Feminism vs. Equality

Post Reply New Topic

Breastfeeding is still optional, even under the condition of it being a better option.



Yes it can, but she is arguing that a woman cannot continue her career, my argument is not based on matters of profit. But on the continuation of the woman working if that is her will.

That was one of the most incoherent attempts at rebuttal I have ever had the dubious pleasure of trying to read.

Like any political question, this is a question of power. If we view exchange of power as a zero sum game, then every bit of power that women acquire must come at the expense of the men from whom it is taken.

Well, let's face facts--no one can credibly claim that women hold equal power with men anywhere on earth. Now it may well be that equality of power is a pipe dream even in a country which is supposedly dedicated to individual liberty. But at least let's be honest about that. If we cannot achieve equality, then let's understand the barriers that interfere with that, and see if we have ways of mitigating those barriers.

This reactionary, defensive posturing is not a constructive approach.

Did I say money? No. I said, "basic care." That means he's babysitting, he's changing diapers, he's spending time with her. He's not being the dad of 'Just wait 'til your father gets home,' yesteryear, where the father was only the disciplinarian and the money contributer.

edit: I want to add, my brother shows more joy in interacting with his daughter than I have ever seen him express doing anything else, at any other time in his life. He positively radiates happiness when he plays with her, talks to her, and cares for her. He still works full time, but I am very glad that society has changed to the degree that he feels comfortable caring for his daughter because it would be his loss more than my sister-in-law's if he felt pressure not to do so.

Eh, the difference is negligible. Your dad of yesteryear concept is imagined, average fathers have always been involved with their children when possible.



How many fathers have you seen interacting with their kids? This isn't at all surprising. The things you have picked out as work are just trivial matters, fathers and mothers have always cared for their children and have always love doing it(it being interacting with their children). The only things that have changed is how rigidly work is divided between the sexes. I doubt he would let his kid sit around in a dirty diaper solely because changing it would make him uncomfortable.

Last edited by ikorack on 25 Mar 2011, 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are you talking to me? I do not view this as a zero sum political game. And I do claim that women hold equal power in America, excluding the matter of family court where they hold an advantage.

If women are at a loss in a zero-sum game, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the sum closer to zero rather than reversing the loss so that women get the landslide victory instead? This is what I find really stupid about this whole "equality" thing. Equality is leveling the playing field, not reversing preferential treatment.

I'm not saying that's what you're striving for, but you should understand that people who are against reversing preferential treatment aren't reactionaries who think women only belong in two areas within the household. Speaking of what you're striving for, what level of inequality do you think women face compared to men and how much power should men lose compared to women if you see it as a zero-sum game? And in what areas are women disadvantaged (economically, socially, institutionally, etc.) in?

At what point have I ever suggested anything other than levelling the playing field? I tend to be suspicious of affirmative action, although I think employment equity goals are valuable.

I do not believe that employment competitions, promotion boards or university admissions should create rank lists--I think these exercises should create pools of qualified people from which management (or administration) can draw. You are either qualified or you are not, based on the essential qualifications for the position. After that, maangement can rely on asset criteria (the nice-to-haves) to decide on making offers. Employment equity can be one of these criteria, but it can never, in my view, be an essential criterion.



Well, first of all, I don't think it's a zero sum game, at all. I think that's a fear that conservative, white men have, and they tenaciously cling to the straw man of "tokenism" and "sacrificing the merit principle."

As for the inequalities that women face, I think the largest one is the tradeoff between career momentum and starting a family. Women are disproportionately represented among those who take extended parental leave, and who face a variety of penalties when they return to the workforce. Some are financial--the need to buy back lost pension room, for example. Others are non-financial--needing to accumulate new experience to qualify for promotions, for example. And some are structural. Several law firms in Vancouver had entrenched practices that no woman would be admitted to partnership until she had either returned from her second maternity leave, or reached age 45.

I think that institutions should have equity goals, not only for women, but more general diversity goals (including, incidentally, neurodiversity), and should have strategic plans in place for how to reach those goals. That simple step, alone would provide strong momentum towards embracing diversity.

What is the difference between employment equity goals and affirmative action? Also starting a family is optional, the only thing that might require someone to start a family are their own beliefs and desires. and there is no reason to remove consequences from actions in the name of equality.

It's a fine post overall. Very good points. I'm picking out this bit in particular because a woman recently wrote a book about the damage of the Disney Princess myth.

Here's a link.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41192486/ns/today-books/


It's called Cinderella Ate My Daughter. The book is mainly about the damage to girls. The collateral damage to boys (or rather, men, once the girls grow up) is that being a Disney Prince is not a plausible way to have a relationship for men, either. Men aren't Disney Princes, just like girls aren't Disney Princesses and this myth isn't helping relationships any.

Not in equal Sweden it isn't. 12 months parental leave accompanies the birth of a child here. Usually split equally between both parents. Likewise, if a child is sick either parent gets paid time off work to look after the child. It's the norm here, it's all in the conditioning.

Well you said if we can't achieve equality, then the barriers to that should be mitigated. Sounds a lot like affirmative action to me. But I wasn't exactly sure what you were going for, so that's why I asked you. What's the difference between affirmative action and employment equity? Both seem to be socially engineering diversity rather than giving everyone equal rights and leaving it at that.

Why is attributing misogyny to conservative white men any better than associating welfare queens with black women? If you think women should have extended parental leave as well as putting an end to the consequences, then should a man have this same right as well? And afaik the left doesn't believe in gender roles, so in this case why couldn't the man take on the role of staying home to take care of the kids? Also there are single fathers out there so I'm sure they need extended parental leave just as much.

Hi, I'm not a woman but I think they're pretty awesome.


/gender issues isn't my strong suit
//more power to women...but less to "womyn" if you get what I mean.

Uhhh I don't get it

The people who use the term "womyn" do it to avoid having "man" in the word and normally do it out of some level of enmity to the male sex. This enmity is as much a barrier as is any other form of sexism.

So true. Snow White was my favorite movie when I was little. I went to watch it with my daughter a few weeks ago and turned it off after about 10 minutes. I was actually repulsed by the idea of a woman literally just waiting around for some prince to give her a decent life. That's the crap we grew up with. Our daughters deserve better.

I don't think women hating men is as bad as men hating women,due to the power differentials. You could make a similar comparison between a black nationalist and a white nationalist. I think black nationalists are understandable due to years of slavery and oppression whereas i think David Duke is a f*****g ignorant racist as*hole.

Anyway that's a side issue. The important thing is that there is no conflict between feminism and equality. That's a conservative argument against feminism that pretends that feminists hate men and are "against equality". I especially love how it casts conservatives as egalitarians all of a sudden! Isn't that socialism!?