I think the basic goal of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. This is a very worthy goal in my opinion, but I also think it has already been achieved. Thus, modern feminism has turned to more extreme ideals, to the point where being privileged is seen as a fault (see tumblresque "check your privelege" and SJWs run amok. I don't agree with this new wave of feminism; I think it's annoying and underhanded and it needs to stop.
This is a very worthy goal in my opinion, but I also think it has already been achieved.
Quite a popular opinion but I have to ask: Is it truly and if yes, on which level? Because globally it definitely has not, simply due to the Third World conditions in countries in Africa and elsewhere. Underdeveloped countries, if they can be called like this, definitely do not give the same rights to both genders, especially those third world countries where Islam is the main religion.
Feminists in those regions are currently fighting the ISIS, if that means anything. Feminism is not about first world problems any woman may have in our societies... I don't think we can easily label both kinds of people 'feminists'.
I don't agree with this new wave of feminism; I think it's annoying and underhanded and it needs to stop.
I would take it a step further and would even refrain from calling these people feminists, especially given what feminists do in the third world countries, which is, where the rights of each gender differ greatly.
Not to mention that women are forming this new wave almost solely, while on the other hand, true feminism is an attitude which men are capable of keeping as well.
Quite a popular opinion but I have to ask: Is it truly and if yes, on which level? Because globally it definitely has not, simply due to the Third World conditions in countries in Africa and elsewhere. Underdeveloped countries, if they can be called like this, definitely do not give the same rights to both genders, especially those third world countries where Islam is the main religion.
Well I was too narrowminded to think about feminism outside the first world. I think feminism in underdeveloped regions is more akin to the first type of feminism I talked about in my previous post, and so I agree with and support it completely.
Men and women should have equal rights and responsibilities. If you don't like that, as far as I'm concerned you can get out and not come back. Feminism fights for that goal and is good and right.
This, of course, has nothing to do with nutjobs like Anita Sarkeesian...
Quite a popular opinion but I have to ask: Is it truly and if yes, on which level? Because globally it definitely has not, simply due to the Third World conditions in countries in Africa and elsewhere.
Although there have been undeniable improvements in industrial countries, we have not even reached the goal there, not yet. Men still receive systematically higher wages for the same job than women. Women are also still largely underrepresentated in top positions, and although I do not really support gender quotas, it still shows that the efforts to fight conscious and unconscious discrimination in our society have to go on.
Thus, modern feminism has turned to more extreme ideals, [...]
I don't think it has. The original feministic movement is certainly still going as before, we simply hear a lot more about those extreme individuals because they like to make themselves heard and make a scene. Every movement has their overachievers and extremists, but to say that feminism has changed is most likely not true. So I would agree with the last two sentences of Doombreeds post.
Men still receive systematically higher wages for the same job than women.
By a margin of 5-6 cents to the dollar, to be specific.
we simply hear a lot more about those extreme individuals because they like to make themselves heard and make a scene.
While this is the case, and most people acknowledge it as so, the issue still stands that the extremists have become the loudest voice of feminism, and have also become sort of accepted. Standpoint theory has become a core tenant of Feminism (basically: an opinion by someone in a minority position is worth more than facts/statistics because those are driven by white males in western culture).
Feminism has allowed itself to run towards the ground, and that's sad. It's become more like a political party than a movement for equality, and even more so like a cult (with members being ever so shocked that someone, especially a woman, would dare not be a member).
Thankfully, if feminism were to die out the fight for gender equality doesn't have to die with it. Sadly, many people think that would be the ccase.
But are gender wage gap statistics due to the fact that women tend to work less than men do, or do they actually represent discrimination in our workforce?
By a margin of 5-6 cents to the dollar, to be specific.
Men still receive systematically higher wages for the same job than women.
Can you prove that? Legally as long as education, experience, and tenure are equal any company is required to pay people performing the same job the same wage regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. So if any woman can prove she makes less than her male equivalent that's valid grounds for a lawsuit plus tons of fines from the government.
Can you prove that? Legally as long as education, experience, and tenure are equal any company is required to pay people performing the same job the same wage regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. So if any woman can prove she makes less than her male equivalent that's valid grounds for a lawsuit plus tons of fines from the government.
Taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-obamas-persistent-77-cent-claim-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/
They also cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department during the George W. Bush administration, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.
If you go into the link the 'prepared for the labor department' is an embedded link to the actual report.
Of course, if one is getting paid less solely based on gender, there is a federal law they can use in their favor.
Can you prove that? Legally as long as education, experience, and tenure are equal any company is required to pay people performing the same job the same wage regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Even so, unaccountable differences persist. I found an official report from 2012 on the wages in my country. Among others, it determined the wage differential between men and women to be 18.9%. An estimated 40% of this differential can not be accounted by education, experience, tenure etc. The unaccountable difference was found to be higher in more high-profile positions, up to 25% or more.
I found an official report from 2012 on the wages in my country. Among others, it determined the wage differential between men and women to be 18.9%. An estimated 40% of this differential can not be accounted by education, experience, tenure etc. The unaccountable difference was found to be higher in more high-profile positions, up to 25% or more.
Does this estimation take into account what career paths men and women may take? In America the figure of "23-25%" is spouted about left and right, yet this figure is only found when you take -all- women and -all- men and just find their wages, rather than men and women within the same careers.
The 18.9% is the average wage differential between all men and women working in the private economy. However the evaluation of unaccountable differences was done taking the profile of the person into account. They mention the profile is based on data like age structure, apprenticeship and level of responsibility of the job. That is how they could tell that the wage differential increases with increasing requirements and responsibility.
Right, I can see where you are all going in terms of the wage disparity (even though it was a controversial claim) and about the rational feminists and not the feminazis like Anita
But what about the natural gender divisions between the two concepts? I agree that feminism did bring a NECESSARY equality such as the right to vote, but does it need to go any further? I mean it is just from a pure argumentative perspective, where I think that women naturally should not do some jobs that men are supposed to do.
And secondly, some of the feminists aspects go into the legal justice systems, talk about cases of false rape and divorce cases where a husband always loses. I mean did feminism reach the point of irrationality and radical concepts? I agree with the termination of domestic abuse, marital rape and similar misogynistic attitudes, but as one of you claimed:
But are gender wage gap statistics due to the fact that women tend to work less than men do, or do they actually represent discrimination in our workforce?
And that the jobs of the firemen are naturally inconsistent with women and in fact possess a danger if a woman takes that job.
Moreover, for example in Sweden there is a high divorce rate even though it is the most "women empowering" country in the world. My point here is that sometimes the natural gender differences just won't allow the true feminism to happen and maybe men and women are up for their own responsibilities?
Finally, is it ever possible to remove the inequality? I mean behavior that woman does even if it is manly is OK, but not vice versa, like there had been cases of guys being discriminated just because of the society's imposed attitudes and YET a support for women's rights with no accountability of the consequences?
But what about the natural gender divisions between the two concepts? I agree that feminism did bring a NECESSARY equality such as the right to vote, but does it need to go any further? I mean it is just from a pure argumentative perspective, where I think that women naturally should not do some jobs that men are supposed to do.
And that the jobs of the firemen are naturally inconsistent with women and in fact possess a danger if a woman takes that job.
There are differences between the two genders, but they are averages. Claiming that there are jobs that women are naturally excluded from and should be done by men (and vice versa, naturally) is problematic because it perpetrates prejudices; there are always some women better adapted to a certain job than certain men. Taking up the example of firemen, there may be a natural difference in representation because women tend in general to be less strongly built, but there are also many men that are not apt for the job. The point is not to have all men and all women do exactly the same jobs, but the goal is that one's personal aptitudes for a job are the only criterium that is judged, not the gender.
Moreover, for example in Sweden there is a high divorce rate even though it is the most "women empowering" country in the world. My point here is that sometimes the natural gender differences just won't allow the true feminism to happen and maybe men and women are up for their own responsibilities?
I would like to see your reasoning for the claim that there would be a link between divorce rates and gender equality.
Finally, is it ever possible to remove the inequality? I mean behavior that woman does even if it is manly is OK, but not vice versa, like there had been cases of guys being discriminated just because of the society's imposed attitudes and YET a support for women's rights with no accountability of the consequences?
Again, feminism goes both ways. If a man is harassed due to prejudices, that too is discrimination.
