Feminism vs. Equality

Post Reply New Topic

Well, if we are going to speak frankly, I think that feminists have well and truly blundered. They have allowed conservative men to define their agenda, and to define who they are.

The "man-hating", "women first" agendas are not the agendas of contemporary feminism, nor are they the agendas of the progressive political movements that seek to establish sexual equality. Conservatives have chosen to focus their attention on the radical fringe of feminism--who have been glad of the attention. And women allowed this happen.

You can slice and dice the numbers all you like--but women who choose to have children are penalized in their careers in a way that men who choose to have children are not. There is no compensation for lost opportunities--promtions for which they get passed over, the need to restart career momentum after coming back, the financial penalty of repaying years of leave with income averaging or pension contributions.

Now that's not to say that having children is a fiscal calculation. No, most parents I know view these losses as simply one of the costs of having a family. The question remains, however, is if fair that such a cost is imposed, and impose disproportionately? Is it fair that employers overtly pursue policies that deny promotions to women until after they have returned from having children?

We cannot legislate equality--but we can take steps to ensure that the playing field is a level one. Those who believe that it is are, at best, misguided.

Their work at home has no bearing on their wage, so why bring it up? I know couples who divvy up the housework evenly where possible and prudent.

Also The U.N. may say this but I could not find their sources.(I am already familiar with this 1% of the world's wealth claim, otherwise I would have just told you to source yourself) They being a political entity their word cannot be taken at face value. Although I will accept that the amount of women who decide to split their efforts between home and work would likely affect what percentage of the worlds wealth they own, but this is an overly general statement, I would be more interested in a statistic broken down by social standing, that is what percentage of the worlds wealth is owned by middle class men and women(Note that I would want to see the other classes as well, and their gender composition), and comparing that, I could see that as somewhat valid and useful but there is no evidence that this 'statistic' is of any validity or of any use.

Note I am not asking you to do any of this, I am asking you to provide the raw data that was used to validate your claim, that claim being that only 1% of the world's wealth is owned by women, if the information includes country or region data someone might actually be able to apply it to this conversation in a meaningful way.

I would also like to criticize the use of a worldwide view when evaluating the effectiveness of feminism and the state of women in western nations. But that can come when you actually put some weight behind your claims.



Said what?




I did not make any claims about what feminism propagates with my statement, I said why would you imply that a woman who focuses solely on motherhood is less than a complete woman. The rest of your statements about the past are irrelevant to my point, you implied that a person who has chosen to focus on motherhood is not a full woman(By implying that a woman is missing out on qualities that make a woman a woman in her focus on homemaking), I was simply wondering where that disrespect came from.



I am not watching the documentary, if you wish to source your claims track down the documentaries sources and use those, or find your own, watching video wastes my time.

Last edited by ikorack on 25 Mar 2011, 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is not imposed unfairly, you do not have strictly speaking have to leave your job to have a child, even if you are a woman, if you have a husband and family it can become even easier to continue a career while having a child.

But regardless, having a child has consequences, is it really fair to force employers to eliminate natural consequences of pregnancy in the name of equality, or as you say it 'a level playing field'.



How is it unleveled? Pregnancy is no longer forced, you cannot claim the field is unleveled when the only consequences under question are those resulting from ones own choices.

I was a stay-at-home mom by choice for several years and did not see any disrespect at all in Chibi_Neko's posts. No negative implication was made. What is disrespectful about advocating choice?

Of course many couples divvy up the housework evenly in today's day n' age.
The whole point of bringing it up is to show that women are capable of doing a lot of work, some questions that society brings up is, if they can do so much work, then why not go out and do the same amount of work and get paid for it. I guess it also means that women who decide to stay home are doing tons of work in the background, but a business person seems to get more recognition or respect. Being a stay-at-home mom is not easy, and thus should be respected.

I thought it was a relevant topic, but if you don't think so, then no need to fuss over it.



