. Females of the species are the vessels that carry and nourish his young, and are biologically primed to fulfil this role (hence the origin of the feeling "I can feel my biological clock ticking"). Females may feel incomplete and devoid of purpose when unable to maintain this role.

Some men and women are able to overcome this simplified biological explanation of our base psyche. You may argue that these people are enlightened because both partners in the relationship are equals. However, the vast majority of men and women in the world aren't. Women allow men to degrade and subjugate them as second-class citizens whilst men feel that it is nothing out of the ordinary. We see this sometimes in those we perceive to be the strongest of females (e.g. Hiliary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Cherie Blair) who are prepared to do anything for the sake of their spouse, even when that spouse is abusive, less intelligent or a philanderer.

This psyche, because it is biologically derived, will always return to this state within a population unless there is an active education process for both males and females. Maintaining that women and men are biologically different and must serve one another within these biological roles, but with equal social rights is a basis of this education process. Feminism, in some sense makes this point. Sometimes, however, it oversteps it by saying that women do not require men or that women should be completely liberated without having to be chained to men through marriage or child-bearing. This is likely to lead to many unhappy men and women and probably greater social strife, if not the demise of those very feminists.

My two cents. What do you think?

Apparently you haven't been to my college. I'm 19, (and was blonde) in a male-dominated major. I'm nearly certain that I am the only female sophomore in my major. Maybe it's because my major is computer-related. Of course, it's probably because the guys give us hell when they see us walk into a class.

For example, my first class with them was Freshman Seminar in the fall of 2003. When I walked in and sat down, the guys immediately started laughing. Finally, one walked over to me and said "I think you're in the wrong place. The Education and Nursing buildings are on the other side of campus." I glared at him, but I didn't say anything. The professor walked in about a minute later, looked dead at me, and said "Hey Bunny. How's it going?" Obviously, the guys shut up. Our professor was head of the department and a no-bullshit type of guy. He wasn't about to let the guys get away with another stupid stunt. During the previous week, when we had meetings with our major groups, at least nine other females requested major-change paperwork immediately afterward.

The only reason most of my professors are so protective of me is because of repeated sexual harassment reports -- one guy walked up to me in the hall,looked dead at me, and blurted out "nice boobs." I mean, where the hell did that come from?! Of course, the problem is most likely that I'm surrounded by college-aged males with no manners..or common sense. At any rate, things are still kind of ugly for a 19 yr old. I may not be losing employment opportunities because of my gender (I'm losing those because of financial aid), but I don't think having my breasts loudly complimented in the halls or having my ass grabbed on the way to class is any easier.

Hmm, you sure you weren't accidentally in a middle school? It sounds like you were hanging around 15 year olds.

My mom's boss was a mysoginyst and so she quit her job and dragged me across the country for her new one, making me leave all my friends behind. Plus, it is also embarassing to share the same gender as though neanderthals at the college.

The problem with the gender equality movement is that it moves for abolishing laws that limit the rights of women without recognizing that there are several laws that give women greater rights than men. True equality should be defined by abolishing all mention of gender in our base of laws except for a sing line in our constitution that says "Congress shall make no law that specifically limits one group or raises one group beyond others on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, religion, or place of birth."

What laws exactly do you refer to that give women greater rights than men? Please be specific.

If radical feminists hate men so much why do they look like men?
On a more serious note, there's no reason why certain jobs should be split 50/50 among men and women. Their salaries within those jobs should be about equal, but with jobs like air traffic control, there are next to no women in that field, because their brains simply are not wired for it

Provide facts to back up this rather outrageous claim.

should be about equal

And why not completely equal?

This psyche, because it is biologically derived, will always return to this state within a population unless there is an active education process for both males and females. Maintaining that women and men are biologically different and must serve one another within these biological roles, but with equal social rights is a basis of this education process. Feminism, in some sense makes this point. Sometimes, however, it oversteps it by saying that women do not require men or that women should be completely liberated without having to be chained to men through marriage or child-bearing. This is likely to lead to many unhappy men and women and probably greater social strife, if not the demise of those very feminists.

My two cents. What do you think?

In most part, I agree in the sense that many of the societal restraints put upon men and women are justified by biology. Nonetheless, our physical differences do not make us less equal (in importance), simply different. When you speak of feminism overstepping its mandate, you are referring to the radicals...but you also raise a good point....no man or woman should be 'chained' to another in order to live. We must have the ability to choose and be an active partner in our relationships. That means not being pressured into marriage, or into being a parent, or into a particular career. I have that freedom...the freedom to choose my spouse (and that I wanted one) as well as the number of children I would bear. Many women (and men) do NOT have that choice, as these choices are made for them.

Edit: of course, I don't mean men are forced to bear children....but expectations exist as to the number and gender of children they will father.

Unfortunately, men cannot produce babies. If men could, then there would be no need for us to have this debate. The basis of men wishing to subjugate women derives from their perceived ownership of the vessel which carries their offspring. Biologically, success for males is pinned on their ability to spread their seed. The more virile a male is, the more respect he gains for extending his family tree. A man feels satisfaction from successfully passing his traits and domain on to his offspring. Females of the species are the vessels that carry and nourish his young, and are biologically primed to fulfil this role (hence the origin of the feeling "I can feel my biological clock ticking"). Females may feel incomplete and devoid of purpose when unable to maintain this role.

Some men and women are able to overcome this simplified biological explanation of our base psyche. You may argue that these people are enlightened because both partners in the relationship are equals. However, the vast majority of men and women in the world aren't. Women allow men to degrade and subjugate them as second-class citizens whilst men feel that it is nothing out of the ordinary. We see this sometimes in those we perceive to be the strongest of females (e.g. Hiliary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Cherie Blair) who are prepared to do anything for the sake of their spouse, even when that spouse is abusive, less intelligent or a philanderer.

This psyche, because it is biologically derived, will always return to this state within a population unless there is an active education process for both males and females. Maintaining that women and men are biologically different and must serve one another within these biological roles, but with equal social rights is a basis of this education process. Feminism, in some sense makes this point. Sometimes, however, it oversteps it by saying that women do not require men or that women should be completely liberated without having to be chained to men through marriage or child-bearing. This is likely to lead to many unhappy men and women and probably greater social strife, if not the demise of those very feminists.

My two cents. What do you think?

I think you make some interesting points, but I am more than just my biology. What separates humans from other animals is our advanced thought capabilities. This allows us to 'break' much of any 'biological programming' we may have, generally for the better. Reason is frequently preferable to instinct.

Also, I have no desire to have children (I'm 27 so I should be hearing ticking by now, presumably.) Why should society be permitted to punish me because many women have been taught that their purpose in life, their sole raison d'etre is to produce offspring, and have believed this? Or even to approach it from another angle, why, if childbearing and child-rearing is indeed such an essential role in society, are women and men who choose this role so undervalued? My mother stayed home to raise my sister and me, and no one will ever convince me that the years of actual hard work, physical, intellectual and emotional, is any less important, less valuable or less praiseworthy than medicine or law or plumbing or road construction or any 'paying' job. Why are these women penalised for this choice if they later attempt to re-enter the workplace? Why is childrearing dismissed as 'women's work', indicating that it is somehow less important and less honourable than 'man's work'; and why are men derided for choosing this important occupation themselves?

Besides, I don't think Hilary Clinton did anything for the sake of her spouse. She stayed with him for name recognition for her own campaign, I'm guessing, to keep herself in the public eye. It was a lot more PR than love, there. Cherie Blair, too - I doubt being married to the PM has hurt her law career any. She may well love and support him but there's something in it for her too. (Not to mention that I don't particularly consider either one to be a role model or the archetypal strong woman for me!)

The question of child-bearing needs to be examined as well from a social viewpoint...education has been shown to drastically reduce the number of children born in a particular nation. Even within that nation, higher birthrates occur among the poorer and less educated populations. In many nations of the West, we have a negative birthrate.

The reason for bearing many children is varied; from high infant mortality rates that mean only a percentage of children born will survive their first year, the need to have male offspring (so a woman must try until she 'gets it right), lack of contraceptives or education about contraceptives, and so on. When women (and men) are given choices, and are given education, the birthrate declines. This encourages people who genuinely want children to go ahead, without forcing those who do not wish offspring into it. Is this not a more desirable situation? It can not happen, however, without the empowerment of women to make choices about their reproduction.

Men and woman should be equal in the eyes of the law. Both should receive the same amount of rights and all that jazz. Hell, everyone should get the same amount of rights. Anything else is discrimination, which is kinda bad.

In any case, I'm interested to find out from both men, women (and transgendered) what you think about gender equality. Please try to not judge feminism by a few radicals who want 'women holes' or who use 'womyn' to divest themselves of their male counterparts. Think about the actual concept of gender equity, and what you think about it.

Equality in what sense? In terms of respect and value then all humans should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, age, disabilities, etc. However there are differences, physiological and psychological ones, between the genders, and trying to remove these is not a good idea IMAO.
Men are physically bigger and stronger than women, on average. (Only statistical, I know there are exceptions) Women have more stamina and psychological resilience than men. (Again, only statistical, exceptions exist)
This does not mean that men are better than women or that women are better than men, simply that they have different, and to a large degree complementary, abilities.

The social roles that have been traditional tend to reflect the physical and psychological diferences between the sexes, but these traditional roles have been abused by both sides in the feminism arguments. No, there is no reason why women have to stay at home and bring up the family, but then again there is no reason why men have to go out to work to earn the money.
Men can and do take on the role of homemaker, while their female partners take on the role of bread winner.

The new tradition of women taking time out of their careers to have children, has its origins in Biology, but has been extended by social concepts to mean longer than just the very last weeks of pregnancy and sufficient time to recover from the efforts of childbearing. The arguments that women do not get promoted as they take this time out may have some statistical validity, but it does not account for the whole story.

In my view, promotion should go to the person best fitted to the position available, consideration as to whether the person is female, male, transgendered, black, white, coloured, or green etc. is wrong. Only their ability to do what has to be done is relevant.

Equality in what sense? In terms of respect and value then all humans should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, age, disabilities, etc. However there are differences, physiological and psychological ones, between the genders, and trying to remove these is not a good idea IMAO.

No one should try and remove the natural differences between any two individuals, regardless of its origin - that is what makes them individuals.

Men are physically bigger and stronger than women, on average. (Only statistical, I know there are exceptions) Women have more stamina and psychological resilience than men. (Again, only statistical, exceptions exist)
This does not mean that men are better than women or that women are better than men, simply that they have different, and to a large degree complementary, abilities.

The problem comes in when people take those statistical averages and want to force people who don't necessarily meet the average into specified gender roles. Yes, men are (on average) bigger and stronger. However, those exceptions - the women who are bigger and stronger than many men, should not be excluded from work requiring physical labor simply because of their gender. And vice versa with typically female jobs.

In my view, promotion should go to the person best fitted to the position available, consideration as to whether the person is female, male, transgendered, black, white, coloured, or green etc. is wrong. Only their ability to do what has to be done is relevant.

Exactly. =)

Women have the right to participate in community affairs and hold political office if they are elected freely and democratically.

This seems to be a fair right, yet despite making up half the population of the world (actually, by most counts, 52%) there is only one country that represent men and women equally in government: Rwanda. That doesn't mean women are more equal in Rwanda by any means...representation is a mere step on the road. Nonetheless, it disturbs me that these are the following percentages of representation in the West:

Canada: 21% women
United Kingdom: 17.9%
United States of America: 14.9%

The top ten in terms of equitable representation are, from highest to lowest:
Rwanda, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Cuba, Spain, Costa Rica, Belgium and Austria.
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

So some nations seem to be working on this, while my own, and our closest neighbour have far to go.

The problem comes in when people take those statistical averages and want to force people who don't necessarily meet the average into specified gender roles. Yes, men are (on average) bigger and stronger. However, those exceptions - the women who are bigger and stronger than many men, should not be excluded from work requiring physical labor simply because of their gender. And vice versa with typically female jobs.

This does get a little more complicted. If there are conditions for women to work in these jobs, by this I mean seperate toilets/ bunking areas/ infrastructure in general, then ther is no reason why not. The same applies in reverse. But where these conditions do not exist, and to create them would be costly, I am thinking of things like deep sea fishing, offshore oil drilling etc., then there may be justification for a single sex employment program.

This does get a little more complicted. If there are conditions for women to work in these jobs, by this I mean seperate toilets/ bunking areas/ infrastructure in general, then ther is no reason why not. The same applies in reverse. But where these conditions do not exist, and to create them would be costly, I am thinking of things like deep sea fishing, offshore oil drilling etc., then there may be justification for a single sex employment program.

In truth, separate areas are not all that necessary. I've used the bathroom in the same toilet that a man uses, I've slept in the same room (or even the same bed) with a man I was not sexually involved with.

Women have the right to participate in community affairs and hold political office if they are elected freely and democratically.

This seems to be a fair right, yet despite making up half the population of the world (actually, by most counts, 52%) there is only one country that represent men and women equally in government: Rwanda. That doesn't mean women are more equal in Rwanda by any means...representation is a mere step on the road. Nonetheless, it disturbs me that these are the following percentages of representation in the West:

Canada: 21% women
United Kingdom: 17.9%
United States of America: 14.9%

The top ten in terms of equitable representation are, from highest to lowest:
Rwanda, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Cuba, Spain, Costa Rica, Belgium and Austria.
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

So some nations seem to be working on this, while my own, and our closest neighbour have far to go.


To be elected to office a women has to be a candidate. Before looking at the gender distribution for holders of elected office, perhaps you shoiuld look at the gender distribution for candidates for these offices. If there is a significant difference then you can come to the conclusion that the electorate may be sexist in its voting patterns. If there is no difference than you can only say that women have less interest in political power than men. in general.

In truth, separate areas are not all that necessary. I've used the bathroom in the same toilet that a man uses, I've slept in the same room (or even the same bed) with a man I was not sexually involved with.

You, as an individual, have that option. The employer, in law, does not. They have to provide seperate facilities once the number of employees goes above a threshold (I do not know what the number is), or only employ staff of one gender.

Crap, I didn't get to finish my witty delete; now it looks like I'm a racist.

I meant to imply that the term "feminist" does have a slight sexist connotation toward women, with the implication that they are helpless in a "fight for equality", at least in this day and age.


---------------
True, minorities and women aren't treated "equally" in most scenarios, (women get on average 73 cents per dollar in America), but that's a change that slowly takes course over time.

I don't forsee chivalry going away, though, because women deserve it, and estrogen is a bitch... (I think estrogen is what causes menstruation, menopause, etc.).

As is, however, the word feminism has been smeared with a negative label, much like welfare, however I presume that it would hurt more in the long run to give up the fight on its connotation than cede it to conservatives.
That way you don't runinto people calling feminists "feminists" and the cycle repeating.

To be elected to office a women has to be a candidate. Before looking at the gender distribution for holders of elected office, perhaps you shoiuld look at the gender distribution for candidates for these offices. If there is a significant difference then you can come to the conclusion that the electorate may be sexist in its voting patterns. If there is no difference than you can only say that women have less interest in political power than men. in general.

You would also have to go as far as the primaries for these positions. In many areas, a political party won't even try to run a woman, because they think it will disadvantage them. In other, more liberal areas (generally with more minorities), there is a high likelihood of females winning the primary and running.

Ok, so what? WOmen are different than men. Nowwe can spend all day trying to figure out how much and where but thats pointless. Look if you want to be treated equally, regardless of gender or color or anything else, you need to earn it. I do not have to treat you like my friends just because you want me to. Women who want equality need to earn it. Get those political offices, get those CEO jobs. Do not ask the government to make pretty laws that say you should get equal pay. THis is the same problem with affirmative action. It did not change the hearts and minds of people everywhere. IN fact imade a large part of the country resentful. A large non racist part of the country. Women have equality, they just need to act upon it. No legislation is going to change the heart.

You, as an individual, have that option. The employer, in law, does not. They have to provide seperate facilities once the number of employees goes above a threshold (I do not know what the number is), or only employ staff of one gender.

Then that is a problem with the law, not with the idea of equal employment policies. If a woman who meets all the requirements is fully informed that she will be sharing facilities with men, and still decides to go into that field, she should be allowed to do so. A grown woman doesn't need the government to babysit her all the time.

Note: Obviously, in a place where it would not be difficult to add facilities/extend them, this shouldn't be a problem - the facilities should be added. However, in the instances you mentioned, where space is lacking and it would be extremely difficult to add facilities, I am sure that exceptions to the rule are possible. If they are not, they certainly should be.

You would also have to go as far as the primaries for these positions. In many areas, a political party won't even try to run a woman, because they think it will disadvantage them. In other, more liberal areas (generally with more minorities), there is a high likelihood of females winning the primary and running.

Holders of elected office include sheriffs, local councellors etc. etc. No primaries involved, just put your name forward and try to get elected. (Pay the deposit to avoid too many cranks) If more women stood at this level, there would probably be an effect at the national level four years later.

I'd prefer a totally genderblind society, all genders paid same, have same rights etc. If a job is not suitable for most members of a sex, then most members of a sex probably won't pick that job.
Nice in theory of course, but that doesn't account for sexist chauvenist pigs/'feminazis' in positions of authority, like company bosses, and in micro-majorities, such as school classes.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Equality in what sense? In terms of respect and value then all humans should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, age, disabilities, etc. However there are differences, physiological and psychological ones, between the genders, and trying to remove these is not a good idea IMAO.

Men are physically bigger and stronger than women, on average. (Only statistical, I know there are exceptions) Women have more stamina and psychological resilience than men. (Again, only statistical, exceptions exist)
This does not mean that men are better than women or that women are better than men, simply that they have different, and to a large degree complementary, abilities.
That was addressed in the original post:
EQUITY: fair treatment
EQUALITY: same treatment...making people the same. That isn't what feminism is trying to do.

The social roles that have been traditional tend to reflect the physical and psychological diferences between the sexes, but these traditional roles have been abused by both sides in the feminism arguments. No, there is no reason why women have to stay at home and bring up the family, but then again there is no reason why men have to go out to work to earn the money. I'm not sure you're saying it is, but I wanted to make sure we are clear that feminism is not the reason men are often expected to go out and work. Feminism addresses this gender disparity by asking for equal partnerships...that means both the man and woman in a relationship (or woman and woman or man and man) need to decide who will do what. What needs to be factored in is the unpaid housework as well.

Men can and do take on the role of homemaker, while their female partners take on the role of bread winner. In the West. Not so in the majority of the world. Many women (and men) still do not have the ability to choose.

The new tradition of women taking time out of their careers to have children, has its origins in Biology, but has been extended by social concepts to mean longer than just the very last weeks of pregnancy and sufficient time to recover from the efforts of childbearing. The arguments that women do not get promoted as they take this time out may have some statistical validity, but it does not account for the whole story.

In my view, promotion should go to the person best fitted to the position available, consideration as to whether the person is female, male, transgendered, black, white, coloured, or green etc. is wrong. Only their ability to do what has to be done is relevant.
That is my opinion as well. It is, however, not the reality in ANY nation on Earth. In those nations where women are able to find work in the higher echelons where promotions are actually possible (as most women work piecemeal, or part time work, or in the low paid, no benefits sectors) she will still likely be judged by her ability to bear children. This judgment will be made informally, as it contravenes certain laws, but very often, this will be the choice: promote a woman who might take a year off every time she has a child, or the man who likely will not. This is not always the judgment made, but it does persist. As well, new rulings threaten women (in the Maritimes, Canada), allowing small businesses to lay off pregnant women or not guarantee the same position on their return if it is would place undue financial hardship upon the business. This is a slippery slope threatening protections for pregnant women that we have fought hard for. Most nations have no such protection, and being pregnant gets you turfed.

We need to work from our opinions on equity, and make them a reality. That is why feminism is still important.

You would also have to go as far as the primaries for these positions. In many areas, a political party won't even try to run a woman, because they think it will disadvantage them. In other, more liberal areas (generally with more minorities), there is a high likelihood of females winning the primary and running.

The reason that women are not in office is that there is no single way women vote. WOmen are all across the board just as men are. As opposed to affrican americans who generally vote democrat. Becasue off this, women do not feelthe need to elect women since they can be represented by men.
Also it does not matter what area you are in for a woman to get elected. Yes, every one mentions Hillary Clinton, but what a about Elizabeth Dole, she is very conservative and still got elected right?

Then that is a problem with the law, not with the idea of equal employment policies. If a woman who meets all the requirements is fully informed that she will be sharing facilities with men, and still decides to go into that field, she should be allowed to do so. A grown woman doesn't need the government to babysit her all the time.

