Feminism

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

I'll believe that definition is right when I see the feminist movement fighting, with the same fevour as they did for voting rights, for men to win more child custody cases. Feminism fights for causes where women get the short end of the stick and not for equality between the sexes. In much the same way the US says they are for a peaceful and equitable solution in the middle east but only supply arms and money to Isreal and only publically back Isreal.

while i certainly can't speak for all feminists, i think that women have been and still are unequal to men in certain political, economic, and social ways. and i think feminists have PLENTY to do, which takes a long time to get done, other than fighting for men. perhaps more men should be concerned with their equality. feminists simply can't fight for every single issue when there are so many that concern women to begin with. however, i also don't hear feminists say men shouldn't have better custody or shelters. i personally would suggest men fight for their rights instead of the perceived minority fighting for themselves and the perceived majority.

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

You know that happened to me last night. Maybe I am a feminist after all, if all it takes is to get excited about the vag,

sadly that's not all it entails.

surferdude

VictoryGin wrote:

while i certainly can't speak for all feminists, i think that women have been and still are unequal to men in certain political, economic, and social ways. and i think feminists have PLENTY to do, which takes a long time to get done, other than fighting for men. perhaps more men should be concerned with their equality. feminists simply can't fight for every single issue when there are so many that concern women to begin with. however, i also don't hear feminists say men shouldn't have better custody or shelters. i personally would suggest men fight for their rights instead of the perceived minority fighting for themselves and the perceived majority.

I'm onside with all you're saying. But please stop with the feminism is for equal rights when they only are fighting for equal rights where females get the shaft.

Fighting for equal rights would take some neutrality about issues being fought. But there's no neutrality. Only women's issues are fought for. They are fro the most part very valid fights to be having but in no way reflect a fight for equal rights.

If you were a parent it would be easy to say you love all your children equally. But would that be the case if you only invested all your time, energy and attention with one child?

mammasan

CorporateWhore wrote:

That said, I could be a stay-at-home dad if that's what it took. If women want to work that badly and see out their own potential, fine! I'll sit at home, wrestle with the kids, feed them, watch ESPN, and drink beers. During naps I could ride my mountain bike.

I almost pissed myself from laughing so hard. I thought it was going to be a breeze to be a stay at home dad. I pictured myself dropping the kids off at school and hitting the driving range or golf course for the. Taking afternoon naps anor just lounging around reading a good book. Then it happened, the agency I worked at relocated and I was unemployeed. I was out of work for eight months and let me tell you it was less stressfull and tiresome to work a 14 hr day in the office than it was to stay at home. I found an all new respect for stay at home moms and dads after that time frame. Secondly man's need have always come before woman's needs. So why is it so wrong that a woman would trade in her apron and mop for a business suit and briefcase. A woman should not be chained to her home and children. The mother of my children has a demanding career but she still manges to make time for our three kids everyday. She might not be there every second of every day but I believe it's not the quantity of time you spend with your children but the quality.

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

I'm onside with all you're saying. But please stop with the feminism is for equal rights when they only are fighting for equal rights where females get the shaft.

Fighting for equal rights would take some neutrality about issues being fought. But there's no neutrality. Only women's issues are fought for. They are fro the most part very valid fights to be having but in no way reflect a fight for equal rights.

If you were a parent it would be easy to say you love all your children equally. But would that be the case if you only invested all your time, energy and attention with one child?

well i still see it as equal rights. are there really no feminists that don't support custody equality? i've actually read feminist articles that have mentioned it. i don't know anyone who doesn't support that, but i can certainly understand women being more active in issues in which they are negatively impacted. there are unfortunately too many issues in which women are negatively impacted and not enough time. but again, i don't know a feminist that doesn't support custody equality and doesn't realize that women have the advantage there. in fact, that is a complaint among feminists i know because that kind of advantage just goes to reinforce traditional gender roles in which a women should be the caretaker.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

I'll believe that definition is right when I see the feminist movement fighting, with the same fevour as they did for voting rights, for men to win more child custody cases. Feminism fights for causes where women get the short end of the stick and not for equality between the sexes. In much the same way the US says they are for a peaceful and equitable solution in the middle east but only supply arms and money to Isreal and only publically back Isreal.

I also think there is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to women acquiring equal treatment and that's where the focus will remain. I would definitely get behind a movement towards equality in custody cases. The child should always go to the most fit parent. I cringe when I hear about children being stuck with a shitty, uncaring mother. If both parents are equally fit then it gets sticky. An older child can decide but with younger ones, joint custody seems like it would be very hard to work around, especially concerning giving the child a sense of normalcy.

Collin

Peter Griffin: Listen Lois, I know you're a feminist and I think that's adorable, but this is grown-up time and I'm the man.

farfromglorified

Jeanwah wrote:

Women still don't receive equal pay for the same work a man does. Therefore, feminism fights for EQUALITY.

Equality in what? The right to tell someone else what to pay you isn't equality sister.

CorporateWhore

farfromglorified wrote:

Equality in what? The right to tell someone else what to pay you isn't equality sister.

Methinks it socialism.

Rats of Multa

CorporateWhore wrote:

Hell, I'm all for a woman deciding what she wants to do. By all means, don't get married at all. But if she gets married, I think the best decision is for her to take care of the kids until they're ready to go to school. That's best for kids. Kids need moms when they're little, not dads.

That said, I could be a stay-at-home dad if that's what it took. If women want to work that badly and see out their own potential, fine! I'll sit at home, wrestle with the kids, feed them, watch ESPN, and drink beers. During naps I could ride my mountain bike.

Feminism just seems very selfish to me. It's all about what women want and not what men want too.

now, i know i'm entering a wide-world of pain here, but this is a very valid conversation, so so be it.

perhaps there should be a masculinism movement too, since having some type of official politik seems to be the only effective way of creating political-awareness[es] and social-change,....

i've always wondered: how has the case become that there are Foot-Locker stores, most-often divided in content with both men's and women's apparel, but then, or rather, now there are also Lady-Foot-Locker stores devoted solely to the feminine gender?

for the sake of my health i shall refrain from venturing/posturing an answer to this immaculate riddle.

CorporateWhore

Rats of Multa wrote:

i've always wondered: how has the case become that there are Foot-Locker stores, most-often divided in content with both men's and women's apparel, but then, or rather, now there are also Lady-Foot-Locker stores devoted solely to the feminine gender?

for the sake of my health i shall refrain from venturing/posturing an answer to this immaculate riddle.

Because unless you are a white heterosexual male, you have every right to be as racist and sexist as you want.

Pickr

Chicks are so hot.

mammasan

That's it I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have Lady Foot Lockers. This level of discrimination is unacceptable and the we all deserve to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone.

CorporateWhore

mammasan wrote:

That's it I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have Lady Foot Lockers. This level of discrimination is unacceptable and the we all deserve to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone.

What if it was "African-American Foot locker?" I guess that's Fubu...

Jeanwah

farfromglorified wrote:

Equality in what? The right to tell someone else what to pay you isn't equality sister.

If I'm consistantly paid less then a man next to me with the same experience I have, doing the same job I am, it is discrimination. Equal rights.

mammasan

CorporateWhore wrote:

What if it was "African-American Foot locker?" I guess that's Fubu...

I wouldn't care if it was African American Cross Dressing Midget Foot Locker. You can even open a Men are Douchbags Foot Locker and I still wouldn't give a shit. If I find the store's or company's policy to be discriminatory I simply don't give them my business. There are way to many important things to deal with in life in too short a time to worry about a store that only caters to certain portion of the population.

Rats of Multa

mammasan wrote:

That's it I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have Lady Foot Lockers. This level of discrimination is unacceptable and the we all deserve to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone.

hail, hail!

farfromglorified

Jeanwah wrote:

If I'm consistantly paid less then a man next to me with the same experience I have, doing the same job I am, it is discrimination.

By default? I don't think so. I have women who work for me who do the same job as men and make less (and some who make more). On average, the two sexes do not make the same amount at my business. It has nothing to do with their sex and everything to do with their merits and their standards.

When I provide healthcare for my single employees, younger women can cost three times what a man does. Is it my right, in a desire for "equality", to only insure 1/3 of a woman employee?

Male employees, in my experience, ask for raises more often and more aggressively. If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?

Equal rights.

Pay isn't a "right". The opportunity for free exchange is. Simply looking at a disparity in male/female pay and screaming "EQUAL RIGHTS" is the height of foolishness -- it implies equal merit and equal circumstance. Furthermore, it implies that your mere existence grants you the right to a certain amount of money and, in turn, a de facto obligation for someone else to pay for that "right".

Certainly there is much sexism in this world, and I do not doubt that it is a factor in the pay disparity between the sexes. But it is not the sole factor, nor is it likely the major factor.

qtegirl

farfromglorified wrote:

Male employees, in my experience, ask for raises more often and more aggressively. If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?

Yes.

If I man employee comes to you and asks for a raise and lists all the things that he's done to merit the raise, and you give it to him, I think it's your obligation to give a woman with the same qualities and qualifications the same raise. Obviously, by giving the man the raise you've established that a certain level of commitment, experience and performance should be compensated at a certain level. You are penalizing the woman simply for "not asking for it."

Now, in a related subject, I've read many articles and books on the difference between men and women in the workplace. The qualities that make a man a good leader - agressiveness, ambition, competiveness, assertiveness, confidence - are often rewarded. When a woman exhibits these qualities she is often labeled a cold, bitchy, overbearing. When asked what are the best qualities in a woman, things like loyalty, sincerity, friendliness come up.

Therefore, I propose that a woman that doesn't pursue a raise as aggressively as a man is either:
1. Behaving demurely as the way women are taught to behave from childhood (note: demure might not be the best adjective, but I couldn't think of a better one right away).
2. Trying not be perceived as a bitch (again, maybe not best adjective, but you get the point).

So, by not extending the raise that the male employee requested to your female employee you are in fact discriminating agains that female.

miller8966

qtegirl wrote:

Yes.

If I man employee comes to you and asks for a raise and lists all the things that he's done to merit the raise, and you give it to him, I think it's your obligation to give a woman with the same qualities and qualifications the same raise. Obviously, by giving the man the raise you've established that a certain level of commitment, experience and performance should be compensated at a certain level. You are penalizing the woman simply for "not asking for it."

Do you even work in a corporate enviornment?

You have to ask for a raise.....if the women doesnt ask but the man does than he deserves it. Thats the way it goes and vice versa.

You have to ask and show that you deserve it. There are no handouts.