"No need for feminism" - is this true?

[Lemon&Lime]

On another debate I was reminded of this which happened a few years ago.

I was writing an essay for my English Literature A-level coursework, on a book by the feminist author Margaret Atwood, and I was discussing feminism with some friends, and a couple of opinions came up. Below are the direct quotes from my friends, which I think are relatively common arguments against feminism today.

"Lemon&Lime, there is no need for feminism any more. We already have equal rights!"

"It's only like, lesbians and hippys who go on about being a feminist, like she just said - you've already got equal rights so what's the issue?"

Me - "So do you considor yourself a feminist?"
Friend - "I'm not a feminist! Not even slightly, I just don't agree with their ideas."
Me - "But you're at college, so you must think that you have the right to further education."
Friend - "I told you, I'm not a feminist! I'm actually offended that you say I am."

So I want to ask whether people think that feminism is still relevant today?

[emilyyy]

Yes! or atleast I think so.
I'm only 17 but I know that women have had to fight for a lot and from what I've seen and heard lately, some men are still treating women like they're supposed to do what women are supposedly born to do, like cooking and being a little house wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what women were made to do, right? Grow up, have no plans to further their education and get married. It seems like they're trying to undo it all.
I get pissed off everytime a guy asks me to get back in the kitchen, I'd only heard that come from immature little punks but lately I've been hearing it from grown men too.

Sorry if what I'm saying is not exactly what you meant :)

[Rawra]

Right now, no, there is no need for feminism. We do have equal rights, as Argentina has a woman president, UK has a woman queen. Women lose their virginity from 16 to 24 years, and are not called "sluts" anymore, as they used to. Yes, until early 20th century, feminism was needed, because women practically had no rights.

[Mia138]

I have never really considered my a 'feminist' per se although I do believe that women should, of course, have equal rights. In the same way I have never considered myself an animal rights activist or racial equality campaigner. This doesnt mean I don't have quite strong opinions on all three. It just means, I suppose, that I don't voice my opinions publicly on a day to day basis.

I think the problem with women not wanting to label themselves 'feminist' comes from the fact that 'feminism' has taken on an inaccurate and slightly unwanted association. Ask any person to describe their idea of a typical 'feminist' and I bet alot of them will describe a short haired lesbian wearing masculine clothing, NO BRA and being quite aggressive and argumentative. IMO being a feminist has somehow become associated with being 'unfeminine'. People mistakenly assume that feminists 'want to be men' and are therefore don't wear pretty feminine clothes, have doors opened for them, etc, etc.

Obviously in an ideal world everyone would be treated equally whether they are male, female, black, white etc. In the West generally speaking we are fortunate because although we still fall a long way short of actual 'sexual equality' we are years ahead of, say, the middle east, where women's rights are practically non existent. I think today the main area where women are clearly discriminated against in the West is the workplace where men are openly paid at a higher rate than women in an identical job and this has to be sorted out. To anyone with an inch of common sense, two people who perform the same job with the same skill and success should be paid an equal wage regardless of their sex.Those against this will say that women cannot be treated equally in business because, as the childbearers, they are likely to need time off for maternity leave and childbirth etc which is true but we can't change the fact that its only women who can bear children so if we want the human race to continue we have to accept that and not penalise women for something they cannot physically change.

I need to rein myself in now because I could go on about this for six pages but basically 'yes' we need equal rights for women now ( and some women in the world need rights period!). I think society needs to realise that you can be a 'feminine feminist'. Establishing equal rights for women does not mean creating an androgynous race. We still need to embrace and celebrate the differences between men and women but just give them equal rights.

[Rawra]

We HAVE same rights as men, people! There are just a couple of countries where women are waaay under men. We even have the right to stay above! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ElementMK]

Saying feminism has no need to exist because equal rights have been achieved is about as logical as saying NASA has no need to exist because we've already landed on the moon. While the feminist movement has made great advances for women's rights, there are still several issues that need to be tackled (mostly international), and we have to vigilantly monitor the choices of the feminist movements and the governments influenced by them to make sure equal rights do not become special rights, or worse, the centuries of advances collapse and regress.

@Emily: I do agree that these sorts of insults are sexist accounts of trolling in real life, but please don't bash the "old fashioned" roles of women. There are multitudes of true-blue feminist women who actually prefer the role of a housewife or a stay-at-home mom. This should be perfectly alright, because feminism has never been about destroying old life choices, but instead it has been about creating new choices for women to have. Just because a woman doesn't choose to take these new choices means that one should judge her as less of an individual.

[Rawra]

I live in a family where men were equal )or even under :lol: ) women, as most citizens of America (oh, God bless it. Or not) do. American feminist who fight for women- fFROM AMERICA -rights are:
a) lesbian.
b) frustrated
BUT, if they fight for african and asian women rights, good for them.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

emilyyy - That's, um, a little harsh - I'm a housewife. I -like- being a housewife. I enjoy cooking and taking care of my family. Hell, I even enjoy my plaid pastel apron.

It's a choice I've made - I could work, and I have, and I've enjoyed it, but it makes more financial sense for our family to have me stay home and take care of our son than to send him to daycare for now - and it gives me some time to work on the project for what will eventually become a career for me, once he's older.

Sure, if you're -forced- into that kind of role or made to feel inferior for not choosing that kind of lifestyle, it's not pleasant, but part of becoming empowered about your own gender is having the ability to choose what you want to do.

I think women tend to get more crap for staying at home nowadays than if they worked with a family - I know I've gotten some real snotty remarks from women in professional roles about my choices.


TheCreeper, yeaaah, cos only lesbians would care if women are still treated like children in many "men only" professions, harassed and ridiculed (or worse) for taking certain career tracks, still not given equal pay for equal work, and subjected to a double-standard when it comes to our sexuality (women who have several sexual partners are still sluts - men who do so are just "normal").

We've come a long way as a culture in terms of how women are treated, but there's still need for strong-willed folks - both male and female - to stand up when they see injustice and fight for what they believe in.

It's not over yet - and I think the usual confusion of "feminist" with "man-hating lesbian with hairy legs" is getting in the way of some folks realizing that women still often are treated unequally in so many ways on a daily basis - those things still need fixing, and it doesn't necessarily require some flannel-and-boots lesbian to picket about it - just the average woman to say, "Hey, it's not okay to treat me like that."

[emilyyy]

@Element Leaf; I agree with you, it is fine. I'm not saying it's a bad thing when women prefer being a house wife, I think it's great.. but only if it's because it's what they have chosen. I only think it's bad if a man has convinced a woman that that's what she should be doing for the rest of her life. I'm very sure that things like that still do happen.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

emilyyy - There probably are women like that, yes - stuck in a shitty situation and sort of brainwashed by their upbringing. But sad fact is, whether it's that or whether it's an informed decision made by an educated and informed empowered woman, having made that choice, one often still is met with a "Well obviously you must be stuck in the 1950's - surely you are backwards and wrong and stupid to have chosen that," attitude by many - most often in my experience by women in "higher-level" professions. Never have I gotten such a bitchy attitude than from explaining that I'm a SAHM to female doctors.

[emilyyy]

@HystericalParoxysm;
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I think it's great that there are a lot of stay at home mothers and house wives that enjoy it. I'm just still thinking about what was instead of what is.
I'm just guessing that back then, most women didn't know that they didn't have to live that way if they didn't want to.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

Well, in the past, they kind of -did- have to live that way. There weren't many options for women to work - you could be a nurse or a schoolteacher, or maybe a maid/washerwoman/seamstress, but beyond that, your options were pretty limited. Women having to go to work assembling munitions and whatnot for WW2 changed a lot - it was out of necessity, but suddenly women realized they could do "men's work" and that a lot of them enjoyed it, and really, a lot of the equal rights and feminist movement stuff grew out of that.

[emilyyy]

I'm guessing that it wouldn't have always been easy to work with most of the men.
It's great that things have changed.

[Rawra]

I can't wait to see women presidents in Africa. I'll laugh my ass so fucking hard!!! And... maybe they'll CASTRATE stupid dick-wearers for not respecting women. That day will be the victory of us! The pretty sex, the smart sex! And, maybe, even the strong sex. How does that sound? MALE=the weaker sex? MWAHAHAHA!!!

[Nekowolf]

@TheCreeper

Women are still paid less on average than men in the US. Just pointing that out.

Anyway, the problem with feminism is that it's largely lost its direction. After it got equal rights and some other stuff, the movement started in-fighting with itself. So now you got Third Wave Feminism, some of which are pretty standard, back to the original ideas. But some are really freaking radical. So it's kind of fighting with itself, it's the radical ones who get the most attention, and it just causes a whole mess of things.

Then you got some like Phyllis Schlafly, head of the The Eagle Forum, a conservative group based out in Utah, who are strict anti-feminists. Who believes women DO belong in the kitchen and stuff (also brought to you by the Eagle Forum; Conservapedia!).

again @ Creeper

A few countries? Most if not all of Asia, all of the Middle East, most of Africa, probably a few European nations, dunno about South America. That's well more than "a few." And above men? This is the kind of radicalism I'm talking about. Favoring not equality, but superiority, turning the tables. I have no problems about being equal, but I will fight against any movement or idea of superiority/inferiority.

[simbalena]

The only reason people say they aren't feminist is because they think it means they must be anti-male. The problem is semantics.

I can't wait to see women presidents in Africa. I'll laugh my ass so fucking hard!!! And... maybe they'll CASTRATE stupid dick-wearers for not respecting women. That day will be the victory of us! The pretty sex, the smart sex! And, maybe, even the strong sex. How does that sound? MALE=the weaker sex? MWAHAHAHA!!!

That sounds stupid, because you're trying to be stupid.

[Lemon&Lime]

Don't forget "The Concerned Women for America" who successfully lobbyed the American Government and were successful in campaigning for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to be abolished before it became law.

ERA would have insured that women are entitled to the same rights as men, also homosexuals and people of different races. My understanding of it was that it would provide a base for people to sue if they had evidence that they weren't being paid equally, etc, similar to a law in the UK. Although the UK version of the law was a joke - only one woman has ever been successful in taking her employer to court, even though she was being paid an incredibly different salary to her male counterparts.

[Rawra]

The only reason people say they aren't feminist is because they think it means they must be anti-male. The problem is semantics.



That sounds stupid, because you're trying to be stupid.

No, I AM stupid. I was just trying to calm these feminists down. I wouldn't castrate my fiance, I need his... oops, bye-bye! :lol:

[lovetadraw]

I think one thing is some feminist aren't happy with being equal, they want to be "better", and no gender is better than the other.

[Tempscire]

I've heard this attitude before and very much disagree with it. If nothing else, just because you've had a victory doesn't mean it's time to start slacking and rest on your laurels...that's how you wind up losing ground again.

I identify myself as a feminist simply because I believe in women being able to choose what to do with their lives and bodies. It's such a shame that feminism has become a dirty word to so many people, especially girls who benefit everyday from it. I'm not just talking about big, lofty goals like voting and education, but things as little as being able to have our own credit cards and bank accounts and property.

