Is that it no longer aims for gender equality, but a gender inequality that favors women. Traditionally, feminists sought equality. Today, feminists no longer do. While a few self-described feminists (who I respect as individuals) call for allowing women in combat roles AND making women sign up for the draft, most feminists just drop the latter. You still hear today about the supposed wage gap, but it's really non-existent and such propaganda depends on dishonest use of statistics. Compared category for category, there is no substantial wage gap between women and men and, more often than not, the wage gap favors women. Look at first year engineers, where the average woman makes almost a thousand dollars more than the average male. Taken more broadly, as proponents of the wage gap like to do, look at the gender makeup of the 'rewarding' and safe fields - they're almost entirely women. Look at the fields that require lots of hours, boring work (at least what most would consider), or hard physical labor - that's where men are. The difference as that, as groups, women today are choosing work that they will enjoy, and men are choosing work that they can earn a good income and support a family on.
Hence the idea of gender discrimination. You said engineers. How many engineers are women? There's actually a push by engineering colleges and businesses to hire females. That is discrimination right there. Now I get what you're saying, there are feminists out there who say that men are inferior to women. But those are radicals that no one listens too. The moderate voice is the one that prevails in this society.
Men are still required to register for the draft, and face penalties if they fail to. You work 60 hours a week - and you think that negates statistics?
It's true of most rights movements. After a while, the idea of equality switches from "I want to earn my place" to "I want your bennies". The two are different. The person who just wants a chance isn't just taking the good parts of white maledom, they're taking the whole thing. They want the job, the 60 hour weeks, the draft, all of that -- they want to prove that they're worthy of respect. Thus they'll eventually earn respect -- because they'll earn respect. Show me a woman who is willing to sign up for the draft for the "combat experience" she need to get her promotion, and I'll show you one that the men on the field will respect. On the other hand, people who whine because they are not equal, yet do nothing to earn the equality, and I'll show you a "leader" that no one respects. When you know that your boss is an "affirmative action female boss" or a "diversity boss", it doesn't make people respect them, it makes people doubt them. After all, you didn't get that position because you EARNED it. It wasn't your good business sense that put you there, it was either your skin, your boobs, or where you put your naughty bits that put you there. Why would that inspire someone to think that this person is a good leader when it wasn't leadership that put them there? The facebook lady still isn't there because she's good, she's there because she has boobs.
There are indeed some women who want to use their gender as a "protected status" and appeal to chivalry, but basically want to "act like men". Not all women by any means, but some narcissistic individuals exist who think their sex is an entitlement - ex. women hits or pushes a man, but if he defended himself (with equal force), she might cry out that he "hit a woman". When I encounter women like this - ex. classless women who want to behave like thugs but still claim entitlement to chivalry because "they're a woman", I've just treated them totally "equal" - ex cussed them out hard like they're a 13 year old gamer on Call of Duty - I even used "manly" insults against them (ex. c*ck sucker) just to remind them of their equality. It's actually a myth that chivalry was ment for women anyway - chivalry was meant for ladies, not women.
Women are ushered into certain fields, and in areas like business, they face a glass ceiling and that accounts for the bulk of the wage gap. Why is that not something that needs to be addressed? Also, women and men in the same field tend to have a 2% difference (the aforementioned factors account for the broader, 18% wage gap) in the income which favours men. I just don't understand your argument. There's no dishonest use of statistics; people know the wage gap doesn't exist arbitrarily.
You said 'a few'. can you give evidence to this assertion? Could you provide evidence to show equality? Evidence? Evidence?
[video=youtube;8EK6Y1X_xa4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4[/video] men work 6hrs more than women, or 16% more payscale study finds 2% difference in income among males and females in non-managerial positions [video=youtube;v_pQ7KXv0o0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0[/video] As I've already stated, the gender wage gap is non-existent. When a gap falls along gender lines, the vast majority of the difference - when it exists - is due to factors that, if men did the same, would affect them equally. 1) If man B worked 4/5ths of the hours of man A, would they earn the same wages? 2) If man B took time off from his career to raise children, whereas man A did not, would they earn the same wages? 3) if man B was a [secretary, waitress teacher, maid, childcare worker, receptionist, teacher's assistant] whereas man A was a [financier, welder, plummer, CEO, doctor, engineer, lawyer], would they earn the same wages? These three differences are the main contributing factors to differences in wages.
Have you got a study to show male and female domestic work is equal? Also your study did not show wage equivalence. In fact it said: 'Men and women who work the same job actually get paid about the same when they are starting out in their careers, according to a study released Thursday. However, the study said, as workers move up the ranks, men's wages start to increasingly outpace those of their female counterparts.' Furthermore: 'The gender wage gap does not exist in the way people believe it does, Bardaro said. However, it does persist for director and executive-level positions.'
