- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Jax
Women Are Never Front-Runners
GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008
Correction AppendedTHE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.
Aslyn
*raises an eyebrow*
I’m going with Allison Janey’s quote (as CJ from the West Wing):
“And any time there was opportunity for career advancement, it took him an extra five years because invariably there was a less qualified black woman in the picture. So instead of retiring as superintendent of the Ohio Valley Union Free School District, he retired head of the math department at William Henry Harrison Junior High.”
The problem with feminist authors is that they seem to forget that, sometimes, women do actually have the front seat, and men are the ones discriminated against. These days, it’s guilt compensation: women obtain higher positions or gain more benefits as a consequence of gender than they do as a result of qualification or competency. To add to THAT, she picked the elections as her example. GREAT idea. The observation that it’s an ELECTION springs to mind: both men AND women have the opportunity to vote for their candidate. Was Clinton voted against on the fact of her gender? Or was it simply because Obama is a better candidate?
I have to say, I’m amused that the author has a go at people for accusing Clinton of “playing the gender card” – isn’t that EXACTLY what the author is doing? I’d be fine with this were it coming from an unbiased source, but I think I speak for the vast majority of individuals that have spent time in social academia when I say I’ve had it up to here with the constant complaints about male superiority. It’s time you got over this people – the feminist movement happened already. Women can work where they want, when they want. They have the right to vote. They have the right to seek high public office. What more could you possibly want?
Would it be easier if men just rolled over and handed you everything you could ever want?
So rather than addressing real life situations, and more specifically politics which this is addressing you bring up a fictional tv situation? I don’t know where you get your information from, but it doesn’t reflect reality. If this were the case there would be parity when it comes to major leadership positions in business and government. That’s far from the case. You can’t believe the media spin that tries to claim women are equal, you have to actually look around society.
Reality is this. If Hillary shows emotion, she’s called emotional and thus not strong enough to lead the country. If she doesn’t she’s called a robot and isn’t likable. Why is showing appropriate emotion considered a weakness? Because women are considered weak and emotional, and thus not able to handle the stress of being the President. But men are assumed to be strong enough from the get go. Rather than proving their strength, they have to screw up to be considered weak. Women have to prove they’re strong enough for anything considered male.
And when they show that strength, what happens? They’re called many names, most commonly a bitch. A guy saying the exact same words however is called tough. You see, equality isn’t in laws, it’s in the beliefs of the people. It’s bias that’s shown in media comments, in individual comments, and in actions.
This shows up also in arguments about women in combat. Time and time again women have go beyond the level of a man to show they are capable of their positions. Right now there is a grand experiment occuring in Iraq. Women are in combat and performing as well as the men. Yet you don’t hear these stories because that would push too many beliefs. It becomes a threat to people to consider women as strong people.
For instance, why does it matter more if a mother dies in battle than if a father dies? The kids still lose a parent, yet greater value is given by society on the female. That is not equality.
You say you’d consider this if it was from an unbiased source. What would that be, a man? A woman is automatically biased about talking about gender issues? The truth is, Alex, you are biased about this issue yet refuse to admit it. Gender is the most fundamental way we interact. It colors every aspect of our society. Refusing to look and see how this occurs does not gain anything. It’s not about putting men down. It’s never been about that. The idea that feminism is about lowering men is a scare tactic by those who are threatened by the idea of women having their own power and control over their life. Perhaps it’s time to open your eyes and remove the bias rather than believing what is spun around you.
Perhaps a real life example will help. When I started my job, in a male dominated field, it wasn’t an issue to be female. I was quite pleased to be treated like anyone else. But then I was told we can’t have women alone in the office. Excuse me? What makes me inherently unable to take care of myself in the office? In fact, best I can tell, I’m more capable than anyone in this office. I’ve taken martial arts most of my life. I’m a Marine. I can’t take care of myself how? But that doesn’t matter apparently, it only matters that I’m a woman. That is how inequality smacks it’s ugly head. I’m technically allowed to do anything here. Except, when you actually look at it, that means I can’t actually do the job of the field techs because they often drop things off at the office late at night alone. How could I do that job while following the rule of not being alone in the office? On the surface it looks like there is equality in my workplace, but when you actually look at it, there isn’t. And it can’t be seen without paying attention.