Women having to go to work assembling munitions and whatnot for WW2 changed a lot - it was out of necessity, but suddenly women realized they could do "men's work" and that a lot of them enjoyed it, and really, a lot of the equal rights and feminist movement stuff grew out of that.

One of my history professors contended that concept. For one thing, poor women have always been subject to doing "men's work," not that it ever relieved them of the "double burden" of labor + housework. In the immediate wake of WW2, the same proportion of women held jobs outside the home as they did prior to the US's involvement in the war. As happened after WW1, society's acceptance of their participation in the manly side of the workforce waned after men started coming back.

I'm not saying there wasn't a change in perceptions over the decades or that WW2 had nothing to do with it, just that it there isn't that direct correlation from "We Can Do It!" to civil rights-era feminism as is the assumption.

[animenut31]

there will always be a need for feminism until a woman can walk down the street without worrying about being raped. i dont know where i heard this from but its true. ive also heard that one in three women will be a victim of sexual violence at least once during their lifetime. until a woman can earn the same as a man.(not 70 cents on the dollar based on her gender). until the word "double standard" is not used anymore.

[ElementMK]

American feminist who fight for women- fFROM AMERICA -rights are:
a) lesbian.
b) frustratedThis is good to know, since I am a man. I should really come out of the closet as a lesbian already.

You seem to be one of those people who think modern feminists are a bunch of ugly lesbians who were rejected by too many men. You're in for a big surprise.

I'm not going to argue your point, though. I've spent enough time trying to defend that men who claim to be feminist aren't invariably gay or desperate. Ugh.

[Tempscire]

there will always be a need for feminism until a woman can walk down the street without worrying about being raped.

Problems with that statement:

1) It implies that men are 100% safe from being violated.

2) It implies that women are never rapists themselves...
2a) ...and thus that women are always victims.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

I'm not saying there wasn't a change in perceptions over the decades or that WW2 had nothing to do with it, just that it there isn't that direct correlation from "We Can Do It!" to civil rights-era feminism as is the assumption.

Well, yes. Wasn't an immediate jump from Rosie the Riveter to female CEOs, but I think having that situation perhaps opened up a discussion on it - people thinking about it, which eventually led to the acceptance of women in the workplace. Probably would've happened anyway, but being able to go, "Look, we helped win the war, we can contribute to the workforce," certainly didn't hurt.

[fakepeeps7]

Years ago, on a social networking site, I remember a group that was called something like "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people!" That pretty much sums up my views. I'm not about to go burning my bra and waving my hairy armpits in men's faces while saying I want to take their jobs and castrate them. Feminism has gotten a bad rap. It's not about women taking over the world. It's about women having the same rights as men.

So, yes, I am a feminist.

[Lemon&Lime]

I think one thing is some feminist aren't happy with being equal, they want to be "better", and no gender is better than the other.

I don't know who you're talking about, but thats not a feminist. Every group has there extremes, and those women who think that women should have a higher status than men, and that men should have some of their rights taken away as punishment for what men centuries ago did to women - well, they're like the equivilant of Islamic terroists. Islam disowns these men/women as evil people who distort the truth, and those women who claim to be feminists (but are actually avengeful extremists) are viewed in the same way by REAL feminists. Basically, like strange radicals who've lost the true meaning of feminism, and so have been disowned.

As to the WW2 jobs topic, yes - the amount of women in work went down to the same levels they were before the war. And yes, there was not a massive employment drive for women for many years afterwards. But the crucial point is that women were given something and then had it taken away, and they weren't happy with that after they had had a taste of having the same options as men.

[Oaktree]

I think that there is still a need for feminism because, at is simplest level, feminism is simply the belief that women and men should have equal rights. That ideal should always be around. It is the extreme feminist movement that should not be around and that actually hurts more reasonable feminism. Few people in this thread have been willing to call themselves feminists because the term has become a dirty word due to the radical feminist movement.

I think we already are equal, and often even favored over men. The 70 cents on the dollar statistic is lacking context. It fails to mention that a lot of this difference is due to time off for maternity leave, as well as the fact that many women who have children start in the workforce later, or quit their first job and have to start all over again. In some cases, the study even compares men who have been on the job for years to women who just started. The same job doesn't mean the same salary and work experience. Even if you're working just as hard as or even harder than your co-workers, when you just start out on a job and for at least a few years afterward, you won't be making as much.

Those against this will say that women cannot be treated equally in business because, as the childbearers, they are likely to need time off for maternity leave and childbirth etc which is true but we can't change the fact that its only women who can bear children so if we want the human race to continue we have to accept that and not penalise women for something they cannot physically change.

Would you instead penalize the company for the personal choices of the employee? Women can choose not to have children if they are focused on getting as far as they can in their careers. But for the woman to have a child and come back and expect a raise after maternity leave is silly and unrealistic. The company can't afford to do that. Even paid maternity leave strains the company's finances because they have to hire someone to take over that job while the woman is out, and in many cases, they have to keep on the new (now unnecessary) employee to keep from being sued for "unwarranted" firing. So the company is not only paying the woman who is out, but also keeping her job for her, paying someone else to do her job while she's gone, and then still having to hold on to that extra person when she's back. What more can you expect from the company?

[animenut31]

you're right, tempscire. men can also be victims, but the topic is feminism.

[Lemon&Lime]

@Oaktree, can you please cite your sources?

Also, maternity leave is the excuse big companys give for justifying why they pay women less, not the actual reason why in statistics the pay is less for women. The whole chicken/egg argument comes into that one though. Don't forget some women get paid maternity leave.

When are we favoured over men? I don't mean this part in a criticising way, I'm just interested in what you are referring to. As far as I am aware, the only profession in which women have an extreme advantage/are favoured over men is nursing. Even when it comes to being promoted.

[Nekowolf]

@Lemon&Lime

Unfortunately, that is indeed a part of feminism. Just a extreme form of feminism. Like I said, it came about in the Third Wave Feminism. Of course, the whole of the movement certainly should not be judged on those people alone.

But to say they're not feminists, well, I would like to refer back to my discussion that saying extremist Christians "are not really Christian." Define yourself and the movement, rather than let them define it for you. It's better than simply casting them out as "not really feminists" because they will always say they are.

[Tempscire]

But the crucial point is that women were given something and then had it taken away, and they weren't happy with that after they had had a taste of having the same options as men.

Except for the fact that many of those women employed during the war were already working outside the home before the war (when the numbers went back down, they didn't go to 0), because they were poor or otherwise had to.* And they were "given something and had it taken away" after WW1, as well. Not to mention the subsequent WW2 baby boom: someone was staying home to care for those kids, and it's those kids-- who are decidedly atypical as a generation in many aspects-- that grew up to really drive the equal rights movement home.

*Heh. Feminism as classist concept. It was the middle and upper class women who had to push to get into the regular workforce.

you're right, tempscire. men can also be victims, but the topic is feminism.

My point wasn't that men can be victims but that the victimization of women (or lack thereof) is a poor measuring stick for equality.

[animenut31]

good point. but i say we are far away from equality because if the salary issue, the double standard issue, the culture issue, and a whole shitload more.

[tizerist]

I think for equality in the west, we are 99% there. Apart from the salaries.
If theres a reason for sex-specific salaries, I would like to hear it.

And its unfortunate that feminists have a man-hating stereotype. They have done much work and don't deserve the label.
Yes, alot of feminists are not shrinking violets.
But the militance that they have had to show over the years was absolutely necessary. Peaceful protests do practically nothing.
The only thing that gets attention from government is the "give me equal rights, or I'll take them by force" approach.
And they have almost created equality due to that.

[Nekowolf]

I wouldn't say 99%, but definitely doing a hell lot better.

[Oaktree]

@Lemon&Lime: I couldn't find any sources that would be available without subscription to a journal, so I guess you'll have to take my word on the conclusions of the articles I post. I couldn't find stable links to post, so I'll post the citations and you can look up the abstracts.

- Goldin, C, & Polachek, S. (1987). Residual differences by sex: perspectives on the gender gap in earnings. The American Economic Review, 77(2), 143-151.

This found that a large portion of the wage differential is due to a difference in expectations for future employment, though it cautioned that it likely does not account for the entire difference.

- Groshen, E. L. (1991). The Structure of the female/male wage differential: is it who you are, what you do, or where you work?. The Journal of Human Resources, 26(3), 457-472.

This one found that there was a 1% difference in the wages of men and women working in the same workplace, while male dominated jobs tended to pay higher than female-dominated jobs.

- Neumark, D, & Korenman, S. (1994). Sources of bias in women's wage equations: results using sibling data. The Journal of Human Resources, 29(2), 379-405.

This found that there is a significant negative wage correlation with having children.


I realize that some women get paid maternity, but while they are on maternity leave, they are not working, therefore not getting raises and bonuses. This accounts for some of the difference. Wages are mostly based on education, work experience, and tenure. Having children significantly impacts all of those things.

Women are favored in education. It is far easier for a women to find a scholarship to college than a man, even though 57% of college students are female. There are tons of scholarships out there with a prerequisite of being female, while only a handful are directed at men.

Women are given special treatment in some athletics. I play on an intramural soccer team where the rules state that a girl must touch the soccer ball at some point past the half-way point of the field, and that goals scored by women are worth 2 points instead of 1. This clearly attempts to favor female athletes. Frankly, I find it a little patronizing, as I feel that it isn't an accurate test of my and my female teammates' skills to be given such an "advantage". Each team can also have no more than one more person of either gender on the field at once. This is biased in favor of including more women, as there is somewhat less athletic interest in women than in men. What usually ends up happening is we have to frantically scramble to put together more female players just to avoid being disqualified.

[Purity4]

Saying feminism has no need to exist because equal rights have been achieved is about as logical as saying NASA has no need to exist because we've already landed on the moon. While the feminist movement has made great advances for women's rights, there are still several issues that need to be tackled (mostly international), and we have to vigilantly monitor the choices of the feminist movements and the governments influenced by them to make sure equal rights do not become special rights, or worse, the centuries of advances collapse and regress.

@Emily: I do agree that these sorts of insults are sexist accounts of trolling in real life, but please don't bash the "old fashioned" roles of women. There are multitudes of true-blue feminist women who actually prefer the role of a housewife or a stay-at-home mom. This should be perfectly alright, because feminism has never been about destroying old life choices, but instead it has been about creating new choices for women to have. Just because a woman doesn't choose to take these new choices means that one should judge her as less of an individual.

I agree with all of this. Unfortunately, some people gather their concepts from the media and gossip rather than from education. The point of feminism is to allow women to be equal to men, to allow women to be seen as human beings worthy of basic civil rights. It's not about being better than men, it's about being given the same rights (white) men have always had that women should have also always had.

To HP, although I mostly agree with your point, I feel compelled to address your use of stereotypes. Hairy legs or armpits (only adults are hairy, it's not a gender thing, it's a maturity thing), not wearing a bra (this one wasn't yours, but someone else's), wearing flannel and jeans have nothing to do with feminism. I don't like your use of perpetuating this stereotype anymore than I like others on this thread implying that being a lesbian has something to do with feminism. Feminism is simply the belief that women are entitled to the same human rights as men.