The protection, I think, is not for the women who want to enter the field, but for the men who would not know how to deal with a woman working alongside them. A grown woman may not need babysitting, but grown men sometimes do. (I am one)

That was addressed in the original post:
EQUITY: fair treatment
EQUALITY: same treatment...making people the same. That isn't what feminism is trying to do.

I think it might be correct to say that equity is necessary in those areas that are related to basic biological differences between the genders. Obviously, there are things that are wholly different, and as such, should be treated differently, in as fair a manner as possible.

However, for those things which are not truly different between the genders, or are only different on a statistical average, *equality* should be the word we are looking for.

I believe I've mentioned this story in a different thread, but here it goes. I saw a program on the Discovery channel. They had two groups of soldiers trying to move a tank track up a hill. One group was all male, the other all female. The men hefted up the track and wrestled it up the hill by brute force. The women took the track apart and carried it piece by piece up the hill. the women only took a tiny bit longer and finished right behind the men in spite of having to reassemble the track. Women might have to make allowances for being smaller and lighter, but we're used to it and can usually think around it. Just because we don't do it the same way doesn't mean we can't do it.

Gender blind societies are dumb. Because then there is the assumption that everyone is the same. Also it puts pressure on groups to allow both men and women in them or hold high postions, i.e boy scouts, churches. If those groups do not believe in those ideas then they should not be pressured to do so. Otherwise this is not a very free society

The protection, I think, is not for the women who want to enter the field, but for the men who would not know how to deal with a woman working alongside them. A grown woman may not need babysitting, but grown men sometimes do. (I am one)

Of course, if grown men need babysitting, that is their problem, not that of the woman. Anything they do which can be construed as an attack upon the woman (which is what separate facilities are meant to avoid) should get them canned. After one or two of those, they'll shape up quick.

To be elected to office a women has to be a candidate. Before looking at the gender distribution for holders of elected office, perhaps you shoiuld look at the gender distribution for candidates for these offices. If there is a significant difference then you can come to the conclusion that the electorate may be sexist in its voting patterns. If there is no difference than you can only say that women have less interest in political power than men. in general.
I'm not talking necessarily about sexist voting practices (though it can be an issue). The point is rather that women are not entering the political arena, for all manner of reasons. It may be socially taboo or not encouraged...she may have no time to devote to politics if she is does the majority of household work....etc. As with many positions that woman are perfectly capable of holding, EVERY NATION ON EARTH pushes the genders to do 'gender-specific' work, based on tradition. To say that women have less interest in political power is like saying women have less interest in becoming electricians. It may be true because of societal expectations and grooming, but it isn't biologically so. When women have the ability and the support to gain political office, they will. When they are constantly judged because of their looks (while dumpy-looking men seem to do fine politically), or are unable to share their child-rearing and household duties with an understanding and supporting partner, their horizons narrow. Are women in Finland or Norway any different than women in Canada and the U.S? Are they more interested in politics? Or is there simply more access to the political realm for women in those nations?

I believe I've mentioned this story in a different thread, but here it goes. I saw a program on the Discovery channel. They had two groups of soldiers trying to move a tank track up a hill. One group was all male, the other all female. The men hefted up the track and wrestled it up the hill by brute force. The women took the track apart and carried it piece by piece up the hill. the women only took a tiny bit longer and finished right behind the men in spite of having to reassemble the track. Women might have to make allowances for being smaller and lighter, but we're used to it and can usually think around it. Just because we don't do it the same way doesn't mean we can't do it.

Thats a very nice story, unfortunatly you cannot tank an unconcious man apart in a burning building to get him out and put him back together after words. Thats just in case women wanted to be firemen who are not able to lift heavy things
Also, the men, knowing they could do it by brute force, thought perhaps that it was pointless to waste time taking it apart and then reassembling it. Just a thought

It may be socially taboo or not encouraged...she may have no time to devote to politics if she is does the majority of household work....etc. As with many positions that woman are perfectly capable of holding, EVERY NATION ON EARTH pushes the genders to do 'gender-specific' work, based on tradition. To say that women have less interest in political power is like saying women have less interest in becoming electricians.

Many eurompean ocuntries have had heads of state that were women. I think America is reluctant to elect women to that position but i do not think it is bad for the country. Trying to force it only breeds resentment

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]I believe I've mentioned this story in a different thread, but here it goes. I saw a program on the Discovery channel. They had two groups of soldiers trying to move a tank track up a hill. One group was all male, the other all female. The men hefted up the track and wrestled it up the hill by brute force. QUOTE]

Also try reassembling somthing under enemy fire. THEn its not so easy to do. Its not unreallistic to think that it could happen since they are soldiers is it?

Thats a very nice story, unfortunatly you cannot tank an unconcious man apart in a burning building to get him out and put him back together after words. Thats just in case women wanted to be firemen who are not able to lift heavy things

Fire-fighting is a job with set requirement which all applicants, whether male or female, should be required to meet. There are several jobs like this. My only issue is that people often say "Women should be firefighters because most women can't do X." Well, let's be perfectly truthful here - most people in general would be unable to lift a heavy man and carry him out of a burning building, that is why there are tests an applicant has to pass in the first place. As long as the same tests are given regardless of race, creed, color, gender, etc, there is no problem with having minimum requirements for such a job.

Ok, so what? WOmen are different than men. Nowwe can spend all day trying to figure out how much and where but thats pointless. Look if you want to be treated equally, regardless of gender or color or anything else, you need to earn it. I do not have to treat you like my friends just because you want me to. Women who want equality need to earn it. Get those political offices, get those CEO jobs. Do not ask the government to make pretty laws that say you should get equal pay. THis is the same problem with affirmative action. It did not change the hearts and minds of people everywhere. IN fact imade a large part of the country resentful. A large non racist part of the country. Women have equality, they just need to act upon it. No legislation is going to change the heart.
First of all, thank you, as this was the very argument I was hoping for.

Now, let's address your points.

1. You need to earn equality.
Equality can not be 'earned' when there are specific roadblocks in the way. A woman can not 'go out and get that CEO position' in a country where she is not allowed to work outside of the home, or even be educated to any extent. In nations where this work and education exists, barriers can still prevent women from 'earning' their equality. Women are discouraged from jobs that are non-traditional. They are torn between familial responsibilities, even when they have careers. Their partners are still not picking up the slack. When the conditions exist to allow women into the political and career arena, they do so, in droves. Some women will choose to stay home, as some men may. That work needs to be valued too. Do not complain that women (or minorities) are getting too much help, when for centuries, the odds have been against them. Saying that things are fine the way they are and that women are just (insert denigrating term here) is a nice way to avoid reality. Obstacles exist for women that do not exist for men. Remove them.

2. Women have equality, they just need to act upon it.
The majority of women on this earth have no where near the conditions we women in the West do, and WE IN THE WEST ARE STILL NOT EQUAL TO MEN. That means inequalities in political representation, pay for equal work, and percentage of household work (in a two-partner, two-career relationship). We in the west come the closest...but aren't quite there. The gap in most nations is phenomenal. No, we do not have equality, but damn it, we've fought for it, and we'll keep fighting until it happens.

Fire-fighting is a job with set requirement which all applicants, whether male or female, should be required to meet. There are several jobs like this. My only issue is that people often say "Women should be firefighters because most women can't do X." Well, let's be perfectly truthful here - most people in general would be unable to lift a heavy man and carry him out of a burning building, that is why there are tests an applicant has to pass in the first place. As long as the same tests are given regardless of race, creed, color, gender, etc, there is no problem with having minimum requirements for such a job.


I totally agree. I am not givin g anyone a pass regardless of whats between their legs. I just do not like it when certain feminists are saying its sexist when a fire company wilkl not let a woman join the force because she is incapable. This happened in my hometown of MAdison wisconsin.

I think it might be correct to say that equity is necessary in those areas that are related to basic biological differences between the genders. Obviously, there are things that are wholly different, and as such, should be treated differently, in as fair a manner as possible.

However, for those things which are not truly different between the genders, or are only different on a statistical average, *equality* should be the word we are looking for.
Agreed. I just tire of the argument that goes: women and men are different physically, so feminists just want women and men to be exactly the same physical...that's what equality means.

Your definition is much more reasonable.

I'm not sure you're saying it is, but I wanted to make sure we are clear that feminism is not the reason men are often expected to go out and work. Feminism addresses this gender disparity by asking for equal partnerships...that means both the man and woman in a relationship (or woman and woman or man and man) need to decide who will do what. What needs to be factored in is the unpaid housework as well.

I would prefer you to use the word fair, in place of equal. Too many people consider equality to mean identity, equality means I am the same as you. With this slight change I agree with you. I was simply arguing that the social roles are imposed on both genders, so for these to become fair, it is not just the social roles of women that has to be reviewed, but that of men as well.

In the West. Not so in the majority of the world. Many women (and men) still do not have the ability to choose.

True, but the discussion of feminism, equality, fairness etc. is something that requires a basis of a culture that values these things. If your culture does not, then this discuission is simply meaningless.


That is my opinion as well. It is, however, not the reality in ANY nation on Earth.

When did nations start deciding who to promote. These decisions depend upon the culture of the company/corporation not upon the nationality. I am not an expert in corporate culture, but I am sure that some enlightened company, somewher on Earth, does have a policy like this.

In those nations where women are able to find work in the higher echelons where promotions are actually possible (as most women work piecemeal, or part time work, or in the low paid, no benefits sectors) she will still likely be judged by her ability to bear children.

I do have to point out that most work, period is now peicework, low paid, part time and without benefits. Yes this affects women, but it also affects men. I differ to think that in cultures where women do have the higher echelons open to them they will be judged by the number of children, except by an older, more traditional, generation of women, for whom this was a value. It is typical here, in Brazil, for grandmothers to judge women by their families, but for their husbands, sons, colleagues, and even grandfathers, to judge them on a much wider spectrum of factors.

This judgment will be made informally, as it contravenes certain laws, but very often, this will be the choice: promote a woman who might take a year off every time she has a child, or the man who likely will not. This is not always the judgment made, but it does persist. As well, new rulings threaten women (in the Maritimes, Canada), allowing small businesses to lay off pregnant women or not guarantee the same position on their return if it is would place undue financial hardship upon the business. This is a slippery slope threatening protections for pregnant women that we have fought hard for. Most nations have no such protection, and being pregnant gets you turfed.

A suggestion, do as Germany does and give paternity leave, equivalent to the maternity leave. This would surely end this unfairness. If there still remained a diference, as there does in Germany, the cause of this must lie elsewhere.

We need to work from our opinions on equity, and make them a reality. That is why feminism is still important.

The problem is fundamentally that the name has been hijacked by radicals, on both sides. I prefer to work for Humanism.

ba bla bla bla bla bla psychobabble bla bla

OH you want straight talk? Ok look at a woman, look at a man, note the differences. Everyone deep down knows the strengths and weaknesses of the other sex, this is a silly thread......

Apparently you haven't been to my college. I'm 19, (and was blonde) in a male-dominated major. I'm nearly certain that I am the only female sophomore in my major. Maybe it's because my major is computer-related. Of course, it's probably because the guys give us hell when they see us walk into a class.

For example, my first class with them was Freshman Seminar in the fall of 2003. When I walked in and sat down, the guys immediately started laughing. Finally, one walked over to me and said "I think you're in the wrong place. The Education and Nursing buildings are on the other side of campus." I glared at him, but I didn't say anything. The professor walked in about a minute later, looked dead at me, and said "Hey Bunny. How's it going?" Obviously, the guys shut up. Our professor was head of the department and a no-bullshit type of guy. He wasn't about to let the guys get away with another stupid stunt. During the previous week, when we had meetings with our major groups, at least nine other females requested major-change paperwork immediately afterward.

The only reason most of my professors are so protective of me is because of repeated sexual harassment reports -- one guy walked up to me in the hall,looked dead at me, and blurted out "nice boobs." I mean, where the hell did that come from?! Of course, the problem is most likely that I'm surrounded by college-aged males with no manners..or common sense. At any rate, things are still kind of ugly for a 19 yr old. I may not be losing employment opportunities because of my gender (I'm losing those because of financial aid), but I don't think having my breasts loudly complimented in the halls or having my ass grabbed on the way to class is any easier.
Where do you go to school? My electrical engineering major had about 25% females. So, for certain classes (like wireless communications) there would be 2 females and 18 males. For others (like circuits) there would be 15 females and 5 males. My math major probably had more females than males.

I never witnessed anything of the sort that you describe. In fact, the only extremist that I've encountered in this issue was somebody who called herself a feminist. Any good points she had to make were completely clouded by the fact that she was evil. The feminists in my dorm hated her. One particular conversation has stuck with me, though I can assure you that there were much worse things that she did.

At the beginning of my freshman year, my dorm had a barbecue by the lake so that everybody could get to know each other. There were 37 of us (21 males, 16 females) and some faculty, so this is actually possible. Anyway, this girl was talking to a few people that I'd been spending time with earlier in the week, so I walked over to see what they were talking about. She was complaining that girls weren't welcome at our ultimate frisbee games. I pointed out that Karen played in both of the games that I'd played. Her response was "well, Karen's a man."

ba bla bla bla bla bla psychobabble bla bla

OH you want straight talk? Ok look at a woman, look at a man, note the differences. Everyone deep down knows the strengths and weaknesses of the other sex, this is a silly thread......

If the subject of discussion is so silly, why has it been a major social issue in the Western World for the last 35 years at least. If something is unfair, to discuss it, and to try and eliminate this unfairnes does not seem, to me anyway, like ba bla bla bla bla psychobabble.

Look at woman, look at man, note the differences, now explain the unfair treatment of both, based on these differences. If you can you are a far wiser man than I Gunga Din

First of all, thank you, as this was the very argument I was hoping for.

Now, let's address your points.

1. You need to earn equality.
Equality can not be 'earned' when there are specific roadblocks in the way. A woman can not 'go out and get that CEO position' in a country where she is not allowed to work outside of the home, or even be educated to any extent. In nations where this work and education exists, barriers can still prevent women from 'earning' their equality. Women are discouraged from jobs that are non-traditional. They are torn between familial responsibilities, even when they have careers. Their partners are still not picking up the slack. When the conditions exist to allow women into the political and career arena, they do so, in droves. Some women will choose to stay home, as some men may. That work needs to be valued too. Do not complain that women (or minorities) are getting too much help, when for centuries, the odds have been against them. Saying that things are fine the way they are and that women are just (insert denigrating term here) is a nice way to avoid reality. Obstacles exist for women that do not exist for men. Remove them.

2. Women have equality, they just need to act upon it.
The majority of women on this earth have no where near the conditions we women in the West do, and WE IN THE WEST ARE STILL NOT EQUAL TO MEN. That means inequalities in political representation, pay for equal work, and percentage of household work (in a two-partner, two-career relationship). We in the west come the closest...but aren't quite there. The gap in most nations is phenomenal. No, we do not have equality, but damn it, we've fought for it, and we'll keep fighting until it happens.

Women should nto get help any more than the irish or italians or any other ethnic group got help when they immigrated to america. Those peoples earned there respect in America, the government did not sign a bill to allowthem good jobs. They had to start at the bottom like every on else, then eventually they earned their way up. Many obstacles existed for man of all races and ethnicities through out history. Passing bills did not fix it, wokring to that top did.

In regards to paragraph two i meant america is where women have equality. They have the vote and the right to work and leave work for motherhood.Now if women want equal pay as men, they have to get those big jobs and then demand it from the companies. The government cannot hold her hand through the whole process. Its like the kids playing kickball or something. Nobody likes the kids who tattles do they? It may sound mean, butthey have to earn their stripes. If a woman is qualified, i have no problem letting her be in charge, but i do if the government enacts legislation for an unqualified woman to get a job. I would also hate an unqualified man. Its based on merits not gender, and definatly not legislation

If the subject of discussion is so silly, why has it been a major social issue in the Western World for the last 35 years at least. If something is unfair, to discuss it, and to try and eliminate this unfairnes does not seem, to me anyway, like ba bla bla bla bla psychobabble.

Look at woman, look at man, note the differences, now explain the unfair treatment of both, based on these differences. If you can you are a far wiser man than I Gunga Din

I am, and I don't even know who Gunga Din is!

well i guess i gotta go. but it was fun guys ... thanks and bye

I would prefer you to use the word fair, in place of equal. Too many people consider equality to mean identity, equality means I am the same as you. With this slight change I agree with you. I was simply arguing that the social roles are imposed on both genders, so for these to become fair, it is not just the social roles of women that has to be reviewed, but that of men as well.
Men absolutely need to have their gender roles reexamined. Most feminists (now, anyway) realise this. We can't be raising our daughters with the idea that they can do anything they want, all the while teaching our sons that they must continue to be 'tough and work hard and hold in their feelings'. The gender roles forced on men can be extremely damaging.


True, but the discussion of feminism, equality, fairness etc. is something that requires a basis of a culture that values these things. If your culture does not, then this discuission is simply meaningless.
No discussion is meaningless, and some of the greatest leaps in women's rights have happened in the developing world. It is precisely in those societies that are most stifling towards women that the greatest possibilities exist. If your culture does not value these things, women (and men) FIGHT to make them valued. Just look at our own culture...women of my grandmother's generation were trailblazers if they worked outside of the home. For many of us now, it's taken for granted. We absolutely must take into account of those people struggling under harsher circumstances...they need our support, and we need their wisdom.


When did nations start deciding who to promote. These decisions depend upon the culture of the company/corporation not upon the nationality. I am not an expert in corporate culture, but I am sure that some enlightened company, somewher on Earth, does have a policy like this.
Is Rwandan culture so similar to Finnish culture? We live in a world of nation states, and national identity is a very important factor in societal identity. "Peruvian women stay home, damn it, not like those Yanky women!" Culture and nationality are linked, however wrongly, and do have an impact. Nations decide who gets promoted when they allow legislation that prevents women from achieving higher positions. They decide who gets promoted when they allow societal restraints to interfere with a woman's ability to gain office.



I do have to point out that most work, period is now peicework, low paid, part time and without benefits. Yes this affects women, but it also affects men.

Just some stats for you on this:

- 70% of the 1.5 billion people living on $1 a day or less are women.
- Worldwide, women earn on average only slightly over 50% of male earnings.
- Most of the work done by women around the world goes unpaid and unrecognised.
- In Japan and the U.S, women make up 70% of part-time workers.
- during the Asian economic crisis of 1998, 10,000 workers, most of them women, were laid off every day in South Korea (pointing to the insecurity of low paid, piecemeil work).
The feminization of poverty, Factsheet no.1, United Nations.



A suggestion, do as Germany does and give paternity leave, equivalent to the maternity leave. This would surely end this unfairness. If there still remained a diference, as there does in Germany, the cause of this must lie elsewhere.
I absolutely agree that parental leave should equal maternity leave. This is a pet peeve of mine.

The problem is fundamentally that the name has been hijacked by radicals, on both sides. I prefer to work for Humanism. Sorry...but humanism also has a terrible reputation. Whatever you call it, it is still trying to achieve gender equity.

Gender is a social construct and a useless one at that.

[QUOTE=Bitchkitten]I believe I've mentioned this story in a different thread, but here it goes. I saw a program on the Discovery channel. They had two groups of soldiers trying to move a tank track up a hill. One group was all male, the other all female. The men hefted up the track and wrestled it up the hill by brute force. QUOTE]

Also try reassembling somthing under enemy fire. THEn its not so easy to do. Its not unreallistic to think that it could happen since they are soldiers is it?
Just pointing out that sometimes there are ways around not being strong. Perhaps all soldiers should be 6'9" and be able to bench press 400 pounds.

Gender is a social construct and a useless one at that.

It is not useless. We humans have this nasty habit of wanting to belong to groups. Gender is another one of these groupings that we socially construct wso we do not feel so totally alone and isolated. Yeah, I am a man. This identifies me as being part of a group with some 48+% of the rest of humanity. Now I feel good.

It has however been misused, in the same way as almost all other group identifications have.

Women should nto get help any more than the irish or italians or any other ethnic group got help when they immigrated to america. Those peoples earned there respect in America, the government did not sign a bill to allowthem good jobs. They had to start at the bottom like every on else, then eventually they earned their way up. Many obstacles existed for man of all races and ethnicities through out history. Passing bills did not fix it, wokring to that top did.

