You've made your separation from the view clear. And that's okay. It's just not 'understanding'.
why isnt it. if ive taken your point of view, mulled it over and decided for myself that it is one choose to dismiss. why then do you call that not understanding? must i say oh yes angelica i see your point and though i disagree it is a valid point you make, when clearly i disagree. why lie to myself and to you in that manner? why not just tell you what i think and have you understand me for that?
How many times have you seen a woman buy a man a drink at the bar? Not very often. Why do men buy drinks for women at the bar? To have sex with her. Why do women take the drink? Because it's free.
.... but we musn't forget that as women we do get some rights that men dont.
Just curious. What like?
There's the initial statement and my response.
Are you suggesting that we legislate that men are guaranteed sex from a woman they buy a drink for?
For the record I, and most of the women that I have ever spent time with where alcohol is served are equally as likely to have purchased drinks for a men. We don't expect sexual favours in exchange. ALSO, I rarely, if EVER, have accepted a drink from a man in a bar purely because of the stigma that has endured that if you accept a drink, then you'll be putting out in exchange.
I will say that of recent times this interaction between the sexes has changed somewhat because there has been a much higher incidence of men buying a drink for a woman, slipping a drug into the drink, rendering the woman legless and then taking her off to do what he wants to do while she is unconscious and quite often inviting his mates along too.
All that aside, I'm not really seeing how any of this would be considered a right that women have that men do not. Sure it's a pattern of abhorent behaviour that has endured over the years from both men and women, but I can't see that it's a right for either men or women.
When a woman is pregnant, she get maternity leave. Do men get maternity leave to be with their unborn babies?
My brother did. As did quite a few other male friends of mine. Granted it wasn't as long as that of their wives and girlfriends but the decision was made by those couples that the woman would be the primary care giver BECAUSE the man's income was greater and therefore it made more sense for the person who earned the most to return to work. I do know several men that have been primary care givers for their children and have received the supporting parent pension the same as a woman would in the same circumstances, along with a couple of fellows that have received the same rights from their employer that a woman would have received because they were the primary care giver. Sure more women than men get maternity leave, but I don't know that that's got anything to do with feminism or women having an advantage over men. Ultimately maternity leave is about the wellbeing of the baby who cannot fend for itself. I support whomever is the best person for the job in terms of raising a child, whether that be the mummy or the daddy OR the grandma or grandpa or aunt or uncle etc.
I have no problem with men having equal access to maternity leave.
I do however have a problem with there not being an equivalent leave available to those men and women who don't have children.
I'm a woman and I'm not getting this right above men, neither are any of the many other single women out there who don't have children so I'm not seeing this is an advantage that women have above men. I see it as a function of society that we allow whomever the primary care giver is the opportunity to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
...but to get close not only do men have to quit objectifying women, but women have to quit making themselves sex objects. Some of us just can't give up the free drinks and the attention.
Again not seeing how this has to do with rights. Perhaps if there wasn't so much money to be made in being objectified as opposed to say becoming a scientist in comparison, women might all be falling over themselves to get into the lab. If there was true financial equality between the sexes then perhaps women wouldn't be resorting to this modern day version of prostitution?
Men aren't going to stop enjoying the female form. Not all of them, but many are visual creatures. And perhaps some women who do allow themselves to be sex objects are just smarter than those of us that find the behaviour abhorent? I've spent the greater part of my life trying not to be an object to anyone but there's no denying that there's more than one way to pay. I'm quite sure if I'd got with the program my income would be considerably higher than it is today but then I'd have lost all self respect. These are choices that people make and not for me to judge one way or the other. I do think as a society we could all benefit from less input about how our life is supposed to be from the image makers and power brokers but I'm really not sure how you'd shut them down or undo the status quo now.
How many times have you seen a woman buy a man a drink at the bar? Not very often. Why do men buy drinks for women at the bar? To have sex with her. Why do women take the drink? Because it's free.
absolutely i take the drink cause its free. what the man expects in return is not my concern.
When a woman is pregnant, she get maternity leave. Do men get maternity leave to be with their unborn babies?
and exactly why should men get maternity leave to be with their unborn child? therell be plenty of time after the babys born for dad to bond with his little darling i imagine. tis not like they can actually do anything now, is it? the baby has all it needs in utero with it mother.
theyre not carrying it are they?
theyre not going to be giving brith to the child are they?
I do however have a problem with there not being an equivalent leave available to those men and women who don't have children.
Why?
Again not seeing how this has to do with rights. Perhaps if there wasn't so much money to be made in being objectified as opposed to say becoming a scientist in comparison, women might all be falling over themselves to get into the lab. If there was true financial equality between the sexes then perhaps women wouldn't be resorting to this modern day version of prostitution?
It's their choice. These are modern women making a choice. You call it a version of prostitution, I doubt they will call it that. It's a career, one they chose for.
Feminists have been fighting for women's rights and when they finally get all the same rights as men (I can't think of any rights they don't have in the Western world), it's still not good (I realise you said it's not up to you do judge, but it seems you do have a problem with it, or not?)
It's funny that you mention equal pay. Did you know that female models earn up to three times as much as male models?
There's very little money to be made in science whether you are a man or a woman. Could it not be that most women simply aren't interested in sciences such as math, physics, engeneering...?
I think this is the case. I think biologically a woman is more nurturing, more compassionate... Men tend to be more systematic and rational. Now, I'm not saying this is fact and a general truth, but I think many people will agree...