That’s just one example. Equality as reality is a myth to keep people from looking objectively at the world around them. And Jedi have no use for myths that take the place of reality.
However, the balance this ‘women get screwed’ line, what about this from the world of academia. In order to become a professor at a prestigious institution it involves constant work and pretty much never being home. Therefore, when a woman gets pregnant it’s looked down upon and often impacts her career. Yet, it’s expected that new fathers will take a little time off perhaps and then be right back to the 12 hour days of work. The father has to make the choice between supporting his family or actually seeing his family and having a hand in raising them. And the father that chooses his family over career for a time is often looked down upon and their career is adversely affected. Why are fathers not given the same family leave that mothers are after a child is born? Why are fathers considered less important? It’s far from fair. And that’s the kicker about inequality – everyone is diminished.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Equality is about empowering everyone, not pushing someone down. The idea that someone else has to be pushed down for someone else to get ahead is the old way of doing things. And it just doesn’t work. So we can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that things are just fine, or we can wake up and take an objective look at the world around us. Then we can do something about it and empower everyone.
Quote:So rather than addressing real life situations, and more specifically politics which this is addressing you bring up a fictional tv situation? I don’t know where you get your information from, but it doesn’t reflect reality. If this were the case there would be parity when it comes to major leadership positions in business and government. That’s far from the case. You can’t believe the media spin that tries to claim women are equal, you have to actually look around society.I could quite easily address a few real-life situations to demonstrate my point, if you so wish, but that particular quote always struck me as appropriate to the circumstances, and I therefore used it accordingly. And, to be honest, that whole thing struck me as rather ironic. I work in a profession predominantly constituted by women – my year group here consists of 300+ women and FIVE men. And my own individual class has 6 women and me. Not to mention how we’ve all sat through the lectures discussing inequality between gender. I know a thing or two about this, as a consequence.
Quote:Reality is this. If Hillary shows emotion, she’s called emotional and thus not strong enough to lead the country. If she doesn’t she’s called a robot and isn’t likable. Why is showing appropriate emotion considered a weakness? Because women are considered weak and emotional, and thus not able to handle the stress of being the President. But men are assumed to be strong enough from the get go. Rather than proving their strength, they have to screw up to be considered weak. Women have to prove they’re strong enough for anything considered male.I don’t disagree that this is the case, but you have to remember that this is not wholly the case (i.e. not the full story), and is designed to put forward a point of view that is designed to support the male candidates – not because they are male, but because the policies of Obama strike more of a chord with some than those of Clinton. I, personally, believe that a woman is more than capable of handling the job of President of the United States. And Clinton herself could do it. But that’s not the same as saying I want her to do it – I don’t think she’s right for the job, and a vast number in the media are saying the same. Not because of her gender, but because of her approach.
And, frankly, your observations about women having to appear strong also apply to men, as well. They’re not considered strong as a consequence of being such, but rather because the vast majority of male politicians prefer to put forward a very strong, unequivocal political approach, while women prefer to compromise. Frankly, I’m all for the latter approach, but when you’re talking about US politics, you have to take into account the Republican/Democratic divide. The two parties tend to have almost wholly exclusive policies, so compromise between them doesn’t tend to go down well either way. Hence, the unequivocal line naturally comes across as being stronger than a compromising approach – even if the latter IS better than the former.
Quote:And when they show that strength, what happens? They’re called many names, most commonly a bitch. A guy saying the exact same words however is called tough. You see, equality isn’t in laws, it’s in the beliefs of the people. It’s bias that’s shown in media comments, in individual comments, and in actions.Ah, but make that observation something to think about: equality is in the belief of people. You can’t dictate what people believe – you have to allow them to make up their own minds. If they believe, as some do, that women are weaker than men, that’s their choice. I won’t say I agree with their choice, but I do agree with their right to have that belief. The same is true for the media – it will portray the general opinions of those in charge. It’s as with Newspapers over here: some will portray a more liberal bias, others more conservative, others approaching nonchalance. That doesn’t mean the media is necessarily bad – it simply means that readers have to be more selective in analysing the interpretations provided as a consequence.