[Lemon&Lime]

Thanks for those studies Oaktree, I don't think I'm going to be able to access them either xD Where'd you hear of them anyway?

[jooxis]

For me there are simple indicators that feminism still needs to exist, even in the developed world.

Look at today's TV commercials. Any cleaning products such as detergents, dishwashing liquids, etc... are always advertized by a woman saying how awesome the product is and how well it cleans the kitchen and the laundry.
Commercials that feature a person in a white lab coat, with a PhD, recommending some toothpaste or medicine product - it's always a man. A good, trustworthy, intelligent man.

I actually see a problem with these things even though most people don't even notice. It's actually the fact that people don't notice that worries me - we're just used to it. So I think things still need to change more.

[fakepeeps7]

I actually see a problem with these things even though most people don't even notice. It's actually the fact that people don't notice that worries me - we're just used to it. So I think things still need to change more.

Things are changing, although slowly. I saw a commercial the other night (I think it was for Tide) with a man washing the tablecloth because he'd spilled barbeque sauce on it. His kids didn't believe he could get the stain out, but he was pretty confident. I was impressed that he was even portrayed as knowing how to use the washing machine. :lol:

There are a lot of guys who have to do their own housework. Especially if they're single and live on their own. Companies who direct their ads only at women could be alienating a huge market.

[Oaktree]

Lemon&Lime: I have heard from talking to Human Resources specialists and the like about studies of that nature, but I didn't really look into them before now. The people I heard it from were people I trusted, but I realize that that trust I have for them doesn't mean that anybody else on this site will trust them. I have access to databases because I am a university student, and a plain Google search wasn't getting me anywhere, so I went to databases. I apologize that I couldn't find more accessible information, but, unfortunately, even in this "Information Age", much of the reliable information is not free.

[Lemon&Lime]

The only time I ever saw a man advertising something to do with housework, was a guy advertising a really high-tech washing machine - with the emphasis on how clever it was.

Nice to know that us women are now too dumb to use the latest washing machines. Now men will have to work to earn the money as well as do all the housework, while we just sit at home and don't have to do any sort of work...

Actually, I quite like the sound of this future. Death to feminism! :rofl:

[HystearicalParoxysm]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a229/dhonig2/Eve.jpg

Step 1: Make sure to wash your twat before you ask for a raise, you filthy woman.

[fakepeeps7]

WTF?!

(And #3 threw me for a moment, too. I didn't think leaving work early would recommend you to your employers. Then I realized they want you to leave home early.)

[Lemon&Lime]

HP - I laughed so hard at that article and your post :rofl:

Might I add something to it? It also helps to be a beautiful blonde woman, don't forget that.

There was a case in the news of an overweight brunette woman with all the necessary qualifications and experience in a particular office-based job... who failed to get the job after the interview stage... because it went to an unqualified skinny blonde with no experience.

Oh, and don't forget the ratio of over-50 male TV presenters compared to over-50 female TV presenters.

[WayBack]

Look at today's TV commercials. Any cleaning products such as detergents, dishwashing liquids, etc... are always advertized by a woman saying how awesome the product is and how well it cleans the kitchen and the laundry.
Commercials that feature a person in a white lab coat, with a PhD, recommending some toothpaste or medicine product - it's always a man. A good, trustworthy, intelligent man.

Here we've got a good number of commercials showing women as doctors, pharmacists, sales managers, financial and insurance consultants... and on the other side, I've noticed the increasing number of commercials using male actors to present cleaning and washing products, vacuum cleaners etc.

I've got mixed feelings about it. I like that it doesn't follow the classic cliche but sometimes it portrays the man as an idiot who needs his wive's or mother's consultation to do the work properly and that's a bit too much for my taste. I'm all for equality, not for fighting over the dominant position.

[Lemon&Lime]

It seems the advertising people can't win.

"What is this?! The women are complaining that in every advert they are shown as domestic housewives, and there are never any men in any of the housework ones? Well let's make them happy and portray the men as stupid people who can't handle it so the women have to do it. Makes the women look like they do the housework because they're CLEVER, not because they're LESSER, ey, ey? See what I did there?" *applause and promotion* Sigh.

[TRIriana]

Don't forget "The Concerned Women for America" who successfully lobbyed the American Government and were successful in campaigning for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to be abolished before it became law.

ERA would have insured that women are entitled to the same rights as men, also homosexuals and people of different races. My understanding of it was that it would provide a base for people to sue if they had evidence that they weren't being paid equally, etc, similar to a law in the UK. Although the UK version of the law was a joke - only one woman has ever been successful in taking her employer to court, even though she was being paid an incredibly different salary to her male counterparts.


Considering facts are an important part to a debate, I'd just like to hijack to say that this is untrue. One woman has not ever successfully taken an employer to court and won her case - many have. Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/28/pay-female-staff-birmingham-council) is an example.

Many woman are still given unequal pay, but the law to aid themis not a joke.

[ElementMK]

I've got mixed feelings about it. I like that it doesn't follow the classic cliche but sometimes it portrays the man as an idiot who needs his wive's or mother's consultation to do the work properly and that's a bit too much for my taste.Eh, after millennia of oppression, I suppose we were sort of asking for it. While I'm fairly proficient in most household chores, most guys I know *are* hilariously incompetent when it comes to housework. In some cases, so are their girlfriends. It makes me wonder how the couples who live together manage to keep their home from achieving cave status.

[el_flel]

Right now, no, there is no need for feminism. We do have equal rights <snip> UK has a woman queen.I'm not sure why you think having a female monarch has anything to do with feminism. Monarchs aren't voted in like a president or prime minister is: who will become King or Queen is completely dependent on their bloodline. We've also had female monarchs for centuries so I don't get how this point is relevant.

As for the original question: feminism will be needed in all countries until such a time that men and women have equal rights and attitudes change. Anyone who thinks that men and women are currently equal are just deluding themselves. Other posters have pretty much summed up my feelings on this issue when they talk about treatment in the workplace, depictions in the media, etc, so I won't bother to repeat what has already been said.

[Lemon&Lime]

Okay, more than one employee has successfully used the UK law, but its still a joke. I quote -

Her case took 10 years and £50,000 of public money to prove, but eventually after three industrial tribunals, she won an appeal at the House of Lords.

Despite that she was obviously being paid less, why did it have to take 10 years?

Her union, the GMB, was triumphant, claiming her victory would open the floodgates to up to one million similar claims from low-paid women.

But the anticipated number of claims never materialised, although the TUC says her case "clarified the legal position for other claimants".

Even though...

The gender pay gap has narrowed since the late 1980s, when it was above 30%, but it is still running at 23% - if you include the average salaries of full and part-time workers.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8032750.stm

[appelsapgodin]

Obviously in an ideal world everyone would be treated equally whether they are male, female, black, white etc. In the West generally speaking we are fortunate because although we still fall a long way short of actual 'sexual equality' we are years ahead of, say, the middle east, where women's rights are practically non existent. I think today the main area where women are clearly discriminated against in the West is the workplace where men are openly paid at a higher rate than women in an identical job and this has to be sorted out. To anyone with an inch of common sense, two people who perform the same job with the same skill and success should be paid an equal wage regardless of their sex.Those against this will say that women cannot be treated equally in business because, as the childbearers, they are likely to need time off for maternity leave and childbirth etc which is true but we can't change the fact that its only women who can bear children so if we want the human race to continue we have to accept that and not penalise women for something they cannot physically change.

I need to rein myself in now because I could go on about this for six pages but basically 'yes' we need equal rights for women now ( and some women in the world need rights period!). I think society needs to realise that you can be a 'feminine feminist'. Establishing equal rights for women does not mean creating an androgynous race. We still need to embrace and celebrate the differences between men and women but just give them equal rights.
Quoted for truth, because that saves me typing the same post as Mia here already did.

I myself am more the kind of feminist who knows very well, and is perfectly able to get the dirty, full garbage bag out of the can, throw it away at the other side of the street, come back in, clean the can and then put in a new bag... but I'll still wear a short skirt and bat my lashes so my male slave... ehm.. boyfriend will do it.

[pinketamine]

Saying that nowadays women and men have equal rights is absolutely false. Even in most developed countries, there are many differences. Unemployment (non-voluntary) is always higher on women, women tend to earn less money than men doing the same job, there are less women in high level jobs, there are still double standarts when it comes to sexual freedom.
I think there is still a big need of feminism in the world, because, unless you're blind, you can see that there isn't any real rights equality.
And I'm not talking about underdeveloped countries..

[fakepeeps7]

To anyone with an inch of common sense, two people who perform the same job with the same skill and success should be paid an equal wage regardless of their sex.Those against this will say that women cannot be treated equally in business because, as the childbearers, they are likely to need time off for maternity leave and childbirth etc which is true but we can't change the fact that its only women who can bear children so if we want the human race to continue we have to accept that and not penalise women for something they cannot physically change.

We're not penalizing women for something they can't change. If anything, they're having to accept the consequences of choosing to have a baby. And I don't see 35 weeks of partially paid leave as much of a "penalization".

As a single woman with no children, I find it unfair that women can take time off -- and get paid -- for choosing to do something that they want to do (i.e., have kids). If I decide to take a 4-month sabbatical and flit off to Bora Bora, I wouldn't get paid and I wouldn't have a job to go back to. But my friend who wants to have a whole slew of kids? She gets to have 35 weeks off whenever she has a baby, she gets paid for it, and she gets her job back when she's finished.

[el_flel]

Taking leave because you've had a baby isn't the same thing as taking leave because you want to travel: maternity leave isn't a holiday and it's not just about the woman - their child needs a lot of care in those first few months. It's not just reagarding maternity leave where women are penalised - it's everything about having children. I don't plan on having kids either but I don't see paid maternity leave as unfair to those women and men who don't want kids.

I think here (UK) women can take 6 months maternity leave at full pay but men can only take something like 2 weeks paternity leave at full pay and the rules for it are much more restrictive. IMO couples should be given the choice as to whether the mother or father takes the 6 months.

[Lemon&Lime]

I think maternity leave should stay as it is. Paid maternity leave enables women to be able to raise children AND have a career - without being on benefits - which ultimately makes women who have children and those who don't equal. If they didn't get paid maternity leave either the husband/other wife will have to work more, or they'd have to claim benefits, and the woman may have to give up her career.

[fakepeeps7]

Taking leave because you've had a baby isn't the same thing as taking leave because you want to travel: maternity leave isn't a holiday and it's not just about the woman - their child needs a lot of care in those first few months.

My point was that having a family is a choice. If that choice that takes you away from the workplace is acceptable, then why isn't my choice to take a break from my job and de-stress acceptable? It could be argued that I'd be an even better worker when I came back... unlike a new mother who might be sleep-deprived and cranky from postpartum hormones.

[el_flel]

Because choosing between having a baby and having a holiday aren't the same. It doesn't matter that it's a choice. Humans need to reproduce and it's something you can't put a provision on.