And what do we see today, 77% of the veterinary medicine students are women. Now biology is a science, a difficult one certainly not easier than engineering, for example... So women do choose science, in great numbers... But could it not be that women are just less interested in building stuff, developing stuff, doing calculations etc. but are more interested in the sciences which require more empathy, more care?
It is also a fact that more women are studying pediatrics. So why is it possible that these women break through these "glass walls" of hidden bias and discrimination in all these fields, yet not in the wonderful study of civil engineering?
My brother is an engineer and there were plenty of women enrolled too, more than in most other engineering courses, why? Well, my brother did industrial design. He had many many hours of mathematics, physics, mechanics... You need something artistic to be a designer, and many women seem to have a great artistic skills...
I do think as a society we could all benefit from less input about how our life is supposed to be from the image makers and power brokers but I'm really not sure how you'd shut them down or undo the status quo now.
It's their choice. These are modern women making a choice. You call it a version of prostitution, I doubt they will call it that. It's a career, one they chose for.
Feminists have been fighting for women's rights and when they finally get all the same rights as men (I can't think of any rights they don't have in the Western world), it's still not good (I realise you said it's not up to you do judge, but it seems you do have a problem with it, or not?)
It's funny that you mention equal pay. Did you know that female models earn up to three times as much as male models?
There's very little money to be made in science whether you are a man or a woman. Could it not be that most women simply aren't interested in sciences such as math, physics, engeneering...?
I think this is the case. I think biologically a woman is more nurturing, more compassionate... Men tend to be more systematic and rational. Now, I'm not saying this is fact and a general truth, but I think many people will agree...
And what do we see today, 77% of the veterinary medicine students are women. Now biology is a science, a difficult one certainly not easier than engineering, for example... So women do choose science, in great numbers... But could it not be that women are just less interested in building stuff, developing stuff, doing calculations etc. but are more interested in the sciences which require more empathy, more care?
It is also a fact that more women are studying pediatrics. So why is it possible that these women break through these "glass walls" of hidden bias and discrimination in all these fields, yet not in the wonderful study of civil engineering?
My brother is an engineer and there were plenty of women enrolled too, more than in most other engineering courses, why? Well, my brother did industrial design. He had many many hours of mathematics, physics, mechanics... You need something artistic to be a designer, and many women seem to have a great artistic skills...
Collin, you're cracking me up with all these obscure examples you keep harping on. Female models getting paid more than male models is hardly indicative of gender equality in the world. I would even argue that it's just the opposite.
You've used the "77% of veterinary students are women" line a couple of times now. So? Does that mean they get equal pay for their work? Does it mean there is no more need for feminism in the world? No.
Same with the examples you've harped on about Title IX & science and (in a past thread) some email someone once sent you about women being elected to government. These are quite obscure examples.
If you ever really want to understand feminism, you've got to stop nit-picking and look at it in a more wholistic, comprehensive, contextual way.
Be careful that you don't embarrass or otherwise shame yourself, your husband, or your marital vows by speaking so...haphazardly...about your marriage.
The relativistic perspective. The whole, "what's good for you might not be good for me and agree to disagree blah blah blah." I'm a moral objectivist, but there's no need to argue about that right now. Nonetheless, we have complete control over our own actions and we must make moral decisions - I've chosen the better part, I like to think.
I'm not saying it's popular but, if we're going to think about intercourse logically, we must consider its consequences. If sexual intercourse can be entirely for pleasure, then it becomes no different than drinking excessively, doing drugs, or eating whatever we want. It's means and end are both pleasure. Activities like that are the most base imaginable.
If all we seek is physical pleasure in all its forms, we are no different than pigs or any other animal that seeks pure pleasure without a purpose. But most people consider themselves to be higher than animals, so why not act like it?
If you read my post, I took care to mention that many non-Christian thinkers oppose feminist suppositions. Aristotle and Kant, to name a few. Kant was concerned with establishing morality in a world without religion, and so he sought universal norms. Himself, he tried to remain physically pure.
There's a plethora of theological discussion about couples who have intercourse without the hope of conceiving. Googling that subject can help. One Christian example involves Abraham and Sarah. Yahweh tells them that Sarah will conceive, even though she is barren. So, even if a couple believes they cannot conceive, according to our faith, all things are possible in Christ Jesus. And many couples have tried and tried and not conceived. Eventually they were able to though, and they view it as miraculous.
embarass or shame myself or my marriage? spare me. there is NO shame or embarassment, at all. we are both proud of our choices and happy in them.
as to ALL else, we disagree...clearly. my morals are not yours, nor vice versa...and while you may think yours are 'better' or i don't have morals, you would be grossly mistaken. personally, i don't think humans are 'better' than animals, so that's a moot point imho. as to all about faith or lack thereof, i got your point and i agree that many religious and non-religious do not agree with feminist thinking, and yet, still a lot do. that's all. i don't need outside support for my own personal pov.
you did conveniently dodge my question about only having intercourse for procreation. i would assume then since you speak of your GF and not a wife, you and she are both virgins since you would not want to produce children now. if that is the case, good for you both for making a choice that makes you happy and works. i support ALL making individual choices. however, some of us choose a different path, doesn't make us wrong, nor morally bankrupt, just different views of it all.