Quote:This shows up also in arguments about women in combat. Time and time again women have go beyond the level of a man to show they are capable of their positions. Right now there is a grand experiment occuring in Iraq. Women are in combat and performing as well as the men. Yet you don’t hear these stories because that would push too many beliefs. It becomes a threat to people to consider women as strong people.That’s definitely an American way of thinking. Our armed forces are a good deal more liberal than that, but that may well be a consequence of having a female Commander-in-Chief. I should also observe that we’ve also had female Prime Ministers. Our media isn’t quite so inclined towards an anti-female bias, and even when people like Margaret Thatcher are painted in a bad light, it’s still clear that they were considered to be incredibly strong and dedicated people.
Quote:For instance, why does it matter more if a mother dies in battle than if a father dies? The kids still lose a parent, yet greater value is given by society on the female. That is not equality.I don’t disagree. Nor have I suggested that I would.
Quote:You say you’d consider this if it was from an unbiased source. What would that be, a man? A woman is automatically biased about talking about gender issues? The truth is, Alex, you are biased about this issue yet refuse to admit it.And that’s supposed to shock me, the notion that I’m biased? Of course I am. I’m arguing, therefore I have a position, which consequently makes me biased. And no, the bias isn’t coming from the author because she’s a woman, it comes as a consequence of her organisation’s operative approach – she works for the Women’s Media Center. That’s a pro-feminist bias if ever I saw one (anybody ever heard of the Men’s Media Center?). And, as an academic, I have always been taught to consider the source of an article and to determine its bias before I approach its validity, on the simple basis that it, as with the media you clearly have an issue with, tend to present information based on their own perspectives.
Which brings me to another observation: if the media is clearly anti-female, as you suggest, do you not think it would be more appropriate to critically consider that approach, rather than reaching out to the extremes to find a clearly pro-female/anti-male source?
Quote:Gender is the most fundamental way we interact. It colors every aspect of our society. Refusing to look and see how this occurs does not gain anything.I’m not looking at it that way, and I agree that it doesn’t gain anything. However, I’ll be the first to say that we should not narrow our focus to such an extent that such becomes the only consideration. I wonder, out of curiousity – does the author of this text have anything to say now that Clinton has won the New Hampshire Primary? I’ll bet she keeps her quill away from parchment until Clinton loses another Primary.
Quote:It’s not about putting men down. It’s never been about that. The idea that feminism is about lowering men is a scare tactic by those who are threatened by the idea of women having their own power and control over their life.Very few people are scared about women having power. And, as for control over their lives? Well, a good deal of married men will be able to find amusement in that one. I personally don’t have any problem when feminists talk about equal rights in situations where that’s clearly not occurring. But, to be utterly honest, have they looked through the demographics of the Iowa Primary? Could the author perhaps say, unequivocally, that the vast majority of men voted for Obama, and that women voted for Clinton? And that the reason Clinton lost was because more men voted than women? I don’t see any of that. The article is pretty much just informing us that, in the author’s opinion, Hilary Clinton lost the primary because she was a woman. But lacking evidence to support that argument, it’s more of a complaint placed on the back of circumstantial occurrences than it is a rational argument designed to articulate a point.
Quote:Perhaps it’s time to open your eyes and remove the bias rather than believing what is spun around you.There’s a lovely little quote I’ve always been fond of: remove the plank of wood from your own eye before you try to remove the mote of sawdust in mine. I understand my own bias, but I can be sufficiently objective about the subject when need arises. And, frankly, the vast majority of my friends and colleagues are female. I’m hardly pro-male, and I’m not anti-female, either. What I am is anti-extremist. If you think all male-female relations are about keeping women subjugated, or oppressing them, then I’m sorry you feel that way. I can say, particularly from a male perspective, that such is rarely the intent and, often enough, not even the result. I acknowledge that it does happen, but stuff like that? It’s making mountains out of molehills.
It’s mountains out of mole hills when it doesn’t personally affect you. In fact, most times women’s issues are brought up it’s immediately smacked down by arguments of equality already existing, that there isn’t a problem, and if there’s a problem it’s someone being greedy or having some other issue. Thus, attempting to shut down the point from the very beginning rather than actually discussing it.
Now, I’m willing to concede that things can be different in the UK. However, what you describe as reality in the UK is far from reality in the US.