In regards to paragraph two i meant america is where women have equality. They have the vote and the right to work and leave work for motherhood.Now if women want equal pay as men, they have to get those big jobs and then demand it from the companies. The government cannot hold her hand through the whole process. Its like the kids playing kickball or something. Nobody likes the kids who tattles do they? It may sound mean, butthey have to earn their stripes. If a woman is qualified, i have no problem letting her be in charge, but i do if the government enacts legislation for an unqualified woman to get a job. I would also hate an unqualified man. Its based on merits not gender, and definatly not legislation

Go back and reread my post. I adressed all this.

Remove the barriers.

What part of that bothers you? Nowhere did I say, "remove the barriers AND fund/train/hold hands with the women so they can achieve greatness". You seem unable to even recognise those barriers, so this is why it may be hard to imagine how they are stopping women from doing as you say. Those barriers include:

1. Lack of reproductive education
- a woman is generally the one who is more permanently affected by an unwanted pregnancy. BOTH sides are to blame, yet it is rarely the man who can no longer go to school, or get vocational training because he has to raise the child.

2. Lack of education
- for the reason noted above, many women never get the chance to gain the education necessary for highly paid positions. Again, BOTH parties were culpable, yet rarely do both pay the price.

3. Gender expectations
- women are entering the workforce at an unprecedented rate, yet nowhere does the national average for household work equal 50% between partners. All that unpaid housework takes a toll...and often leaves women with less time for careers. As well, despite the opening up of career choices, many vocations are still decidedly occupied by men. Upper management positions and the like. Why? Good question...you choose to blame it on the women, I choose to try and find what is keeping women out. The glass ceiling exists because of cronyism, and subjective hiring practices. This is a difficult obstacle to remove, but we should still be striving to do so.

These are just some of the obstacles facing "American" (by which I think you mean Western) women. It is by no means a complete list, nor does it apply to every woman or man. We are talking about trends, not individual cases.

In the developing world, the obstacles are much more firmly entrenched in law, and in society. No hands outs required. Again:

Remove the obstacles.

Apparently you haven't been to my college. I'm 19, (and was blonde) in a male-dominated major. I'm nearly certain that I am the only female sophomore in my major. Maybe it's because my major is computer-related. Of course, it's probably because the guys give us hell when they see us walk into a class.

For example, my first class with them was Freshman Seminar in the fall of 2003. When I walked in and sat down, the guys immediately started laughing. Finally, one walked over to me and said "I think you're in the wrong place. The Education and Nursing buildings are on the other side of campus." I glared at him, but I didn't say anything. The professor walked in about a minute later, looked dead at me, and said "Hey Bunny. How's it going?" Obviously, the guys shut up. Our professor was head of the department and a no-bullshit type of guy. He wasn't about to let the guys get away with another stupid stunt. During the previous week, when we had meetings with our major groups, at least nine other females requested major-change paperwork immediately afterward.

The only reason most of my professors are so protective of me is because of repeated sexual harassment reports -- one guy walked up to me in the hall,looked dead at me, and blurted out "nice boobs." I mean, where the hell did that come from?! Of course, the problem is most likely that I'm surrounded by college-aged males with no manners..or common sense. At any rate, things are still kind of ugly for a 19 yr old. I may not be losing employment opportunities because of my gender (I'm losing those because of financial aid), but I don't think having my breasts loudly complimented in the halls or having my ass grabbed on the way to class is any easier.
i've never dealt with anything that bad. i'm a minority in my major (there are like 3 girls in most of my classes...yay physics) anyways, the only harassment i've received is in the workplace during the summer.

i worked in a warehouse for a couple weeks through an agency and some guy would keep coming up to me and he would always talk to me and one day he goes "nice shirt" and liberally stares at my tits and in my way so i couldn't get back to my work. he later annoyed the hell out of me in the break room when i was reading dracula by describing a movie he had on dracula that sounded vaguely like a porno from the way he described it. fortunately, i had to go back to school and had a reason to leave my employment there after two weeks.

I'm not a feminist but I think that women should get the same pay as a male does if they work in the same postions, have the same rank that is, and have the same education as the other, thats only fair really.
However I do not think that a woman should get a job good or bad in politics or not just because she is a woman, that is not fair.
The best man or woman for the job, whatever it is, is fair but if men are in the majority even after that then they will still say that there is not gender equality in the workplace or the nation for that matter.
If feminists want equality then males should have it too, do you have any idea how often a mother is picked over the father when it comes to seperation of parants? It is not like the kids have a say but this is a nother issue but it was meant to give you an idea.

For the record, I consider myself a feminist. That said, I would like to make a point that may seem to the contrary.

I believe that affirmative action should not apply to any entity other than the government (and those that receive funding from it). Other entities should be free to discriminate as wildly as they choose. They will either change their policies on their own accord or be replaced by more efficient entities that don't have those policies. That's the way the free market works. Yes, it will take time, and that's sad. However, I would prefer to let people change their own minds than to discriminate against them (and others) for their beliefs. Besides, these laws don't really do much for the "victims," anyway. At best, people tell them that they're only allowed because of affirmative action.

If you want to make a difference, there are some options. You can use the media to point out inequities. Further, you may organize boycotts. Alternatively, you can endorse the competition or make some yourself.

If radical feminists hate men so much why do they look like men?
Well, that was uncalled for.
On a more serious note, there's no reason why certain jobs should be split 50/50 among men and women. Their salaries within those jobs should be about equal, but with jobs like air traffic control, there are next to no women in that field, because their brains simply are not wired for it
Proof?
I doubt it.

1) Women have equality of law (at least in most first world nations, I cant speek for everywhere), so they should stop complaining. There is no inequality in terms of pay or employment that cannot be delt with in the courts. So when I hear "Wa wa women dont get payed the same" I know that just means they arn't using the system properly. Not that the system itself is flawed

2) Women do not have equality of social perception, but no one has that so thats nothing to complain about. Every group of every kind has a good perception and a bad perception, so they should stop complaining about their bad perception.

3) I've heard the "women are sex objects to men" arguement to many times to count. Anyone heard of that coca cola advert with the 11:30 apointment in the building and the guy on that rising platform... (my point being that both sides are just as guilty of that)

I'm not a feminist but I think that women should get the same pay as a male does if they work in the same postions, have the same rank that is, and have the same education as the other, thats only fair really.
Yes.
However I do not think that a woman should get a job good or bad in politics or not just because she is a woman, that is not fair. No one is asking for that. We are asking for the barriers that prevent women from entering politics to be removed.
The best man or woman for the job, whatever it is, is fair but if men are in the majority even after that then they will still say that there is not gender equality in the workplace or the nation for that matter. Well, this is an experiment that has never truly been tried, so we can't know if men would still be in the majority if equality was reached.

If feminists want equality then males should have it too, do you have any idea how often a mother is picked over the father when it comes to seperation of parants? It is not like the kids have a say but this is a nother issue but it was meant to give you an idea. Divorce is often brought up as an example of how women are preferred over men. The numbers don't support it. I'll wait for someone else to look up the stats...I wish I'd saved the last post where someone did just that. In the West, the child's best interests are what are taken into consideration BY LAW. Do some men get screwed? Yes, but so do women. That is a problem with the justice system. Now, in the majority of the world, women have no rights to their children if they leave their husband, or their husband leaves them. The children automatically belong to the father. Either situation is wrong. However, unless you can prove that men get screwed more often in the West than women, I don't think I need to defend my position.

For the record, I consider myself a feminist. That said, I would like to make a point that may seem to the contrary.

I believe that affirmative action should not apply to any entity other than the government (and those that receive funding from it). Other entities should be free to discriminate as wildly as they choose. They will either change their policies on their own accord or be replaced by more efficient entities that don't have those policies. That's the way the free market works. Yes, it will take time, and that's sad. However, I would prefer to let people change their own minds than to discriminate against them (and others) for their beliefs. Besides, these laws don't really do much for the "victims," anyway. At best, people tell them that they're only allowed because of affirmative action.

If you want to make a difference, there are some options. You can use the media to point out inequities. Further, you may organize boycotts. Alternatively, you can endorse the competition or make some yourself.
I don't think you contradict yourself...you merely point out that your politics of feminism differ than, say, mine. Feminists have a wide variety of political opinions, which I'm happy you are pointing out. Feminists are not a single entity.

ba bla bla bla bla bla psychobabble bla bla

OH you want straight talk? Ok look at a woman, look at a man, note the differences. Everyone deep down knows the strengths and weaknesses of the other sex, this is a silly thread......
That was uncalled for. This thread asked a question. Maybe answer it?

1) Women have equality of law (at least in most first world nations, I cant speek for everywhere), so they should stop complaining. There is no inequality in terms of pay or employment that cannot be delt with in the courts. So when I hear "Wa wa women dont get payed the same" I know that just means they arn't using the system properly. Not that the system itself is flawed
Right...we aren't paid the same overall because we're too lazy to use the system. Inequality is a problem caused by women.

2) Women do not have equality of social perception, but no one has that so thats nothing to complain about. Every group of every kind has a good perception and a bad perception, so they should stop complaining about their bad perception.
Yes...segregation was a problem of perception, not of institutionalised racism. Gender inequality is the same thing of course...bad perception. If we just 'thought more positive' life would be grand.

3) I've heard the "women are sex objects to men" arguement to many times to count. Anyone heard of that coca cola advert with the 11:30 apointment in the building and the guy on that rising platform... (my point being that both sides are just as guilty of that)
The vast majority of advertising exploits women, not the other way around. Turning that right around is not the goal either. Both sides are NOT just as guilty of that.

You have not once addressed the specific obstacles I mentioned.

Divorce is often brought up as an example of how women are preferred over men. The numbers don't support it.

*Ahem*

In the UK 95% of divorce cases custody is given to the mother.

*Ahem*

In the UK 95% of divorce cases custody is given to the mother.
Source?

I believe that affirmative action should not apply to any entity other than the government (and those that receive funding from it).

I would add to this list those companies/corporations that bill themselves as public. However, if your down-home convenience store only wants to hire men, so be it - I hope women boycott the hell out of it.

Besides, these laws don't really do much for the "victims," anyway. At best, people tell them that they're only allowed because of affirmative action.

There is a large difference between affirmative action in the terms that most people use - which often refers to set quotas - "You must hire X% women, etc.". Obviously, this can lead to less qualified people being hired just to fill a quota and would lead to the comment you quoted.

However, affirmative action in the current legal sense, which refers to equal hiring practices and an attempt to break down the barriers to which Sinhue is referring, is a different idea altogether. I would never suggest that anyone get any job simply due to race/gender/etc. However, if it can be shown that a public-type company is turning away equally qualified candidates on the basis of such traits, there should be legal recourse for that.

Like any theory...its what religons are based upon.
As for organized activities...it keeps the balance.
'The Presidency has spoken'

Right...we aren't paid the same overall because we're too lazy to use the system. Inequality is a problem caused by women.

Yes...segregation was a problem of perception, not of institutionalised racism. Gender inequality is the same thing of course...bad perception. If we just 'thought more positive' life would be grand.

The vast majority of advertising exploits women, not the other way around. Turning that right around is not the goal either. Both sides are NOT just as guilty of that.

You have not once addressed the specific obstacles I mentioned.

Please don't feed the trolls.

To the people commenting about physical strength standards in the military and firefighting (etc).

I find it interesting that in North America our strength standards are set so high that immigrants from other countries frequently fail to meet those standards when they try out. It is a fact that the average size of many Asians is much smaller than that of Caucasians (although the children of immigrants who eat a North American diet tend to be as large as any other North American).

Yet those Asian countries all have competent firefighters and military forces. To me the question is - why? Their equipment isn't lighter. A hose full of water is still the same weight in China as it is in the US. Water pressure may differ from country to country, but I'm not sure it makes that much difference. And firefighters in China still have to be able to maneuver 300 lb overweight people down ladders or narrow stairwells. Their military still needs to be able to carry their equipment, supplies, and ammunition. And their weapons aren't made by Mattel.

So how do they make up the difference in size and strength with their North American counterparts? To me it seems obvious that the difference must be made up somehow. Better teamwork? Better practical applications of intelligence? Better problem-solving? I don't know. But the average East Asian doesn't need to be 6'1", and 200 lbs to do the job in their home country. So why do North Americans need to meet those standards? And don't tell me it's just because the average North American is larger than the average Asian when you have to pack them out of a burning building. An overweight person is an overweight person, and plenty of them exist in Asia as well.

Let me know when you have an answer, or happen to live in an Asian country and do know how it works. I'm interested.

However I do not think that a woman should get a job good or bad in politics or not just because she is a woman, that is not fair.
No one is asking for that. We are asking for the barriers that prevent women from entering politics to be removed.


So who is supposed to do what to provide this?
To equalize things women have to enter the political game, there are no barriers to this, there are no quotas, limitations or anything else that prevents women from being more politically active. The only thing stopping them is themselves.

So who is supposed to do what to provide this?
To equalize things women have to enter the political game, there are no barriers to this, there are no quotas, limitations or anything else that prevents women from being more politically active. The only thing stopping them is themselves.
And the voters.

And the voters.

And the way they were taught.

If you were told from birth that something was just not your area, you would be much, much less likely to go into it. If the only people you ever saw in said area were very different from you, you would be much, much less likely to go into it. The answer here? Education.

Yet those Asian countries all have competent firefighters and military forces. To me the question is - why? Their equipment isn't lighter. A hose full of water is still the same weight in China as it is in the US. Water pressure may differ from country to country, but I'm not sure it makes that much difference. And firefighters in China still have to be able to maneuver 300 lb overweight people down ladders or narrow stairwells. Their military still needs to be able to carry their equipment, supplies, and ammunition. And their weapons aren't made by Mattel.

So how do they make up the difference in size and strength with their North American counterparts? To me it seems obvious that the difference must be made up somehow. Better teamwork? Better practical applications of intelligence? Better problem-solving? I don't know. But the average East Asian doesn't need to be 6'1", and 200 lbs to do the job in their home country. So why do North Americans need to meet those standards? And don't tell me it's just because the average North American is larger than the average Asian when you have to pack them out of a burning building. An overweight person is an overweight person, and plenty of them exist in Asia as well.

Let me know when you have an answer, or happen to live in an Asian country and do know how it works. I'm interested.

I can not speak for Asia, but in South America the average sizes are also smaller. For firemen, the problem is not the equipment, 100lbs of hose or whatever, it is the average size of the person that needs to be rescued. In the USA a fireman that can handle a 300lb person, will occasionally encounter the 450lb victim that is too much for him by himself. The same is true of the 300 pounder in China, of in Brazil, they are the exception, and you do not build your criteria for those that lie outside of two SDs from the average.

If you can move a 200lb person, here, that is sufficient for the vast majority of cases. So there would be no problem having US women in our fire fighting service.

You have not once addressed the specific obstacles I mentioned.

Well I didnt quote you so I didn't say that I was going to (No problem there then). If I had quoted you and said "This is how I'm dealing with your points" then yes I see your problem, but I didnt say that.

Right...we aren't paid the same overall because we're too lazy to use the system. Inequality is a problem caused by women.

Feminists, will you get it through your skulls. For the same job in the same company, men and women have to have equal pay. IT IS THE LAW. There is no point in complaining about equal pay any more. It has already been delt with.


Yes...segregation was a problem of perception, not of institutionalised racism. Gender inequality is the same thing of course...bad perception. If we just 'thought more positive' life would be grand.


As far as I see it, unpunished gender inequality in terms of publications or any public speeking is very rare these days (At least in Britain). What I meant by social perception is (in terms of gender) men's perception of women (and in terms of race) European perception of Africans/Asians and vice versa and all over. No one has equality of perception. There are plenty of varients of men's perception of women that are both good and bad.


The vast majority of advertising exploits women, not the other way around. Turning that right around is not the goal either. Both sides are NOT just as guilty of that.


And whose fault is that. If women seriously hated being exploited that much, they wouldnt want to get work in these adverts would they? Now I'm not saying its the womens fault for wanting to work in these adverts, but I dont think feminists speek for all women on this issue. If they did, then there would be no women in these adverts. While I can appriciate that all women want equal pay etc, in this case, its the feminsts only who seem to care.

Please don't feed the trolls.
;) I don't actually think I am yet...this is a real opinion held by many that boils down to "gender inequality no longer exists, therefore feminism should whither away". It is precisely the attitude that 'feminism has gone too far' that has seen a steady erosion of women's rights in countries that were doing so well.

To the people commenting about physical strength standards in the military and firefighting (etc).

I find it interesting that in North America our strength standards are set so high that immigrants from other countries frequently fail to meet those standards when they try out. It is a fact that the average size of many Asians is much smaller than that of Caucasians (although the children of immigrants who eat a North American diet tend to be as large as any other North American).

Yet those Asian countries all have competent firefighters and military forces. To me the question is - why? Their equipment isn't lighter. A hose full of water is still the same weight in China as it is in the US. Water pressure may differ from country to country, but I'm not sure it makes that much difference. And firefighters in China still have to be able to maneuver 300 lb overweight people down ladders or narrow stairwells. Their military still needs to be able to carry their equipment, supplies, and ammunition. And their weapons aren't made by Mattel.

So how do they make up the difference in size and strength with their North American counterparts? To me it seems obvious that the difference must be made up somehow. Better teamwork? Better practical applications of intelligence? Better problem-solving? I don't know. But the average East Asian doesn't need to be 6'1", and 200 lbs to do the job in their home country. So why do North Americans need to meet those standards? And don't tell me it's just because the average North American is larger than the average Asian when you have to pack them out of a burning building. An overweight person is an overweight person, and plenty of them exist in Asia as well.

Let me know when you have an answer, or happen to live in an Asian country and do know how it works. I'm interested.
A person who can carry 400 lbs. is better for firefighting than somebody who can carry 300 lbs, provided they can do it at the same speed. Given the size differences you noted, there are probably more candidates of the former variety available to U.S. firehouses. Unless qualified candidates were in short supply, I don't see any reason that they wouldn't have strict guidelines.

And the way they were taught.

If you were told from birth that something was just not your area, you would be much, much less likely to go into it. If the only people you ever saw in said area were very different from you, you would be much, much less likely to go into it. The answer here? Education.
*applauds*
Yay, Dempublicents is smarter than I am and was able to say something with a point!
Unlike me.

And the voters.

So the problem for equality is democracy. You will just have to take your choice. Force people to vote for candidates that they would prefer not to vote for. Or accept that the people in your country (the majority of them being women) do not want more female politicians.

So who is supposed to do what to provide this?
To equalize things women have to enter the political game, there are no barriers to this, there are no quotas, limitations or anything else that prevents women from being more politically active. The only thing stopping them is themselves.
requote:

I'm not talking necessarily about sexist voting practices (though it can be an issue). The point is rather that women are not entering the political arena, for all manner of reasons. It may be socially taboo or not encouraged...she may have no time to devote to politics if she is does the majority of household work....etc. As with many positions that woman are perfectly capable of holding, EVERY NATION ON EARTH pushes the genders to do 'gender-specific' work, based on tradition. To say that women have less interest in political power is like saying women have less interest in becoming electricians. It may be true because of societal expectations and grooming, but it isn't biologically so. When women have the ability and the support to gain political office, they will. When they are constantly judged because of their looks (while dumpy-looking men seem to do fine politically), or are unable to share their child-rearing and household duties with an understanding and supporting partner, their horizons narrow. Are women in Finland or Norway any different than women in Canada and the U.S? Are they more interested in politics? Or is there simply more access to the political realm for women in those nations?

And the way they were taught.

If you were told from birth that something was just not your area, you would be much, much less likely to go into it. If the only people you ever saw in said area were very different from you, you would be much, much less likely to go into it. The answer here? Education.

Or simply the refusal to believe everything you are told. I thought that people were people. If the only people that you saw in an are are very different to you then either you are not a person, or you are on the wrong planet.
Do people really have to have a huge number of examples of other people that are as similar as possible to them doing something before they believe that they can do it as well. If they do believe this, then I am not sure that they would be very good politicians, sheep maybe, but not politicians ;)

So who is supposed to do what to provide this?
To equalize things women have to enter the political game, there are no barriers to this, there are no quotas, limitations or anything else that prevents women from being more politically active. The only thing stopping them is themselves.

Yes true, at least in the western world but we cant split it 50-50 down the middle. The best choise must be THE choise no matter what the gender of the indevidual is.
You can not pick a woman to be minister of defense, president or ceo of a company etc. just because she is a woman. It has to be the BEST person and if it is a man then so be it the same with a woman. That is what I am saying.

