Feminism...

stonedponey wrote:

is that right? so i cant understand you unless i agree with you or at the least acknowledge that you have a valid point?

You've made your separation from the view clear. And that's okay. It's just not 'understanding'.

paige_peach wrote:

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.

Jeanie wrote:

surfanddestroy wrote:

.... 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.

paige_peach wrote:

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.

paige_peach wrote:

Men and Women are different. We communicate differently, we react to situations differently.

PEOPLE are individual, EVERYBODY communicates and reacts in their own unique way but I share your point that there are differences between the sexes.

paige_peach wrote:

I don't think we could ever be completely equal...

This is where I don't agree. We can be completely equal without having to be "THE SAME"

paige_peach wrote:

...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.

Collin wrote:

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.

Well said, Dreams!!!

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.

scb wrote:

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...