I made no such claim. In fact you are confusing me.... The definition of feminism is the right to opportunity, women can make decisions that they did not have the right to years ago. Women CAN focus on something she wants to do. So are you saying that not having that right to do something other then raise kids makes her less then a complete woman? You are putting words in my mouth, so I may as well do the same. You may be reading my words differently but I KNOW that women can feel complete doing what she chooses to do, be a mom, work, volunteer, ect. so I don't know why you are thinking the opposite.

If anything there is a lot of pressure of women today to be everything, work 8 hour jobs, be perfect moms, wives, ect. Come to think of it, women are under pressure to be 'super' women, and if she wants to focus only on being a mom, or a wife, or her career, then that's her 'right', she should not be looked down if she want's to be a stay-at-home parent, some people out there say she is not complete if she doesn't have a job too.... women seem to be more scrutinized if she refuses to have a baby. The point is she can if she 'WANTS' to, there should not be pressure.

Again 'rights' and 'obligations' are different, and I bring up the past because it shows how much progress has been made.
I am a feminist because I believe that women can do what they like weither it be a stay-at-home mom, have a career ect.



Well then I guess reading what I am typing must be a waste of time too.

Nonsense. There is nothing easy about working mother and of course a woman has to leave her job to have a baby, at least for a short while. The time lost can become quite significant when complications arise, or if a c-section is necessary. Then after baby comes, any mom who is breastfeeding and back at work has to duck out at least 2 or 3 times during the day to pump, which can sometimes take a long time. Then, as the child gets older, moms usually get the first call to come and pick up their sick kid from daycare or school. Then, it's usually mom who gets the joy of staying up all night with that sick kid. In general, moms are the primary go-to's.

This is why motherhood is often seen as a liability by employers whereas fatherhood is not. (Please note, I'm not advocating any sort of employer consequence on the matter. I'm just pointing out the reality of how unlevel the playing field actually is - admittedly by the choice of having a family).

it isn't No one questioned woman's ability to do work, Why not go out and get paid for it? No one has claimed that homemakers should go out and get a job, no one has suggested that homemaking isn't work, so why would you act like someone has? Society has not paid any disrespect to homemaking. Seems to get more respect, how do they seem to get more respect? And what does respect have to do with actual equality? Also someones work being hard does not mean they get respect, loggers, oil drillers, soldiers. All tough jobs they are not 'respected' as much as the more business oriented careers, but this does not make them unequal as a demographic.



No your words implied that a woman who is not doing anything other than motherhood is not a complete woman, i will repeat part of your words "there is more to being a woman then motherhood". It would imply that a woman who is focusing completely on motherhood is not a complete woman, it would imply there are things she is not doing that would make her a woman. But perhaps I am viewing this wrong. Rethinking this actually seems likely, the simple replace of is with can be fixes my issue with your statement.



How so? Your only wasting my time if you fail to back up your claims, is this what you are saying?

You not perceiving disrespect does not mean it doesn't exist, me perceiving it does not mean it does exist. But her word choice had implications and I assumed she knew what she was typing, but her continued denials as well as her accusations have me thinking it was merely poor word choice.

A short while could be limited to within two weeks due date(and some time afterwards), assuming the job is not stressful or overly physical. and even then if accommodations can be made she can be kept on. The rest of your issues are matters of choice(breastfeeding) as well as issues that can be delegated to a spouse or family member, if they are cutting into your work to much. The crying thing I could see as a problem, I have no real suggestion to completely circumvent this but if both parents are working(and this seems to be the context we are working in) the night duties can be split and a adequate if not decent amount of sleep should be attainable.




I have just made suggestions that would level it out well enough, employers will work with valuable employees. I can understand the perceived risks you are suggesting but if you have a plan for such things as well as a division of work I doubt the employer will not be overly worried.

The claims come from the documentary, if you don't want to watch it, all I can do it type.
If watching it is a waste of time, then typing from from it must be too.