And rightly so.

ouch

;) I don't actually think I am yet...this is a real opinion held by many that boils down to "gender inequality no longer exists, therefore feminism should whither away". It is precisely the attitude that 'feminism has gone too far' that has seen a steady erosion of women's rights in countries that were doing so well.

Yes, but Neo Cannen comes into every thread even related to this topic, posts the exact same reply, and doesn't care what anyone else says about it - he will argue until he is blue in the face, with or without actual points.

Or simply the refusal to believe everything you are told. I thought that people were people. If the only people that you saw in an are are very different to you then either you are not a person, or you are on the wrong planet.
Do people really have to have a huge number of examples of other people that are as similar as possible to them doing something before they believe that they can do it as well. If they do believe this, then I am not sure that they would be very good politicians, sheep maybe, but not politicians ;)

People are people, however, our society does not teach this. It teaches that these people over here are different than those people over there are different from that other group. Never mind that very few people fit into these neat little classifications - that is the idea that most children get. And when a concept is ingrained in you that early on, blaming it completely on the individual is ludicrous.

"gender inequality no longer exists, therefore feminism should whither away". It is precisely the attitude that 'feminism has gone too far' that has seen a steady erosion of women's rights in countries that were doing so well.

Please try and find me a form of gender inequality that can be specificly quantified which is not delt with under the law of most first world nations.

Feminists, will you get it through your skulls. For the same job in the same company, men and women have to have equal pay. IT IS THE LAW. There is no point in complaining about equal pay any more. It has already been delt with.
What hasn't been dealt with are the higher rates of promotion among men when an equally qualified woman is also in line for a promotion. In these cases, subjective reasoning is used, and therefore harder to prove as discriminatory. Nonetheless, women have a significantly lower percentage of jobs in the higher echelons.

You also do not address the obstacles I mentioned, which keep many women out. If it truly had 'already been dealt with' we would see a fairly even split in terms of pay and position. That we do not, suggest there is something wrong. You blame it on women, which means you are suggesting women are biologically incapable of work equity with men. If that is NOT your stance, then provide one which explains away this disparity.



As far as I see it, gender inequality is very rare these days (At least in Britain). What I meant by social perception is (in terms of gender) men's perception of women (and in terms of race) European perception of Africans/Asians and vice versa and all over. No one has equality of perception. There are plenty of varients of men's perception of women that are both good and bad.
Very true. The great thing about perception is that it can change. Just look at your own country and see how black people have advanced from being perceived as an 'inferior race' to actual members of your society. Improvement, however, does not automatically signal completion...racism and the barriers thrown up by racism still exist, as they do in terms of gender.


And whose fault is that. If women seriously hated being exploited that much, they wouldnt want to get work in these adverts would they? Now I'm not saying its the womens fault for wanting to work in these adverts, but I dont think feminists speek for all women on this issue. If they did, then there would be no women in these adverts. While I can appriciate that all women want equal pay etc, in this case, its the feminsts only who seem to care.

The numbers are wildly distorted...do you really think that the amount of pornography out there relates in real numbers to the percentage of women who enjoy sexual exploitation? Neither does advertising translate into real life percentages. Twenty years ago, such exploitative images of women were protested again. Now, for whatever reason, they are ignored, despite the harm they do to many girl's and women's self image. If you judge the world through the lens of advertising, you would have to extrapolate that the vast majority of people are white, slim and gorgeous. Not the case.

Yes, but Neo comes into every thread even related to this topic, posts the exact same reply, and doesn't care what anyone else says about it - he will argue until he is blue in the face, with or without actual points.

1) I am allowed to point out the facts, which is that every kind of quantifiyable gender inequality is delt with by law.

2) The reason that I keep posting it is that I am trying to get feminists to see the gaping hole in their arguement.

3) If I changed my perspective in every post, you would complain that I dont have a consisitant position

So the problem for equality is democracy. You will just have to take your choice. Force people to vote for candidates that they would prefer not to vote for. Or accept that the people in your country (the majority of them being women) do not want more female politicians.

Or accept the fact that most parties won't run women because they think they'll lose to a male candidate. Rightly or wrongly. Only once have I had the choice to vote for a woman either in provincial or federal elections. ONCE. I didn't, because I don't like her politics...not her gender.

Or simply the refusal to believe everything you are told. I thought that people were people. If the only people that you saw in an are are very different to you then either you are not a person, or you are on the wrong planet.
Do people really have to have a huge number of examples of other people that are as similar as possible to them doing something before they believe that they can do it as well. If they do believe this, then I am not sure that they would be very good politicians, sheep maybe, but not politicians ;)
Perhaps, but not everyone is a trail blazer. Often, because trail blazers have a pretty rough time of it. Do you really think women didn't think of emancipation BEFORE women suffregetes? Do you really think blacks didn't dream of emancipation BEFORE civil rights leaders stood up? Most people are scared...and rightly so of straying for the norm, because depending on the situation, there can be very serious consequences.

Yes, but Neo comes into every thread even related to this topic, posts the exact same reply, and doesn't care what anyone else says about it - he will argue until he is blue in the face, with or without actual points.
For a second there, I thought you were talking about me!

1) I am allowed to point out the facts, which is that every kind of quantifiyable gender inequality is delt with by law.

And as has been pointed out to you *numerous* times before (not that you ever learn anything from any thread you go into), in very few cases is it the legal issues that are dealt with here. Of course, you pointed out what you believe to be a legal gender inequality issue just two pages ago.

2) The reason that I keep posting it is that I am trying to get feminists to see the gaping hole in their arguement.

And yet you continue to fail to see the gaping hole in yours. "Everybody has inequality, so just shut up." is not a deterent to someone who truly wishes to fight for equality (and equity).

Yes true, at least in the western world but we cant split it 50-50 down the middle. The best choise must be THE choise no matter what the gender of the indevidual is.
You can not pick a woman to be minister of defense, president or ceo of a company etc. just because she is a woman. It has to be the BEST person and if it is a man then so be it the same with a woman. That is what I am saying.
Nonetheless, the best person rarely IS chose...how many ministers of defense or of education have actual training in that field? In Canada, you don't have to have any prior experience to be a minister. Sad.

Yes, but Neo comes into every thread even related to this topic, posts the exact same reply, and doesn't care what anyone else says about it - he will argue until he is blue in the face, with or without actual points.
Oh. Okay...thanks for the heads up!

Or accept the fact that most parties won't run women because they think they'll lose to a male candidate. Rightly or wrongly. Only once have I had the choice to vote for a woman either in provincial or federal elections. ONCE. I didn't, because I don't like her politics...not her gender.

Ah...reminds me of the option we once had to vote for Kim Campbell as PM. She only got the PC leadership position because Brian Mulrooney had raised the ire of oh, say, 90% of Canadians. The party put her out there hoping that her presence would encourage women to vote for the PC's despite the incredibly unpopular policies the party had put into play over their term. Of course, the Progressive Conservatives were destroyed in that election - and since then, the only federal party that has had women leaders is one that has never won a federal election...

For a second there, I thought you were talking about me!

Sorry about that. I fixed it. =)

Perhaps, but not everyone is a trail blazer. Often, because trail blazers have a pretty rough time of it. Do you really think women didn't think of emancipation BEFORE women suffregetes? Do you really think blacks didn't dream of emancipation BEFORE civil rights leaders stood up? Most people are scared...and rightly so of straying for the norm, because depending on the situation, there can be very serious consequences.

Anyone who is successful in this world of 6 billion plus individuals has to have that trail blazer spirit. To ask that something be given without fighting for it (I do not mean guns, I mean determination) on the basis that the person is a member of a particular social group, be it women, or black, or jewish, or white anglo saxon male protestant, is to do away with the concept of fairness.

Anyway, I have to go and cook dinner now. I'll be back later. :D

Please try and find me a form of gender inequality that can be specificly quantified which is not delt with under the law of most first world nations.
Here are three: (not an exhaustive list by any means)

1.Men who wish to stay home after the birth of their child (in Canada) have 20 weeks of parental leave to do so. The woman can take 32 for maternity leave. If she waives her maternity leave, the man CAN NOT pick it up. He gets 20 weeks, period. Legislated gender inequality

2. In many states of the U.S, women are not allowed to have abortions if they chose to do so. Legislated gender inequality. That it does not apply to men is moot. It is a law aimed solely at women and their reproductive rights. (let's not start a debate on abortion, however)

3. Legislation that punishes prostitutes, while refusing to penalize johns. Since the vast majority of prostitutes are women, and the majority of johns are men, this is very biased.

What hasn't been dealt with are the higher rates of promotion among men when an equally qualified woman is also in line for a promotion. In these cases, subjective reasoning is used, and therefore harder to prove as discriminatory. Nonetheless, women have a significantly lower percentage of jobs in the higher echelons.


1) Higher rates of promotion are not a quantifiyable form of discrimination. You cant point to those sorts of cases and confirm that the women were not promoted because they are women.

2) You cannot legislate against low rates of promotion. Thats just another form of discrimination. Nor can you force the managers to promote more women as thats another form of discrimination. In fact, feminsits, by championing the cause of womens promotion, have proberbly created more possitive discrimination than there was negative discrimination previously (but since neither statistics can be analysied with any degree of certianty, its difficult to say)


You also do not address the obstacles I mentioned, which keep many women out. If it truly had 'already been dealt with' we would see a fairly even split in terms of pay and position. That we do not, suggest there is something wrong. You blame it on women, which means you are suggesting women are biologically incapable of work equity with men. If that is NOT your stance, then provide one which explains away this disparity.


3) I didnt quote you so I didnt say that I was going to deal specificly with your points. I was pointing out a flaw in the arguement of feminisim as a whole.

4) What I blames on women, was not that they are unable to do the job. I was blaming any women who complained about unequal pay for not going to court and doing something about it. If you are a women and you are being paid less than a male college and you can prove it then sue. Thats your right.

5) The reasons for the low numbers of women in the higher echelons of corperations and government may well be to do with sexism. But they may also be to do with any number of other factors. Please understand, I am not critising women here. I am criticising the feminsit movement for being oversimplyfing of many things.


Very true. The great thing about perception is that it can change. Just look at your own country and see how black people have advanced from being perceived as an 'inferior race' to actual members of your society. Improvement, however, does not automatically signal completion...racism and the barriers thrown up by racism still exist, as they do in terms of gender.


6) Again, this is my criticising of feminism. Feminists oftern complain about how women have a negative sterotype about them. My point here is that you can find a negative sterotype of almost any group of people.


The numbers are wildly distorted...do you really think that the amount of pornography out there relates in real numbers to the percentage of women who enjoy sexual exploitation? Neither does advertising translate into real life percentages. Twenty years ago, such exploitative images of women were protested again. Now, for whatever reason, they are ignored, despite the harm they do to many girl's and women's self image. If you judge the world through the lens of advertising, you would have to extrapolate that the vast majority of people are white, slim and gorgeous. Not the case.

7) You misinterpret me. I never said that the numbers of people who enjoy pornograpy relates to the number of women who don't mind being exploited (I wasnt even talking about pornography, I was talking about the media and advertising). What I was saying (Again my criticsim of feminism itself, not women) was that feminists here do not speek for all women. While I can see feminists do of course speek for all women on grounds of things like equal pay, they dont in this regard, else this type of advertising would not exist.

Ah...reminds me of the option we once had to vote for Kim Campbell as PM. She only got the PC leadership position because Brian Mulrooney had raised the ire of oh, say, 90% of Canadians. The party put her out there hoping that her presence would encourage women to vote for the PC's despite the incredibly unpopular policies the party had put into play over their term. Of course, the Progressive Conservatives were destroyed in that election - and since then, the only federal party that has had women leaders is one that has never won a federal election...
True...but do you think people would have voted for JESUS CHRIST himself if he'd run as a PC after MulRUINy? Seriously...any candidate they put out was a dead fish.

Anyone who is successful in this world of 6 billion plus individuals has to have that trail blazer spirit. To ask that something be given without fighting for it (I do not mean guns, I mean determination) on the basis that the person is a member of a particular social group, be it women, or black, or jewish, or white anglo saxon male protestant, is to do away with the concept of fairness.

Anyway, I have to go and cook dinner now. I'll be back later. :D
How exactly do you measure success? How about all the 'trailblazers' that fought oppression...or just expressed disenting views, that have been tortured, murdered and disappeared? Was it worth it? Was it worth dying for, or losing children for, or being hurt so, so badly? Some say yes, and I applaud them for it, because they have more courage than I. If my children were put into danger because I was a 'trail blazer', let me tell you that I would seriously consider backing down. Am I a coward? I don't think so...nor do I think I have the right to put my children in danger because of my actions. That such danger would come at the hands of an injustice makes no difference.

1.Men who wish to stay home after the birth of their child (in Canada) have 20 weeks of parental leave to do so. The woman can take 32 for maternity leave. If she waives her maternity leave, the man CAN NOT pick it up. He gets 20 weeks, period. Legislated gender inequality


I agree with you on this one, a serious problem that needs resolving.


2. In many states of the U.S, women are not allowed to have abortions if they chose to do so. Legislated gender inequality. That it does not apply to men is moot. It is a law aimed solely at women and their reproductive rights. (let's not start a debate on abortion, however)


Ok this is stupid. Of course laws on abortion are solely aimed at women. It physicaly CAN'T apply to men. Men CAN'T have abortions. Thats like saying its a biological inequality that men can't have children. Its not a legalised gender inequality becase its not a law that says yes to men and no to women.


3. Legislation that punishes prostitutes, while refusing to penalize johns. Since the vast majority of prostitutes are women, and the majority of johns are men, this is very biased.

Well seeing as it is possible for both men and women to be prostitutes then there is no problem here. It just happens to be that there are far more female than male prostitutes. The law doesnt specialise itself in one department.

Where do you go to school? My electrical engineering major had about 25% females. So, for certain classes (like wireless communications) there would be 2 females and 18 males. For others (like circuits) there would be 15 females and 5 males. My math major probably had more females than males.

I never witnessed anything of the sort that you describe. In fact, the only extremist that I've encountered in this issue was somebody who called herself a feminist. Any good points she had to make were completely clouded by the fact that she was evil. The feminists in my dorm hated her. One particular conversation has stuck with me, though I can assure you that there were much worse things that she did.

At the beginning of my freshman year, my dorm had a barbecue by the lake so that everybody could get to know each other. There were 37 of us (21 males, 16 females) and some faculty, so this is actually possible. Anyway, this girl was talking to a few people that I'd been spending time with earlier in the week, so I walked over to see what they were talking about. She was complaining that girls weren't welcome at our ultimate frisbee games. I pointed out that Karen played in both of the games that I'd played. Her response was "well, Karen's a man."


I attend a liberal arts college in Middle Georgia. I am a Management Information Systems major in the school of business. The business school itself is male-dominated, which really doesn't help my mis-classified major. (We need a separate technology school, as the business courses take up too much of the time that we could be using in our major-related courses.)

1) Higher rates of promotion are not a quantifiyable form of discrimination. You cant point to those sorts of cases and confirm that the women were not promoted because they are women.
The problem with most discrimination is exactly that...it is hard to quantify. Nonetheless, our societies recognise that it still exists. In Canada, we have a human rights tribunal that deals with bias issues in regards to gender, race or sexuality. It is terribly hard to prove, but sometimes it can be. For all the cases won, there are many that were dealing with real discrimination, yet could not be proven well.

2) You cannot legislate against low rates of promotion. Thats just another form of discrimination. Nor can you force the managers to promote more women as thats another form of discrimination. In fact, feminsits, by championing the cause of womens promotion, have proberbly created more possitive discrimination than there was negative discrimination previously (but since neither statistics can be analysied with any degree of certianty, its difficult to say)
No, it takes political will and it takes a recognition by society that this kind of below-the-radar discrimination needs to stop. Just like child abuse has stopped being such a 'silent' crime. We as a society need to accept that discrimination still happens, and make it VERY uncomfortable for those who profit by it. If that means using the human rights tribunal and losing, fine. Suing them, however, is more problematic. Unless they put it in writing, you'll probably lose, and be in serious financial difficulty, as well as most likely losing your income. Who would gamble on this if they had a family to support? More likely, you'd put up with it, as much as it bothered you.


4) What I blames on women, was not that they are unable to do the job. I was blaming any women who complained about unequal pay for not going to court and doing something about it. If you are a women and you are being paid less than a male college and you can prove it then sue. Thats your right.
See above.

5) The reasons for the low numbers of women in the higher echelons of corperations and government may well be to do with sexism. But they may also be to do with any number of other factors. Please understand, I am not critising women here. I am criticising the feminsit movement for being oversimplyfing of many things.
We don't oversimplify by choice. The issues need to start out broad, then get more specific. You seem interested in this, and I will try to find the time later to be more specific. I urge you to look into it on your own as well. This is a very complex issue, involving not just laws, but attitudes as well, which are difficult to quantify. Trust me...I know it's not that simple...but I also refuse to let someone dismiss it just because they haven't delved into it further.

Hmm, you sure you weren't accidentally in a middle school? It sounds like you were hanging around 15 year olds.


that was somewhat rude, yet amusing.

I agree with you on this one, a serious problem that needs resolving.

Wait, less than a page ago you said there was absolutely no gender inequality not already addressed by the law!

Ok this is stupid. Of course laws on abortion are solely aimed at women. It physicaly CAN'T apply to men. Men CAN'T have abortions. Thats like saying its a biological inequality that men can't have children. Its not a legalised gender inequality becase its not a law that says yes to men and no to women.

However, men have access to any and all medical procedures, while we have laws specifically restricting a woman's access to certain ones.

Well seeing as it is possible for both men and women to be prostitutes then there is no problem here. It just happens to be that there are far more female than male prostitutes. The law doesnt specialise itself in one department.

This *would* be true, except for the reason behind the law. The reason that men who solicite prostitutes are not prosecuted (in general, there is a growing movement to prosecture all of them) is the view that the man is not doing anything wrong. A man is *supposed* to get as much sex as possible (according to most of society). A man *needs* sex regularly. Thus, as far as society is concerned, only the prostitute is at fault. ((In truth, I would say that neither of them are legally at fault. Prostitution shouldn't actually be illegal anyways, but that is beside the point))

And as has been pointed out to you *numerous* times before (not that you ever learn anything from any thread you go into), in very few cases is it the legal issues that are dealt with here. Of course, you pointed out what you believe to be a legal gender inequality issue just two pages ago.

Then I say "Well what are the issues?" at which point the answers become vague and strange. My point is that feminism was originaly a reasonable movement aimed at getting legal equality for women. Now that has been acomplished. Anything else can't be delt with by constant complaing.


And yet you continue to fail to see the gaping hole in yours. "Everybody has inequality, so just shut up." is not a deterent to someone who truly wishes to fight for equality (and equity).

I did not say everyone has equality. I said everyone has quantifyable equality. All the non-quanitfiyable sorts are not best delt with by the methods that feminists currently are using (IE complaing a lot)

Ok this is stupid. Of course laws on abortion are solely aimed at women. It physicaly CAN'T apply to men. Men CAN'T have abortions. Thats like saying its a biological inequality that men can't have children. Its not a legalised gender inequality becase its not a law that says yes to men and no to women.

2. In many states of the U.S, women are not allowed to have abortions if they chose to do so. Legislated gender inequality. That it does not apply to men is moot. It is a law aimed solely at women and their reproductive rights. (let's not start a debate on abortion, however)
You're missing the point...if I wrote a law saying that no man could wear a condom, that would interfere with his reproductive rights. (I am not equating abortion with contraception). Just because it didn't affect women, makes it no less gender biased.

Well seeing as it is possible for both men and women to be prostitutes then there is no problem here. It just happens to be that there are far more female than male prostitutes. The law doesnt specialise itself in one department.


3. Legislation that punishes prostitutes, while refusing to penalize johns. Since the vast majority of prostitutes are women, and the majority of johns are men, this is very biased.
Again, missing the point. Most prostitutes are female, and most johns are male. If you want to deal with the issue equitably, punish both the prostitute AND the john, or be easier on both. It doesn't JUST HAPPEN that more women are prostitutes than men...that's suggesting that women enjoy the work more than men do. The fact is, more women are in the profession because their lack of education and job skills give them little else to fall back on.

True...but do you think people would have voted for JESUS CHRIST himself if he'd run as a PC after MulRUINy? Seriously...any candidate they put out was a dead fish.

Absolutely. I'm not arguing THAT!

