Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[smelltheglove]

Strong females aren't called bitches, bitches are called bitches because they are bitches.

i agree with this statement, but i do feel that there is a common misunderstanding here - and it happens with men too, just for whatever reason it's a positive for men. frequently being a selfish douche = being assertive or w/e for men. i see a lot of writers, both in books and for tv/movies make the mistake of making a woman a psychotic bitch in order to portray her as "strong". some get it right, but they are few imo

[Stede]

Don't tell the kids that men are pigs, and the whole world wants to put them down. Don't tell the kids that women and minorities only get nice things cause it's good PR. Don't tell the kids that nobody will hire them cause they're racist and don't like them. Don't tell them because it's not true. It's a lie. You have no idea what the world might be like by the time they are adults. You speak in generalities and poison every coming generation.

I'm trying to follow this, but I'm having a hard time - are you saying that because we can't predict discrimination in the future, we shouldn't be aware of it - or make kids aware of it?

I mean - I don't have a strong opinion - kids are pretty smart and can spot discrimination at ten miles in a dense forest - but I'm not certain what you're getting at.

Then again, I haven't been following most of this exchange between you and the other guy.

How did we get to arguing about feminism rather than the feminist issue at hand?

[Deleted]

Women are still unequal to men in a lot of areas in the western world. Maybe not in laws, but in practice and reality, yeah.

Any such inequality is mostly self-caused.

For example modern raw wage gap is mostly due to women's choices.

[Radux]

For example modern raw wage gap is mostly due to women's choices.

Here's an interesting Article I came across a couple years back while taking an ethics course, regarding the gender gap in the job market, if anyone is interested.

[Zhangfei]

Any such inequality is mostly self-caused.

For example modern raw wage gap is mostly due to women's choices.

"Mostly" does not cut it. It should be only due to choice at every stage.

[yurano]

You've gotta admit, it's interesting to pick one edge of the double-standard and apply it to your hypothetical and compare it to the outcome of the other.

Still, we're talking about breasts - they're honestly not that frightening or even criminal (well, most of them...)

Its not a double standard.

Topless women are considered improper in the name of the law. Topless men are not.

[Zhangfei]

Its not a double standard.

Topless women are considered improper in the name of the law. Topless men are not.

I'm not an expert but is it legal for men to be topless in a place of worship in France?

[Kujako]

Its not a double standard.

Topless women are considered improper in the name of the law. Topless men are not.

That's more or less a perfect example of a double standard...

[Stede]

Any such inequality is mostly self-caused.

For example modern raw wage gap is mostly due to women's choices.

It's quite difficult to justify a man in a salaried position for X years being paid more than a woman in the same position for X years, in the aggregate. Same job description, same responsibilities. I mean - we could just look at single men and single women and we'd see a gap.

And with more women starting to graduate with 4-year degrees than men, it seems reasonable to look for this trend to reverse itself. Which is why we've feminists - an interest group that will push for and monitor the progress of reform.

[Alocolas]

Because women still get paid less than men, for doing the same job.
Because women still get blamed for getting raped, rather than the rapist.
Because women still get judged for their appearance and beauty, rather than their minds.
Because women can only be one body type, according to the media.
Because men think feminism doesn't need to be around anymore, that's why feminism still needs to be around. It's just women being 'oh it's so 1900's.'
No, women are still oppressed, and if you think that they are not, you're the reason why women are fighting for equality.

(and the video 'feminists' are extremists.)

Citations please...

Because women still get paid less than men, for doing the same job. - Really? Do you want to be a deep sea diver? Thats why they pay woman less... they only pay women less in fields which are dangerous. Sure I agree the wages with those jobs should be the same regardless of gender.
Because women still get blamed for getting raped, rather than the rapist. - Narcissim
Because women still get judged for their appearance and beauty, rather than their minds. - Wait, so instead of spending money on books.. you spend money on clothing and you get mad when someone objectifies your 2000 dollar dress dress?
Because women can only be one body type, according to the media. - You never spent time with straight males.