One of the biggest issues people have had lately regarding Hillary is her lack of emotion, so people don’t understand where she’s coming from. You know what happened between yesterday and today? She showed a little emotion. She let people see and understand why she cared so much and why she was putting herself out there to take the heat she is for the chance to make it better. Because she cares about how badly our country has gone under Bush. The day before this occurred she was trailing Obama in the polls by double digits. The day after this occurs, she has beaten him by 3 points. It’s because people saw she was human and started to understand why she has the policies she has. Did 20% of people suddenly decide they liked her policies better? Or did they finally see her humanity and see how it adds to her?
That doesn’t takea way from the point this article is making. And it’s not just about Hillary. Take the first paragraph. If you used the same qualifications for a woman as Obama has, people wouldn’t even begin to consider her. Yet people are willing to ignore this when it’s a man. Why?
Yes, these are individual opinions. But I’m not about to sit still and let this society stagnate because people aren’t paying attention to their beliefs. We cannot get very far until we empower people and stop putting them down. And that can’t happen until we actually look at what is going on.
This doesn’t interest you? That’s fine then. Feel free to ignore it because the message isn’t for you. It’s for those who desire empowerment for all and true equality, not just the claim of equality. Maybe this isn’t a problem over in the UK. I highly doubt there isn’t room for improvement, but I don’t atually know what it’s like there. I do know that for all of the talk of equality in the US, there isn’t nearly as much as people pretend there is. We’re very behind in a lot of social issues when compared with Europe. Yet every culture and society has room for improvement.
By the way, Gloria Steinem is one of the foremost feminists in America. Is she biased? Perhaps. But I’ve never heard her say to put men down for a woman to get ahead. She simply sees that there isn’t equality, and continues to point it out. Because ignoring it gets us nowhere. I don’t study her or anything, but I’ve found she has a way of stating things that are very helpful. It’s a simple as turning around a situation by changing the genders, as she did in the first paragraph. That is a telltale way to see bias. If you answer to a question changes when the gender changes, there is a bias. It isn’t automatically bad, but it has to be seen. This is why I will continue to bring up gender issues. They have to be seen and addressed through awareness.
I need to clarify something that’s very important. I don’t believe Alex is a sexist. That probably wasn’t made very clear. However, I don’t think the argument of ‘It’s not really that bad, so sit down and shut up’ is very helpful either. I’m not putting forth an extreme idea of equality. I’m doing my best to show that this is a two sided issue that negatively impacts people everywhere on the gender spectrum, and thus everyone can benefit from improving this issue. And that is done by questioning why things are occuring, not just accepting them as they are.
Jackie, seriously, stop putting words into my mouth. I DO think it’s an important argument, but not the same extent you seem to suggest. When it comes to societal problems, the notion of gender equality isn’t among the biggest ones, primarily because the vast majority of sensible men and women understand the idea and adhere to it as a consequence. I don’t think it’s something that should be ignored, but, to be honest, I doubt I’m the only guy around here that has had quite enough of feminist arguments directed our way, as though we were all somehow perpetrating the idea of inequality from the ramparts, and believed that women should do exactly as you seemed to suggest I was saying to you: namely, sit down and shut up.
When it comes down to it, you have to remember that you’re looking at several different issues without presenting arguments in favour of each. Why not post two articles: one in support of feminism and equality, the other taking a less extreme approach? Rather, you posted just ONE article, and you can’t expect people to take that one sitting down. Had you posted two, and said from the start that you wanted a more balanced discussion, you’d have got one. But that’s certainly not the impression you provide by posting that article alone.
Now, I have to say, look at your argument regarding Hilary Clinton. She lost in Iowa, but won in New Hampshire. Did 20% of people suddenly switch to her ideas and vote for her? No, of course not. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUNCH OF PEOPLE! That aspect of your argument is utterly erroneous. It’s not that they suddenly witnessed her humanity and decided she’d be good to vote for. They may have agreed with her views from the start, and therefore just voted for her when their turn came around. I daresay some of them might have had a change of heart, but I doubt it. When you vote for someone to be President, you don’t vote on their emotional state, or even necessarily their personal outlook on life: you vote because you want THAT person to be President: Commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces, and so on. Not a position anyone should get, male or female, based on an emotive performance.
Quote:If you used the same qualifications for a woman as Obama has, people wouldn’t even begin to consider her. Yet people are willing to ignore this when it’s a man. Why?Based on what? Your assumptions, and those of the author? How do you know this? Have people told you this to be the case? Do you have statistics that suggest that such a thing happened? Seriously, where is your basis for declaring this?