btw - i NEVER said that ALL i seek is physical pleasures in all its forms, although of course i DO persue such, why not? however, i of course persue intellectual stimulation, intimacy, community, etc.....it's not all or nothing just b/c one chooses to engage in intercourse with no desire to reproduce. and ALL the examples of people i gave saying who use birth control AND want or have children already, doesn't matter? i think it selfish to procreate to the point of having children you cannot support, and i think it ridiculous to expect people to NOT engage in sex for sex's sake. sex is an integral part of a relationship and intimacy. we have brains, we came up with methods to have some control over our own reproduction. i see nothing morally 'wrong' there, but i do see responsibility. hell, human beings have been putting rocks inside female camels urethras for hundreds of years to control their reproduction while on long journeys - the first IUDs in fact. we alter our companion animals so they do not reproduce unwanted offspring. you disagree with BC so be it, but the freedoms and control it allows IS a good thing.
agree....disagree.....c'est la vie.
you are happy with your choices, i in mine. life is good.
And the problems always begin when other's try to force their point of view and choices down every one else's throats, proclaim a higher moral ground and insist their way is the "better way".
Such nonsense.
What's good and "best" for one individual or couple, is what's best for THEM. Them alone.
What's best for them is not what's best for others.
You would think that we could live in a world where people could learn to respect other's choices and approach to their own lives. But I see we still have a long way to go....with some people.
And the problems always begin when other's try to force their point of view and choices down every one else's throats, proclaim a higher moral ground and insist their way is the "better way".
Such nonsense.
What's good and "best" for one individual or couple, is what's best for THEM. Them alone.
What's best for them is not what's best for others.
You would think that we could live in a world where people could learn to respect other's choices and approach to their own lives. But I see we still have a long way to go....with some people.
absolutely.
i do consider myself a feminist - surprise, surprise - but that does not mean i agree nor endorse ALL things that may be on the 'feminist agenda' as it were. i believe in working towards equal treatment of women in the workplace and in the home, on all fronts. i strongly support and encourage the rights of women to make their own choices for their own minds and bodies. there ARE differences between men and women, but even within that i believe we can have equality. as in many things, and within large groups, not all will agree on the hows of whys of things, there will always be fringe extremists, etc. that does not mean throw away the basic tenets simply b/c some take the ideas and ideals beyond what most see or desire. as a species, we absolutely 'need' each other. as individuals it is all a choice to want each other. coming forth from a point of respect towards each other and realizing the value in such and in each other, is always a good place to begin and continue.
Collin, you're cracking me up with all these obscure examples you keep harping on. Female models getting paid more than male models is hardly indicative of gender equality in the world. I would even argue that it's just the opposite.
You've used the "77% of veterinary students are women" line a couple of times now. So? Does that mean they get equal pay for their work? Does it mean there is no more need for feminism in the world? No.
Same with the examples you've harped on about Title IX & science and (in a past thread) some email someone once sent you about women being elected to government. These are quite obscure examples.
If you ever really want to understand feminism, you've got to stop nit-picking and look at it in a more wholistic, comprehensive, contextual way.
I saw an article in the paper a whiel back abotu some specific jobs where women had started making more than their male counterparts...good jobs too.
I can't recall specifically, but it all made sense to me. As the education level of women increases and passes (it probably already has I think) men, they will start to earn more than their counterparts...
Collin, you're cracking me up with all these obscure examples you keep harping on. Female models getting paid more than male models is hardly indicative of gender equality in the world. I would even argue that it's just the opposite.
And you keep cracking me up with your weird assumptions about what I wrote. I am not saying that this means there is gender equality in the world. Where the hell did you get that?
I'm saying it's rather funny that she's talking about equal pay and a profession in which women get paid a lot more in the same sentence.
You've used the "77% of veterinary students are women" line a couple of times now. So? Does that mean they get equal pay for their work? Does it mean there is no more need for feminism in the world? No.
Again, I didn't say that that means they get equal pay. Although, I can provide you figures of the top colleges in the US. Women and men scientists earn the same amount of money. That is to say, they earn the amount of money they deserve (according to research, bringing in funding...)
I know women still get paid less in general. But we were talking about science, right?
I certainly didn't say that feminism isn't needed in the world.
I've used that line a couple of times now because of that horrible thing called Title IX, which I believe is unfair and creates injustice against men. I admit that veterinary students reference has perhaps a bit out of context. But don't put words in my mouth.
scb, if you can't have a reasonable discussion than I'm not interested.
I never said there was no need for feminism in the world, I said in the very first post that I agreed with many aspects of feminism. In another post I also said I wished to discuss the groups of feminism, which I thought were detrimental to the feminist movement. I also believe these, whether a minority or not, have a great influence.
I am well aware of the injustices towards women in the world. Although, I cannot think of a right men have in the Western world that women don't. I'll add this in case you want to put words in my mouth again; no, that does not mean they get equal pay.
Same with the examples you've harped on about Title IX & science and (in a past thread) some email someone once sent you about women being elected to government. These are quite obscure examples.
I will be harping on about them until some feminists admit they support injustice towards men and create inequality. Because that's what Title IX does and that e-mail was about affirmative action (we already debated the semantics of it and I could have been wrong, but that's irrelevant because plenty of people, probably you as well, said they'd support it if it was indeed like I interpreted it).
I respectfully disagree, scb, these are not obscure examples. These are examples with big consequences. Title IX applied to science is not only unfair, it could actually be a huge disadvantage to science.
