Feminism

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

angelica

Collin wrote:

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:


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.

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.

VictoryGin

lgt wrote:

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.

lgt

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

Yes, that's what I was alluding to

Grateful for any interesting reading tips that you might to pass along too!

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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:


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.

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.

Collin

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

Collin

lgt wrote:

I guess, it's a necessary evil until true equality is reached.

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.

VictoryGin

lgt wrote:

Yes, that's what I was alluding to

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.

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 .

lgt

Collin wrote:

I've heard that rhetoric before. "War is necessary to achieve peace."

It's the same concept, action completely contradictory to your belief or supposed goals.

Or it could just be a rebalancing of an injustice.

decides2dream

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

Collin wrote:

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

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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.

lgt

VictoryGin wrote:

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 .

cool, thanks!

Collin

lgt wrote:

Or it could just be a rebalancing of an injustice.

By more injustice?

Collin

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

By more injustice?

By restoration of justice.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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'.

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

I thought that was what feminists have been against since the beginning? It's now somehow okay because the roles are reversed?

the roles are not being reversed. white (upper-class) men have always had the power and the upper-hand overall.

Collin

VictoryGin wrote:

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!

Collin

VictoryGin wrote:

the roles are not being reversed. white (upper-class) men have always had the power and the upper-hand overall.

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?