I'm just saying that in Canada, the only time women become party leaders are when the parties are desperate for votes. And since the majority of women vote do not vote on a gender basis (such as for party policies, or vote for their constituent, not the head of the party), women are going to have one hell of a time becoming PM without following in Kim Campbell's footsteps.

Ah, party leadership conventions. When the party in group tries to decide which of their candidates will be the most palatable to all the other Canadians. So generally, the go for the straight white men, unless they think that straight white men are unlikely to vote for their party.

I'll grant you it's different on the constituent level - we've actually got a fairly diverse pool of candidates there, depending on where you live. Yes, I only got to choose between straight white guys, but there were a lot of women, people from various ethnicities, gay people, and even disabled people running for office across Canada.

4) What I blames on women, was not that they are unable to do the job. I was blaming any women who complained about unequal pay for not going to court and doing something about it. If you are a women and you are being paid less than a male college and you can prove it then sue. Thats your right.

Of course, privacy laws mean that a woman does not necessarily know that she is being paid less for the same job. However, trends in the numbers demonstrate quite clearly that it is happening.

Neo Cannen

Let's narrow your ideas about feminism down a bit. Please answer the following:

1. Does gender inequality exist outside of biological differences? If so:

2. Whose responsibility is it to deal with gender inequality?

3. Who would benefit from gender equity?

Let's narrow your ideas about feminism down a bit. Please answer the following:

1. Does gender inequality exist outside of biological differences? If so:

you mean in society, economically, etc? yes, of course it does. piles of stats confirm that.

2. Whose responsibility is it to deal with gender inequality?

in America, in this age, i believe it is 100% the job of women to deal with it. i would also venture to say that is the case for other modern nation, but i have never lived in a country other than America so i won't make that positive assertion.


3. Who would benefit from gender equity?
women would benefit most directly and immediately, but i believe all persons would benefit from equality in the end.

Wait, less than a page ago you said there was absolutely no gender inequality not already addressed by the law!


Well I was wrong. This one pointed out seems to be valid.


However, men have access to any and all medical procedures, while we have laws specifically restricting a woman's access to certain ones.


And men have acces to abortions do they? And anyway, there is equality in regard to all medical treatments where a patients health or life is seriously threatend. Abortions are not one of those. I do believe that in the US if there is a serious threat to the womens health, then you can have an abortion (I may be wrong about that. If I am then thats a serious problem)


This *would* be true, except for the reason behind the law. The reason that men who solicite prostitutes are not prosecuted (in general, there is a growing movement to prosecture all of them) is the view that the man is not doing anything wrong. A man is *supposed* to get as much sex as possible (according to most of society). A man *needs* sex regularly. Thus, as far as society is concerned, only the prostitute is at fault. ((In truth, I would say that neither of them are legally at fault. Prostitution shouldn't actually be illegal anyways, but that is beside the point))

Can you prove that is the case? I sincerely doubt it. The prostitution law covers both men and women equally, in the sense that men and women who solicite prostitutes are not punished. The "reason" behind the law would seem to be very hard to prove. While I agree with you on the social perception of men and women in regards to sex, I dont agree that the law itself in this case is sexist. It covers men and women equally.

And men have acces to abortions do they? And anyway, there is equality in regard to all medical treatments where a patients health or life is seriously threatend. Abortions are not one of those. I do believe that in the US if there is a serious threat to the womens health, then you can have an abortion (I may be wrong about that. If I am then thats a serious problem)

It doesn't matter, as men have access to medical treatments in which their health or life is not threatened. Are you aware that many insurance companies will pay for Viagra (which has nothing at all to do with staying alive), but will not pay for Birth Control Pills (which many women need to stay healthy)? If that isn't a pretty obvious gender difference, I don't know what is.

Can you prove that is the case? I sincerely doubt it.

I'm sorry, you are right, thousands of years of human history mean absolutely nothing.

The prostitution law covers both men and women equally, in the sense that men and women who solicite prostitutes are not punished. The "reason" behind the law would seem to be very hard to prove. While I agree with you on the social perception of men and women in regards to sex, I dont agree that the law itself in this case is sexist. It covers men and women equally.

Suppose I believed that men were dangerous. I know that more men can bench-press 250 lb than women. Thus, I make a law restricting those who can bench-press this much. Sure, there are a small percentage of women who it will apply to, but my law was directed at men. Is it automatically fair in your eyes since it doesn't specifically say "men" in the wording?

You're missing the point...if I wrote a law saying that no man could wear a condom, that would interfere with his reproductive rights. (I am not equating abortion with contraception). Just because it didn't affect women, makes it no less gender biased.


While it would interfere with reproductive rights, it is not a gender biased law. A gender biased law is something that says no to one sex and yes to another. If the law said "Men may not use any type of contreception, but women may" then that would be gender biased.


Again, missing the point. Most prostitutes are female, and most johns are male. If you want to deal with the issue equitably, punish both the prostitute AND the john, or be easier on both. It doesn't JUST HAPPEN that more women are prostitutes than men...that's suggesting that women enjoy the work more than men do. The fact is, more women are in the profession because their lack of education and job skills give them little else to fall back on.

The law is indiscriminate in this case. It does not only target men or women. It targets the prostitute. Its not the law's fault that most prostitutes are women. And the law would be sexist if it specified that prostitutes were women. But it doesnt specify that. It simpley targets the one who is supplying the sex for money. It is illegal to supply sex for money (Prostitution). It is not illegal to have sex (for any reason). Now the reasons for prostitution proberbly do have a sexist cause, but dont critise the prostitution laws. They are not sexist.

It doesn't matter, as men have access to medical treatments in which their health or life is not threatened. Are you aware that many insurance companies will pay for Viagra (which has nothing at all to do with staying alive), but will not pay for Birth Control Pills (which many women need to stay healthy)? If that isn't a pretty obvious gender difference, I don't know what is.


That's the fault of those health care systems. In the UK birth control pills can be perscribed and Viagra must be payed for.



I'm sorry, you are right, thousands of years of human history mean absolutely nothing

Suppose I believed that men were dangerous. I know that more men can bench-press 250 lb than women. Thus, I make a law restricting those who can bench-press this much. Sure, there are a small percentage of women who it will apply to, but my law was directed at men. Is it automatically fair in your eyes since it doesn't specifically say "men" in the wording?

If the reason for the law was solely that men were dangerous becaues they are strong then yes it would. But in the prostitution case, the law is not there because people believed women were evil because they sold sex. It was there because they beilved that the idea of selling sex period was evil, regardless of who was doing it, since it destroyed families and chepened sex itself.

Now the reasons for prostitution proberbly do have a sexist cause, but dont critise the prostitution laws. They are not sexist.
Laws are by definition amoral. Nonetheless, they are based on morality. Laws based on racism, or gender bias are not immoral, but the basis for them ARE. I do not blame the laws...they are not entities to themselves. They are written by people, and people are flawed. It is important to own up to those flaws, and fight for change. You seem unwilling to accept that bad laws need dealing with. We do not 'whine', we fight. We fight the forces that have shaped the system, and that encourage gender bias, either through legislation, or through tradition. That isn't whining. It is action. Try it some time.

That's the fault of those health care systems. In the UK birth control pills can be perscribed and Viagra must be payed for.
The fault of the health care system? You love to pass the buck, don't you? Who makes the decisions that govern the systems we speak of? Politicians. The vast majority of whom are men. That, my friend, is called institutionalised bias. When women and men fight to change unjust laws, you call it whining...well I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining coming from your corner:

"That's so and so's fault...."

That's the fault of those health care systems. In the UK birth control pills can be perscribed and Viagra must be payed for.

You didn't reply to what I said. Insurance companies pay for Viagra, but not the pill. I never once stated that the pill wouldn't be prescribed.

If the reason for the law was solely that men were dangerous becaues they are strong then yes it would. But in the prostitution case, the law is not there because people believed women were evil because they sold sex. It was there because they beilved that the idea of selling sex period was evil, regardless of who was doing it, since it destroyed families and chepened sex itself.

Wow, you have never read a single history book, have you?

Laws are by definition amoral. Nonetheless, they are based on morality. Laws based on racism, or gender bias are not immoral, but the basis for them ARE. I do not blame the laws...they are not entities to themselves. They are written by people, and people are flawed. It is important to own up to those flaws, and fight for change. You seem unwilling to accept that bad laws need dealing with.


The prostitution laws are not sexist. They do not target one sex over another. By your logic, almost every other law (Except the prostitution law) is prejudiced against men because men perpretrate those crimes much more than women.

For some background on women's issues, you can read a great magazine online. Go to:
http://www.newint.org/
Click on 'back issues' and choose issue 373, Women's Rights.

While it would interfere with reproductive rights, it is not a gender biased law. A gender biased law is something that says no to one sex and yes to another. If the law said "Men may not use any type of contreception, but women may" then that would be gender biased.

Of course the law *does* say "Men may have access to every form of medical reproductive rights, be it contraception, surgery, reproductive aids, etc. However, women only have access to contraception when we feel like it (and less access than men have to reproductive aids, at that), the surgeries we have decided they can have, reproductive aid."

That's the fault of those health care systems. In the UK birth control pills can be perscribed and Viagra must be payed for.

The healthcare systems are run by people. People are sexist. Therefore, it once again goes back to people.

The fault of the health care system? You love to pass the buck, don't you? Who makes the decisions that govern the systems we speak of? Politicians. The vast majority of whom are men. That, my friend, is called institutionalised bias. When women and men fight to change unjust laws, you call it whining...well I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining coming from your corner:

The fact that political institutions are made up primarly of men is not the fault of the institution. We live in a democracy. You cant just force a politcal institution to have qutoas of 50-50 men and women. Thats undemocratic. And while the politicans may set up the health care systems, they dont set up the policys of the insurence companies.

Of course the law *does* say "Men may have access to every form of medical reproductive rights, be it contraception, surgery, reproductive aids, etc. However, women only have access to contraception when we feel like it (and less access than men have to reproductive aids, at that), the surgeries we have decided they can have, reproductive aid."

Depends on your clasification of abortion and contriception. Contricption is a prevention tool to stop pregnencyies. But abortion is a way of cancelling a pregnency that has already happened.

Depends on your clasification of abortion and contriception. Contricption is a prevention tool to stop pregnencyies. But abortion is a way of cancelling a pregnency that has already happened.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made.

The fact that political institutions are made up primarly of men is not the fault of the institution. We live in a democracy. You cant just force a politcal institution to have qutoas of 50-50 men and women. Thats undemocratic. And while the politicans may set up the health care systems, they dont set up the policys of the insurence companies.
Alright, we're running in circles here. You are still maintaining that equality exists, despite the evidence to the contrary. You have not addressed the very real barriers that keep women from various positions of power. You are willing only to recognise legislated biases, and those ONLY if they explicitly say, "this law is directed at women and not men" or visa versa. You look for black and white in a field of gray. That's fine...it is your prerogative to remain ignorant and to ignore the facts. Inequality exists, it is exacerbated by societal beliefs and systems, and has a real effect on women and men. You can disbelieve it all you wish...your disbelief does not make it disappear.

I will not be drawn into further discussion with you, as your mind is clearly made up. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to be open to discussion, which you are clearly not, for the reasons stated above.

Alright, we're running in circles here. You are still maintaining that equality exists, despite the evidence to the contrary. You have not addressed the very real barriers that keep women from various positions of power. You are willing only to recognise legislated biases, and those ONLY if they explicitly say, "this law is directed at women and not men" or visa versa. You look for black and white in a field of gray. That's fine...it is your prerogative to remain ignorant and to ignore the facts. Inequality exists, it is exacerbated by societal beliefs and systems, and has a real effect on women and men. You can disbelieve it all you wish...your disbelief does not make it disappear.


You completely misintepreted what I have been saying. I accept that inequality exists BUT (and this is what I have been trying to get across) most quantifyable forms of discrimination have been delt with. What I was saying about the unquantifiable sorts is that feminisim is not dealing with these in the way it should. It is just verbally complaining. If feminism wants to make itself heard then it needs to collect proof. And not just staistics but case studies. Find many individual cases of a simmilar nature and present them to the government, at which point the government can then look into a way of legislating to do something about them. The best way to deal with discrimination of any kind (in my opinion) is annomimity. When applying for a job you shouldnt need to specify your name, sex or race (I say name at this point because name can often give away race/sex). You should just be given a number on a form to identify you and then the company can employ you on the basis of your experiance and personality type (as described by your references).

My two cents on my own questions:

1. Does gender inequality exist outside of biological differences?
Yes.

2. Who is responsible for dealing with gender inequality?

It is the responsibility of men and women. The gender roles that we are expected to conform to are damaging to all genders. Men are also expected to follow the rules: no sissy stuff, he with the most toys wins, be a sturdy oak and show no emotion, and be aggressive. This can wreak havoc with men's mental and physical health as they take on more stress, bottle up emotions and live promiscuously or dangerously. Giving the genders more freedom to just BE is incredibly important to our wellbeing as a species. We can not have equality if only one gender is working towards it. We need to work as partners in this.

3. Who would benefit from gender equity?

All genders would benefit. Men could work with women as partners, and rely on them as much as be relied on. Rather than shoulder the burden of work and governance alone, they could share it. Women and men who feel appreciated and more equal also tend to have stronger relationships...better sex anyone? Violence against women affects men too...if affects them as children witnessing it, and it affects them as the perpetrators or relatives of abused women. Equals respect each other. Inequality denotes subservience, and lack of respect. How can we not all benefit from more respect?

You completely misintepreted what I have been saying. I accept that inequality exists BUT (and this is what I have been trying to get across) most quantifyable forms of discrimination have been delt with. What I was saying about the unquantifiable sorts is that feminisim is not dealing with these in the way it should. It is just verbally complaining. If feminism wants to make itself heard then it needs to collect proof. And not just staistics but case studies. Find many individual cases of a simmilar nature and present them to the government, at which point the government can then look into a way of legislating to do something about them. The best way to deal with discrimination of any kind (in my opinion) is annomimity. When applying for a job you shouldnt need to specify your name, sex or race (I say name at this point because name can often give away race/sex). You should just be given a number on a form to identify you and then the company can employ you on the basis of your experiance and personality type (as described by your references).

Damn it, I said I wouldn't be drawn in but...

Where do you get this from? Why are you saying that feminists are not dealing with the unquantifiable biases? That is exactly what they ARE doing. Case studies by the score, research so intensive and exhaustive it's difficult to read through. This seems to be an issue of exposure...you have not been exposed to this kind of feminist activism, so you assume it does not exist. Let me give you some links to see how wrong you are:

http://www.womenspace.ca/policy/facts_contents.html
This is a great site about women's issues and the information technologies. It works on affecting public policy through education and actual action campaigns.

http://www.womenspace.ca/directory/directory.cgi
From the same site is a great directory of women's groups around the world, focusing on specific issues. Volumes of research at your fingertips, and information on action campaigns.

By the way, I completely agree with you about job applications. I think that would be a really good way to do the initial application. Unfortunately, things kind of break down at the interview level, but it's a start!

Edit: will you now admit that all feminists are not just 'whining'?

However, men have access to any and all medical procedures, while we have laws specifically restricting a woman's access to certain ones.

Dinner is over, |'m back. :p

Men clearly do not have access to all medical procedures, nor do women, anywhere. Abortion is a peculiarly female procedure as prostate surgery, or vasectomy are peculiarly male. Thes are consequencies of the biology, the phisiology, nothing to do with social discrimination at all.

You completely misintepreted what I have been saying. I accept that inequality exists BUT (and this is what I have been trying to get across) most quantifyable forms of discrimination have been delt with. What I was saying about the unquantifiable sorts is that feminisim is not dealing with these in the way it should. It is just verbally complaining. If feminism wants to make itself heard then it needs to collect proof. And not just staistics but case studies. Find many individual cases of a simmilar nature and present them to the government, at which point the government can then look into a way of legislating to do something about them. The best way to deal with discrimination of any kind (in my opinion) is annomimity. When applying for a job you shouldnt need to specify your name, sex or race (I say name at this point because name can often give away race/sex). You should just be given a number on a form to identify you and then the company can employ you on the basis of your experiance and personality type (as described by your references).

Two huge mistakes in this post.

1 - Such studies have been done, including case studies. They have been presented, both publicly and to the government.

2 - You make the assumption that the only thing anyone can ever do to change the world around them is get a bunch of lawmakers to pass a law.

Dinner is over, |'m back. :p

Men clearly do not have access to all medical procedures, nor do women, anywhere. Abortion is a peculiarly female procedure as prostate surgery, or vasectomy are peculiarly male. Thes are consequencies of the biology, the phisiology, nothing to do with social discrimination at all.

Men have access to all approved medical procedures pertaining to men. Can you name a single place (especially in the Western countries) that vasectomies or prostate surgery is banned?

Where do you get this from? Why are you saying that feminists are not dealing with the unquantifiable biases? That is exactly what they ARE doing. Case studies by the score, research so intensive and exhaustive it's difficult to read through.

The problem with unquantifiable discrimination is that anyone can claim they are suffering from it. Objective research is impossible to do, as the subject is, by definition unquantifiable. This leaves subjective opinion. As is given in the sites you provide links to. It is interesting but does not actually demonstrate anything beyond the fact that some people believe they are being discriminated against sexually. A case study, without hard numerical data, is just one persons description of events. It may have been that way, it may not have. Ask the other actors (this does not mean the Hollywood type OK) in the events to give their side of the story, and you get a completely different description. In this type of case there is more than one truth, so resolving what actually happened is impossible.

I do beleive that Neo Cannen is pushing the "things are already fair" argument a bit too far, but likewise you Sinunue is pushing the "things ain't fair" side too far as well.

Yeah, and I know white guys who say blacks are just whining and discrimination is in the past. I, being white, have not experienced this, but I'm sure all the black folks I know aren't just making it up so they can whine. As a woman I can attest to anti-female bias. It has gotten more subtle, but it's still there.

The problem with unquantifiable discrimination is that anyone can claim they are suffering from it. Objective research is impossible to do, as the subject is, by definition unquantifiable. This leaves subjective opinion. As is given in the sites you provide links to. It is interesting but does not actually demonstrate anything beyond the fact that some people believe they are being discriminated against sexually. A case study, without hard numerical data, is just one persons description of events. It may have been that way, it may not have. Ask the other actors (this does not mean the Hollywood type OK) in the events to give their side of the story, and you get a completely different description. In this type of case there is more than one truth, so resolving what actually happened is impossible.

I do beleive that Neo Cannen is pushing the "things are already fair" argument a bit too far, but likewise you Sinunue is pushing the "things ain't fair" side too far as well.

Now does that apply to the rest of the world too, or just to us 'priveleged' women in the West? Since you don't think we need to fight for equality here, do you at least recognise the need in other nations?

I find it so amusing how people keep declaring: it isn't a problem unless you have facts to prove it's a problem. My own government recognizes gender inequality as a problem:

What is gender equality?

"Gender equality means that women and men have equal conditions for realizing their full human rights and potential to contribute to national political, economic, social and cultural development and benefit equally from the results. Equality is essential for human development and peace.

Attaining gender equality demands a recognition that current social, economic, cultural, and political systems are gendered; that women's unequal status is systemic; that this pattern is further affected by race, ethnicity and disability; and that it is necessary to incorporate women's specificity, priorities and values into all major social institutions."

Since you seem to have been too lazy to actually follow any of the links I posted, here is some information on how gender issues are being dealt with, as well as some of the problems women face in battling them:

http://www.nawl.ca/lob-pay.htm
III. Pay equity is a human right

Pay equity is a human right protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act. The current law prohibits differences in wages between female and male employees who work in the same establishment and perform work of “equal value”. The law applies to employees in the federal public sector and businesses under the federal jurisdiction, such as banks, CN Rail, Bell and Canada Post. Skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions are the factors which are examined to determine the value of a particular type of work.

Pay equity is also constitutionally protected by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Several provinces have specific laws on pay equity which apply only to the provincial public sector, like Manitoba and PEI. Some, like British Colombia and Saskatchewan remain without any specific pay equity laws. Ontario and Quebec are the leaders in pro-active pay equity laws which cover almost all public and private sector employees. Women’s groups and unions in provinces such as New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta continue to demand that their governments introduce proactive pay equity laws to cover all workers.

IV. Problems with the current pay equity law

The federal pay equity law does not work. It is only activated if someone complains. Proactive laws require the employer to take action to ensure that all employees receive equal pay for work of equal value.