[ElementMK]

Because choosing between having a baby and having a holiday aren't the same. It doesn't matter that it's a choice. Humans need to reproduce and it's something you can't put a provision on.To some extent, sure. With a world population reaching seven billion, it's fairly obvious that we don't need a greater number of births beyond 1.7 per couple (I love .7 children, since they're so much quieter than whole kids). The logic goes that if one couple has two or more kids, another couple is let off of the hook. It's not an exact science, but it's perfectly alright to not have kids or, better yet, to adopt.

[Elyasis]

But the option should still be there. Also, a lot of European countries are having a problem with population decline due to low birthrate.
The only reason the US still has such a high birthrate is because of the massive numbers of Catholic Mexican-Americans that rarely use birth control.
There are two ways to go about reducing the population, stop reproducing (not a viable solution in the long run) or increase the death rate (not a palatable solution to any sane person).

As for feminism, yes it is still needed. In fact, I see and hear so many instances of a clear double standard and misogynistic views in my day to day life I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to go back in time and at least be put on a pedestal for being some rich man's wife. (Victorian/Regency clothes are so beautiful too!) Alas, now we have to both work a full time job to keep up with the Jones' and do everything at home and pop out 2.5 kids. This is the mindset of the average American. If a woman wants to work outside the home her duties at home aren't mitigated or shared between both parents. I also see a ton of guys who insist they'd love to be a SAHD, saying it's "easier". What a load of tripe!

[Tempscire]

NPR ran a story (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/01/129581758/?sc=fb&cc=fp) on the one demographic range in which women out-earn men, and I thought of this thread. ("Single, childless, and between the ages of 22 and 30," by the way.)

Because choosing between having a baby and having a holiday aren't the same. It doesn't matter that it's a choice. Humans need to reproduce and it's something you can't put a provision on.

People also need to maintain their mental health by getting away from the stress of work sometimes. I figure that's an even more universal need than reproduction-- everybody needs relaxation, but not everyone feels the drive to make babies equally. (i.e. Reproduction is a collective need but not an individual one.)

[el_flel]

People also need to maintain their mental health by getting away from the stress of work sometimes. I figure that's an even more universal need than reproduction-- everybody needs relaxation, but not everyone feels the drive to make babies equally. (i.e. Reproduction is a collective need but not an individual one.)Yeah I know, which is why people get paid sick leave and paid holiday. But saying that taking 6 months paid leave to go on holiday is the same as 6 months paid maternity leave is a bit silly IMO.

[Lemon&Lime]

Yeah I know, which is why people get paid sick leave and paid holiday. But saying that taking 6 months paid leave to go on holiday is the same as 6 months paid maternity leave is a bit silly IMO.

I completely agree. Women NEED 6 months maternity leave. A non-parent does not need a 6 month holiday. Imagine how that conversation would go with your boss.

"Boss, can I take 6 months off?"
"Why on earth do you need to? Are you pregnant like Mary?"
"No, I just need a break for my mental wellbeing. As to why it's that long, Mary got that long and I demand to be treated equally!"
"But she's going to have a screaming baby and be up all night... while you have a long holiday? How is that fair!? No chance of you having it by the way."
"But boss, its for my mental wellbeing and it is fair!"

[Purity4]

The only reason the US still has such a high birthrate is because of the massive numbers of Catholic Mexican-Americans that rarely use birth control.

Are you serious? You haven't noticed the mormons and christians aiming for being 'quiverful' to repopulate the world with their god-loving seed?

[el_flel]

I completely agree. Women NEED 6 months maternity leave. A non-parent does not need a 6 month holiday. Imagine how that conversation would go with your boss.

"Boss, can I take 6 months off?"
"Why on earth do you need to? Are you pregnant like Mary?"
"No, I just need a break for my mental wellbeing. As to why it's that long, Mary got that long and I demand to be treated equally!"
"But she's going to have a screaming baby and be up all night... while you have a long holiday? How is that fair!? No chance of you having it by the way."
"But boss, its for my mental wellbeing and it is fair!"Exactly! Thank you! Maternity leave is necessary for a variety of reasons and isn't a holiday. If someone's mental wellbeing is that bad that they are going to need 6 months off work then they get signed off by their GP and claim Statutory Sick Pay. Your point a few posts up about how if women aren't paid maternity leave then they'll have to rely on welfare is completely true, how else are most people going to be able to afford to live?

[Undercovers_Agent]

I hate how people think that feminisim is taking over the world, and those who join the feminist movement because they wrongly believe that that's true. Even as a dude I always hate it when women, are not payed the same, especially when they do a better job then a guy could do. I remember we had to get this guy out of a construction accident and the only person that could acsess and treat this guy was a woman, we're all people, we should all be treated the same.

[ElementMK]

I hate how people think that feminisim is taking over the world, and those who join the feminist movement because they wrongly believe that that's true.I do hope that feminism is taking over the world. Don't let the name fool you, though: Modern feminism is synonymous with humanism.

No self-respecting feminist would want equal rights for women, but not equal rights for people of different races or creed. If you're an actual feminist (none of this overblown "women are better than men" BS, because that's simple bigotry), you're also a humanist. Feminism is just a term one can use when discussing women's rights in particular.

I believe in equal rights for all humans, so I am equally a feminist and a humanist.

[Undercovers_Agent]

I do hope that feminism is taking over the world. Don't let the name fool you, though: Modern feminism is synonymous with humanism.

I ment the whole woman are better then men thing cause then it just became the opposite.

[Oaktree]

Imagine using "he or she" all the time in prose. :P As my English teachers always said, stick to one gender in writing! Some people go for "she" instead of "he". I stick with the traditional "he".

I don't think that it is sexist to use "he" or "men" to refer to a mixed-sex group. In that usage, the terms are gender neutral. There are plenty of other English words with multiple definitions and nuances, so I don't see why those words can't have it.

I think it's somewhat poetic to refer to humans as "man".

[unalisaa]

I don't think that it is sexist to use "he" or "men" to refer to a mixed-sex group. In that usage, the terms are gender neutral. There are plenty of other English words with multiple definitions and nuances, so I don't see why those words can't have it.

I think it's somewhat poetic to refer to humans as "man".

I think the way people speak influences the way people think. This is a theory known as linguistic relativity. I'm not willing to run the risk of raising yet another generation who thinks the word "person" means "man". That, and I find it important to say what you mean, and if you don't *mean* "man" or "he", saying it for the sake of pretty prose is silly.
"They" as a third person singular pronoun is simple and easy, and you avoid the clumsiness of "he or she" or the exclusiveness of "he" or "she".
A lot of women claim that they do not feel excluded when referred to as "he", which is good for them. The thing is, studies have shown (I do not have a link at hand, as I read this in a meatspace book. If anyone is interested, I can probably find something online to support this, though) that people, even while knowing that "he" refers to a group of mixed gender, perceive it as predominately if not completely male.
That, and men apparently feel slightly excluded when dealing with a text that uses "she" as default. Is this because men have an overinflated sense of ego in general? I don't think so, but I do think we as a society are very used to male-centric and male-default points of view.

EDIT: upon posting this, I realise it looks like I was taking a stab at Oaktree. This was not my intention. Oaktree, what I wrote in my post was sparked by yours, but please do not take it as directed to you personally. :)

[ElementMK]

A lot of women claim that they do not feel excluded when referred to as "he", which is good for them. The thing is, studies have shown (I do not have a link at hand, as I read this in a meatspace book. If anyone is interested, I can probably find something online to support this, though) that people, even while knowing that "he" refers to a group of mixed gender, perceive it as predominately if not completely male. I, being the information hungry jerk I am, would love to see some studies of this. Would you happen to have any information regarding languages that aren't primarily gender neutral?

Perhaps the Spanish really find offices girly; their office supplies are predominantly feminine.

However, I am going to disagree with you about removing the exclusive "he" or "she" from general prose and conversation. If these words carry as much influence as you imply, it is important to keep them in everyone's vocabulary.

The one-syllable words can often be the most powerful, and these two should be no different. Proper education about these two words could give one the power to sway emotions and the imagination. Isn't that what language is all about?

[unalisaa]

However, I am going to disagree with you about removing the exclusive "he" or "she" from general prose and conversation. If these words carry as much influence as you imply, it is important to keep them in everyone's vocabulary.

The one-syllable words can often be the most powerful, and these two should be no different. Proper education about these two words could give one the power to sway emotions and the imagination. Isn't that what language is all about?

I might not have made myself clear. I meant that purely as applied in a context where you actually mean "people in general", e.g. "The reader might be asking himself[...]". I do think precision is important in language, and having one nuance too many is certainly better than having one too few. Although we might be moving way from a strictly binary gender perception in our culture, "he" and "she" still have their place. But that place is not, IMO, in texts supposedly concerning everyone, as opposed to just the gender mentioned.

I, being the information hungry jerk I am, would love to see some studies of this. Would you happen to have any information regarding languages that aren't primarily gender neutral?

No jerkishness perceived; I can't just waltz in and make absurd claims without expecting people to ask me to cite sources.
The study I read was performed on native English speakers to see if they were influenced by the use of general masculine terms when speaking about groups of people. I tried Google, but I cannot seem to find it. I'll look it up when I get home and report back.


Perhaps the Spanish really find offices girly; their office supplies are predominantly feminine.

You might be interested in this (http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/32/1/18.abstract) study. Sadly, one needs a subscription to the publication to read the whole thing.

I can only tell you of my personal experience: In Russian, I'd perceive the Moon as feminine: it's glowing and pretty and you know, the whole Moon Goddess thing.
In German, I'd say it held male properties. Man in the Moon and all. This is all anecdotal, obviously, and I can't claim it to support my point.

[ElementMK]

No jerkishness perceived; I can't just waltz in and make absurd claims without expecting people to ask me to cite sources.Ah, you simply don't know me well enough. Now, stop! Not another step! If you get any closer to my collection of research papers, I'll sic my paleontologists on you! They're bad to the bone.

*cough*

Anyway, as an essentially monolingual English speaker, it is hard for me to wrap my head around nouns with gender. After all, with a passive grasp of a language, the words are simply words, and don't invoke the same connotations to me as they would a native speaker. What does "el" and "la" mean to me, except more work? This is one of my favourite short articles that statistically observes the phenomenon (http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/08/what-s-in-a-word.html).

An interesting stumble of nouns with gender was pointed out to me in Danish. The standard word for nurse is inherently female (sygeplejerske). While the logical term for a male nurse would be sygeplejer, this word means something else entirely. This limitation means there's no way to imply that a nurse is a man without awkwardly pointing it out.

This is akin to having "waitress", but not having "waiter" to compliment it. It's an interesting reverse to the often male-first nouns of -man (businessman, fireman), though we can at least affix -woman to solve most of these inconsistencies.

One of the most irritating uses of the exclusive third-person singular pronouns has to be "she" to denote prized possessions like boats and cars. While a term like "mankind" has deeper meaning than what may appear to be the case, using "she" in this way is just plain silly. That archaic usage was for historic sea vessels that were admiringly named after women, not your stupid-ass matte black Hummer. Unless you have some sort of special setup (check the tailpipe?), it's an "it".