Quote:This doesn’t interest you? That’s fine then. Feel free to ignore it because the message isn’t for you. It’s for those who desire empowerment for all and true equality, not just the claim of equality.And what is to say that I don’t desire those things? I’m interested and, yes, I agree that such a thing is needed. I simply disagree with the way the message is sent out. As you say, a lot of feminists aren’t anti-male in their rhetoric, but unfortunately, whenever women talk about lacking equal rights and the like, the clear implication is that men are responsible. But, that observed, why focus on arguing with men to make things better? Why not just do the logical thing and achieve that for yourselves? If women feel unequal, there’s nothing stopping them from attempting to make themselves equal. Women do it all the time at work, at home and so on. The issue I have with the feminist approach is not that it is designed to make women feel good about themselves, and to encourage them to work for equality, but rather to blast the media and, realistically, the male populace into feeling guilty about the fact that you don’t automatically have that.
I’m sorry to say it, but at the end of the day, men have to work hard for what they want, as well. Nobody just hands out money on a plate, and frankly, we’re often told that we’re inferior to women, believe it or not. From a female perspective, sure, you feel unequal to men, but have you ever asked how men feel about the situation? When we see inequality, we’ll be inclined to say something. But you can’t expect us to campaign about women’s rights – we have enough trouble with just trying to make a life for ourselves.
Consider societal expectations, if you will. The onus is still upon the man to earn money and to create a household for a partner and, potentially, children. We have to do our bit, and I don’t honestly think the feminists take that into account. When you think of children, feminism instantly jumps in and says “ah, but it’s the woman that is pregnant. She can’t work, she raises the kids, and so on.” What about men that raise their children? Why isn’t personal choice taken into account – did the woman want children? Did they not understand what was involved in that? Why not take into consideration the fact that men then have to shoulder the financial burden when the woman isn’t working? I’m sorry, but I think there’s too much time spent complaining about inequality on the behalf of women, and not an instant of consideration for the male perspective.
As it stands, if you want to consider men doing something for women’s rights, why not start considering our roles as fathers, as husbands, as brothers and as friends, rather than as the evil oppressors of the innocent and hard-working female gender? I have a large number of female friends, and I never mistreat women, and consider them equals, if not my superiors. Yet, for some reason, feminism sees men like me as the ones responsible for oppressing the female gender. I suspect I’m not the only guy tired of that, and men aren’t going to take feminists seriously until they start acting adult and stop trying to make us feel guilty for being born with testicles instead of ovaries.
I have tried to do so, and have always raised those questions in these discussions. You can go back and look if you don’t recall. Also, I’m not talking about feminism as it was in the 60’s perhaps, or what radical feminists say. I don’t know what they say, because I don’t need to. I simply observe the world around me and see problems. So I ask questions. And yet, instead of addressing the real questions we argue about whether questions should be asked at all. Maybe that wasn’t your goal, but that’s what you did in the first post here. The way it came across was that this is a bad thing to ask. Steinem has always put forth the idea that men and women are damaged by sexism. Men should be allowed to raise their kids, just as women should be able to run major corporations. That’s also what I’m saying. Perhaps you’re so used to the other arguments that you’re assuming I’m putting forth those ideas. So I’ll try to be clearer.
First off, actually a lot of people decided to vote for Hillary because they saw her passion last night. While the media is spinning it as an emotional outburst, many people instead saw her as a human being who cared deeply about fixing the mess this country has turned into under Bush. This is shown in a lot of different sources of information. In fact I was listening to 3 individuals who saw her with new eyes after seeing her make comments at last night’s debate. So yes, I can say that this is why she won last night because that’s the sentiment being voiced by many people in New Hampshire. And the 500 hits per minute her website got last night. And the influx of 750 thousand dollars in new campaign contributions last night by individuals (who are limited in how much they are allowed to donate). I think that speaks pretty clearly.
Secondly, I can’t say this clearly enough it appears. I’m not blaming all men for these problems. I’ve never said that, or tried to imply it. Until everyone can take a step back and look at the individual discussion at hand and not assume what is being said, I don’t see how we can get anywhere.
You’re points about how gender expectation damages men are the exact same points I was trying to make. Am I really so difficult to follow, or are assumptions being made so that my point is being lost?