Because men think feminism doesn't need to be around anymore, that's why feminism still needs to be around. It's just women being 'oh it's so 1900's.'
No, women are still oppressed, and if you think that they are not, you're the reason why women are fighting for equality. - And if WOMAN were trully about equallity they would be about Egalitarianism. I NO RITE!

inb4 ur a man.... no im not.

[Endus]

I agree but your examples were poorly chosen. Lawncare and snow-shovelling are not universal problems for literally tens of millions of people, especially city-dwellers. Cooking and cleaning are universal issues.

Not really. Take anyone who uses a maid service. Many apartments in NYC don't have a kitchen, and people eat out all the time. The point is, many studies don't accurately account for everything. Some of your links did; I'm not trying to call you out for using biased sources, merely stating that I have seen some which are.

And even if they're not universal, they DO affect the averages in the statistics. You can't ignore them as irrelevant because a portion of the sample doesn't deal with them.

Then we can remove the pointless barrage of "men work harder so they deserve more pay" nonsense; women are generally expected to do more work at home so they have less time to spend at work.

I never argued that. I've been arguing that the system's already pretty egalitarian.

Though you're engaging in a causation fallacy; you've shown there's a correlation between the amount of work women do at home and at work. That doesn't mean you can leap to a causative claim saying that women are expected to do more at home because they aren't given more work in their employment. It could be that they choose to work less at work, and make it up elsewhere. It could be that women tend to pick jobs in which there is less overtime, or in which the overtime isn't clear; I'm a teacher, and I can tell you it's a profession that's pretty heavily populated by women, and the overtime a teacher works is hard to calculate, since they don't typically math out how much time they spend at home marking papers or the like. This is unlike jobs like, say, a lawyer, where billable time to the client is a large part of overtime and is tracked for just such billing purposes.

You can't just take an observation and state a causative relationship for it like you did.

[Underverse]

It's quite difficult to justify a man in a salaried position for X years being paid more than a woman in the same position for X years, in the aggregate. Same job description, same responsibilities. I mean - we could just look at single men and single women and we'd see a gap.

And with more women starting to graduate with 4-year degrees than men, it seems reasonable to look for this trend to reverse itself. Which is why we've feminists - an interest group that will push for and monitor the progress of reform.

It isn't that hard to justify. Simple math says females (even single) have a large chance of having children at some point, and children require time and sick days. The company weighs the risk and invests in its employees depending on the risk. The risk is larger in males than in females simply because of biology.

Discrimination in workplace because of perceived lack of ability (in women) can't exist because employers have to stay competitive. If employers discriminate based on sex or race (or anything really other than ability), they are automatically losing a large portion of the available workforce, and thus missing out on a huge amount of talent. The free market doesn't allow for this kind of discrimination.

[Raintola]

those aren't feminists those are idiots starved for attention.

I'm betting true feminists are shaking their heads at this.

I'm inclined to agree with this statement.

The people in this video are like, the Westboros.

[yurano]

Here's an interesting Article I came across a couple years back while taking an ethics course, regarding the gender gap in the job market, if anyone is interested.

I like how at the bottom of the article, there are women criticizing how "companies can't hold on to their skilled workers", making it sound like its "all the company's fault".

Sure companies can make it easier on women, allowing them to work from home and etc. But the fact of the matter is, if women are unwilling to make sacrifices that their male competitors are, women will be unable to bridge the pay/rank disparity.

Its not like the women in "little black dress stories" throw away their entire careers for family, they're still very highly paid at a job that is much less strenuous and time consuming. In a sense, they're the ones who are truly "living the good life".

I'm not an expert but is it legal for men to be topless in a place of worship in France?

I don't see how one instance in one country makes for any form of argument.

That's more or less a perfect example of a double standard...

It would be a double standard if and only if topless men showed what is considered to be improper bits and pieces (by both men AND women). Men clearly don't have a problem with women running around topless. Women are the ones that do.

[Zhangfei]

Not really. Take anyone who uses a maid service. Many apartments in NYC don't have a kitchen, and people eat out all the time. The point is, many studies don't accurately account for everything. Some of your links did; I'm not trying to call you out for using biased sources, merely stating that I have seen some which are.