[HystearicalParoxysm]

I'll sic my paleontologists on you! They're bad to the bone.

*groan*

[unalisaa]

Okay, so I went home, and I looked it up. The passage I had in mind was from linguist Suzette Haden Elgin's The Language Imperative , and it goes as follows:
"[...] and third, that the correct way to express their meaning is 'Every member of the congregation had his own hymnal' -- because 'everybody knows the word his in that sort of sentence means his or her.' [...] The third [justification for this], however, is simply false. Research has more than amply demonstrated that people today interpret as exclusively male the so-called generic masculine items of English like the masculine pronouns[...]
When research subjects are given sets of sentences such as 'Every doctor dreads his Board exams' and 'The composer who doesn't play the piano is hampered in his work' and are asked to draw pictures to illustrate them, by overwhelming majorities they draw pictures of a male doctor, a male composer and so on."

While I believe Elgin to be a credible source, I realise I'm not actually citing anything of scientific importance and as such, I'm essentially talking out of my ass.
Nevertheless, I stand by my original opinion: I consider gender-inclusive, or at least mindful language to be an important part of creating true equality.
And to re-rail things a bit: yeah, I think we still need feminism. We may already have equal rights de jure, which is what I think a lot of the people in this thread have mentioned as equality, but I think all countries in the world have yet to accomplish equality de facto. Because that's a question of attitudes, and those are arguably as difficult to change as laws are.

[Oaktree]

I think the way people speak influences the way people think. This is a theory known as linguistic relativity. I'm not willing to run the risk of raising yet another generation who thinks the word "person" means "man". That, and I find it important to say what you mean, and if you don't *mean* "man" or "he", saying it for the sake of pretty prose is silly.
"They" as a third person singular pronoun is simple and easy, and you avoid the clumsiness of "he or she" or the exclusiveness of "he" or "she".
A lot of women claim that they do not feel excluded when referred to as "he", which is good for them. The thing is, studies have shown (I do not have a link at hand, as I read this in a meatspace book. If anyone is interested, I can probably find something online to support this, though) that people, even while knowing that "he" refers to a group of mixed gender, perceive it as predominately if not completely male.
That, and men apparently feel slightly excluded when dealing with a text that uses "she" as default. Is this because men have an overinflated sense of ego in general? I don't think so, but I do think we as a society are very used to male-centric and male-default points of view.

EDIT: upon posting this, I realise it looks like I was taking a stab at Oaktree. This was not my intention. Oaktree, what I wrote in my post was sparked by yours, but please do not take it as directed to you personally. :)

I realize you weren't attacking me. Your post wasn't particularly abrasive, anyway. You were posting information, not flaming me. :)

Linguistic relativity strikes me as something strongly related to post-modern philosophy, in which the world is supposed to be a construct of perceptions, rather than something that is real and our perceptions should line up with. I disagree, and I don't trust the book source you posted enough to be convinced, as there is little requirement of scientific rigidity in publishing a book. I'm not trying to take a cheap tactic to knock your argument down, I'd just like to point out that I have read plenty of books that espouse quite the opposite philosophy, so without substantial reference to scientific studies, neither category can be fully trusted. The journal article you posted likely has more merit, but it seems to be examining Spanish more than it examines English, as English seems to be used as the control. I can't access the article, though, so I don't know if there is more detail on English in the body of the text.

I think you are saying what you mean when you say "man" to refer to, say, the human race in general. As I said in my post, that is a particular nuance of the word. It may not be entirely clear, but it is a proper definition of the word.

I don't like using "they" that way. I do it sometimes because it just gets tiring to type out "he/she" and it isn't particularly socially acceptable at current times to shorten it to "he", but the grammar nazi in me gets annoyed when I have to use it because it simply isn't grammatically correct to use "they" in place of a singular.

I would guess that people view "he" as referring specifically to men because they have been trained to view it that way. Ever since the feminist movement gained power, it hasn't been socially acceptable to use "he" to refer to both genders. People now, in particular, young people who have grown up immersed in this environment and without the benefit of old books, would probably view "he" as a specifically male word. The reason men object to "she" is because it isn't a gender-inclusive term. It does not have that meaning, and it would probably take years of struggle and constant media barrage to give it that definition. When you use "she", though your intent may be to use a gender-neutral pronoun, you are at best using it in a grammatically incorrect manner.

[appelsapgodin]

For Oaktree and others, I understand your problem with using 'men' when you actually mean 'human' or 'people', but that's just English linguistics. I just like to mention the fact here that there are languages that have a less gender biased word that is not gender inclusive when speaking about people as a group. In Dutch for instance you can use 'mens', which literally means 'human', but I guess we use it far more easily in every day sentences than you use the word 'human' in the same context in English.

Language, however, is a fluid process, so maybe we could make the world a less gender-biased place by making up a word that would fit a he/she situation and try to get that used more commonly so it will become a part of the language?

(Yes, I had half a bottle of wine tonight, so this idea might be crazy.. and then I appologise for getting my face into the convo. Otherwise I think I might be on to something. I also like to add that I think this is a very interesting point when having a linguistics brainstorm, but that I do not think it's really gonna be much help with getting equal rights for everyone.)

[fakepeeps7]

Language, however, is a fluid process, so maybe we could make the world a less gender-biased place by making up a word that would fit a he/she situation and try to get that used more commonly so it will become a part of the language?

It's been tried. I remember reading someone's blog years ago who tried to do this. I think she used "ze" instead of "he" or "she". It drove me absolutely nuts because it was so unnatural. (It also came off as quite pretentious.)

The word "they" has been tried, too. But, as has been pointed out, it's not quite correct.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

"They" is a singular in this usage though. It's used to mean "that generic person" - language -is- fluid. Why can't the meaning of the word change to fit a common usage? That's how new rules eventually get accepted anyway - just like "whom" falling out of usage and being generally accepted as okay to lose.

[ElementMK]

"They" is a singular in this usage though. It's used to mean "that generic person" - language -is- fluid. Why can't the meaning of the word change to fit a common usage? That's how new rules eventually get accepted anyway - just like "whom" falling out of usage and being generally accepted as okay to lose.Like, this, yo.

It's difficult to understand the language of an American from eighty years ago. Weird sentence structure and metaphors such as "the cat's pajamas" were widely used, but sound silly today.

"They" makes plenty of sense, despite its technical limitations. I hope "he" and "she" still have their place, in the same place, but as unalisaa pointed it out and backed up, "he" and "she" tend to create preconceived notions that the speaker or writer wouldn't necessarily want. "They" is and should be a doublegood replacement for now.

[fakepeeps7]

"They" is a singular in this usage though. It's used to mean "that generic person" - language -is- fluid. Why can't the meaning of the word change to fit a common usage? That's how new rules eventually get accepted anyway - just like "whom" falling out of usage and being generally accepted as okay to lose.

Why can't the meaning of a word change to fit a common usage? That's been discussed at length in threads like this one (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=416534). Sometimes the word is offensive. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense. Just because everybody uses it doesn't make it correct.

As for "who" and "whom"... well, I still use them. But that's probably because I know how. People shouldn't be off the hook for using proper English just because they don't understand it. They might as well just grunt at each other and be done with it if they're going to discard perfectly good words for lack of grammar skills.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

Eh, it's not a matter of grammar skills - it's a matter of common usage adapting to the needs of the speakers - when a change becomes accepted usage by the average person (whether or not the university folks think it's acceptable) it eventually gets incorporated into the language as "correct". In fact, most people speak perfectly grammatically 99% of the time, even if they don't speak English-paper-speech (as long as they don't have some impairment) - even the much-derided Ebonics has a very strict grammatical structure and follows rules just as strict as you'd use for a formal English paper.

Strongly suggest reading "The Language Instinct" by Stephen Pinker - it addresses just this kinda thing, including the rather arbitrary style guides.

I will be happily over here using "they" and making English teachers' panties twist. They can deal with it.

[Purity4]

For Oaktree and others, I understand your problem with using 'men' when you actually mean 'human' or 'people', but that's just English linguistics. I just like to mention the fact here that there are languages that have a less gender biased word that is not gender inclusive when speaking about people as a group. In Dutch for instance you can use 'mens', which literally means 'human', but I guess we use it far more easily in every day sentences than you use the word 'human' in the same context in English.


My 5 year old daughter uses the term human or humans when referring to a gender-mixed group of people. I did not teach this to her, but I do like how she thinks.

[ElementMK]

My 5 year old daughter uses the term human or humans when referring to a gender-mixed group of people. I did not teach this to her, but I do like how she thinks.Does she, by any chance, refer to her peers as "insufferable fools"? Do you hear shouts of "Brilliant!" or "Eureka!" from her room late at night?

Report all cases of MSS (Mad Scientist Syndrome) to the Better Ethics Bureau at 1-888-2CRZY.

[Nekowolf]

NO! It was the Academy, dammit! They all said my research was impossible...they all said I was mad! BUT I WILL SHOW THEM ALL!
You can take my grants over my cold, dead gloved hands!

/couldn't help joining in

[HystearicalParoxysm]

Erm, nope, any similarities between my post and yours were completely coincidental.

[Vanito]

I am pro equality regardless of gender. If a woman works equalliy hard as a man in a job, the payment should be the same.

Having 50% of women equalliy divided at jobs seems unrealistic though since women --on average-- more often have priorities to the family life/babies. Women more often than men are crazy about babies toddlers etc. Also women in surveys seem to have different priorities than men in jobs. Women on average more often want a pleasant working environment and time for self exploration and less often ask for a raise in salary, assuming hard work will gain you one (not true, you gotta ask for it, negotiate).

In itself women can have a carreer and a family - by getting themself a guy with stay at home abitions and resersing the roles. I know one such couple and it works out fine. However a lot of women, especially educated ones want a guy with a better job, they dont fall as often for stay at home guys as men do for stay at home women.

When women work, women still more often still want to have a bigger part in taking care of the kids, have a clean house etc. Women more often seem to be all round perfectionists.

The current situation is not the most beneficial, women who want kids often have to choose between kids and work, people take less kids, bring them more often to creshes and men arent happy with stressed out women too. We need a next generation too.

Ideally there would be some kind of arrangement for stay at home/parttime women (or stay at home/parttime fathers) who do want kids to have better career opportunities when the children grow up since its no good for kids to be dumped in a creche all the time. My mother was a stay at home mom and thats a luxury as a kid. When she wanted to work after raising us though, that was extremely hard.

[fakepeeps7]

Ideally there would be some kind of arrangement for stay at home/parttime women (or stay at home/parttime fathers) who do want kids to have better career opportunities when the children grow up since its no good for kids to be dumped in a creche all the time. My mother was a stay at home mom and thats a luxury as a kid. When she wanted to work after raising us though, that was extremely hard.

That's a tough question. They've been out of the workforce for so long that, often, any skills they once had are no longer relevant or useful... especially these days, when the pace of change is so fast. My mother stayed home to take care of us and she ran into some of these issues when she went back to work.

What would you suggest to help get moms and dads back into the workforce (without making it seem unfair to the people in the workforce who didn't decide to stay home to take care of their kids)?