And I don't think affirmative action on the highest levels of goverment is an obscure example, either.
I think you're just dodging because you know it creates injustice.
If you ever really want to understand feminism, you've got to stop nit-picking and look at it in a more wholistic, comprehensive, contextual way.
And what's that? I'm sure you'll tell me a very convincing story of the injustice against women worldwide and the need to fight for women's right or whatever...
But tell me, how does that change the fact that feminists groups are pushing unfair, unjust programmes in the US? Am I supposed to ignore this injustice and hypocrisy because of you believe feminism has a higher goal?
I've told you this before. I'm not a feminist. I care about the rights of everyone not just women. So when you talk to me about what happens to women in many African countries, about rape, ... I'm completely on your side.
But when you support Title IX and affirmative action you are creating injustice yourself. And that's what I'm fighting here in this thread.
I saw an article in the paper a whiel back abotu some specific jobs where women had started making more than their male counterparts...good jobs too.
I can't recall specifically, but it all made sense to me. As the education level of women increases and passes (it probably already has I think) men, they will start to earn more than their counterparts...
from what i gather from cincy's post, the women had a higher level of education, thus a higher paycheck. i would expect the same result, male or female. it is when 2 candidates with the same education, experience, etc....the only real difference being gender, and the pay is unequal, do i see a problem. i would see the same problem whether the male or the female is the higher/lower of the equation. many feminists truly do want 'equality'...as in, really equal. appreciate the differences, not expect different standards, but balance and equality that benefits all.
from what i gather from cincy's post, the women had a higher level of education, thus a higher paycheck. i would expect the same result, male or female. it is when 2 candidates with the same education, experience, etc....the only real difference being gender, and the pay is unequal, do i see a problem. i would see the same problem whether the male or the female is the higher/lower of the equation. many feminists truly do want 'equality'...as in, really equal. appreciate the differences, not expect different standards, but balance and equality that benefits all.
I don't really care about their education etc. It's about the result of their work and the amount of work they do. If that's the same, they should indeed get the same pay.
Not necessarily if they have the same education. I will graduate with several other students, I'm better than some and there are some above my level as well.
I don't really care about their education etc. It's about the result of their work and the amount of work they do. If that's the same, they should indeed get the same pay.
Not necessarily if they have the same education. I will graduate with several other students, I'm better than some and there are some above my level as well.
yes, once within the jobs. i am discussing when getting hired, education DOES come into play, and employers DO care about such things, and base starting salaries on such, and/or future raises based on furthering your education, etc. i got a higher starting salary based soley on my education...when i taught i got pay raises based on every 15 credits of course i completed, along of course with more professional experience, etc. it's the same even if comparing 2 candidates of the same gender. for that, a non-issue in my mind.
i think you just want to argue.
i agree, there are many within the feminist movement who have and do take things too far, to a point of pushing inequality in another direction...which is no better. however, i believe the bulk of self-identified feminists ARE for true equality, and nothing more.....decisions being based on merit, ability, individual choice....and not gender.
I'm curious about this too. As one learns to empower themselves, acquiring power in the world, one comes to realize that one creates their own way/circumstances and opportunities. So as women "rise above" by such principles, are they going to want to keep "levelling" a playing field that isn't level to begin with? achievement comes from within. Overcoming obstacles comes from within. These things cannot be legislated from without.
Interesting.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Being a woman shouldn't be considered an obstacle.
well said.
beyond the obvious, some things can and do need legislation. once upon a time, women had no voice in government, until the right to vote became law. once upon a time, women had no personal freedoms, 'property' of their fathers and then husbands, until legislation was passed to allow women their own voice and freedom. once upon a time, women were not allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies and reproduction, and then legislation was passed. once upon a time women would perform the same work as a male for unequal pay b/c it was enitrely legal for an employer to be biased according to gender. now while that pay inequality has not been 100% recitifed, it has gotten a lot smaller and still a work in progress.
it is easy to say from the sidelines that all this comes 'from within'...and to some extent, of course, that's where it BEGINS...but absolutely, for the benefit of society, the collective community, in our present ways of civilization, working within legislation IS the way to afford equal rights for all. this is simply reality. some actually want to see such for the benefit of all, and not simply work for their own good alone. it's not about levelling a playing field, it's about simply basing actions and benefits on merit, not gender. it's all well and good to say achievement and overcoming obstacles comes from within...but in the reality of a woman who needs to work, has to work, to supprt herself, possible offspring, etc....and without legislation may have to settle for discriminatory practices based soley on her gender, that's just BS. if nothing else, that is exactly what feminists as a collective movement have fought against, and worked towards improving the rights of women...and that indeed involved and continues to involve legislation. the collective society does not necessarily operate from a point of rightness, fairness and equality...and thus why people work towards such rights and such laws are put in place to protect and improve such.
beyond the obvious, some things can and do need legislation. once upon a time, women had no voice in government, until the right to vote became law. once upon a time, women had no personal freedoms, 'property' of their fathers and then husbands, until legislation was passed to allow women their own voice and freedom. once upon a time, women were not allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies and reproduction, and then legislation was passed. once upon a time women would perform the same work as a male for unequal pay b/c it was enitrely legal for an employer to be biased according to gender. now while that pay inequality has not been 100% recitifed, it has gotten a lot smaller and still a work in progress.