I think all feminists are 'self styled", except of course, for those who have no original thoughts and just play dittohead. I think all feminists are self styled, except maybe the dittoheads who dont have their own thoughts. Im satisfied with my role, and feel my advantages outweigh any disadvantages that gender / society has for me.
It's always a little ironic to me how many rightwing mean hate "feminists".... but love ladies like Ann Coulter, who have focused solely on their careers, never married, never had children, and have dated numerous men of the past several decades.
the Gorn insistence on straw men So you have there that men and women, with the same degrees, enter the field with the same compensation, but over time a gender disparity develops. What could explain that? Would you suggest that sexism exists, then, is at work at higher levels and not at lower levels? Consider the already mentioned variables, which would affect the long-term prospects of a woman's career more than her prospects immediately upon employment. I probably wasn't clear in my meaning. Inherent in the 'equal pay for equal work' claims is the idea that there is unequal pay for equal work, which is where the proof is lacking. There will always be some cases of inequality, where at one given company or another a man of the same apparent qualifications and experience as his female counterpart will earn more - there will always be the flip side. But on the whole, that's not the case. I said there is perfect gender equality? If there is, it isn't exclusively the role of feminism to address. There is only one major point behind the suggestion that there is a 'real' wage gap: the fact that women earn 77% of what men do. Men work 5.7hrs more per week than women do. Men are more likely to work full-time. Men are more likely to work overtime. As you break down overtime hours, men are more likely to work (for example) 70hrs/wk. An accounting of what fields men and women choose is also in order. Women make up a vast majority of receptionists, secretaries, maids, nannies, and housekeepers, while men make up the vast majority of loggers, miners, lawyers, engineers, financiers, managers, etc. This goes into other reading, from a book The Myth of Male Power, but men are far more likely to gravitate towards fields based on compensation than on personal fulfillment. This is largely due to societal roles, which rather than hindering women, place a burden on men. http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=7996 - - - Updated - - - true to the first part. What advantages in disadvantages do you feel that gender/society has for you?
Sorry but your Q makes no sense to me. The disadvantages are well enough known that I dont need to enumerate them, surely. But, I like who / what I am, and wouldnt change it. Soft power is fine with me.
But the article does not say lifestyle and personal choice are factors rather systemic workplace flaws so yes sexism is obviously a factor. In fact you really have only the payscale as a source and the huffpost article seriously disputes its findings. It's notes how its data is not as broad as other studies and that many other studies contradict its findings. It looks like there clearly is sexism at play. Actually on the whole studies indicate it is the case. Read the huffpost article. I don't feminists ever said it was. I agree with you but this wasn't the point I was making. My point was on higher positions and the other findings of alternative studies.
Yes, if men had babies, faced glass ceilings and were ushered into less profitable careers, there'd be no gender wage gap. What is your point? Also you've conceded that there is a 2% wage gap between men and women in the same field (that adds up to quite a bit), so you've completely contradicted your claim that the wage gap is "non-existent." Stop being obtuse.
I have a big issues with the name. Even in the 19th century, I don't think the chosen name was justified. It's just silly beyond belief when feminists say that feminism means equality. Yeah, it hints to equality between the sexes just as much as white supremacism hints to racial equality. How about just picking a name that actually describes your stated goals, like sexequalism or something? And of course, feminists don't seem to be much about equality anymore either, and I'm very opposed to that. I'm for formal equality -processual equality and sowell would put it. The thing with feminism, and leftism in general, is that they seek equality of result. They don't care that men and women have the same rights and live under the same laws, because if the results aren't equal it's unfair according to their logic. It's just that I differ fundamentally in what i percieve freedom and equality to mean. - - - Updated - - - What ceilings? No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. The inequality of result is what we get if we allow them freedom. 2% difference isn't a problem, barely noticable.
Are there no sex independent "wage gaps"? Does the "top manager" of a local flower shop earn the same salary as the top manager of BMW? Does a female waitress earn the same like a female top manager? Does a female part time worker get the same salary as a female full time worker? Do you want to change that or do you accept it? If you accept those sex independent and "intra gender wage gaps" and it would be absurd if you don't, you have to accept "inter gender wage gaps".
Hatin' those who hate me. It's not ann coulter running around spouting their hatred for white men is it? We don't dislike feminism because of the reasons you mentioned by the way, not at all.
You made an assertion, that you are content with the advantages and disadvantages afforded to you by society based on gender, yet were unable/refused to name a single one. That is worth little more response on my part than "weak."