[Vanito]

That's a tough question. They've been out of the workforce for so long that, often, any skills they once had are no longer relevant or useful... especially these days, when the pace of change is so fast. My mother stayed home to take care of us and she ran into some of these issues when she went back to work.

What would you suggest to help get moms and dads back into the workforce (without making it seem unfair to the people in the workforce who didn't decide to stay home to take care of their kids)?
The number one suggestion is to simply help people finding work again, similar to the way it is done to welfare people here. Most stay at home moms cannot apply for welfare since their partner earns a salary.

Second, more part time jobs in the goverment would prevent people from falling out of the working market when kids start going to school. Finding part time work was hard, and the part time work that was there payed so crap that with all taxes it would barely benefit.

Everyone makes choices in life, but when we are old we all depend on the newer generations to take care of things.

Making sure those generations are well taken care off is important. All those kids with uncontrollable problems nowadays who have ADHD, depressions, go criminal - you can expect more trouble when both couples have to work full time and there is less time for the kids. Some kids will do fine, however borderline problematic kids will be dealing with the issues.

My brother had issues at school and was told he would only pass LOM school (a special school) because he cold not read at a later age. My mom spent a lot of time helping him every day doing reading exercice and he passed the HAVO, HBO and went to university.

I thank my good grades for a big part to my mom as well. I am quite lazy, thanks to her helping I did my homework well and scored well. When I was getting disabled she helped with my household, cooking etc so I could continue to study, at least till me health problems got too much. Those years are very usefull now.

[starved4pizza]

I'm probably out of the loop, somehow, but yes, I think we still need feminism on this earth. Maybe not as much in the developed countries, but in places like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, where a woman can be arrested for driving a car, or looking at another man. America might still be flawed with sexism, but at least I can go about my day *not* having to constantly worry about being arrested, or possibly even stoned to death, simply for exsisting as a woman.

[ElementMK]

I am proud to say, for the most part, equal rights have been achieved for middle-class American women. There are a few issues, sure, but the crux of the problems lie with the women of the lower-class and upper-class. Okay, so I know you likely said "What?" to that. Upper class citizens are pampered! What could they possibly need?

Well, the reason most people are upper class in the first place is because someone has a very high paying job. More often than not, that person is the man of the household. Upper class society is strange, to say the least. The woman is delegated as a stay at home mom. Want to further your education? Why would you need that, when everything is provided for you? Only middle-class women who need a strong job further their education. You want to *get* a job? Are you kidding me?

Upper class families tend to call back to the nuclear family concept of the 40s and 50s. On the other hand, lower-class women often don't have the chance to be educated enough. Their concept of society is whatever they're told it should be. Getting a job is difficult with little education.

It's two realms of the same issue. One can be helped through social programs, while the other can, well, I don't know. How can you help someone who thinks they have everything?

[paksetti]

Well, the reason most people are upper class in the first place is because someone has a very high paying job. More often than not, that person is the man of the household. Upper class society is strange, to say the least. The woman is delegated as a stay at home mom. Want to further your education? Why would you need that, when everything is provided for you? Only middle-class women who need a strong job further their education. You want to *get* a job? Are you kidding me?

Upper class families tend to call back to the nuclear family concept of the 40s and 50s.


I dunno how often that happens. If the kids don't need you (grown up or have a nanny, I suppose) you would probably want a job so you didn't get bored- at least part time.

And furthering your education is ridiculously easy if you have the money. They only thing holding them back is themselves, in that case.

[ElementMK]

And furthering your education is ridiculously easy if you have the money. They only thing holding them back is themselves, in that case.Not really. I suppose it depends on how upper class we might go, but I was once there, too. There's a lot of societal pressure from your neighborhood and such. "Such a waste of money, you have everything you need, don't be a fool ..."

Women, even those without children, are expected to be money-draining trophy wives. I don't know if this is the case everywhere, but this was what I saw in my position.

[paksetti]

Eh, I know I probably won't win, but if it were me, I'd just say I want to drain my money on college. College isn't just about getting a job, it's about learning and experiencing new things.

[Ledgo]

I don' think feminist at this time are needed. They may need to come back in the future in any other events, but as of now, I feel they do more harm rather harmony.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

Erm, Ledgo, you may want to read a bit more of the debate so you can respond to some of the good points people have made above about why feminism -is- still needed. Just saying "they aren't needed" without really making any other points or examples doesn't add much to the debate, especially when it's got almost 100 replies already. Some of the topics people have discussed upthread about why there -is- still a need for feminism include things like:

- Inequality in pay. Women, on average, still make less than their male coworkers performing the same job.

- Inequality in the way women are treated - often in certain male dominated professions (try being a female employee in an auto repair shop, or computer parts store) but also just in general, often viewed as weaker or less capable.

- Gender roles - the ideas of working mothers, stay at home mothers, and whether it's "okay" for a woman to be childfree to pursue her career. Also concepts like "women's work" (caring for children, sewing, etc.)

Care to address any of those points? Certainly those issues are still valid in today's society.

[pinketamine]

I don' think feminist at this time are needed. They may need to come back in the future in any other events, but as of now, I feel they do more harm rather harmony.

Could you please explain to us HOW exactly do feminists harm the society?

[Nekowolf]

Extreme "feminism?" Only thing I can think of.

[Tempscire]

Extreme "feminism?" Only thing I can think of.

Ditto. Except so far as I can tell, those kinds of "feminists" are a minority and therefore not really inflicting much harm on society anyway.

A couple other thoughts that I've seen presented before: Feminists take women out of the house and make them feel bad for being good wives and mothers at home! Kids these days need a mother in the house at all times!

Or the pervasive attitude among a few men that women have become the dominant sex and they, poor white men that they are (and it usually seems to be white men saying this), have become second class citizens, who have to buy their own drinks and can't form men-only gyms the way women can and now they're not even the majority of college students. They're being constantly and gradually emasculated! They can't grope their secretaries and get away with it! This world is scary and unfair now!

[Oaktree]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute here. While I think that a lot of the men who complain about reversal take it too far, the things they say can't be completely dismissed. The fact that fewer boys graduate high school and go to college is something that we should be concerned about. It may mean that boys simply gravitate towards careers that require less education, but it may also be that girls are being strongly favored in education. When women were underrepresented in school, people were concerned. That same concern should be applied now that men are underrepresented. What I'm essentially saying is that we must constantly be vigilant against sex bias. The fact that girls were held down for a long time does not justify allowing things to swing right back that way for the boys. We want an enlightened, egalitarian society, not a society bent on "an eye for an eye".

Just as a side note, how is it justified for it to be okay for women to form women-only gyms, but for men-only gyms to be prohibited? Wouldn't it make more sense to either allow both or to only allow non-gender-exclusive gyms?

[paksetti]

Are men-only gyms banned? That's stupid. But it makes sense to have men-only and women-only gyms, or at least sections of the same building, just like it makes sense to have men-only and women-only bathrooms. Of course, unisex ones would still have their place.

[ElementMK]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute here. While I think that a lot of the men who complain about reversal take it too far, the things they say can't be completely dismissed. The fact that fewer boys graduate high school and go to college is something that we should be concerned about. It may mean that boys simply gravitate towards careers that require less education, but it may also be that girls are being strongly favored in education. When women were underrepresented in school, people were concerned. That same concern should be applied now that men are underrepresented.While your concern is valid, I'm pretty sure it's a puberty and maturity thing. Boys tend to pull their heads out of their asses a little later than girls, and this can influence how seriously they take their education.

Of course, that's just my baseless theory.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

all i can really contribute is that my mother is quite feminist ( which is...in essence...sexist? y/n? ) and what she says annoys me at times.
mainly because she tends to blame men for every wrongdoing or idea she doesnt agree with and places unnecessary emphasis on "female power".
( high heels? work of the MAN-DEVIL. thongs? MAN-DEVIL. wire bras? MAAAN-DEEEVIILLLL!! ...oh but the women who agree and even desire to wear such things? 'those poor brainwashed things'. -_- )

i would rather regard people as people than what's between their legs...if they feel like judging me, fine, but i wont let it get in my way or bother me past an irritated smirk. it may be less convenient, but its the price of working around things rather than attempting to charge through them.

though ive noticed that most of the time when i read/hear about feminists ranting about male oppression, its the same damn scenario over and over...
basically, women shouldnt be forced to be housewives, yes?
but what about those women who CHOOSE to be housewives?
those who choose to be full time mothers and are supported financially by a loving spouse?

i just dont agree that those things should unconditionally be viewed as negative or derogatory to the female gender.
i think there is a certain amount of respect to be allotted women who decide to stay home and focus their energy on other things.

but then, i dont read a lot about women being forced to stay home and pop out babies against their will any more....

( though on a side note, women are often seen as less capable/inferior to men in plenty of physically demanding jobs...and i actually see this as somewhat rational, as while it may not be impossible, women are [ sometimes by a considerable amount ] less physically inclined to build and keep muscle. at least, not as well as fat. )

[HystearicalParoxysm]

SuicidiaParasidia - Some of those who self-identify (loudly) as feminists aren't really feminists, but are really just female chauvanists. True feminism is about equality and choice. That women are treated equally as men, that gender roles are seen as equal except for our physiological differences (obviously nobody's going to expect men to breastfeed), and that we can choose what to do with our bodies, our careers, and our lives. And it gives the entire concept a bad reputation. Fighting for our right as human beings to be seen as equals is a good thing. Some people just take it way too far. Sounds like your mother does that too.

FWIW, I consider myself a feminist by the definition I gave above (the one about equality and choice) and as such I have chosen to be a housewife and care for my son while my husband works.

I still think issues of equality in the workplace are important though, for all women and all humans in general, even though I'm no longer part of the regular workforce (for the time being). I know a woman who works at an auto repair shop and is constantly treated as an inferior by men who come in to get work done on their cars. She's told (by her customers) to go get them a real tech all the time - when she's actually the manager of the place and knows more than any of the guys that work under her. In my own experience working office jobs that often required moving equipment (computers, desks, etc.) I've been told repeatedly to go find a guy to carry the stuff for me - not just "if you need help" but actually told to put things down because "a girl shouldn't be doing heavy lifting." I am above average in height and strength and I know how to move things safely, and when I need to ask for help because something is beyond my capabilities.

I know they're relatively small things, but in any case, I don't think things are equal for women yet, and I think it's not a matter of yelling about how bras are evil that will help fix that - but showing everyone that we're capable of doing most things men can just as good as they can.

(And in professions where strength DOES really count - like being a firefighter - I don't think women should be given any breaks or shortcuts on the test. If you can't carry a 200 pound man out of a burning building over your shoulder, you don't get to join, whether you have boobs or not.)

[el_flel]

The part about being told to get a man to carry stuff: my office is so sexist in this regard and it really irritates me. As it's an admin office they get big deliveries of office supplies. Do the women ever try and carry the boxes themselves? No, they don't even try. Instead they ask a few of the guys in the office to bring the boxes in, even when they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. It's pathetic.

As for males not going as far in education as females: I think a big part of the difference is that males are more likely to learn a trade - carpenting, plumbing, electrical installation, etc - which often requires an apprenticeship, therefore don't need to go to university.

