Feminism...

Collin wrote:

I wonder if they'll still support equal pay...

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.

Jeanie wrote:

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.

decides2dream wrote:

well said..

Thank you.

decides2dream wrote:

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?

Jeanie wrote:

Nope, that's not what I said.

so then why put pregnant women in the same category as carers and other 'special leave' takers?

Collin wrote:

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.

you're not wrong of course.
except for this one point: yes legislation does exist, however, there are those who continually try to chip away at these rights, alter these laws...so sadly it is at least for the forseeable future, something that must always be monitored so these laws and rights are NOT taken away. and new developments especially in regards to reporductive rights come up as science allows, and again, always need to encsure the legislation to ensure access.


anyhoo, my 'point' of discussing legislation was simply b/c another post mentioned that such things can't be legislated, that it comes from within or whatever else...and simply pointing out that YES indeed it can and is legislated, and should be. and we as a collective society should always work towards such.

Collin wrote:

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.

and you are of course, as anyone, free to believe what you want, and work against such injustices if you desire. i don't think i ever referred to a 'minority' within the feminist movement. i think i simply mentioned there ARE 'extremists' in all groups. the old the squeaky whell gets the grease'. i think there is a very large, rather silent majority within the feminsts. i DO consider myself a feminist, why wouldn't i? i am absolutely FOR equal rights for women and will ALWAYs support such. i will not, however, support reverse discrimination, and there ARE some things feminists as a group have worked towards that i disagree with. bound to happen. am i a very vocal feminist? no. my voice is heard in the voters booth, when i always choose to support candidates who support women's rights. my voice is heard when there are petitions to sign to ensure laws protecting women stay active, etc. however, i am not out there pounding the pavement.


again, you are right...there ARE feminists who go too far, and i think i expressed my agreement with that stance in an earlier post. however, overall, i STILL support the ideas and ideals of feminism and always will. just b/c there may be a faction fighting for feminist issues i disagree with does not mean i completely discount feminism, nor end my support to ideals, overall that i DO believe in.

Collin wrote:

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.

forgiveness is unnecessary. as i said, i agree on some points with you....and i do not support causes i disagree with, but no, i don't really fight against em either, but there are plenty of things i disagree with that i don't fight against simply b/c they are not that important to me. i only have so much time and energy, so i try to work towards things i believe in, when i can. however, if one feels very strongly against something, i absolutely support and encourage all to fight against what the see as an injustice.

as you said earlier, i think the 'big work' of feminism has come and gone....to me, it's more for mantainence and insuring said freedoms. there ARE still some key issues to be improved upon and/or some new ideas to be enacted or enforced, and yes, through legislation...but overall, i don't see myself as a part of a movement, more along the lines of a belief system.

Collin wrote:

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.

and of course...i agree.
equal rights are equal rights, for all. that is the ideal. some may not work towards such in a manner i agree with, but i try and support those who DO best represent my beliefs and desires.

decides2dream wrote:

anyhoo, my 'point' of discussing legislation was simply b/c another post mentioned that such things can't be legislated, that it comes from within or whatever else...and simply pointing out that YES indeed it can and is legislated, and should be. and we as a collective society should always work towards such.

I said that overcoming obstacles and achievement come from within. We cannot legislate people to achieve or overcome their obstacles. I haven't heard anyone disagree with this. If you're debating another point, great, it's just not mine! (unless there is "another post"-er I'm overlooking..)

My question is that as women overcome and achieve beyond great odds, given all the mulitiple variables in life, will they want to even the playing field for others? Will they believe it's even possible? After all, evolution is in place for reasons. It doesn't give us a pass on anything really, when striving for our dreams. Myself, I certainly believe in doing what I can to support others, and to make sure the rules are fair (as Collin pointed out they generally are in North America). And still, that leaves the evolution aspect, of life challenges, which I personally embrace.



also, you said:

decides2dream wrote:

it's about simply basing actions and benefits on merit, not gender.

Collin (and I) made this point over and over in the last feminism thread:

Often feminist actions ask that women are given positions due to their gender, rather than merit (affirmative action), and call it "fair", which is perceived as a contradiction - and one that undermines the original point - by many.

Collin wrote:

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.

For the record, I plan to respond more thoughtfully to your posts but just haven't yet had time. But let me say this real quickly:

1. There are some legal rights afforded to men and not to women in the Western world. The first one that comes to my mind is the one that started this whole debate this time around: nudity. Women don't have the same right to go topless in public as men do. (I'm sure I could think of more if I tried.)

2. Even if women had equal rights in the Western world, why does only the Western world count? Millions of women across the globe still don't even have equal rights before the law, and this is just as much what feminism is fighting for as anything.

3. Even if everyone had equal rights before the law in the whole world, there's frequently a huge gap between legality and reality. Feminism is about the struggle for de facto as well as de jure rights.

4. Laws, rights, justice, etc. aside, feminism seeks to break down negative social constructions and gender roles. It seeks to change social attitudes and behaviors so that no one is subject to limiting, socially constructed expectations about the way they should think, feel, & act based solely on their sex. It seeks to create a culture where men don't feel pressured toward violence just as much as it seeks to create a culture where women aren't the victims of violence, for example. One where women don't necessarily need men to fix their cars AND where men don't feel inadequate if they can't fix cars. One where men & women hold doors open for each other equally, out of a basic respect they all deserve as people, rather than out of any false notion that women need help. Et cetera, et cetera...