it is easy to say from the sidelines that all this comes 'from within'...and to some extent, of course, that's where it BEGINS...but absolutely, for the benefit of society, the collective community, in our present ways of civilization, working within legislation IS the way to afford equal rights for all. this is simply reality. some actually want to see such for the benefit of all, and not simply work for their own good alone. it's not about levelling a playing field, it's about simply basing actions and benefits on merit, not gender. it's all well and good to say achievement and overcoming obstacles comes from within...but in the reality of a woman who needs to work, has to work, to supprt herself, possible offspring, etc....and without legislation may have to settle for discriminatory practices based soley on her gender, that's just BS. if nothing else, that is exactly what feminists as a collective movement have fought against, and worked towards improving the rights of women...and that indeed involved and continues to involve legislation. the collective society does not necessarily operate from a point of rightness, fairness and equality...and thus why people work towards such rights and such laws are put in place to protect and improve such.
And I completely agree with what you've said here.
I recall a time when a woman's pay structure was not the same as a man's based on the fact that she "could" have children and this would adversely effect the employer financially apparently. :rolleyes: It was also a reason not to hire a woman who might be the most qualified for the job over a man, because a man wouldn't be getting pregnant. Too bad if you were a woman who was infertile or had decided that you didn't want to have children, the very fact that you might got you into this category based on your gender.
I think this is why I'd prefer that "maternity" leave was scrapped as a seperate entity altogether and "all purpose" leave was introduced for all. That way everyone would be entitled to x amount of leave for periods of time when for whatever reason they were unable to work. (when I say whatever reason I don't mean for extended around the world holidays or touring with PJ. ) More along the lines of, if a single man is the sole care giver for his elderly parents and he is needed to be home caring for them for an extended period that he was afforded the same rights as a woman who needed to take time off work for the birth and raising of a child.
This type of leave would also apply to single women who may need to look after an ailing relative or for either sex if an extended period of illness applied and obviously I think it should also apply to men who are looking after children as well. Perhaps we could call it family or extended illness leave and everybody would be entitled to access it?
And I completely agree with what you've said here.
I recall a time when a woman's pay structure was not the same as a man's based on the fact that she "could" have children and this would adversely effect the employer financially apparently. :rolleyes: It was also a reason not to hire a woman who might be the most qualified for the job over a man, because a man wouldn't be getting pregnant. Too bad if you were a woman who was infertile or had decided that you didn't want to have children, the very fact that you might got you into this category based on your gender.
I think this is why I'd prefer that "maternity" leave was scrapped as a seperate entity altogether and "all purpose" leave was introduced for all. That way everyone would be entitled to x amount of leave for periods of time when for whatever reason they were unable to work. (when I say whatever reason I don't mean for extended around the world holidays or touring with PJ. ) More along the lines of, if a single man is the sole care giver for his elderly parents and he is needed to be home caring for them for an extended period that he was afforded the same rights as a woman who needed to take time off work for the birth and raising of a child.
This type of leave would also apply to single women who may need to look after an ailing relative or for either sex if an extended period of illness applied and obviously I think it should also apply to men who are looking after children as well. Perhaps we could call it family or extended illness leave and everybody would be entitled to access it?
so carrying a child and giving birth counts for nothing then is that what youre saying here?
beyond the obvious, some things can and do need legislation. once upon a time, women had no voice in government, until the right to vote became law. once upon a time, women had no personal freedoms, 'property' of their fathers and then husbands, until legislation was passed to allow women their own voice and freedom. once upon a time, women were not allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies and reproduction, and then legislation was passed. once upon a time women would perform the same work as a male for unequal pay b/c it was enitrely legal for an employer to be biased according to gender. now while that pay inequality has not been 100% recitifed, it has gotten a lot smaller and still a work in progress.
it is easy to say from the sidelines that all this comes 'from within'...and to some extent, of course, that's where it BEGINS...but absolutely, for the benefit of society, the collective community, in our present ways of civilization, working within legislation IS the way to afford equal rights for all. this is simply reality. some actually want to see such for the benefit of all, and not simply work for their own good alone. it's not about levelling a playing field, it's about simply basing actions and benefits on merit, not gender. it's all well and good to say achievement and overcoming obstacles comes from within...but in the reality of a woman who needs to work, has to work, to supprt herself, possible offspring, etc....and without legislation may have to settle for discriminatory practices based soley on her gender, that's just BS. if nothing else, that is exactly what feminists as a collective movement have fought against, and worked towards improving the rights of women...and that indeed involved and continues to involve legislation. the collective society does not necessarily operate from a point of rightness, fairness and equality...and thus why people work towards such rights and such laws are put in place to protect and improve such.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't think I am or someone would have corrected me already) but women have the same rights as men in the Western world. There's still inequality. We should work to eliminate that, I definitely agree, but I think there's not much legislation can do now. The laws already exist.
I would really like to believe that most feminists aim for equality and fairness but frankly, I'm not convinced. I see many feminists support unjust and unfair prorgrammes... You may say that's a minority and that those feminists certainly don't represent the entire feminist movement... But the truth is these feminists are influential and work towards "equal" opportunity for women through legislation and by doing so they're creating injustice towards men.
So forgive me if I'm sceptical of the feminists who speak of justice, fairness and equality while they support these causes or remain silent about them. If I were part of a movement that fought for equality, justice and fairness I would speak up against those within my movement who are unjust themselves.