[Mia138]

This reminds me of something that happened to me at work some months ago. I work in Local Government and so I think the rules and accepted practices are even more old fashioned than normal. It was common practice for anything that needed to be lifted or moved to be done by a male member of staff, even fetching a few reams of paper for the copier would never be attempted by a female - even if it meant waiting half an hour until a man was free to do it. This not only irritated me immensely but made me feel quite badly about the females who just sat there and waited for the men to do it.

On the occasion in question, a delivery had been made of pamphlets that I had ordered, downstairs at reception, and as I was anxious to get them distributed as soon as possible I found a trolley and went down to reception, piled up the trolley with the boxes and brought them back up to my office - a 15 min job at most and requiring little strength. The amazing thing was- not only did I get greeted everywhere with a look of incredulous amazement, asked a few times if I was unaware that that was 'a man's job' but later that day I was taken aside by my Manager and all but accused of 'shirking work' and 'making an excuse to avoid my own duties by taking over someone else's job!
So much for equality!

[HystearicalParoxysm]

Mia138 - Sounds like you work at a place pretty similar to where I used to. The same place that I got reprimanded for carrying computer equipment, when there was a hurricane they got all the guys up on the roof to install plywood over the windows - the women weren't even allowed to help (I was again told to "leave that for a guy to do" when I tried to help carry plywood sheeting) even though the guys were just as unskilled at that kind of thing as the women.

I did sort of get a last laugh out of that place though. They hired a new handyman not long after. He was a rather vocal male chauvanist, making sexist remarks to most of the women about how they should be home cooking for their husbands and suchlike. He took three days to not put together some modular desks - kept going out for parts, putting part together and then taking it apart again. Finally, on the third day of waiting for the desks to go up, after hearing days of "You girls need to go get yourselves some husbands and get pregnant like you should be doing!", we got sick of it. While the new handyman was off on yet another run for more parts, me and another young female coworker grabbed a couple screwdrivers and put the thing up in less than half an hour so that it was fully assembled when he got back.

We got (lightly) reprimanded for taking over someone else's duties instead of doing our own work (which we were ahead on anyway) but the handyman got fired.

[el_flel]

Mia138 - do you work in my office?! I also work for local government and that story sounds so much like my office it's unreal!

[Mia138]

Could be, el flel! If so, we should get together one lunch break and debate how we are going to change things lol

[Lemon&Lime]

In relation to whether boys/girls do better in school, can someone please explain to me what that has to do with feminism?

If it does, are you suggesting that feminism has lead to boys getting worse at school?

Oh no wait, just read the original post. I mean true you're more likely to be employed as a teacher if you're female rather than male, but getting a better deal as a student I really don't think so - "I would give this person full marks but they're male! My goodness he should be sent to the navy not university! Jolly ho my lad!" /jokes

Seriously though, I think it has more to do with boys being 3 years behind girls in terms of maturity. Or something to do with cultural expectations on how you should behave differing between the sexes which dates back generations, i.e. boys have to be laddish, thugish and misbehave while talking about football, and girls have to be demure, organised and hardworking while talking about "women's work".

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist adding in a sexist joke, but it's okay because I'm a feminist and I only used it to laugh at sexism ;)

[fakepeeps7]

I think the issue is boys doing worse in school these days than girls. Which I find kind of interesting, considering many of the ways that kids are taught were developed for boys in the first place. Just because girls are surpassing the boys doesn't mean that these methods somehow don't work or that feminism is somehow at fault. The girls have just caught up and passed the boys, that's all.

[ElementMK]

I know a woman who works at an auto repair shop and is constantly treated as an inferior by men who come in to get work done on their cars. She's told (by her customers) to go get them a real tech all the time - when she's actually the manager of the place and knows more than any of the guys that work under her.I never understood this. Anyone with half of a brain knows that a woman who works at the shop obviously knows what she's doing. At the very least, I've considered it a bit of a novelty. There's something cool (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/WomanFactory1940s.jpg) about women breaking into highly male-oriented jobs.

[Rectos Dominos]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute here. While I think that a lot of the men who complain about reversal take it too far, the things they say can't be completely dismissed. The fact that fewer boys graduate high school and go to college is something that we should be concerned about. It may mean that boys simply gravitate towards careers that require less education, but it may also be that girls are being strongly favored in education.
Well there is more jobs best suited for men that don't require a post-secondary education than there is for women and it probably was this way even a century ago (not that women can't do these kinds of jobs) unlike last century we are more likely to find a women in male-dominated fields but they're still male-dominant.

[pinketamine]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute here. While I think that a lot of the men who complain about reversal take it too far, the things they say can't be completely dismissed. The fact that fewer boys graduate high school and go to college is something that we should be concerned about. It may mean that boys simply gravitate towards careers that require less education, but it may also be that girls are being strongly favored in education.

Well, at least in Spain, in the public universities (I don't know if it is the same as college, sorry about that), the only criteria they have is your results, so I don't think it is because of positive discrimination nor anything.

SuicidiaParasidia - Some of those who self-identify (loudly) as feminists aren't really feminists, but are really just female chauvanists. True feminism is about equality and choice. That women are treated equally as men, that gender roles are seen as equal except for our physiological differences (obviously nobody's going to expect men to breastfeed), and that we can choose what to do with our bodies, our careers, and our lives.
Exactly. That is what I consider feminism myself. Hating men is not feminism, is chauvinism.
Well, and I totally agree with what HP said, but quoting everything was like.. too much.

And about women having easier tests for jobs such as fireworker or policemen... that is something that has always annoyed me. If you are not strong/fast/whatever enough to do that job, then you can't do it.

[simbalena]

In relation to whether boys/girls do better in school, can someone please explain to me what that has to do with feminism?

If it does, are you suggesting that feminism has lead to boys getting worse at school?


Perhaps the boys are doing exactly the same but the girls have improved. It may be that boys are doing worse than girls at school because for so long the focus has been on improving the education of girls.

Due to feminism there was a big push in the late 1980's to encourage girls to study science, maths, etc. and go on to university as they didn't used to study in these areas as much as boys. These types of changes to the education system worked so now girls do better (thanks to feminism), however a side effect of this could be that boys have been negatively affected.

[Lemon&Lime]

Dr. Warren Farrell has covered this topic in inequality in pay, and I believe his claims. It has been a while since I read him, but I do recall that the whole "pay gap" is misinterpreted as gender discrimination. He provides evidence why men earn more -- evidence that is not based on discrimination. So that issue is already resolved.


I think you should substitute the word "evidence" for "justification/excuses", etc - just like this...

Dr. Warren Farrell has covered this topic in inequality in pay, and I believe his excuses. It has been a while since I read him, but I do recall that the whole "pay gap" is rightfully interpreted as gender discrimination. He provides justification and excuses for why men earn more -- evidence that is based on discrimination. So that issue is already resolved.

Ah, that's better. :)

There is no reasoning nor justification for paying two people doing the same job different amounts.

[Tempscire]

There is no reasoning nor justification for paying two people doing the same job different amounts.

Unless one is out-performing the other, or has more career experience in a certain area from previous positions, or has better attendance, or is able to demand a raise while the other accepts the status quo...

At some point I linked an article that stated that young women actually out-earn men in their 20s. After that age group, it's more likely that they've gotten married and had kids...and who is that takes off months of work at time when a new kid is born? Who is it that tends to be more likely to stay home with a sick child, or leave early to pick them up from school?

But we've already been over all that in the thread.

[paksetti]

Eh, a lot of families don't quite fit the status quo. My mom obviously had kids, but after she decided two was enough, she went back to work and earns almost twice as much as my dad.

My was dealing with depression when I was a kid, so he didn't really start his career until much later than my mom started hers, and he has a lot of health issues, so he misses a lot of work. Seems fair to me that she earns more. One person's been there longer and works more, so they earn more. It's not fun that the other person has to lose money over something they can't control, but it's not right for their boss to pay them as much as someone who works all the days they miss.

[Lemon&Lime]

Unless one is out-performing the other, or has more career experience in a certain area from previous positions, or has better attendance, or is able to demand a raise while the other accepts the status quo...
.

I don't think you understood my point. I said people doing the same job but of different genders; whether or not they have more experience is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, otherwise I wouldn't have used the word "same". It just seems you're picking at the semantics of my post. Of course if someone's been there longer they should get paid more.

[modfanatic]

All humans are equal, no matter what the gender.

[Oaktree]

All humans are equal, no matter what the gender.

Depends on your definition of "equal". People should have equal rights, but we are not born with equal talents. My favorite example of the difference is in the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. Here's a link: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

[ElementMK]

All humans are equal, no matter what the gender.Your short sentences aren't gems, no matter the content.

[Lemon&Lime]

All humans are equal, no matter what the gender.

I'm amazed that people are disagreeing with this post. I think he meant to add "should" be equal, and I was sure that people would have gathered that.

[modfanatic]

Your short sentences aren't gems, no matter the content.

Don't act smart with me, you know what I'm trying to say.

So are you guys suggesting we all be sexist?

[HystearicalParoxysm]

modfanatic - I don't think anyone's suggesting that - just that a random one-liner doesn't really add much to the conversation. You seem to have a habit of posting a single sentence or at most a couple sentences to debates that are already well in progress - often comments that really have a lot more implications than can really be adequately explained in a single sentence. If you'd like to make a point, then please, make it - but don't just post a random sentence or two on a fully formed debate in progress. Read where the topic has gotten to (not just the first post or subject) and respond to the points made, explaining the whys and background of your views. I think you'll find you get much more reasoned responses, and will actually be participating in a debate rather than... well, walking into a room holding up a bumper sticker as your argument, when everyone else is already engrossed in conversation. ;)

[unalisaa]

Sometimes, privilege is not something what you earned...sometimes, it may be something that your parents earned but you inherit. :)

This is interesting. I think, in our society, privilege can be something no-one earned, but you can still have. In the context of this thread, in feminism, one might talk about male privilege (which I think we can agree that no one at any point "earns"), but there's White, straight, cis, able, and what have you privilege as well.
And because it isn't earned, it's kind of difficult to approach; it's not really fair to fault someone for something they never did anything to gain.

On another note, am I the only one who finds "privilege" ridiculously hard to spell?

[modfanatic]

modfanatic - I don't think anyone's suggesting that - just that a random one-liner doesn't really add much to the conversation. You seem to have a habit of posting a single sentence or at most a couple sentences to debates that are already well in progress - often comments that really have a lot more implications than can really be adequately explained in a single sentence. If you'd like to make a point, then please, make it - but don't just post a random sentence or two on a fully formed debate in progress. Read where the topic has gotten to (not just the first post or subject) and respond to the points made, explaining the whys and background of your views. I think you'll find you get much more reasoned responses, and will actually be participating in a debate rather than... well, walking into a room holding up a bumper sticker as your argument, when everyone else is already engrossed in conversation. ;)

Oh. I thought this was going to end with the "Men are better than women" flame war.