I can’t say it clearly enough it seems. Gender inequality harms everyone, which is why the solution has to come across the board, empowering everyone. You say this isn’t as important, I say this is so fundamental that without addressing it the inequality of society will only become worse.
Icarus
Quote:It’s mountains out of mole hills when it doesn’t personally affect you. In fact, most times women’s issues are brought up it’s immediately smacked down by arguments of equality already existing, that there isn’t a problem, and if there’s a problem it’s someone being greedy or having some other issue. Thus, attempting to shut down the point from the very beginning rather than actually discussing it.Quote:I’d be fine with this were it coming from an unbiased source, but I think I speak for the vast majority of individuals that have spent time in social academia when I say I’ve had it up to here with the constant complaints about male superiority. It’s time you got over this people – the feminist movement happened already. Women can work where they want, when they want. They have the right to vote. They have the right to seek high public office. What more could you possibly want?Ok, I’m going to pretend that almost everything else here wasn’t even said-except for these two things.
First of all, Jax: You are absolutely right!
Second of all, Alex… as I have tried to explain to you on multiple occasions, you happen to be… *hold your breath, everyone* WRONG!
Every single time anything “feminist” in origin-or for that matter, anything that could even vaguely resemble a feminist philosophy- is brought up, it is shot down as FemiNazi propoganda. Well, too bad. There are serious issues in our society. Maybe not in England, ok. I’ll give you that much. Maybe England is absolutely perfect and has no social shortcomings as we poor Americans have, but here in America, yes, there is an inequality in almost all facets of feminine reality.
For some examples:
Feminization of Poverty- Men can walk away from all of the babies they make. Women tend to stay with and care for children. Many times, this means that a woman is forced to take another minimum wage job to sustain life for her and her children. So, she ends up barely surviving with her children while the man that helped make those babies is out there doing what ever he wants. Now, sure, someone will come back and say that the man has more skills, so can get a better job…
Ok, do you know how hard it is to go to school, get training, go to work, and pay for childcare? I do. Men can usually call up a female family member and get childcare if absolutely needed. Women are told that their place is in the home, just like in previous generations… Plus, hey! It’s all a woman’s fault that she got pregnant, anyway… Because women aren’t supposed to have sex, are they? Men can. Women are just whores and sluts. Gee, another small inequality…
Ok, so women and children are stuck being poor… 51% of female headed households in the US are under the poverty line.
Oh, and by the way… men and women in the same fields: Women made 31,000 a year compared to men making 40,000. Explain that. They have the same schooling, training, and position. Sure, it’s all fair.
How about sports? How many women’s athletic events do you see promoted as heavily as men’s athletics? That’s a laugh in itself.
Girls are not taught math and science the same way boys are in schools in the US. Why? Well, they won’t need those things when all’s they will be doing is making babies.
Oh, and this may have changed since I last learned of this fact, but in 185 of the world’s parliaments, women make up only 16% of those seats, though women make up half the Earth’s population. Now, are you really trying to say that all of those women (save the 16%) all prefer not to do anything in politics?
Who is raped the most? Women. Why? It isn’t about sex, as everyone knows. It is about domination and power. Now, if everything were equal in our pretty little world, wouldn’t the rape statistic be equal too?
Or, maybe it’s just that women can’t fight off their attackers like men can? Gee… maybe that is because they aren’t presented with the same opportunities to learn combative arts as men are. You know, that whole gender socialization thing.
So, you know, you may want to sit back and think how perfect this world is, and how equal our society is. You’re so wrong. Is it better than it used to be? Sure. Could it be better? You betcha. It is so infuriating to hear men screaming this:
Quote:Would it be easier if men just rolled over and handed you everything you could ever want?Because you know what? That’s not what we want. We want men to shut up screaming about how everything is equal and fair. We want men to actually look us in the eye, shake our hands, and not call us “My dear” or “sweetheart.” We want men to speak to us as individuals and not something that they are considering sleeping with, getting served by, or dismissing completely. We want men to actually look at us as people.
Seems hard enough to do right now, actually.
Everyone that wants to disagree with anything here, I understand. But, for all of you men out there that think this is a FemiNazi rant, it isn’t. You just won’t understand unless you’ve been in our shoes.
Come to think about it, I’m not going to say anything else on this thread because some people will never listen, whether it be from a man or a woman.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login here