Feminists like to draw parallels between feminism and the African-American civil rights movement, well here's a quote for them:
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
why isnt it. if ive taken your point of view, mulled it over and decided for myself that it is one choose to dismiss. why then do you call that not understanding? must i say oh yes angelica i see your point and though i disagree it is a valid point you make, when clearly i disagree. why lie to myself and to you in that manner? why not just tell you what i think and have you understand me for that?
There's the initial statement and my response.
Are you suggesting that we legislate that men are guaranteed sex from a woman they buy a drink for?
For the record I, and most of the women that I have ever spent time with where alcohol is served are equally as likely to have purchased drinks for a men. We don't expect sexual favours in exchange. ALSO, I rarely, if EVER, have accepted a drink from a man in a bar purely because of the stigma that has endured that if you accept a drink, then you'll be putting out in exchange.
I will say that of recent times this interaction between the sexes has changed somewhat because there has been a much higher incidence of men buying a drink for a woman, slipping a drug into the drink, rendering the woman legless and then taking her off to do what he wants to do while she is unconscious and quite often inviting his mates along too.
All that aside, I'm not really seeing how any of this would be considered a right that women have that men do not. Sure it's a pattern of abhorent behaviour that has endured over the years from both men and women, but I can't see that it's a right for either men or women.
My brother did. As did quite a few other male friends of mine. Granted it wasn't as long as that of their wives and girlfriends but the decision was made by those couples that the woman would be the primary care giver BECAUSE the man's income was greater and therefore it made more sense for the person who earned the most to return to work. I do know several men that have been primary care givers for their children and have received the supporting parent pension the same as a woman would in the same circumstances, along with a couple of fellows that have received the same rights from their employer that a woman would have received because they were the primary care giver. Sure more women than men get maternity leave, but I don't know that that's got anything to do with feminism or women having an advantage over men. Ultimately maternity leave is about the wellbeing of the baby who cannot fend for itself. I support whomever is the best person for the job in terms of raising a child, whether that be the mummy or the daddy OR the grandma or grandpa or aunt or uncle etc.
I have no problem with men having equal access to maternity leave.
I do however have a problem with there not being an equivalent leave available to those men and women who don't have children.
I'm a woman and I'm not getting this right above men, neither are any of the many other single women out there who don't have children so I'm not seeing this is an advantage that women have above men. I see it as a function of society that we allow whomever the primary care giver is the opportunity to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
PEOPLE are individual, EVERYBODY communicates and reacts in their own unique way but I share your point that there are differences between the sexes.
This is where I don't agree. We can be completely equal without having to be "THE SAME"
Again not seeing how this has to do with rights. Perhaps if there wasn't so much money to be made in being objectified as opposed to say becoming a scientist in comparison, women might all be falling over themselves to get into the lab. If there was true financial equality between the sexes then perhaps women wouldn't be resorting to this modern day version of prostitution?
Men aren't going to stop enjoying the female form. Not all of them, but many are visual creatures. And perhaps some women who do allow themselves to be sex objects are just smarter than those of us that find the behaviour abhorent? I've spent the greater part of my life trying not to be an object to anyone but there's no denying that there's more than one way to pay. I'm quite sure if I'd got with the program my income would be considerably higher than it is today but then I'd have lost all self respect. These are choices that people make and not for me to judge one way or the other. I do think as a society we could all benefit from less input about how our life is supposed to be from the image makers and power brokers but I'm really not sure how you'd shut them down or undo the status quo now.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
absolutely i take the drink cause its free. what the man expects in return is not my concern.
and exactly why should men get maternity leave to be with their unborn child? therell be plenty of time after the babys born for dad to bond with his little darling i imagine. tis not like they can actually do anything now, is it? the baby has all it needs in utero with it mother.
theyre not carrying it are they?
theyre not going to be giving brith to the child are they?
Why?
It's their choice. These are modern women making a choice. You call it a version of prostitution, I doubt they will call it that. It's a career, one they chose for.
Feminists have been fighting for women's rights and when they finally get all the same rights as men (I can't think of any rights they don't have in the Western world), it's still not good (I realise you said it's not up to you do judge, but it seems you do have a problem with it, or not?)
It's funny that you mention equal pay. Did you know that female models earn up to three times as much as male models?
There's very little money to be made in science whether you are a man or a woman. Could it not be that most women simply aren't interested in sciences such as math, physics, engeneering...?
I think this is the case. I think biologically a woman is more nurturing, more compassionate... Men tend to be more systematic and rational. Now, I'm not saying this is fact and a general truth, but I think many people will agree...
And what do we see today, 77% of the veterinary medicine students are women. Now biology is a science, a difficult one certainly not easier than engineering, for example... So women do choose science, in great numbers... But could it not be that women are just less interested in building stuff, developing stuff, doing calculations etc. but are more interested in the sciences which require more empathy, more care?
It is also a fact that more women are studying pediatrics. So why is it possible that these women break through these "glass walls" of hidden bias and discrimination in all these fields, yet not in the wonderful study of civil engineering?
My brother is an engineer and there were plenty of women enrolled too, more than in most other engineering courses, why? Well, my brother did industrial design. He had many many hours of mathematics, physics, mechanics... You need something artistic to be a designer, and many women seem to have a great artistic skills...
There's no need to shut them down.
naděje umírá poslední
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I hope somebody will.
naděje umírá poslední
Ok, but not me because we're too long winded and all the typing wears me out.