Currently, to win equal pay an employee must bring forward a pay equity complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The Commission investigates and if it cannot solve the problem, decides whether or not to refer the file to the Canadian Human Rights tribunal for adjudication.

This all takes an enormous amount of time and resources – which individual women do not have. The entire process is too long, too costly and extremely frustrating, especially for non-unionized women. Unions have tried to use this process to win pay equity and have faced employers who are prepared to spend years in court fighting about unclear terms in the legislation, such as “establishment” or “occupational group” rather than focusing on the merits of the case. One of the many examples of the shortfalls of the pay equity system is the case of unionized clerical workers at Canada Post. These employees have now waited over twenty-one years to have their complaint settled by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

For a full transcript of this issue see: http://www.nawl.ca/lob-pay.htm

Here is some information on women and poverty: http://www.criaw-icref.ca/indexFrame_e.htm

Information on violence against women and girl children: http://www.criaw-icref.ca/indexFrame_e.htm

The problem with unquantifiable discrimination is that anyone can claim they are suffering from it.
That doesn't mean it isn't true...proven or not. When many of these unquantifiable cases come up, you need to start taking it seriously.

That doesn't mean it isn't true...proven or not. When many of these unquantifiable cases come up, you need to start taking it seriously.

Many, meaning what? we are back to quantification as a measure.

Many, meaning what? we are back to quantification as a measure.

If one woman in a company says "I'm being discriminated against," it might be her overreacting, trying to get money, etc. However, if a large percentage of the women there feel that they are being discriminated against, there is a pretty good chance that it is true.

Many, meaning what? we are back to quantification as a measure.
I suspect you are being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

I refuse to quantify this...because then it becomes a number game and we lose the issue.

If something is seen as a systematic problem, even by the highest levels of a government of a "first world" nation, to the extent where human rights tribunals exists and are used frequently, then THE PROBLEM EXISTS. Pretending it doesn't simply because these cases are difficult to 'quantify' does not negate the importance of 'qualifying' them as discriminatory. If everything was fine, if it was all crap and had no basis, our tribunals would shut down. Unions would not be fighting for equal pay. Feminists would not be 'whining' and working their asses off. We are not tilting at windmills here. I'm happy for you, however, as you seem to live in a much happier and fairer world than the rest of us. Illusion is wonderful.

Now does that apply to the rest of the world too, or just to us 'priveleged' women in the West? Since you don't think we need to fight for equality here, do you at least recognise the need in other nations?

I posted earlier about the whole feminism discussion only being possible within the context of Western Culture. The discussion is, frankly, meaningless to the oppressed peoples in Latin America. They are more concerned with surviving, than with arguing about fairness. So no, it does not apply to the rest of the world, but the problems in the rest of the world are much deeper than just unfairness between the sexes.

I find it so amusing how people keep declaring: it isn't a problem unless you have facts to prove it's a problem.

At no time have I, or any one else on this thread, said that it isn't a problem unless you have facts to prove it's a problem. What I have said is that the claims of unfair treatment that are not quantifiable are just that, claims. Now anyone can claim anything they like. The problem is whether people believe them.


Since you seem to have been too lazy to actually follow any of the links I posted, here is some information on how gender issues are being dealt with, as well as some of the problems women face in battling them

Firstly, please do not resort to unfounded insults. I use Firefox and I had, and still have the Canadian Womens Internet Directory open in another tab. Thge contents of this site appear at first viewing to be mostly, and I have not explored the entire site as it is too big to do this in mid discussion, requests for statistical analysis of events, links to radical "feminist" groups with unsubstantiated claims made on them, or suggestions for women as to how to make the unfair game fairer.
The sites linked to have the neutrality of a Cheesehead at Lambeau field, but they do contain some useful advice.

I suspect you are being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

I refuse to quantify this...because then it becomes a number game and we lose the issue.

If something is seen as a systematic problem, even by the highest levels of a government of a "first world" nation, to the extent where human rights tribunals exists and are used frequently, then THE PROBLEM EXISTS. Pretending it doesn't simply because these cases are difficult to 'quantify' does not negate the importance of 'qualifying' them as discriminatory. If everything was fine, if it was all crap and had no basis, our tribunals would shut down. Unions would not be fighting for equal pay. Feminists would not be 'whining' and working their asses off. We are not tilting at windmills here. I'm happy for you, however, as you seem to live in a much happier and fairer world than the rest of us. Illusion is wonderful.


Ther government of the USA sees Islam as a systematic problem, Therefor the problem exists. No, problems are not legislated into existence in this way. Nor are they made real by a group claiming to suffer from them. Note. I am not saying that there is no problem, I am asking you what it is you think that we, the men, should do about it.
Positive discrimination will not help, patting you on the back and saying "there there dear, don't worry your pretty head about it" would just be insulting, throwing our hands in the air and saying sorry, here have my job and salary, just is not goiung to happen.

What I am arguing is that what can be done by men and the government in the US, Canada and the EU has been done. It is out there for you to go and get, now go to it.

I do not live in an illusiory world, where everything is fair and balanced, I live in a real world where you get things by doing things, not by complaining.

I posted earlier about the whole feminism discussion only being possible within the context of Western Culture. The discussion is, frankly, meaningless to the oppressed peoples in Latin America. They are more concerned with surviving, than with arguing about fairness. So no, it does not apply to the rest of the world, but the problems in the rest of the world are much deeper than just unfairness between the sexes. Yes, and I said then that I believe very strongly that you are wrong. Feminism is extremely important in Latin America, as I can attest, having married into a Chilean family. Here's a little snippet for you to prove that women's issues are being taken seriously:


1. Women, regardless of their race, creed, skin colour or political affiliation, have the right to participate in the revolutionary struggle, in the place and to the degree their willingness and ability dictate.

2. Women have the right to work and receive a just pay for their labor.

3. Women have the right to decide the number of children they will bear and care for.

4. Women have the right to participate in community affairs and hold political office if they are elected freely and democratically.

5. Women and their children have the right to PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE in health and food issues.

6. Women have the right to education.

7. Women have the right to choose their spouses and not to be forced into marriage.

8. No woman may be hit or be physically abused neither by relatives nor strangers. Rape assaults and attempted rapes will be severely punished.

9. Women may hold leadership positions in the orgnanisation and hold military rankings in the Revolutionary Armed Forces.

10. Women will have all the rights and obligations set by the Revolutionary Laws and regulations.

For someone who lives in Latin America, you are surprisingly ignorant of the importance of women in terms of major social changes. The Madres of the Plaza de Mayo are an example...mothers of the disappeared in Argentina put enormous pressure on the military dictatorship and brought their plight to the attention of the world. The women of Ayacucho, taking over businesses left behind after husbands, fathers and sons were murdered have formed successful co-ops where once they could not own property or a business. Feminism is about equity of the sexes, but it also addresses ALL issues from a feminist standpoint. Too often, these social issues are dealt with without women's input...resources issues like potable water in Africa are being championed by women, who are the ones who walk miles to bring fresh water to their families. Who more than women champion the rights of their children? ALL issues are gendered, and many women in the Majority (or Third World) World address these issues based on their gender because they SEE things differently. Not because they are inferior or superior, but because they occupy a different social position than men. Feminism, in it's strongest form is found in the developing world, where women are fighting injustice like I could never imagine living under. You do these women little credit by dismissing their struggle.

I do not live in an illusiory world, where everything is fair and balanced, I live in a real world where you get things by doing things, not by complaining.
There again, you say that feminists are NOT going out there and 'doing things' when in fact they are. They are making real changes and working hard to do so.

What I am arguing is that what can be done by men and the government in the US, Canada and the EU has been done. It is out there for you to go and get, now go to it.

I do not live in an illusiory world, where everything is fair and balanced, I live in a real world where you get things by doing things, not by complaining.

I love it when the work of feminists is boiled down to "complaining." When I and other members of SWE (Society of Women Engineers) went to schools to perform science demonstrations/tutor students in math in an attempt to (a) help the students and (b) demonstrate that the "girls aren't good at science and math" stereotype was false - was that complaining?

I love it when the work of feminists is boiled down to "complaining." When I and other members of SWE (Society of Women Engineers) went to schools to perform science demonstrations/tutor students in math in an attempt to (a) help the students and (b) demonstrate that the "girls aren't good at science and math" stereotype was false - was that complaining?

It is absolutely incredible, that at the slightest hint of the word "complain" up go the hackles. I was not saying that you or Sinuhue were complaining. Please read what I post and understand it, rather than just gut reacting. If you think I am criticising you for complaining, then pleas ask me if I am.

I respect what you are doing in yor lives, and it appears to me, that if more people did what you do, there would be less inequality. My arguments here are all based on the position that in the Developed Western World, what can be done to level the playing field has been done. It is now up to the players.

I would like to ask a question that has been in the back of my mind throughout this thread.
Sinuhue started by saying that feminism is not about women but about equality, fairness and so on.

My question is: why is it called feminism then? Capitalism is about the use of capital, socialism is about social policy -ism is a suffix that forms nouns and denotes a state of bias


4. a basis of prejudice or discrimination (racism, sexism) (Concise OED)


Does this not imply that feminism is concerned with prejudice or descrimination against females?

Alright, I've got to go, but I don't want to leave without something positive. Feminism in the West is going to be different than it is in the developing world, as it will be different country to country. That doesn't mean we don't still have work to do, and men are an essential component of that work. You asked what I think men should do to help. The following article sums it up pretty well...and I want to reiterate that I think men are very important in this struggle.


A BLACK WOMAN TOOK MY JOB
Michael Kimmel argues that it is in men’s
interest to work for gender equality.

Over the past three generations, women’s lives have been utterly and completely transformed – in politics, the military, the workplace, professions and education. But during that time, the ideology of masculinity has remained relatively intact. The notions we have about what it means to be a man remain locked in a pattern set decades ago, when the world looked very different. The single greatest obstacle to women’s equality today remains the behaviour and attitudes of men.

In the mid-1970s, an American psychologist offered what he called the four basic rules of masculinity:

1 No Sissy Stuff. Masculinity is based on the relentless repudiation of the feminine.

2 Be a Big Wheel. Masculinity is measured by the size of your paycheck, and marked by wealth, power and status. As a US bumper sticker put it: ‘He who has the most toys when he dies, wins.’

3 Be a Sturdy Oak. What makes a man a man is that he is reliable in a crisis. And what makes him reliable in a crisis is that he resembles an inanimate object. A rock, a pillar, a tree.

4 Give ’em Hell. Exude an aura of daring and aggression. Take risks; live life on the edge.

The past decade has found men bumping up against the limitations of these traditional definitions, but without much of a sense of direction about where they might look for alternatives. We chafe against the edges of traditional masculinity but seem unable or unwilling to break out of the constraints of those four rules. Hence the defensiveness, the anger, the confusion that is everywhere in evidence.

Let me pair up those four rules of manhood with the four areas of change in women’s lives – gender identity, the workplace, the balance of work and family life, the sexual landscape – and suggest some of the issues I believe we are facing around the world today.

First, women made gender visible, but most men do not know they are gendered beings. Courses on gender are still populated mostly by women. Most men don’t see that gender is as central to their lives as it is to women’s. The privilege of privilege is that its terms are rendered invisible. It is a luxury not to have to think about race, or class, or gender. Only those marginalized by some category understand how powerful that category is when deployed against them. I was reminded of this recently when I went to give a guest lecture for a female colleague at my university. (We teach the same course on alternate semesters, so she always gives a guest lecture for me, and I do one for her.) As I walked into the auditorium, one student looked up at me and said: ‘Oh, finally, an objective opinion!’

The second area in which women’s lives have changed is the workplace. Recall the second rule of manhood: Be a Big Wheel. Most men derive their identity as breadwinners, as family providers. Often, though, the invisibility of masculinity makes it hard to see how gender equality will actually benefit us as men. For example, while we speak of the ‘feminization of poverty’ we rarely ‘see’ its other side – the ‘masculinization of wealth’. Instead of saying that US women, on average, earn 70 per cent of what US men earn, what happens if we say that men are earning $1.30 for every dollar women earn? Now suddenly privilege is visible!

Recently I appeared on a television talk show opposite three ‘angry white males’ who felt they had been the victims of workplace discrimination. The show's title was ‘A Black Woman Took My Job’. In my comments to these men, I invited them to consider what the word ‘my’ meant in that title: that they felt that the jobs were originally ‘theirs’. But by what right is that ‘his’ job? Only by his sense of entitlement, which he now perceives as threatened by the movement towards workplace gender equality.

The economic landscape has changed dramatically and those changes have not necessarily been kind to most men. The great global expansion of the 1990s affected the top 20 per cent of the labour force. There are fewer and fewer ‘big wheels’. European countries have traded growth for high unemployment, which will mean that more and more men will feel as though they haven't made the grade, will feel damaged, injured, powerless. These are men who will need to demonstrate their masculinity all over again. And here come women into the workplace in unprecedented numbers. Just when men's economic breadwinner status is threatened, women appear on the scene as easy targets for men's anger – or versions of anger. Sexual harassment, for example, is a way to remind women that they are not yet equals in the workplace, that they really don't belong there.

It is also in our interests as men to begin to find a better balance of work and family life. There’s a saying that ‘no man on his deathbed ever wished he had spent more time at the office’. But remember the third rule of manhood: Be a Sturdy Oak. What has traditionally made men reliable in a crisis is also what makes us unavailable emotionally to others. We are increasingly finding that the very things that we thought would make us real men impoverish our relationships with other men and with our children. Fatherhood, friendship, partnership all require emotional resources that have been, traditionally, in short supply among men, resources such as patience, compassion, tenderness, attention to process.

In the US, men become more active fathers by ‘helping out’ or by ‘pitching in’; they spend ‘quality time’ with their children. But it is not ‘quality time’ that will provide the deep intimate relationships that we say we want, either with our partners or with our children. It's quantity time – putting in those long, hard hours of thankless, unnoticed drudge – that creates the foundation of intimacy. Nurture is doing the unheralded tasks, like holding someone when they are sick, doing the laundry, the ironing, washing the dishes. After all, men are capable of being surgeons and chefs, so we must be able to learn how to sew and to cook.

Finally, let’s examine the last rule of manhood: Give ’em Hell. What this says to men is: take risks, live dangerously. And this, of course, impacts most dramatically on our bodies, sex, health and violence. Masculinity is the chief reason why men do not seek healthcare as often as women. Women perform self-exams, seek preventive screenings, and pay attention to diet, substance abuse, far more often than men. Why? As health researcher Will Courtenay writes: ‘A man who does gender correctly would be relatively unconcerned about his health and wellbeing in general. He would see himself as stronger, both physically and emotionally than most women. He would think of himself as independent, not needing to be nurtured by others.’1 Or, as one Zimbabwean man put it, ‘real men don’t get sick’.2

Indeed. The ideas that we thought would make us ‘real men’ are the very things that endanger our health. One researcher suggested slapping a warning label on us: Caution: Masculinity May be Hazardous to your Health. A 1994 study of adolescent males in the US found that adherence to traditional masculinity ideology was associated with: being suspended from school, drinking, use of street drugs, having a high number of sexual partners, not using condoms, being picked up by the police, forcing someone to have sex.3
These gender-conforming behaviours increase boys’ risk for HIV, STDs, early death by accident, injury or homicide. It’s no exaggeration to say that the spread of HIV is driven by masculinity. HIV risk reduction requires men to take responsibility by wearing condoms. But in many cultures ignoring the health risks to one’s partner, eschewing birth control and fathering many children are signs of masculine control and power.

Finally, let me turn to what may be the single greatest public health issue of all: violence. In the US, men and boys are responsible for 95 per cent of all violent crimes. Every day 12 boys and young men commit suicide – 7 times the number of girls. Every day, 18 boys and young men die from homicide – 10 times the number of girls. From an early age, boys learn that violence is not only an acceptable form of conflict resolution but one that is admired. Four times more teenage boys than girls think fighting is appropriate when someone cuts into the front of a line. Half of all teenage boys get into a physical fight each year.

Violence has been part of the meaning of manhood, part of the way men have traditionally tested, demonstrated and proved their manhood. Without another cultural mechanism by which young boys can come to think of themselves as men, they’ve eagerly embraced violence as a way to become men. It would be a major undertaking to enumerate all the health consequences that result from the equation of violence and masculinity.
And just as women are saying ‘yes’ to their own sexual desires, there’s an increased awareness of the problem of rape all over the world, especially of date and acquaintance rape. In one recent US study, 45 per cent of all college women said that they had had some form of sexual contact against their will, and a full 25 per cent had been pressed or forced to have sexual intercourse against their will. When one psychologist asked male undergraduates if they would commit rape if they were certain they could get away with it, almost 50 per cent said they would. Nearly 20 years ago, anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday proposed a continuum of propensity to commit rape upon which all societies could be plotted – from ‘rape-prone’ to ‘rape-free’. (The US was ranked as a highly rape-prone society, far more than any country in Europe; Norway and Sweden were among the most rape-free.) Sanday found that the single best predictors of rape-proneness were:

1 Whether the woman continued to own property in her own name after marriage, a measure of women’s autonomy.

2 Father’s involvement in child-rearing; a measure of how valued parenting is, and how valued women’s work.

So women’s economic autonomy is a good predictor of their safety – as is men’s participation in child-rearing. If men act at home the way we say we want to act, women will be safer.

And the news gets better. A 1996 study of Swedish couples found positive health outcomes for wives, husbands and children when the married couple adopted a partnership model in work-family balance issues. A recent study in the US found that men who shared housework and childcare had better health, were happier in their marriages, reported fewer psychological distress symptoms, and – perhaps most important to them – had more sex! That’s right, men who share housework have more sex. What could possibly be more in men’s ‘interests’ than that?

Another change that is beginning to erode some of those traditional ‘masculine’ traits, is the gradual mainstreaming of gay male culture. One of the surprise hit TV shows of the past year has been ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’. Imagine if, 10 years ago, there'd been a TV show in which five flamboyantly gay men showed up at a straight guy's house to go through his clothing, redo his house and tell him, basically, that he hasn't a clue about how to be socially acceptable. The success of ‘Queer Eye’ has been the partial collapse of homophobia among straight men. And the cause of that erosion is simple: straight women, who have begun to ask straight men: ‘Why can't you guys be more like gay guys?’

Rather than resisting the transformation of our lives that gender equality offers, I believe that we should embrace these changes, both because they offer us the possibilities of social and economic equality, and because they also offer us the possibilities of richer, fuller, happier lives with our friends, with our lovers, with our partners, and with our children. We, as men, should support gender equality, both at work and at home. Not because it’s right and just – although it is those things. But because of what it will do for us, as men.

The feminist transformation of society is a revolution-in-progress. For nearly two centuries, we men have met insecurity by frantically shoring up our privilege or by running away. These strategies have never brought us the security and the peace we have sought. Perhaps now, as men, we can stand with women and embrace the rest of this revolution; embrace it because of our sense of justice and fairness, embrace it for our children, our wives, our partners, and ourselves. Ninety years ago, the American writer Floyd Dell wrote an essay called ‘Feminism for Men’. It’s first line was this: ‘Feminism will make it possible for the first time for men to be free’.

Michael Kimmel is professor of sociology at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. His books include Manhood in America (Free Press, 1996) and The Gendered Society (Oxford University Press, 2000). He is spokesperson for the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS); www.michaelkimmel.com
1 WH Courtenay, ‘College Men's Health: An Overview and a Call to Action’, Journal of American College Health, Vol 46 No 6, 1998.
2 M Foreman (ed), AIDS and Men: Taking Risks or Taking Responsibility, Zed Books, 1999.
3 JH Pleck, FL Sonenstein, and LC Ku, ‘Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent males' heterosexual relationships’ Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3), 11-29, 1993.

It is absolutely incredible, that at the slightest hint of the word "complain" up go the hackles. I was not saying that you or Sinuhue were complaining. Please read what I post and understand it, rather than just gut reacting. If you think I am criticising you for complaining, then pleas ask me if I am.

I respect what you are doing in yor lives, and it appears to me, that if more people did what you do, there would be less inequality. My arguments here are all based on the position that in the Developed Western World, what can be done to level the playing field has been done. It is now up to the players.
That being said, I was reacting more to Neo Cannen's constaint assertation that feminists are whiners.

I would like to ask a question that has been in the back of my mind throughout this thread.
Sinuhue started by saying that feminism is not about women but about equality, fairness and so on.