And even if they're not universal, they DO affect the averages in the statistics. You can't ignore them as irrelevant because a portion of the sample doesn't deal with them.

Yes, but will they affect them significantly or in a way to cause a major difference? Seasonal, locational problems surely can't be seen as a generic household chore.

I never argued that. I've been arguing that the system's already pretty egalitarian.

I know, it was a point to everyone proclaiming women are lazier than men.

Though you're engaging in a causation fallacy; you've shown there's a correlation between the amount of work women do at home and at work. That doesn't mean you can leap to a causative claim saying that women are expected to do more at home because they aren't given more work in their employment.

You have the argument topsy turvy; my argument is that women are expected and do work more at home, giving them less time to offer services at work, not that they are given less work so choose to do housework.

It could be that they choose to work less at work, and make it up elsewhere. It could be that women tend to pick jobs in which there is less overtime, or in which the overtime isn't clear; I'm a teacher, and I can tell you it's a profession that's pretty heavily populated by women, and the overtime a teacher works is hard to calculate, since they don't typically math out how much time they spend at home marking papers or the like. This is unlike jobs like, say, a lawyer, where billable time to the client is a large part of overtime and is tracked for just such billing purposes.

I'm a teacher too, so I can completely relate to this.

You can't just take an observation and state a causative relationship for it like you did.

I feel that there's an entirely legitimate argument to be made for social pressure being on women to do housework far more than men, giving them an added responsibility less inherent. It's statistically proven over the last few decades, if not millenia. We simply haven't moved past this sexist concept.

I occasionally make my wife mow the lawn so I can do the laundry, just so she knows what it's like. Heh.

But the fact of the matter is, if women are unwilling to make sacrifices that their male competitors are, women will be unable to bridge the pay/rank disparity.

Evidence has shown they have more responsibility at home. You keep parroting this point though it's been disproven; how can the pay disparity gap disappear when women are expected to do things outside of work, with men having more time to give to it? It's not built on equality.

I don't see how one instance in one country makes for any form of argument.

Which is that the law is inherently sexist?

[Deleted]

"Mostly" does not cut it. It should be only due to choice at every stage.

It's mostly because many older women who are still in the job force joined when sexism was very strong and this will forever have gimped their careers compared to their age male peers. This problem is non-existant among younger women.

So the only reasons are statistical "residual" effects of past sexism.

[Zhangfei]

It's mostly because many older women who are still in the job force joined when sexism was very strong and this will forever have gimped their careers compared to their age male peers. This problem is non-existant among younger women.

So the only reasons are statistical "residual" effects of past sexism.

What's the evidence and proof for this? It sounds mostly anecdotal.

[Deleted]

It's quite difficult to justify a man in a salaried position for X years being paid more than a woman in the same position for X years, in the aggregate. Same job description, same responsibilities. I mean - we could just look at single men and single women and we'd see a gap.

Yeah, but this doesn't really happen. In cases where it does, its usually a case of the higher paid worker having higher human capital (more/better experience, better education etc).

And with more women starting to graduate with 4-year degrees than men, it seems reasonable to look for this trend to reverse itself. Which is why we've feminists - an interest group that will push for and monitor the progress of reform.

No, feminists exist to yell on the sidelines how they're not successful because of the patriarchy, while normal women actually make it in the real world.

[Underverse]

Evidence has shown they have more responsibility at home. You keep parroting this point though it's been disproven; how can the pay disparity gap disappear when women are expected to do things outside of work, with men having more time to give to it? It's not built on equality.

Nothing is built on equality. Teachers are better at teaching than a plumber is. Mechanics are better at fixing cars than are biologists. To expect everyone to fulfill not just equal but the same roles is silly.

[Deleted]

What's the evidence and proof for this? It sounds mostly anecdotal.

How is it anecdotal? It's the opposite really. Sexism was pervasive in the labor market 40 years ago. Because of this, men acquired more human capital and progressed faster in many fields. And when sexism started to fade a couple of decades ago, the speed of progress became more similar but the women were already behind at that point. And until these age groups retire it will affect the raw wage gap.

This is why the wage gap is larger for older people and smaller for younger.