[ElementMK]

On another note, am I the only one who finds "privilege" ridiculously hard to spell?Nah, that's only hard for people who speak English as a second language. Otherwise, you're just strange.

This is interesting. I think, in our society, privilege can be something no-one earned, but you can still have. In the context of this thread, in feminism, one might talk about male privilege (which I think we can agree that no one at any point "earns"), but there's White, straight, cis, able, and what have you privilege as well.This has been true for civilization since, well, forever. I'm glad we're slowly working our way towards "unalienable privileges", which were really kick-started with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Let's stay on track, people!

[Purity4]

Killing Us Softly part 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svpMan9cWyo)
Killing Us Softly part 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrVGGCeh9yk)
Killing Us Softly part 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IGeVr_TVfA)
Killing Us Softly part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbFvCXd667U)

[wickedblue]

Yesterday, I was reading a blog post at Shakesville (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/09/well-gee-i-hope-hes-okay.html) that made me think of this thread. I haven't commented on it but I've been reading through it over the last few days.

It's a short entry about a newspaper article which opens with the headline, "Man badly burned when girlfriend's house set on fire.", which completely fails to acknowledge that it was he that set the fire and that he was stalking his ex-girlfriend. The man poured gasoline all over her and her family, apparently with every intention of killing her. But the media focuses on HIS injuries instead of the victims of this violent crime. This is not a novelty in media either. It happens nearly every time a crime is committed against a woman. The violence is minimized, the voice is passive, and her injuries are glossed over.

This is one of many reasons that feminism is still absolutely necessary. For all the gains we have made, there's still too much work to do to back down now.

[el_flel]

That's interesting that you bring that up actually, because I was watching something in the week where people were debating this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315782/Killer-husbands-lose-cheating-wife-defence--abused-wives-escape-murder-charge.html) newspaper article regarding murder defences. The headline ("Killer husbands lose 'cheating wife' defence... but abused wives could escape murder charge") and the tone of the article make it sound as though women are being given more rights than men, when actually the changes in the law apply to both sexes. Both men and women lose the right to use their partner's infidelity as a defence to murdering them, and both men and women gain the right to use domestic violence as a defence. Just read the comments. Many who are commenting clearly haven't read the whole article - they stopped with the headline.

[wickedblue]

That is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Male privilege is so normal that in the absence of it, when a law is passed that puts men and women on equal ground, it's perceived as favoring women!

[el_flel]

It was from the Daily Mail (eurgh) who just love to make drama out of the most boring stories, but I did think that was quite interesting. On the programme I watched in which they were talking about it how it was being portrayed as an "anti-male" move, when obviously it isn't!

[fakepeeps7]

On the programme I watched in which they were talking about it how it was being portrayed as an "anti-male" move, when obviously it isn't!

If anything, that article struck me as anti-female. The following sentence had me raising my eyebrows:

At the same time, another controversial change will allow women who kill abusive partners in cold blood to escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.

It's the wording ("in cold blood") I find interesting. It's like they're trying to make battered women sound cold and calculating, when they're most likely just trying to save their own lives!

I guess this is another subtle example of how we still haven't found true equality.

[wickedblue]

Fakepeeps, I managed to skim right over that part. Ugh! One step forward and we slide right back down.

Man A attacks Man B, Man B defends himself and Man A ends up dead in the process. OK... he was defending himself and this is a perfectly valid legal defense.

But...

Man repeatedly batters Woman for a period of years, trapping her in an endless cycle of abuse and manipulation. Woman feels desperate to get out of this situation but fears for her life and kills him and this is -not- considered self-defense according to the law.

Huh.

[el_flel]

If anything, that article struck me as anti-female.I totally agree. The article is definitely anti-female, but the reason it reads that way is because whatever numbskull wrote it obviously sees these laws as anti-male, and so they are trying to turn it around.

EDIT: what else is interesting about it is that women are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse and therefore it's going to be more likely that a women kills her abusive husband. However, the article is ignoring the fact that domestic abuse isn't just men beating women so there are bound to be cases with a male perpetrator too. Additionally, it's basically dissolving the abuser of any fault whatsoever.

[Nekowolf]

"women are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse" - in a way, though, I think that might be shifting over to be more, uh... shit. Statistically balanced? Like, it was more true as you go further back in history. But as you progress forward with female equality, it sort of increases because it's putting the sexes on even ground.

Sort of like how more men are developing eating disorders thanks to, you guessed it, media portrayal. So it's like, as the sexes are becoming equal, so is all that, uh, baggage, I guess you could call it.

That's not to say I'm against equality, of course. Rather, it's just an observation more on human nature and social progression(?) in general.

[wickedblue]

Nekowolf, you got some links with some facts to back up this theory that men and women are victims of domestic abuse equally now? 'Cause that sounds like a typical apologist argument.

[el_flel]

Evidence is below as you asked for it, but it doesn't take surveys and statistics to know that women are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence (or that women are more likely to develop an eating disorder) than men. Yes, the amount of men who become the victims/sufferers are on the increase but these things still typically happen more to women.

Source 1 (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/domestic_violence_statistics_wda48736.html) :
- "29% of women and 18% of men aged 16 to 59 reported that they had experienced one or more types of abuse (non-sexual abuse such as use of physical force, being prevented from having money or seeing friends or being belittled, sexual assault and stalking) at the hands of a current or former partner at some time since age 16."
- "One in five women (19%) and one in ten men (10%) reported that they had experienced physical force by a partner or former partner at some time since age 16."

Source 2 (http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1273&itemTitle=Who+are+the+victims+of+domestic+violence):
- "While both men and women may experience incidents of inter-personal violence, women are considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of violence. 32% of women who had ever experienced domestic violence did so four or five (or more) times, compared with 11% of the (smaller number) of men who had ever experienced domestic violence; and women constituted 89% of all those who had experienced 4 or more incidents of domestic violence. (Walby and Allen, 2004)"
- "Gender is a "significant risk factor" as women are more likely than men to experience interpersonal violence, especially sexual violence, and to experience severe and/or repeated incidentes of violence and abuse."
- "11% of women compared to 1% of men reported frightening threats (since 16 years of age)."
- "Research in Scotland, re-tracing men who were counted as victims in the Scottish Crime Survey, found that a majority of the men who said that they were victims of domestic violence, were also perpetrators of violence (13 of 22). A significant number of the men re-interviewed (13 out of 46) later said they had actually never experienced any form of domestic abuse (Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2002)."

Source 3 (http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1280&itemTitle=Statistics%3A+how+common+is+domestic+violence):
- "45% women and 26% men had experienced at least one incident of inter-personal violence in their lifetimes. (Walby and Allen, 2004)."

Source 4 (http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1276&itemTitle=Who+are+the+abusers):
- "<...> the majority of perpetrators are men."

Source 5 (http://www.dewar4research.org/DOCS/dvg-v3.pdf):
This link shows that the numbers of reported cases in England and Wales between 1995 and 2005. The number of female victims is massively higher than male victims (ranging from about half to three times as many).

I could go on but it's not necessary. A quick google search of "domestic violence statistics" brings up lots of links that people can go and search for themselves if they so wish. So, yeah.

[Nekowolf]

@wickedblue

I never said "now." I meant it's slowly balancing out.

[el_flel]

That last link I posted spans the last decade - the no. of reported cases decreased for both sexes, but slightly more for males. Obviously that's just England and Wales and stops in 2005, but the numbers don't really seem to be balancing out.

[Nekowolf]

Uhhh...

1995 - a difference of 400 (on the graph); 2005/06 - a difference of 200.

Granted, there's that spike in 2001-2003, but overall it's a downward trend and does slowly narrow, if unevenly.

[Purity4]

...or Nekowolf, perhaps women are not reporting it as frequently as they once did.

[wickedblue]

It's not balancing out. Yes, men are victims of domestic abuse and I will not minimize that but to turn that into "hey, look, men and women are being abused equally now" is just distorting facts.

[Nekowolf]

Again, I never said they are being abused equally. Never. I said it could slowly be heading in that direction, but not there right now, nor possibly truly ever. And secondly, when a number drops from 400 to 200 between A and B, that means the gap is closing. That is a simple matter of numbers.

And Purity, I would like to hear your explanation as why that would be? Why they would suddenly stop reporting it en masse in contradiction to previous years?

[wickedblue]

You came into a discussion about why feminism is still needed, where we were discussing how violence against women is minimized to point out that men are being abused too. As if none of us know that. So, which side of the debate are you trying to support with that tidbit because as I said before, that sounds like a typical apologist argument.

As for it not being reported, happens all the time. Women do not report abuse quite often because it is distorted and made to be their fault that they are being abused. It's called victim blaming and it happens all of the time. If you were abused or raped or tortured and you've lived in a society where everyone and even the courts victimizes the victim all over again, would you be that eager to report?

[Nekowolf]

I already said it. It's more of a statement on human nature in itself; that we are violent.

As for my defense, well, when I'm called out on something that I said, I will defend it.

And I know they don't report it. But I'm asking why would they report it less than, say, in previous years? Is it really quite simply as you say, or is there some other causes not mentioned? Things that need to be fixed, and perhaps could be remedied more immediately? Does she have evidence for a decrease in reporting cases; surely there is at least an estimation somewhere. Seems like statisticians will estimate just about anything.

[el_flel]

Some of the statistics I read estimate that something like 1/3 of cases aren't reported at all. In a lot of cases the victim is made to feel that they are to blame. The abuser will isolate them from everyone they know, use emotional blackmail to control them, etc etc. So I can completely believe that many cases aren't reported.

What I wonder - and suspect - is the case is that men are less likely to report domestic abuse, especially if it's from a woman. I think many of them would be embarrassed to admit it, even though there's nothing to be embarrassed about. I also wonder/suspect that it's taken less seriously by both the general public and law enforcement. I think this because, despite the fact that we don't live in the dark ages, many people would think that a man should be able to take care of it himself because men are the stronger (physically) sex. Although the real situation is more complicated than that.

What do you guys think?

[Nekowolf]

"is the case is that men are less likely to report domestic abuse, especially if it's from a woman."

I've heard that that's likely the case. Though, I don't know any other information on it, because it was from a third-party source. Something to look into, for sure, though.

"it's taken less seriously by both the general public and law enforcement."

I can't help but wonder if maybe, in some respect, it's the sheer difficulty of trying to curb the number domestic abuse cases as a whole?

[paksetti]

It's unlikely that a large portion of women would just not report abuse one year, then start reporting it again next year. Possible, but unlikely.

[fakepeeps7]

It's unlikely that a large portion of women would just not report abuse one year, then start reporting it again next year. Possible, but unlikely.

Maybe changes in laws could account for women reporting or not reporting abuse. If some change in the law makes it more likely the man will get off scot-free, why bother reporting it (it could end up very badly for the woman who reported him)? Or if the change makes it more likely that a conviction will stick, the reporting of abuse might go up.

[paksetti]

So the law was passed one year and repealed the next?

Again, possible but unlikely.

[fakepeeps7]

So the law was passed one year and repealed the next?

Again, possible but unlikely.

Or it was passed one year and forgotten about the next.

It was just a theory.