We'd do much better with a nice bottle of red and a comfy chair I reckon.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I can't agrue with that!
naděje umírá poslední
YIKES!!! :eek:
Hope you find someone to continue your discussion with.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm bound to piss some feminists off with my post
naděje umírá poslední
Bound to
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Collin, you're cracking me up with all these obscure examples you keep harping on. Female models getting paid more than male models is hardly indicative of gender equality in the world. I would even argue that it's just the opposite.
You've used the "77% of veterinary students are women" line a couple of times now. So? Does that mean they get equal pay for their work? Does it mean there is no more need for feminism in the world? No.
Same with the examples you've harped on about Title IX & science and (in a past thread) some email someone once sent you about women being elected to government. These are quite obscure examples.
If you ever really want to understand feminism, you've got to stop nit-picking and look at it in a more wholistic, comprehensive, contextual way.
embarass or shame myself or my marriage? spare me. there is NO shame or embarassment, at all. we are both proud of our choices and happy in them.
as to ALL else, we disagree...clearly. my morals are not yours, nor vice versa...and while you may think yours are 'better' or i don't have morals, you would be grossly mistaken. personally, i don't think humans are 'better' than animals, so that's a moot point imho. as to all about faith or lack thereof, i got your point and i agree that many religious and non-religious do not agree with feminist thinking, and yet, still a lot do. that's all. i don't need outside support for my own personal pov.
you did conveniently dodge my question about only having intercourse for procreation. i would assume then since you speak of your GF and not a wife, you and she are both virgins since you would not want to produce children now. if that is the case, good for you both for making a choice that makes you happy and works. i support ALL making individual choices. however, some of us choose a different path, doesn't make us wrong, nor morally bankrupt, just different views of it all.
btw - i NEVER said that ALL i seek is physical pleasures in all its forms, although of course i DO persue such, why not? however, i of course persue intellectual stimulation, intimacy, community, etc.....it's not all or nothing just b/c one chooses to engage in intercourse with no desire to reproduce. and ALL the examples of people i gave saying who use birth control AND want or have children already, doesn't matter? i think it selfish to procreate to the point of having children you cannot support, and i think it ridiculous to expect people to NOT engage in sex for sex's sake. sex is an integral part of a relationship and intimacy. we have brains, we came up with methods to have some control over our own reproduction. i see nothing morally 'wrong' there, but i do see responsibility. hell, human beings have been putting rocks inside female camels urethras for hundreds of years to control their reproduction while on long journeys - the first IUDs in fact. we alter our companion animals so they do not reproduce unwanted offspring. you disagree with BC so be it, but the freedoms and control it allows IS a good thing.
agree....disagree.....c'est la vie.
you are happy with your choices, i in mine. life is good.
*edited for typos and clarity.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And the problems always begin when other's try to force their point of view and choices down every one else's throats, proclaim a higher moral ground and insist their way is the "better way".
Such nonsense.
What's good and "best" for one individual or couple, is what's best for THEM. Them alone.
What's best for them is not what's best for others.
You would think that we could live in a world where people could learn to respect other's choices and approach to their own lives. But I see we still have a long way to go....with some people.
absolutely.
i do consider myself a feminist - surprise, surprise
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I saw an article in the paper a whiel back abotu some specific jobs where women had started making more than their male counterparts...good jobs too.
I can't recall specifically, but it all made sense to me. As the education level of women increases and passes (it probably already has I think) men, they will start to earn more than their counterparts...
And you keep cracking me up with your weird assumptions about what I wrote. I am not saying that this means there is gender equality in the world. Where the hell did you get that?
I'm saying it's rather funny that she's talking about equal pay and a profession in which women get paid a lot more in the same sentence.
Again, I didn't say that that means they get equal pay. Although, I can provide you figures of the top colleges in the US. Women and men scientists earn the same amount of money. That is to say, they earn the amount of money they deserve (according to research, bringing in funding...)
I know women still get paid less in general. But we were talking about science, right?
I certainly didn't say that feminism isn't needed in the world.
I've used that line a couple of times now because of that horrible thing called Title IX, which I believe is unfair and creates injustice against men. I admit that veterinary students reference has perhaps a bit out of context. But don't put words in my mouth.
scb, if you can't have a reasonable discussion than I'm not interested.
I never said there was no need for feminism in the world, I said in the very first post that I agreed with many aspects of feminism. In another post I also said I wished to discuss the groups of feminism, which I thought were detrimental to the feminist movement. I also believe these, whether a minority or not, have a great influence.
I am well aware of the injustices towards women in the world. Although, I cannot think of a right men have in the Western world that women don't. I'll add this in case you want to put words in my mouth again; no, that does not mean they get equal pay.
I will be harping on about them until some feminists admit they support injustice towards men and create inequality. Because that's what Title IX does and that e-mail was about affirmative action (we already debated the semantics of it and I could have been wrong, but that's irrelevant because plenty of people, probably you as well, said they'd support it if it was indeed like I interpreted it).
I respectfully disagree, scb, these are not obscure examples. These are examples with big consequences. Title IX applied to science is not only unfair, it could actually be a huge disadvantage to science.
And I don't think affirmative action on the highest levels of goverment is an obscure example, either.
I think you're just dodging because you know it creates injustice.