My question is: why is it called feminism then? Capitalism is about the use of capital, socialism is about social policy -ism is a suffix that forms nouns and denotes a state of bias



Does this not imply that feminism is concerned with prejudice or descrimination against females?
I think I answered this in the beginning post...that feminism began as a movement by women. Read the first post over...I have to leave...

I would like to ask a question that has been in the back of my mind throughout this thread.
Sinuhue started by saying that feminism is not about women but about equality, fairness and so on.

My question is: why is it called feminism then? Capitalism is about the use of capital, socialism is about social policy -ism is a suffix that forms nouns and denotes a state of bias

It is a historical construct. When feminism began, women were being treated *extremely* unequally. The obvious first goal was to begin to make this more equal. However, if men are being treated inequitably, so are women, by default.

Does this not imply that feminism is concerned with prejudice or descrimination against females?

Feminisms is concerned with prejudice or descrimination based on gender. (Most feminists are also concerned with other types of bigotry, but there are other labels for that).

Sinuhue, anyone quoting the Zapatista movement has a nil understanding of South American politics. Go look up the murders and mayhem for which they are responsible.

As mães de Praça de Maio (Portuguese as I am in Brazil) are a worthy movement, but have nothing to do with feminism or fairness. This has been traditionally the role of women since Roman times. It may have been better if it had been "Os pais" ("Los Padres" I think, my Spanish is almost non existant) as this would have been breaking the stereotypical gender roles.

That being said, I was reacting more to Neo Cannen's constaint assertation that feminists are whiners.

As was I. I have described the exact situation I described above (SWE's attempt to refute the stereotype that females just aren't good at math/science) and Neo has replied "Stop whining! There is no such stereotype!"

Or accept the fact that most parties won't run women because they think they'll lose to a male candidate. Rightly or wrongly. Only once have I had the choice to vote for a woman either in provincial or federal elections. ONCE. I didn't, because I don't like her politics...not her gender.
oddly enough, in my riding in the last federal election, two of the candidates were women. i voted for one. she lost to the other woman. though it was more a matter of an ndp candidate losing to a liberal one...

Sinuhue, anyone quoting the Zapatista movement has a nil understanding of South American politics. Go look up the murders and mayhem for which they are responsible.

As mães de Praça de Maio (Portuguese as I am in Brazil) are a worthy movement, but have nothing to do with feminism or fairness. This has been traditionally the role of women since Roman times. It may have been better if it had been "Os pais" ("Los Padres" I think, my Spanish is almost non existant) as this would have been breaking the stereotypical gender roles.
Now who is showing their ignorance? The Zapatista movement is widely recognised internationally as a peaceful revolution. Outside of the violence during the first days of the movement, the Zapatistas have maintained their autonomy non-violently despite the government forces that constantly harry them. This is due, for the most part, to the coordination of international 'witnesses' in the area. The Zapatista movement is an extremely good example of alternative Latin American politics....the fact that you think Mexico is in South America is also cause for concern. The Zapatista movement is one of the first contemporary movements in Latin America organised by indigenous peoples, by indigenous peoples for indigenous peoples. It is also one of the first revolutions in the Americas to openly include women, causing a sort of cultural revolution within their own communities as women there had little status. The understanding that no revolution can truly be successful, that no society can truly be cohesive without the participation of both men and women has escaped every middle class Che Guevara wannabe revolutionary to date.

But let's talk about Brazil, since you know so little of what occurs outside your borders. The Movimento dos Trabhadores Rurais Sem Terra, (Rural Landless Worker's Movement) tired of waiting for promised land reforms to be put into place, have been claiming land for the homeless workers of Brazil. Integral to this movement is the understanding that women have an important part to play in the cultivation of foodstuffs. The Movimento de Mulheres Trabalhadoras Rurais (Rural Women Worker's Movement) of Rio Grande do Sur has been dealing with the gendered politics of Brazil in a manner that both respects men's rights, but also advances the rights of women. The MST and the MMTR work together (though they may not always agree) to advocate for the rights of the rural landless, and have become one of the most successful agrarian movements in the world. Inclusion, not exclusion make for a stronger movement.

I understand what you are saying about the West. Women in the west do not face the brutal conditions that are institutionalised in many countries. You feel that whatever could be done to level the playing field HAS been done, and now individual women must fight against gender inequality that is less quantifiable. To a certain extent, I agree with you, though I'd like to point out that this is exactly what IS happening. Nonetheless, the onus should not be solely on individual women or individual women's groups to do this. Existing legislation needs to be applied. In an earlier link, I quoted a legal society in Canada that deals with gender discrimination in the workplace. The incredible time, energy and funds needed to fight one of these cases in the courts is ridiculous, and prohibitive for most women. The system still needs work. That means women, men and legislators need to sit down and MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK BETTER.

There are still gender issues that must be resolved, and you are a part of that, just as I am. Men need to discovery their own gendered identities, and be conscious of the social attitudes that push them in certain directions and form their attitudes. I want my sons to feel like they can depend on someone like a spouse or partner when things get rough. They shouldn't have to be the strong one all the time. I want them to respect women, and I want them to respect themselves. That means being AWARE of attitudes that foster gender bias, resisting stereotypes and ACTIVELY working for solutions. Why? Because if we really want to advance as a society, as a collection of families, as individuals, we need to respect the human rights of everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs or sexuality. The fact that gender simply gets left out as being 'less important' denies the reality that women make up half of the world. EVERY POLITICAL ISSUE affects women, as it does men. Women are not a single cohesive group. We are poor, we are rich, we all colours, creeds, religions, affiliations, nationalities...just like men. We may see things differently, but in the end, our goals should be the same: we want partnerships, not a master/slave relationship. We want to have an equal share in deciding our futures. If you can't respect that....if you can't help us....then at least don't throw up more obstacles in our path and tell us "look ladies, the war's over, and you won', because NO human rights issues have been completely victorious. Until ALL women and ALL men have equity, no matter what country or group they belong to, this is an issue that will remain pertinent.

As mães de Praça de Maio (Portuguese as I am in Brazil) [Mothers of the May Plaza in Argentina-Sinuhue] are a worthy movement, but have nothing to do with feminism or fairness. This has been traditionally the role of women since Roman times. It may have been better if it had been "Os pais" ("Los Padres" I think, my Spanish is almost non existant) as this would have been breaking the stereotypical gender roles.
You couldn't be more wrong. This is where you need to understand how politics are gendered.

The Mothers of the May Plaza (Madres de la Plaza de Mayo) most certainly have something to do with feminism and fairness. They began organising after their sons were murdered or disappeared by the Argentine dictatorship. The Mothers didn't remain only the mothers...sisters, wives, daughters, nieces, grandmothers....women of every relationship to the disappeared began this regular protest, though the name did not change. The traditional role of the women in Argentina was in the home...to be nurturing, to care for the husband and children, but most of all, to remain passive. Women were not particularly political before this. The Madres defied the stereotypical role of passivity and put themselves in harms way to defy a dictatorship that had robbed them of their loved ones. They demanded truth, they demanded justice, they demanded an end to the dictatorship. This non-violent, regular process had a profound impact. If these women, normal homemakers and the like, could under such extreme provocation find the strength within themselves to protest, even when it could mean their lives were in danger, then perhaps ALL Argentines could find it within themselves to resist oppression. The dictatorship feared harming these women, as they knew it would incite an uprising beyond anything they were prepared to deal with. They put up with the protests, despite the attention it drew from other nations, despite the fact that it was undermining their power structure, because other than killing every last woman in the Plaza (which even then may not work, if new women took their place), they had NO power over the Madres.

Calling them the Fathers of the Disappeared would have been ridiculous. They were already defying traditional gender roles. They weren't the fathers...the fathers had been murdered. These were WOMEN...why should they call themselves men?

It is no traditional role of women to protest so strongly the deaths of their loved ones. It is the traditional role of women to grieve, to sorrow, to do without, silent in their loss. THAT is what the Madres changed. They broke the silence.

I guess the biggest clarification I want to make about feminism is this:

Feminism looks at all issues through the lens of gender equality. Too often, issue-politics do not address this. For example, poverty groups need to take into account that among the poor, the 'poorest of the poor' are women and children. If poverty is to be tackled in any successful way, it must be aware of that disparity within the group labeled 'poor' and deal with it.

That isn't to say that feminism promotes women's rights over men's. That is a common misconception. Women are not always the more subjugated group. Nonetheless, any issue that affects humans, affect women and men differently, depending on the gendered power structures of the society in which they live.

One more kick at the can, since you're back online Alien Born...

One more kick at the can, since you're back online Alien Born...

I'm online yes, but I was going to let us disagree in peace. I thnik I still will for now. Thank you for the debate, and power to us all. :cool:

Oh and congrats on reaching 1000

I'm online yes, but I was going to let us disagree in peace. I thnik I still will for now. Thank you for the debate, and power to us all. :cool:

Oh and congrats on reaching 1000
Damn, I didn't even notice....

Pimp!?? How horribly ironic!

Well, thanks to you too for the debate...it had my mind whirling:)

Hmm, you sure you weren't accidentally in a middle school? It sounds like you were hanging around 15 year olds. I recognise that women are as clever and valuable as men. Can you please recognise that not all 15 year olds are Kevins? (Defensive and off topic I know, but this is the sort of thing that comes from discrimination ;) ).

I recognise that women are as clever and valuable as men. Can you please recognise that not all 15 year olds are Kevins? (Defensive and off topic I know, but this is the sort of thing that comes from discrimination ;) ).
Absolutely...I've taught many age groups, and I have to say the most interesting are in the 15 - 18 age group...their politics are just being developed and tried out, and they can be very passionate. Of course, some of them can be turds, but can't we all?

Absolutely...I've taught many age groups, and I have to say the most interesting are in the 15 - 18 age group...their politics are just being developed and tried out, and they can be very passionate. Of course, some of them can be turds, but can't we all? Unfortunately, it is a section with many chavs. Our politics are often extremist (I have many fascistic friends, and I want a theocracy), but it's glad not to be recognised for a Kevin.

Anyway, women should have equal rights, I can't bother to say what exactly I mean by that, but I would like them to have more family/mother support.

first of all i am a guy

second of all i believe that most of the sexist treatment is just an illusion
guys treat each other like asses all the time
girls are just a little bit more sensitive
if they be like an ass to them then the guys will generally accept them
(might not like but accept)

You may manage to get me angry in the middle of this, so | will apologize in advance for any tempewr tantrums, OK. :)

Now who is showing their ignorance? The Zapatista movement is widely recognised internationally as a peaceful revolution. Outside of the violence during the first days of the movement, the Zapatistas have maintained their autonomy non-violently despite the government forces that constantly harry them.

Apart from when they were violent, the huns were not violent. The same applies to the Nazis, Bush etc. The Zapatista movement is widely rcognised as a terrorist group, with a marxist agenda. Not as a peaceful group of revolutionaries. I think we have different backgrounds here. To keep it simple, a peaceful movement is something like Solidarity, or Gandhi in India, a movement that has never advocated violence. You can not start by being armed revolutionaries, and then try to claim that you are peaceful as soon as you are criticised for this. (Sinn Fein needs to understand this in Northern Ireland, as does ETA in the Basque country).

This is due, for the most part, to the coordination of international 'witnesses' in the area. The Zapatista movement is an extremely good example of alternative Latin American politics....the fact that you think Mexico is in South America is also cause for concern. The Zapatista movement is one of the first contemporary movements in Latin America organised by indigenous peoples, by indigenous peoples for indigenous peoples.

South America is my slip, culturally induced as the Latin Americans tend not to use the term South America so they include Mexico, I used it because I come from Britain originally. My bad.

The Zapatista movement is one of the first contemporary movements. Huh? The current war in Iraq is one of the first contemporary wars. Anything that is happening now is one of the first contemporary things. A complete oxymoron that reduces the whole statement to meaninglessness.


It is also one of the first revolutions in the Americas to openly include women, causing a sort of cultural revolution within their own communities as women there had little status. The understanding that no revolution can truly be successful, that no society can truly be cohesive without the participation of both men and women has escaped every middle class Che Guevara wannabe revolutionary to date.

The need for women to participate is true, see the French revolution, for a good example. See also the movements for democracy throughout Latin America, with their "panelada" protests by the houswives. and so on.

But let's talk about Brazil, since you know so little of what occurs outside your borders. The Movimento dos Trabhadores Rurais Sem Terra, (Rural Landless Worker's Movement) tired of waiting for promised land reforms to be put into place, have been claiming land for the homeless workers of Brazil. Integral to this movement is the understanding that women have an important part to play in the cultivation of foodstuffs. The Movimento de Mulheres Trabalhadoras Rurais (Rural Women Worker's Movement) of Rio Grande do Sur has been dealing with the gendered politics of Brazil in a manner that both respects men's rights, but also advances the rights of women. The MST and the MMTR work together (though they may not always agree) to advocate for the rights of the rural landless, and have become one of the most successful agrarian movements in the world. Inclusion, not exclusion make for a stronger movement.

I have no doubt that women are involved in the illegal occupation of productive rural land, by people who, for the majority, are not rural workers, have no interest in farming, and have refused to accept the perfectly good land that they have been given. I am sorry but you simply have no idea whatsoever about the MST movement if you are depending upon the foreign press. It may be that I know little about the zapatista movement, but I do know what MST are doing. I live in Rio Grande do Sul (not Sur, by the way, we are not Spanish speakers) where there has been a more reasoned debate with the local MST, which may well be the influence of the MMTR, but in Paraná, and Mato Grosso do Sul, and Minas Gerais, and São Paolo, and probably elsewhere, MST has staged armed invasions of farms. killing the rural workers, the farm owners, the livestock and destroying the crops. They then claim that they are being oppressed by the government when the police are sent to evict them. Sorry, they are often just simple urban criminals, with their eyes set on being given land that they can ten sell back to the previous owners. (You got me angry here.) Oh,and by the way, the lawyer, yes lawyer not rural farm worker, who was one of the leaders of MST has just been convicted of money laundering and international drug trafficing.

I understand what you are saying about the West. Women in the west do not face the brutal conditions that are institutionalised in many countries. You feel that whatever could be done to level the playing field HAS been done, and now individual women must fight against gender inequality that is less quantifiable. To a certain extent, I agree with you, though I'd like to point out that this is exactly what IS happening.

Cooled down now, back on a level keel. So we agree here, great.

Nonetheless, the onus should not be solely on individual women or individual women's groups to do this. Existing legislation needs to be applied. In an earlier link, I quoted a legal society in Canada that deals with gender discrimination in the workplace. The incredible time, energy and funds needed to fight one of these cases in the courts is ridiculous, and prohibitive for most women. The system still needs work. That means women, men and legislators need to sit down and MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK BETTER.

All legislation needs enforcement. It is not just the sex discrimination cases that require this effort, any civil case requires it. This includes slander, race discrimination, fraud etc. Yes, a lot of effort is required, but no more so than anywhere else. The field is level.

There are still gender issues that must be resolved, and you are a part of that, just as I am. Men need to discovery their own gendered identities, and be conscious of the social attitudes that push them in certain directions and form their attitudes. I want my sons to feel like they can depend on someone like a spouse or partner when things get rough. They shouldn't have to be the strong one all the time. I want them to respect women, and I want them to respect themselves.

I take a different line. Yes there are still gender issues, and there always will be while we consider gender to be an issue. In the USA religion is an issue, and people discuss the rights and wrongs of it. In Canada (Quebec specifically) language is an issue, that is constantly under discussion. In Brazil social programs are an iussue that are constantly under discussion, and a basis for discrimination. Language and religion are not issues here, and by being non issues they cease to be a basis of peoples thinking. While gender is an issue, people will think about gender, some of them, will develop and use prejudices. If gender was not an issue, then no prejudice formation would occurr. We both have the same ends, people treated as people, just we differ in our opinions as to how to achieve this.

That means being AWARE of attitudes that foster gender bias, resisting stereotypes and ACTIVELY working for solutions. Why? Because if we really want to advance as a society, as a collection of families, as individuals, we need to respect the human rights of everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs or sexuality. The fact that gender simply gets left out as being 'less important' denies the reality that women make up half of the world.

No it does not, it simply says that women and men should not be thought of as different. Introducing gender, makes it contentious. In the past, it was necessary, as the odds were stacked. Now that we are all playing with the same dice, gender should simply be irrelevant.

EVERY POLITICAL ISSUE affects women, as it does men. Women are not a single cohesive group. We are poor, we are rich, we all colours, creeds, religions, affiliations, nationalities...just like men. We may see things differently, but in the end, our goals should be the same: we want partnerships, not a master/slave relationship. We want to have an equal share in deciding our futures. If you can't respect that....if you can't help us....then at least don't throw up more obstacles in our path and tell us "look ladies, the war's over, and you won', because NO human rights issues have been completely victorious. Until ALL women and ALL men have equity, no matter what country or group they belong to, this is an issue that will remain pertinent.

Why do you have to address this to WOMEN and MEN and not to simply people. We all want to have an equal share in deciding our future. Unfortunately, this is not possible without intolerable encroachment on our beloved civil liberties. So we can at least make sure that we all have the same chance of having a say, even if we do not all get that say. People are not equal, some have more drive, some are more intelligent, some have better genes for some things etc. Society is also not egalitarian, in that there are succesful individuals, who can provide better for their children, and people who fail financially, who can not provide for their children. Unles you want to forcibly redistribute wealth every week, this inequality will exist forever, it is part of what the human race, imperfect as it is, is. There are enough differences already between people, why create one more by focussing on gender

Back to you.

You couldn't be more wrong. This is where you need to understand how politics are gendered.

The Mothers of the May Plaza (Madres de la Plaza de Mayo) most certainly have something to do with feminism and fairness. They began organising after their sons were murdered or disappeared by the Argentine dictatorship. The Mothers didn't remain only the mothers...sisters, wives, daughters, nieces, grandmothers....women of every relationship to the disappeared began this regular protest, though the name did not change. The traditional role of the women in Argentina was in the home...to be nurturing, to care for the husband and children, but most of all, to remain passive.

You obviously do not know Argentinian women, but here goes.
The female, in Latin American culture is supossed to be submissive to her husband. And just to her husband. This is changing, and is not the subject here. Where there is any activity which concerns children, of any age, of a family, this is the business of the women, and has always been so. (Horribly prejudiced position, but the traditional one) The role, as you say, was that of homemaker, but home, in their eyes, includes the protection of the children when they are outside of the home. A man's role, in this culture, was to provide the food and shelter, either directly by his own labour, or by providing money for this. His responsibilities stopped there.

Women were not particularly political before this. The Madres defied the stereotypical role of passivity and put themselves in harms way to defy a dictatorship that had robbed them of their loved ones. They demanded truth, they demanded justice, they demanded an end to the dictatorship. This non-violent, regular process had a profound impact. If these women, normal homemakers and the like, could under such extreme provocation find the strength within themselves to protest, even when it could mean their lives were in danger, then perhaps ALL Argentines could find it within themselves to resist oppression. The dictatorship feared harming these women, as they knew it would incite an uprising beyond anything they were prepared to deal with. They put up with the protests, despite the attention it drew from other nations, despite the fact that it was undermining their power structure, because other than killing every last woman in the Plaza (which even then may not work, if new women took their place), they had NO power over the Madres.

While politics had little or no impact on family life, the traditional Latin American woman had little or no interest in politics (My mother in law is a typical example of this). When politics encroached on the dominion of the women, by destroying families, in the Argentinian case, then the women reacted. This was their traditional role. Defend the family, defend the household. The Junta in Argentina were as bound by their traditional roles as the women were. They could not react against the Madres, because the Madres were doing what tradition said they had to do. If it had not been traditional, then the protest would have been destroyed before anyone outside of Argentina ever heard of it. As happened to various student protests against the military dictatorship in Brazil, and in Argentina.

Calling them the Fathers of the Disappeared would have been ridiculous. They were already defying traditional gender roles. They weren't the fathers...the fathers had been murdered. These were WOMEN...why should they call themselves men?

You misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that the women should call themselves men. I was saying that what would really have broken the gender roles would have been men protesting. Remember the defence of the family and children was a woman's job. A man doing this would have been shocking.


It is no traditional role of women to protest so strongly the deaths of their loved ones. It is the traditional role of women to grieve, to sorrow, to do without, silent in their loss. THAT is what the Madres changed. They broke the silence.

In the Latin American culture it IS the traditional role of women to defend the family. This appears to be what you have missed. It is no longer traditional in Western Europe, but it was before the industrial revolution, when the woman ruled the household. I would recommend reading Shakespeare for evidence. Latin America is in many ways just emerging from its pre industrial revolution phase, and women still have their traditional pre industrial revolution roles here.

Alien Born,
people are different, and no amount of ideology is going to change this fact. Do you really think that your father is as clued up about what it feels like to give birth as your mother?

I know for a fact that I dont know what it feels like to wake up with a morning boner, just as I know that males dont know what it feels like to menstruate.

Now recall that society does not socialise males and females identically.

To ignore gender is to shut down the voice of one or the other gender's body of experiance, and thus deny that gender's full participation in deciding how to proceed.

Ideology doesnt trump fact, males and females are substantively different physically and with regards to their body of experiance. Both genders have as much business expecting that their identity as a gender not be either ignored, or dictated to them.

You may manage to get me angry in the middle of this, so | will apologize in advance for any tempewr tantrums, OK. :)
Well, to be fair, when I re-read my post the next day, it sounded much more...um....ANGRY than I usually like to be, so let's agree to ignore our outbursts:).



Apart from when they were violent, the huns were not violent. The same applies to the Nazis, Bush etc. The Zapatista movement is widely rcognised as a terrorist group, with a marxist agenda. Not as a peaceful group of revolutionaries. I think we have different backgrounds here. To keep it simple, a peaceful movement is something like Solidarity, or Gandhi in India, a movement that has never advocated violence. You can not start by being armed revolutionaries, and then try to claim that you are peaceful as soon as you are criticised for this. (Sinn Fein needs to understand this in Northern Ireland, as does ETA in the Basque country).
Ok, good point, and I'll agree with you for the most part. However, whatever their agenda (marxist or otherwise) they have tried as hard as possible to keep violence to a minimum (so I'll stop calling them non-violent, just less-violent). Unlike Sendero Luminoso in Peru, they don't go around terrorising the populace who in turn also got terrorised by government troops. Sorry if I go on about this a bit much...I am fascinated by the Zapatistas and it's a little soft spot with me. Back to my blah blah...most revolutions are started by middle class, educated men who feel they have the ability to speak for all the oppressed, including indigenous people. These revolutions invariably become a cult of personality rather than a true, broad movement. The Zapatistas are one of the few successful movements that include women, and speak for themselves. Yes, they have a Spanish-speaking spokesperson in Marcos, but he is neither THE leader, or even a particularly important leader...more like their PR department:). One of the reasons this revolution has been so successful is because women were included at the onset...the men had to make serious and disconcerting changes in their way of life in order to overturn centuries-old gender roles...no doubt something that was very, very hard to do.


South America is my slip, culturally induced as the Latin Americans tend not to use the term South America so they include Mexico, I used it because I come from Britain originally. My bad.
I was just picking on you, sorry. Latinoamerica does indeed include ALL of Latin America, and the South or North (including what we, for some reason call Central America like it's a different continent) are usually reserved for treaty designations.

The Zapatista movement is one of the first contemporary movements. Huh? The current war in Iraq is one of the first contemporary wars. Anything that is happening now is one of the first contemporary things. A complete oxymoron that reduces the whole statement to meaninglessness.
Ok, now you're picking on me:) Okay, wrong word...let's say "in the last 200 years".




The need for women to participate is true, see the French revolution, for a good example. See also the movements for democracy throughout Latin America, with their "panelada" protests by the houswives. and so on.
We agree. No comment.


I have no doubt that women are involved in the illegal occupation of productive rural land, by people who, for the majority, are not rural workers, have no interest in farming, and have refused to accept the perfectly good land that they have been given. I am sorry but you simply have no idea whatsoever about the MST movement if you are depending upon the foreign press.

Actually, though no less biased, I get my info from Virginia Wamierbon, a member of the MMTR I billeted during a human right's conference. The landless movement, from my understanding (her Spanish was okay, but my Portuguese is atrocious) is not only about rural workers, but has also included the urban homeless. Whether we agree on their methods or not, the movement has nonetheless included the specific agenda of women who make up a sizeable portion of the homeless, as well as their children. Women and children are often the poorest of the poor, but rarely are given a voice in such movements, or in plans meant to address poverty and homelessness. They are usually lumped in with the men, even though their situations vary because of gender roles.
It may be that I know little about the zapatista movement, but I do know what MST are doing. I live in Rio Grande do Sul (not Sur, by the way, we are not Spanish speakers) Yeah yeah...one spelling error...sheesh:)! where there has been a more reasoned debate with the local MST, which may well be the influence of the MMTR, but in Paraná, and Mato Grosso do Sul, and Minas Gerais, and São Paolo, and probably elsewhere, MST has staged armed invasions of farms. killing the rural workers, the farm owners, the livestock and destroying the crops. They then claim that they are being oppressed by the government when the police are sent to evict them. Sorry, they are often just simple urban criminals, with their eyes set on being given land that they can ten sell back to the previous owners. Yikes...I brought up a bad one, didn't I? Sigh...I'm strictly pacifist, I don't agree with any violence and prefer passive resistance, so I do not support this. I brought it up only to show you that women's rights are indeed on the agenda in Latin America, despite the various other issues that seem more pressing. ALL issues are gendered, and to be frank, women in the rest of the world often do a better job of involving themselves than women in the West. You contended that the women's right's movement was not as important in areas where poverty and oppression were more pressing...but I contend that it is precisely in those areas that women's rights are even more important than in the West. Anyway.

(You got me angry here.) Oh,and by the way, the lawyer, yes lawyer not rural farm worker, who was one of the leaders of MST has just been convicted of money laundering and international drug trafficing. And so another revolution bites the dust....

All legislation needs enforcement. It is not just the sex discrimination cases that require this effort, any civil case requires it. This includes slander, race discrimination, fraud etc. Yes, a lot of effort is required, but no more so than anywhere else. The field is level.
I suffer exhaustion...yes, they all need enforcement. The field is not level unless all the players are level, and women still account for a higher percentage of poor than men. Speaking in broad terms, men on average have more funds to work with than women in these cases. That doesn't mean they both won't be broke at the end. It just means it can be that much harder for the woman to go forward with a complaint. As well, woman have that one extra discrimination to worry about...based on gender. Men (usually) don't. So that's equal issues +1 for women....not a huge gap, but a gap nonetheless. It's hard to make this clear, but that's as good as I can do right now.

I take a different line. Yes there are still gender issues, and there always will be while we consider gender to be an issue. In the USA religion is an issue, and people discuss the rights and wrongs of it. In Canada (Quebec specifically) language is an issue, that is constantly under discussion. In Brazil social programs are an iussue that are constantly under discussion, and a basis for discrimination. Language and religion are not issues here, and by being non issues they cease to be a basis of peoples thinking. While gender is an issue, people will think about gender, some of them, will develop and use prejudices. If gender was not an issue, then no prejudice formation would occurr. We both have the same ends, people treated as people, just we differ in our opinions as to how to achieve this.
Yes, everything is an issue if it's an issue...that's kind of redundant, isn't it? If a tree falls in the forest....it seems you are suggesting that women should stop making gender an issue, but I don't think women are making it an issue...they are merely commenting ON the issue. Unless men no longer have issues with gender (that includes their own gender identity) and women no longer have issues with gender, THEN it will cease to be an issue. Not talking about it, even though it will continue to exist doesn't make it a non-issue...it makes it a non-acknowleged issue. In order for gender to no longer be an issue, our attitudes about gender need to change. Feminism did not create those attitudes...it was created as a response to them. There is not gender bias because women think it into existence.

No it does not, it simply says that women and men should not be thought of as different. Introducing gender, makes it contentious. In the past, it was necessary, as the odds were stacked. Now that we are all playing with the same dice, gender should simply be irrelevant.
This is our biggest difference of opinions, one which, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to insist you can't have the last word on, being a man. Just like a white person can be aware of prejudice against Natives, a man can be aware of gender bias. However, that white person can't really know what that prejudice feels like, no matter how empathetic they are...only a Native can. The same is true of gender bias...you can get it, but you can't GET it. Just like I can't understand what it is like for men in our society...I can have approximate knowledge, but I will never experience it as a man. (Barring a sex change.) We will never be playing with the same dice...none of us, man, women, black, white, native, young or old. Our society treats us all differently...some better, some worse, all by degrees. I'm not saying that should change, because not all of it is negative. I don't want equality in terms of sameness, I just want equity, fairness. We have more recourse to it here in Canada, because we've (all of us) fought for it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to bring up issues, and support one another rather than leaving it to individuals to do. All I want from you is for you to acknowledge this....the dice will always be loaded, not just against women...and if you leave it to individuals and insist it be a 'non-issue' you are drawing a line in the sand and then saying, "don't talk about the line in the sand". There is always room for improvement, no matter your gender, race, sexuality etc...and that improvement comes about through awareness.



Why do you have to address this to WOMEN and MEN and not to simply people. We all want to have an equal share in deciding our future. Unfortunately, this is not possible without intolerable encroachment on our beloved civil liberties. So we can at least make sure that we all have the same chance of having a say, even if we do not all get that say. People are not equal, some have more drive, some are more intelligent, some have better genes for some things etc. Society is also not egalitarian, in that there are succesful individuals, who can provide better for their children, and people who fail financially, who can not provide for their children. Unles you want to forcibly redistribute wealth every week, this inequality will exist forever, it is part of what the human race, imperfect as it is, is. There are enough differences already between people, why create one more by focussing on gender

Back to you.
Again, I am not 'creating' an issue. The issue exists. Example: A poor family is poor, but that is not the end of it. Inside that family is a man, a woman and two children. The power structure within that home is not equal. The man works outside the home for pay, the woman works inside the home for no pay. The children represent both genders. The boy goes to school because the family could afford it only for one. Why did they choose the boy? Likely, because he will grow up to work for pay, and it will increase his chances of a better job. The girl will marry and work in her husband's home for no pay...why educate her? The man makes the decisions because he makes the money, but the woman takes care of her family...if someone needs to go hungry so that the rest can eat, it will be her. When the well is polluted, she will be the first to notice, being the one to bring the water to the home. When the well dries up, it will be she who walks to the stream. When war comes, it is the man who will fight it, and likely die. It is the woman who will be left with no income, and two children to feed. These are the differences...women and men are different because of gender roles, and they experience the same events differently. We need to understand that when we want to deal with issues like poverty. Any initiative to relieve poverty has to take into account gender roles and deal with them....or the boys will continue to go to school while the girls stay home....the men will continue to die in wars and the women will continue to struggle to support her family somehow. Most initiatives deal with issues as though they affect every player equally, when they do not. Do you understand this? Feminism to me is not a cry for more rights...its a cry for recognition of difference, and a plea for an understanding that deals with differences DIFFERENTLY, not the same.

For an example of what feminism proposes:

Women have the right to choose how many children they will bear and care for. This means access to contraception, and it means not being forced into pregnancy (in many cases, just to produce a son).

Thoughts?

I agree. Feminism has achieved what it wants, and has then gone straight over the other side. Now they have more rights than men in many cases, such as divorce, rather than equal rights.

Also, if a work-force has a very high man-woman ratio, the company may well be accused of being sexist. If it is the other way around, however, normally this does not occur.

You obviously do not know Argentinian women, but here goes. Yes, yes I do. I do not however know ALL Argentine women.
The female, in Latin American culture is supossed to be submissive to her husband. And just to her husband. This is changing, and is not the subject here. Where there is any activity which concerns children, of any age, of a family, this is the business of the women, and has always been so. (Horribly prejudiced position, but the traditional one) The role, as you say, was that of homemaker, but home, in their eyes, includes the protection of the children when they are outside of the home. A man's role, in this culture, was to provide the food and shelter, either directly by his own labour, or by providing money for this. His responsibilities stopped there.
I'm not sure how this deals with my post...oh wait, I get it...you're saying that what the Madres were doing IS part of their traditional role. However, I think it goes a bit beyond that...or every woman who had a family member disappeared would have been marching. They didn't, because it was outright dangerous. The act of rebellion did not protect their loved ones...it was in response to the oppression. If you extend the woman's traditional role the way you have, you would have to take it farther...women traditionally then would be involved more in politics in Argentina in order to protect their children. That's not the case...the home was their realm, the outside realm belonged to their husbands. They stepped out of the comfortable and traditional into the new. There is overlap, but it was still a gendered response to an issue...women had to choose to break with tradition a bit and put themselves in harm's way to deal with this injustice. Women may do this all throughout history, but it doesn't make it a TRADITIONAL role. Women don't traditionally join or start revolutions, despite the fact that once and a while, this happens.


While politics had little or no impact on family life, the traditional Latin American woman had little or no interest in politics (My mother in law is a typical example of this). When politics encroached on the dominion of the women, by destroying families, in the Argentinian case, then the women reacted. This was their traditional role. Defend the family, defend the household. The Junta in Argentina were as bound by their traditional roles as the women were. They could not react against the Madres, because the Madres were doing what tradition said they had to do. If it had not been traditional, then the protest would have been destroyed before anyone outside of Argentina ever heard of it. As happened to various student protests against the military dictatorship in Brazil, and in Argentina.
Okay, you're making a pretty good case here...it is tough debating with you. So you are contending that the Madres reacted in a traditional way, and were protected by tradition. Alright...but what about all the women who DIDN'T protest? Was that a traditional response too? There will always be people, men and women, that react to injustice in different ways. Tradition certainly came into play here, because the Junta was unwillingly to openly kill the women (though in private it was fine to rape and torture them). In any case, women protesting in this manner had more effect than if men had done it. That is the difference between the genders in this situation. I'm not arguing it has nothing to do with traditions...yet you argue that these traditions can be a non-issue if no one talks or thinks about it, just go on as usual.



You misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that the women should call themselves men. I was saying that what would really have broken the gender roles would have been men protesting. Remember the defence of the family and children was a woman's job. A man doing this would have been shocking.
Not really...men also traditionally protect their women and children and property (sorry, that sounds snippy). In a war, men don't run off just for their country...they are also motivated by the need to protect their loved ones. They just do it differently than women. Men protesting would not have been shocking, it would have been stupid. The Junta would have had no compunction about killing them, because traditionally, men are creatures of violence, and fair game. Women are supposed to be the 'protected' ones, and killing them would have gone against tradition. Men protest in Latin America all the time....not necessarily in direct protection of their families. It is less common (well, not so much any more, but still to some extent) for women to do this unless the situation is EXTREME.




In the Latin American culture it IS the traditional role of women to defend the family. This appears to be what you have missed. It is no longer traditional in Western Europe, but it was before the industrial revolution, when the woman ruled the household. I would recommend reading Shakespeare for evidence. Latin America is in many ways just emerging from its pre industrial revolution phase, and women still have their traditional pre industrial revolution roles here.
I agree that women and men now share this role of protection more in the west. What started this whole argument however was you saying that gender was not really an important issue in the developing world because there are more pressing issues to worry about. I say that you are correct, but that gender also needs to be factored into all those issues. You're right...women's roles in Latin America differ than the role of women in the West....and they will gain more equality as they go, not by ignoring gender issues, but by dealing with them...fumbling through them like the rest of us.

That men are an essential component of this change should be self-evident...and I hope one day more men will feel proud to be called feminists.

In any case, I'm interested to find out from both men, women (and transgendered) what you think about gender equality. Please try to not judge feminism by a few radicals who want 'women holes' or who use 'womyn' to divest themselves of their male counterparts. Think about the actual concept of gender equity, and what you think about it.

I can't see myself ever being proud of being a "feminist" by any definition. I believe that each person should have equal rights to anything and everything. That their aquisition of wealth, standing and privilige should be based entirely on the merit of their actions, work, productivity, usefullness to society.

IMO a parent (female, male or both in combination) who raises children to be productive, God fearing, civil, decent, caring members of society have accomplished the most valuable contribution to the world that it is possible to do. And, they deserve the highest level of respect for this even though there are no direct monitary gains there from.

People of whatever race or gender should be paid equally for equal accomplishment. There should be no preferances in hiring or firing practices. The most qualified person for a position should get any public job. Period. Violations of this should have severe penalties. Privately own companies and religous institutions have the right to higher, fire, pay whomever at whatever levels they desire as the Gov. should have nothing to do with restricting their freedoms.

hmm. i work in a profession that is DOMINATED by males, over 50. the fact that i am girl has never entered into it.. they are too busy eyeing the tatoos and wondering if i am complete sicko. however, i have always insisted on using my serious talent to gain me respect. if i was to get "sexually harrassed", i would most likely make the offender laugh too hard to even be insulted. ladies, we were made different for a reason, so don't complain. start bitching when you get beer cans flung at you ;) . guys, were wired different. the oggling, they can't help it, i don't think. but women , acting like guys? thats too gross for me.

I can't see myself ever being proud of being a "feminist" by any definition. I believe that each person should have equal rights to anything and everything. That their aquisition of wealth, standing and privilige should be based entirely on the merit of their actions, work, productivity, usefullness to society.

IMO a parent (female, male or both in combination) who raises children to be productive, God fearing, civil, decent, caring members of society have accomplished the most valuable contribution to the world that it is possible to do. And, they deserve the highest level of respect for this even though there are no direct monitary gains there from.

People of whatever race or gender should be paid equally for equal accomplishment. There should be no preferances in hiring or firing practices. The most qualified person for a position should get any public job. Period. Violations of this should have severe penalties. Privately own companies and religous institutions have the right to higher, fire, pay whomever at whatever levels they desire as the Gov. should have nothing to do with restricting their freedoms.
Agreed. That's exactly what I want as well (except for the God fearing thing...being an atheist and all). You do realise that all your points need work in order to actually be reality though, right?

Agreed. That's exactly what I want as well (except for the God fearing thing...being an atheist and all). You do realise that all your points need work in order to actually be reality though, right?

Certainly, but I don't believe that there need to be any legal changes. The changes have to come from individuals acting in a correct manner. We already have, at least in the US, sufficient laws with the exception of preferences, insufficient penalities for abuses, and the fact that we apply them to private businesses as well as publically held ones, to solve this. Yes, they need to be better enforced, but things are growing in the right direction on this issue at least.

Certainly, but I don't believe that there need to be any legal changes. The changes have to come from individuals acting in a correct manner. We already have, at least in the US, sufficient laws with the exception of preferences, insufficient penalities for abuses, and the fact that we apply them to private businesses as well as publically held ones, to solve this. Yes, they need to be better enforced, but things are growing in the right direction on this issue at least.
Right...I'm not asking for legal changes (well, not major ones anyway) in Canada either, just societal ones (which, I think, are harder to deal with). The developing world still has far to go on both counts however.

Certainly, but I don't believe that there need to be any legal changes. The changes have to come from individuals acting in a correct manner. We already have, at least in the US, sufficient laws with the exception of preferences, insufficient penalities for abuses, and the fact that we apply them to private businesses as well as publically held ones, to solve this. Yes, they need to be better enforced, but things are growing in the right direction on this issue at least.

(Except of course for the fact that the federal and many state governments have no problem with discriminating based on perceived gender, sexuality, etc - all of which are gender issues in and of themselves).

Right...I'm not asking for legal changes (well, not major ones anyway) in Canada either, just societal ones (which, I think, are harder to deal with). The developing world still has far to go on both counts however.

Sounds about right to me.

(Except of course for the fact that the federal and many state governments have no problem with discriminating based on perceived gender, sexuality, etc - all of which are gender issues in and of themselves).

Not saying we've got it all perfect. There are clearly specific places where discrimination still happens... the military in particular comes to mind, though this is an area where logisitical difficulties still have to be managed.

Gender equality can only come with time.

From an evolutionary viewpoint:
Generally speaking, males and females have different traits that enable them to survive. Men are usually stronger, faster, have better eye-hand coordination, and better spatial skills. Women have a higher pain threhold, have better hearing, have better communication skills, etc.

From a societal viewpoint:
I think women are viewed more based on their physical attractiveness whereas men are seen more for their masculinity. Every person can be classified and no one goes unmarked - for the simple reason that we always need to structure things, it's part of our psyche.

I think equality is a big issue. Women should be able to do a lot of the things that men can do. However, there is still a big gender bias. Women are still seen as more dependent than men, etc. Rape is an example of gender bias. We hear about it all the time with women, yet never with men... although, unfortunately, it does happen to both. I really believe that women and men should be considered equal when it comes to the work place.

However, there are some things that should be taken into account very carefully. One thing would be the military. Women should have to live up to the same standards as men in the service. I've been thinking about enlisting as an officer candidate, but I know that I'll want to be as physically fit as I can be and even that might not be enough. Afterall, a bullet doesn't care about it's target as long as it hits it.