I don't believe in reversing preferential treatment, true equality is leveling the playing field rather than fighting fire with fire. That being said, females and males are different. I don't care how much people try to deny it, there's something called testosterone and estrogen. Females are more of big picture thinkers while males tend to think in a more systematic way. Gender roles aren't merely social construction, though social construction can blow em outta proportion. There's a reason women are nearly psychic when it comes to non-verbal language (they think more holistically) and why men tend to be better drivers (better spatial perception).

All of your ideas sound great on paper. I probably had very similar ideas before becoming a parent myself. Reality has proven to be much different. New moms don't even get sleep, they get naps. I can't even put the effects of sleep deprivation into words - it's that awful, and employers notice.

Naps can't really replace sleep, but a spouse should be able to take over the baby long enough to allow the other a nights sleep. But my sleeping is odd so I can't really say much about this. Your post isn't really a rebuttal either.

Isn't this a thread about feminism and whether feminism is relevant, as opposed to how awful things are for men? And isn't challenging your claims relevant to either question?

You said:
"...'Men get paid more than women' - yes, but often because socially they're expected to support the family and thus take more dangerous jobs that pay more, they're financially tied to their families and have a higher rate of suicide because their worth is tied into supporting their family, if they fail they fail as men."
You specifically claimed that men are paid more because they take more dangerous jobs. I posted data showing that pay does not correlate with job danger. Therefore, there must be some other reason that men are paid more.
http://www.echidne-of-the-snakes.com/ge ... ppart1.htm
quote:
The gender gap is found all over the world but its size varies greatly from the smallest gap of 0.9 (meaning that women earn 90% of what men earn, on average) in countries such as Sweden and Australia to as large a gap as 0.4 in Russia. That the gender gap is not the same size in all countries means that it is at least partly affected by the laws and labor market customs of the countries.

see also:
http://www.echidne-of-the-snakes.com/ge ... ppart3.htm
As for the argument that 'men are expected to support their families,' how is that not discrimination? What, dads pay for shoes for their kids, and moms pay for shoes for themselves? (< that is sarcasm) The fact of the matter is that the majority of what both men and women work goes to their families, if they have them; the majority goes toward themselves (which can include efforts to attract the opposite sex), if they don't. The idea that it's the man's fault if a family is poor is just as false, and just as destructive, as the idea that it's the woman's fault if the house isn't clean.

Note that the pay gap hurts men as well as women; men consistently have higher unemployment rates than women, and part of this might be due to the fact that employers can hire a woman to do the same work for less money.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/ted_20090810.htm

On suicide rates:
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide and to practice self-harm (ie, cutting their arms with knives, without the intent to kill themselves) than men until late middle age:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18389640
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ824702
women are twice as likely to be clinically depressed as men:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/depression/MH00035
Men are 'successful' at suicide more often because they are more likely to choose very violent means. It is true that women generally have better social support networks than men do; men seem more likely to bottle up their problems until they explode rather than to ask for help from their family, friends, or even medical providers. I see that as an issue of feminism, too, rather than a refutation of it.

My brother is providing a significant amount of the basic care for my niece not because he sees it as a 'feminist' thing to do or because my sister-in-law asked him to, but because he wants to have a strong family and be a part of her life as opposed to being the dad who's gone all day and is emotionally removed. To me, the fact that he can choose to do so is one of the benefits feminism has achieved over the last few decades.

As soon as men start lactating, the husband can start taking over more of the immediate post-natal work. There are reams of data showing that breast milk is better for the baby than formula, and even if a woman pumps so that her spouse can do the feeding, pumping takes time.

something else to consider is that the cost of paid day-care can negate the benefit of having both parents working, especially if one wants any kind of 'enhanced' day care as opposed to 'put the kids in front of the tv' daycare.

You can't claim that his contributions towards your niece his daughter is a result or is because of feminism, the concept of men giving money to support their children is most definitely not a feminist one. And while you do say that he does not do so because he views it as feminist you do say you think his ability to choose(Also what choice are you talking about, men have to pay child support for their children, this is the law, and although he has chosen to supply such support of his own will it is not indicative of any choice. Which is too say it is not likely had he decided that he did not want to willingly give his support, that it would not be taken from him.) to do so is, which is false.