And what's that? I'm sure you'll tell me a very convincing story of the injustice against women worldwide and the need to fight for women's right or whatever...
But tell me, how does that change the fact that feminists groups are pushing unfair, unjust programmes in the US? Am I supposed to ignore this injustice and hypocrisy because of you believe feminism has a higher goal?
I've told you this before. I'm not a feminist. I care about the rights of everyone not just women. So when you talk to me about what happens to women in many African countries, about rape, ... I'm completely on your side.
But when you support Title IX and affirmative action you are creating injustice yourself. And that's what I'm fighting here in this thread.
naděje umírá poslední
I wonder if they'll still support equal pay...
naděje umírá poslední
yes.
from what i gather from cincy's post, the women had a higher level of education, thus a higher paycheck. i would expect the same result, male or female. it is when 2 candidates with the same education, experience, etc....the only real difference being gender, and the pay is unequal, do i see a problem. i would see the same problem whether the male or the female is the higher/lower of the equation. many feminists truly do want 'equality'...as in, really equal. appreciate the differences, not expect different standards, but balance and equality that benefits all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't really care about their education etc. It's about the result of their work and the amount of work they do. If that's the same, they should indeed get the same pay.
Not necessarily if they have the same education. I will graduate with several other students, I'm better than some and there are some above my level as well.
naděje umírá poslední
yes, once within the jobs. i am discussing when getting hired, education DOES come into play, and employers DO care about such things, and base starting salaries on such, and/or future raises based on furthering your education, etc. i got a higher starting salary based soley on my education...when i taught i got pay raises based on every 15 credits of course i completed, along of course with more professional experience, etc. it's the same even if comparing 2 candidates of the same gender. for that, a non-issue in my mind.
i think you just want to argue.
i agree, there are many within the feminist movement who have and do take things too far, to a point of pushing inequality in another direction...which is no better. however, i believe the bulk of self-identified feminists ARE for true equality, and nothing more.....decisions being based on merit, ability, individual choice....and not gender.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Interesting.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
well said.
beyond the obvious, some things can and do need legislation. once upon a time, women had no voice in government, until the right to vote became law. once upon a time, women had no personal freedoms, 'property' of their fathers and then husbands, until legislation was passed to allow women their own voice and freedom. once upon a time, women were not allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies and reproduction, and then legislation was passed. once upon a time women would perform the same work as a male for unequal pay b/c it was enitrely legal for an employer to be biased according to gender. now while that pay inequality has not been 100% recitifed, it has gotten a lot smaller and still a work in progress.
it is easy to say from the sidelines that all this comes 'from within'...and to some extent, of course, that's where it BEGINS...but absolutely, for the benefit of society, the collective community, in our present ways of civilization, working within legislation IS the way to afford equal rights for all. this is simply reality. some actually want to see such for the benefit of all, and not simply work for their own good alone. it's not about levelling a playing field, it's about simply basing actions and benefits on merit, not gender. it's all well and good to say achievement and overcoming obstacles comes from within...but in the reality of a woman who needs to work, has to work, to supprt herself, possible offspring, etc....and without legislation may have to settle for discriminatory practices based soley on her gender, that's just BS. if nothing else, that is exactly what feminists as a collective movement have fought against, and worked towards improving the rights of women...and that indeed involved and continues to involve legislation. the collective society does not necessarily operate from a point of rightness, fairness and equality...and thus why people work towards such rights and such laws are put in place to protect and improve such.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You missed a bit to that catchcry Collin.
It's equal pay for equal work.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Thank you.
And I completely agree with what you've said here.
I recall a time when a woman's pay structure was not the same as a man's based on the fact that she "could" have children and this would adversely effect the employer financially apparently. :rolleyes: It was also a reason not to hire a woman who might be the most qualified for the job over a man, because a man wouldn't be getting pregnant. Too bad if you were a woman who was infertile or had decided that you didn't want to have children, the very fact that you might got you into this category based on your gender.
I think this is why I'd prefer that "maternity" leave was scrapped as a seperate entity altogether and "all purpose" leave was introduced for all. That way everyone would be entitled to x amount of leave for periods of time when for whatever reason they were unable to work. (when I say whatever reason I don't mean for extended around the world holidays or touring with PJ.
This type of leave would also apply to single women who may need to look after an ailing relative or for either sex if an extended period of illness applied and obviously I think it should also apply to men who are looking after children as well. Perhaps we could call it family or extended illness leave and everybody would be entitled to access it?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
so carrying a child and giving birth counts for nothing then is that what youre saying here?
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't think I am or someone would have corrected me already) but women have the same rights as men in the Western world. There's still inequality. We should work to eliminate that, I definitely agree, but I think there's not much legislation can do now. The laws already exist.
I would really like to believe that most feminists aim for equality and fairness but frankly, I'm not convinced. I see many feminists support unjust and unfair prorgrammes... You may say that's a minority and that those feminists certainly don't represent the entire feminist movement... But the truth is these feminists are influential and work towards "equal" opportunity for women through legislation and by doing so they're creating injustice towards men.
So forgive me if I'm sceptical of the feminists who speak of justice, fairness and equality while they support these causes or remain silent about them. If I were part of a movement that fought for equality, justice and fairness I would speak up against those within my movement who are unjust themselves.
Feminists like to draw parallels between feminism and the African-American civil rights movement, well here's a quote for them:
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
naděje umírá poslední
Nope, that's not what I said.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift