I am always for women's rights. Always. Equal. 100%.
Oh yes, I got that I was referring more in general terms.
I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.
I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.
Oh yes, I got that I was referring more in general terms.
I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.
maybe like how abortion became illegal around when women started organizing (in the 1840s and 1850s---seneca falls, holla!). you can see the pattern of backlash or restrictions when women made gains of any sort.
I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.
so sad. they were the first to go when the men came back from WWII as well.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
I'm referring to women who are identifying as feminist, and discussing feminist issues.
Whether their poor behaviours "should" or "should not" be associated with the ideals of feminism, they are associated with feminism. One's poor behaviours cannot cloud the ideals of feminism. And yet the poor behaviours of those acting in a capacity of feminism, as feminists do taint the movement of feminism as it exists in practical terms.
gotcha.
thought you were referring to women in general.
none the less.....that happens with every group, feminists are no different there. the group judged, fairly or unfairly, by the actions/words of one, or a few, individuals. that will always occur in society.
Oh yes, I got that I was referring more in general terms.
I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.
I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.
What I see is that as women got more rights, they had more choice and with that, rather than being bound, they had the freedom to develop their own egos, unto themselves. With this authentic power comes causes and effects, as men have known through the ages! The more far-reaching our choice is, the higher and farther we "climb", the farther there is to fall. Like those of other sexes, some women have big, horrible egos! Also, the road to empowerment and human awakening is reliant on developing the ego. And therefore the costs become bigger as we go. Ultimately, this is the same reason the "higher" we climb, or the bigger our egos get, the healthier they can also get...we start to recognize the big causes and big effects of our actions and naturally temper our own behaviour. Power entails responsibility. Power without responsibility is not authentic power...it is inauthentic power.
I'm personally not willing to go into systems and use the government and law to take away the rights of others in order to give women more rights. To me, the issue of rights if far more fundamental to that. I have the right to work within natural laws to create what I want, as long as I don't infringe on anyone. And I can not deny that right to a man or one who owns a business.
To me, it becomes convoluted and redundant to get a job, essentially agreeing to the terms with the employer, to at some point bring in a third party of inauthentic power, to muscle my employer (infringement) into forcibly having to pay me more.
To me, the flawed contradictory principles therein indicate to me that there is fallout for doing so.
To me, I believe in creating empowerment in individuals and in power structures all over the world, in full force, meaning without using self-undermining negative actions. Therefore I focus on the empowerment I create and freely create. I am able to do so, because I am not caught up in power struggles, and the negative consequences of my own making.
Peace.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
maybe like how abortion became illegal around when women started organizing (in the 1840s and 1850s---seneca falls, holla!). you can see the pattern of backlash or restrictions when women made gains of any sort.
so sad. they were the first to go when the men came back from WWII as well.
And that's why I feel there is still a long way to go before it can be claimed there is true equality.
I also come from a country which traditionally reflects a more macho culture than the anglo-saxon world.
Just to give you a very recent example.
The criticism levelled at the opposition during the last political elections was to claim that all women on the centre-left coalition are ugly and thus unelectable; while the women then appointed in posts as junior ministers happened to be former starlet of the Prime Ministers TV channels!! or indeed, used as pawns in order to have the previous government fall during a decisive vote in the Senate by literally pimping them out to a particular Senator so that he could vote against it.
And thanks I did not know about Seneca Falls until I read your post.
I'm not a feminist. I'm a person who wants equal rights for all.
I received this in an e-mail from a (feminist) friend:
250 million women in the EU. Not a single one good enough?
During the coming 12 months, four politicians will be appointed as leaders of the European Union. For fifty years now, the picture of European political leadership has remained the same. It is time for a change. International top posts should always go to the most competent candidate. There are 250 million women in Europe; it should not be too hard to find qualified candidates among all these.
If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here.
I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.
I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.
didn't read your link, just your post...and i get your point, and i get theirs too. i don't think - from what you posted anyway -they are saying they wouldn't want the most qualified candidates if they were all male, just more like....do you really think it WOULD be all male? is there not the possibility that there could be a female up to the task? and maybe that female candidates are not be equally screened/considered? that's all. i would NOT want a candidate based simply on gender....race...religion...etc. however, they doesn't mean i wouldn't really want a female president for example. hillary wasn't the right woman in my mind, but i am happy she did run...and hopefully in the future we WILL have a female presidnet, b/c she happens to be the right candidate at the time. i'd love to be alive to see it, and if not...just hope it happens in the future.
didn't read your link, just your post...and i get your point, and i get theirs too. i don't think - from what you posted anyway -they are saying they wouldn't want the most qualified candidates if they were all male, just more like....do you really think it WOULD be all male? is there not the possibility that there could be a female up to the task? and maybe that female candidates are not be equally screened/considered? that's all. i would NOT want a candidate based simply on gender....race...religion...etc. however, they doesn't mean i wouldn't really want a female president for example. hillary wasn't the right woman in my mind, but i am happy she did run...and hopefully in the future we WILL have a female presidnet, b/c she happens to be the right candidate at the time. i'd love to be alive to see it, and if not...just hope it happens in the future.
It doesn't matter if I think the most qualified candidates would be all male. Their petition says: "If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here." No, I don't want at least one female appointed as leader, I want the most qualified, whether they are all women or all men or any combination, I don't care. The most qualified is the most qualified.
But I do get their point, I don't agree with their method.
What I see is that as women got more rights, they had more choice and with that, rather than being bound, they had the freedom to develop their own egos, unto themselves. With this authentic power comes causes and effects, as men have known through the ages! The more far-reaching our choice is, the higher and farther we "climb", the farther there is to fall. Like those of other sexes, some women have big, horrible egos! Also, the road to empowerment and human awakening is reliant on developing the ego. And therefore the costs become bigger as we go. Ultimately, this is the same reason the "higher" we climb, or the bigger our egos get, the healthier they can also get...we start to recognize the big causes and big effects of our actions and naturally temper our own behaviour. Power entails responsibility. Power without responsibility is not authentic power...it is inauthentic power.
I'm personally not willing to go into systems and use the government and law to take away the rights of others in order to give women more rights. To me, the issue of rights if far more fundamental to that. I have the right to work within natural laws to create what I want, as long as I don't infringe on anyone. And I can not deny that right to a man or one who owns a business.
To me, it becomes convoluted and redundant to get a job, essentially agreeing to the terms with the employer, to at some point bring in a third party of inauthentic power, to muscle my employer (infringement) into forcibly having to pay me more.
To me, the flawed contradictory principles therein indicate to me that there is fallout for doing so.
To me, I believe in creating empowerment in individuals and in power structures all over the world, in full force, meaning without using self-undermining negative actions. Therefore I focus on the empowerment I create and freely create. I am able to do so, because I am not caught up in power struggles, and the negative consequences of my own making.
Peace.
I agree that as women got more rights they got more choices as they were no more confined to the private family world as it were, but could become financially independent on their own.
And I agree you cannot paint all women with the same brush; same as men, of course.
But that's why one must have equal rights for all.
Man is a social animal so one needs rules and laws agreed by all.
If I understand your point correctly about enpowerment, responsibility and consciousness awareness this is on a more individual and personal level. And I agree with that.
However, for me that is not the whole picture, because of the inherent diversity in human beings - not all men/women are the same or have the same abilities intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.
And that's precisely why we need external rules to ensure a level playing field for all. This of course would extend to rights for all groups that have been subjected to abuses, constraints, etc.
In this sense I disagree with your assertion that the law and government are used to take away rights to give them to women - if that's what you mean - because it's not a question of taking away rights but extending rights to those who have been excluded before.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by natural law. In philosophical terms, it was used in contradiction to the laws of society in the sense that man in the state of nature behaved in a certain manner [and according to your philosophical viewpoint could be good, in harmony with each other, or bad as in struggle with each other]
It doesn't matter if I think the most qualified candidates would be all male. Their petition says: "If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here." No, I don't want at least one female appointed as leader, I want the most qualified, whether they are all women or all men or something in between, I don't care. The most qualified is the most qualified.
But I do get their point, I don't agree with their method.
i agree with that.
i guess while i could view it as completely black and white and that they ARE saying you just want a woman as leader of the EU sign here...i personally see it in shades of grey, simply illustrating the point that many would like to see a female - also the most qualified candidate - as a possibility. i also realize the petition is not worded that way, simply my inference.
i also completely agree in supporting the most qualified candidate. yet, i also see pushing for more qualified female candidates to be considered, etc. a part of the feminist agenda IS to push forward females in power, this simply plays into that. i'll agree the method may not be the right course, but i do agree with the ideas behind it.
It doesn't matter if I think the most qualified candidates would be all male. Their petition says: "If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here." No, I don't want at least one female appointed as leader, I want the most qualified, whether they are all women or all men or any combination, I don't care. The most qualified is the most qualified.
But I do get their point, I don't agree with their method.
I see what you mean - the female quota by law - and I can see both sides of the argument.
In theory yes, you want the best person for the job, regardless of sex but when you consider the bigger picture with discrimination in the workplace I understand this request for at least one top job to be assigned to a female.
I guess, it's a necessary evil until true equality is reached.
I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.
The type of contradiction and false premise that you see Collin indicates the type of argument that is not whole and sound and in that context, I agree with you. And still, I'm not sure that's what she's saying here.
It depends on what the petition is for...is it for forced change, or to stir up awareness, and have people express their pro-equality stances, which is fair. Women and feminists expressing an emotional view is always fair. Acting on it, when it's not reasonably sound is a very different thing.
There are often flawed power imbalances leading up to women getting to be in such a position of power. This is why it's so important for women to learn to be authentically empowered. So they can sidestep such power struggles and imbalance and bring that feminine power to the fore as is needed on the world stage. When women undermine themselves with flawed premises and power struggles, it takes up a LOT of power!! That detracts from them utilizing their authentic power. At this point, neither men or women are empowered enough to bring the required feminine balance to global affairs.
Hint: the feminine power needed is not masculine power perpetuated by a woman. It's about the woman-associated intelligences emerging from their place of repression, to take their place complementing the male energies on the world stage.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think there is definitely a power structure and socio-economic level to consider as well in the whole men/women equal rights dynamic.
It's not just a question of an individual woman rights and her ability to be treated with respect and equally.
It's more than that, if you see what I mean.
But I guess, that might be too reminiscent of the 60s and collective rights!
ugh i missed this post until now!
i think i see what you're saying, and if i do then i totally agree. i'm a big believer in interlocking oppressions (not an advocate , a believer in its existence). race, class, and gender oppressions work together and affect one another. there's lots of fun stuff to read on that. this may be slightly off the collective rights topic though.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i think i see what you're saying, and if i do then i totally agree. i'm a big believer in interlocking oppressions (not an advocate , a believer in its existence). race, class, and gender oppressions work together and affect one another. there's lots of fun stuff to read on that. this may be slightly off the collective rights topic though.
Yes, that's what I was alluding to
Grateful for any interesting reading tips that you might to pass along too!
I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.
i think they're saying they can't believe that there isn't one woman competent enough for that position and there are things blocking that from happening. so they want to point this out and bring attention to it.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i think they're saying they can't believe that there isn't one woman competent enough for that position and there are things blocking that from happening. so they want to point this out and bring attention to it.
Well, I agree with that. But I don't think "at least" one women should get a position. I agree that the most compotent should get the position, regardless of gender.
Grateful for any interesting reading tips that you might to pass along too!
i think i first came across interlocking oppressions when reading patricia hill collins' "black feminist thought." it's also sometimes called intersecting oppressions (and sexuality is often included). that book is pretty U.S. based in case that matters to you.
i think they're saying they can't believe that there isn't one woman competent enough for that position and there are things blocking that from happening. so they want to point this out and bring attention to it.
Well, I agree with that. But I don't think "at least" one women should get a position. I agree that the most compotent should get the position, regardless of gender.
it becomes a circular discussion after awhile b/c i agree, get the most competent person, and then can follow and then follow that with VG's statment again, and then yours, and hers,......etc.
bottomline, a feminist organization is of course going to push to get more females into positions of power....just like any other organization pushing their own agenda. i
Well, I agree with that. But I don't think "at least" one women should get a position. I agree that the most compotent should get the position, regardless of gender.
what way did they mean "at least"? is it like 'i'd like to see at least 2' or '2 must forcefully be put in those positions'? i see no problem with someone saying they'd like to see at least 2. it is sure to be more representative of the population.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i think i first came across interlocking oppressions when reading patricia hill collins' "black feminist thought." it's also sometimes called intersecting oppressions (and sexuality is often included). that book is pretty U.S. based in case that matters to you.
what way did they mean "at least"? is it like 'i'd like to see at least 2' or '2 must forcefully be put in those positions'? i see no problem with someone saying they'd like to see at least 2. it is sure to be more representative of the population.
Well, I'd also like to see at least two if they are indeed the most competent. I get the feeling from this petition they'd like to see at least one, regardless of qualifications.
What's more representative of the population doesn't really matter if your argument is that you want the most qualified.
edit: if they had actually said they wanted two positions to automatically go to women and two to men because that would be more representative of the people, I might have signed it.
So, say there's a test to see who's most qualified and the top four happen to be male. You'd be okay with denying this man a position he deserves just because he's male and giving the post to a woman who doesn't deserve it just because she's female?
I thought that was what feminists have been against since the beginning? It's now somehow okay because the roles are reversed?
You cannot restore justice by more injustice. You cannot create peace by more violence.
If you're wondering where feminists got a bad name, look no further, it's this hypocricy right here.
Well, I'd also like to see at least two if they are indeed the most competent. I get the feeling from this petition they'd like to see at least one, regardless of qualifications.
this will keep going in circles like d2d says, though. i say they're saying they can't believe there isn't one woman competent enough. and women in general are being blocked from those positions---or it is made very difficult. i don't think they're saying 'regardless of qualifications' i think they're saying 'those qualifications aren't being acknowledged'.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
this will keep going in circles like d2d says, though. i say they're saying they can't believe there isn't one woman competent enough. and women in general are being blocked from those positions---or it is made very difficult. i don't think they're saying 'regardless of qualifications' i think they're saying 'those qualifications aren't being acknowledged'.
I guess we'll have to contact them and explain we're debating in circles here over their petition on the PJ message board And we need some clarification!
Comments
Oh yes, I got that
I think what fascinates me is the fact that feminism got a bad name progressively as women's rights were recognised in law [just talking in the Western world, at the moment] when in fact there is still a way to go for a true equality even in the workplace.
I was reading an interesting article the other day whereby in Wall Street at times of recession single female workers at the first to go, not to mention the issue of promotion to the very top level.
maybe like how abortion became illegal around when women started organizing (in the 1840s and 1850s---seneca falls, holla!). you can see the pattern of backlash or restrictions when women made gains of any sort.
so sad. they were the first to go when the men came back from WWII as well.
cross the river to the eastside
gotcha.
thought you were referring to women in general.
none the less.....that happens with every group, feminists are no different there. the group judged, fairly or unfairly, by the actions/words of one, or a few, individuals. that will always occur in society.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I'm personally not willing to go into systems and use the government and law to take away the rights of others in order to give women more rights. To me, the issue of rights if far more fundamental to that. I have the right to work within natural laws to create what I want, as long as I don't infringe on anyone. And I can not deny that right to a man or one who owns a business.
To me, it becomes convoluted and redundant to get a job, essentially agreeing to the terms with the employer, to at some point bring in a third party of inauthentic power, to muscle my employer (infringement) into forcibly having to pay me more.
To me, the flawed contradictory principles therein indicate to me that there is fallout for doing so.
To me, I believe in creating empowerment in individuals and in power structures all over the world, in full force, meaning without using self-undermining negative actions. Therefore I focus on the empowerment I create and freely create. I am able to do so, because I am not caught up in power struggles, and the negative consequences of my own making.
Peace.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And that's why I feel there is still a long way to go before it can be claimed there is true equality.
I also come from a country which traditionally reflects a more macho culture than the anglo-saxon world.
Just to give you a very recent example.
The criticism levelled at the opposition during the last political elections was to claim that all women on the centre-left coalition are ugly and thus unelectable; while the women then appointed in posts as junior ministers happened to be former starlet of the Prime Ministers TV channels!! or indeed, used as pawns in order to have the previous government fall during a decisive vote in the Senate by literally pimping them out to a particular Senator so that he could vote against it.
And thanks
I received this in an e-mail from a (feminist) friend:
http://www.femalesinfront.eu/default.asp?view=front&lang=gb
I have mixed feelings about this. They contradict themselves here. They say they want the most competent candidate to get the post, yet they want at least one female candidate. By that they're saying they want the positions to go to the four most competent candidates unless the four most qualified candidates are male.
naděje umírá poslední
didn't read your link, just your post...and i get your point, and i get theirs too. i don't think - from what you posted anyway -they are saying they wouldn't want the most qualified candidates if they were all male, just more like....do you really think it WOULD be all male? is there not the possibility that there could be a female up to the task? and maybe that female candidates are not be equally screened/considered? that's all. i would NOT want a candidate based simply on gender....race...religion...etc. however, they doesn't mean i wouldn't really want a female president for example. hillary wasn't the right woman in my mind, but i am happy she did run...and hopefully in the future we WILL have a female presidnet, b/c she happens to be the right candidate at the time. i'd love to be alive to see it, and if not...just hope it happens in the future.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It doesn't matter if I think the most qualified candidates would be all male. Their petition says: "If you wish to see at least one female appointed as leader of the European Union, sign here." No, I don't want at least one female appointed as leader, I want the most qualified, whether they are all women or all men or any combination, I don't care. The most qualified is the most qualified.
But I do get their point, I don't agree with their method.
naděje umírá poslední
I agree that as women got more rights they got more choices as they were no more confined to the private family world as it were, but could become financially independent on their own.
And I agree you cannot paint all women with the same brush; same as men, of course.
But that's why one must have equal rights for all.
Man is a social animal so one needs rules and laws agreed by all.
If I understand your point correctly about enpowerment, responsibility and consciousness awareness this is on a more individual and personal level. And I agree with that.
However, for me that is not the whole picture, because of the inherent diversity in human beings - not all men/women are the same or have the same abilities intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.
And that's precisely why we need external rules to ensure a level playing field for all. This of course would extend to rights for all groups that have been subjected to abuses, constraints, etc.
In this sense I disagree with your assertion that the law and government are used to take away rights to give them to women - if that's what you mean - because it's not a question of taking away rights but extending rights to those who have been excluded before.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by natural law. In philosophical terms, it was used in contradiction to the laws of society in the sense that man in the state of nature behaved in a certain manner [and according to your philosophical viewpoint could be good, in harmony with each other, or bad as in struggle with each other]
Cheers
i agree with that.
i guess while i could view it as completely black and white and that they ARE saying you just want a woman as leader of the EU sign here...i personally see it in shades of grey, simply illustrating the point that many would like to see a female - also the most qualified candidate - as a possibility. i also realize the petition is not worded that way, simply my inference.
i also completely agree in supporting the most qualified candidate. yet, i also see pushing for more qualified female candidates to be considered, etc.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I see what you mean - the female quota by law - and I can see both sides of the argument.
In theory yes, you want the best person for the job, regardless of sex but when you consider the bigger picture with discrimination in the workplace I understand this request for at least one top job to be assigned to a female.
I guess, it's a necessary evil until true equality is reached.
It depends on what the petition is for...is it for forced change, or to stir up awareness, and have people express their pro-equality stances, which is fair. Women and feminists expressing an emotional view is always fair. Acting on it, when it's not reasonably sound is a very different thing.
There are often flawed power imbalances leading up to women getting to be in such a position of power. This is why it's so important for women to learn to be authentically empowered. So they can sidestep such power struggles and imbalance and bring that feminine power to the fore as is needed on the world stage. When women undermine themselves with flawed premises and power struggles, it takes up a LOT of power!! That detracts from them utilizing their authentic power. At this point, neither men or women are empowered enough to bring the required feminine balance to global affairs.
Hint: the feminine power needed is not masculine power perpetuated by a woman. It's about the woman-associated intelligences emerging from their place of repression, to take their place complementing the male energies on the world stage.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
ugh i missed this post until now!
i think i see what you're saying, and if i do then i totally agree. i'm a big believer in interlocking oppressions (not an advocate
cross the river to the eastside
Yes, that's what I was alluding to
Grateful for any interesting reading tips that you might to pass along too!
i think they're saying they can't believe that there isn't one woman competent enough for that position and there are things blocking that from happening. so they want to point this out and bring attention to it.
cross the river to the eastside
Well, I agree with that. But I don't think "at least" one women should get a position. I agree that the most compotent should get the position, regardless of gender.
naděje umírá poslední
I've heard that rhetoric before. "War is necessary to achieve peace."
It's the same concept, action completely contradictory to your beliefs or supposed goals.
naděje umírá poslední
i think i first came across interlocking oppressions when reading patricia hill collins' "black feminist thought." it's also sometimes called intersecting oppressions (and sexuality is often included). that book is pretty U.S. based in case that matters to you.
this is an interesting essay combining marx and collins:
http://kvond.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/tools-of-labor-what-it-means-to-produce/
other than that, i usually read more specialized things and interlock them myself
cross the river to the eastside
Or it could just be a rebalancing of an injustice.
it becomes a circular discussion after awhile b/c i agree, get the most competent person, and then can follow and then follow that with VG's statment again, and then yours, and hers,......etc.
bottomline, a feminist organization is of course going to push to get more females into positions of power....just like any other organization pushing their own agenda. i
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
what way did they mean "at least"? is it like 'i'd like to see at least 2' or '2 must forcefully be put in those positions'? i see no problem with someone saying they'd like to see at least 2. it is sure to be more representative of the population.
cross the river to the eastside
cool, thanks!
By more injustice?
naděje umírá poslední
Well, I'd also like to see at least two if they are indeed the most competent. I get the feeling from this petition they'd like to see at least one, regardless of qualifications.
What's more representative of the population doesn't really matter if your argument is that you want the most qualified.
edit: if they had actually said they wanted two positions to automatically go to women and two to men because that would be more representative of the people, I might have signed it.
naděje umírá poslední
By restoration of justice.
So, say there's a test to see who's most qualified and the top four happen to be male. You'd be okay with denying this man a position he deserves just because he's male and giving the post to a woman who doesn't deserve it just because she's female?
I thought that was what feminists have been against since the beginning? It's now somehow okay because the roles are reversed?
You cannot restore justice by more injustice. You cannot create peace by more violence.
If you're wondering where feminists got a bad name, look no further, it's this hypocricy right here.
naděje umírá poslední
this will keep going in circles like d2d says, though. i say they're saying they can't believe there isn't one woman competent enough. and women in general are being blocked from those positions---or it is made very difficult. i don't think they're saying 'regardless of qualifications' i think they're saying 'those qualifications aren't being acknowledged'.
cross the river to the eastside
the roles are not being reversed. white (upper-class) men have always had the power and the upper-hand overall.
cross the river to the eastside
I guess we'll have to contact them and explain we're debating in circles here over their petition on the PJ message board
naděje umírá poslední
In a way the roles are being reversed, but speaking globally you're right. Would you agree with giving the position to the woman in that scenario?
naděje umírá poslední