Do show me where I said everyone meaning every man (other than the above post where I asked if I should count everyone).
You said you'd met more brilliant men than women. I was asking how many brilliant people you've met because I've met very few, and certainly not enough to extrapolate that the entire population of brilliant people includes more men than women.
You then asked if you should count (not name) everybody you've ever met, implying that you only meet brilliant people. Lucky you. But, still, logically it just means you've met more men than women.
I'd say the 'some people' are the problem here, and the reasons many may wish to distance themselves from 'feminism' and embrace the surely more forward thinking and all inclusive egalitarianism.
Well, I have always been a bit stubborn when it comes to 'some people' having the power to hijack something I see as a positive thing.
This one common misconception among men, feminism has done wonders for women in the past it empowered them and gave them rights that previously only men had that was patriarchy.
Now I`ll admit there are quite a few radical feminists who want to turn a patriarchy into matriarchy that is wrong, society should be based mutual respect and equality between the sexes, there should be no patriarchy and no matriarchy because both are equally as bad.
No true feminist hates men if they claim to hate men and want a matriarchy they are not true feminists.
True feminism is about gender equality and putting an end to remnants of patriarchal structures and gender roles within society and creating an equal power dynamic thus making society fairer for both men and women where both sexes have an equal footing and where gender is more fluid.
Is that so doop ?
Maybe you could provide links to feminists campaigning for equality within jail sentencing or in the family law courts ?
You said you'd met more brilliant men than women. I was asking how many brilliant people you've met because I've met very few, and certainly not enough to extrapolate that the entire population of brilliant people includes more men than women.
You then asked if you should count (not name) everybody you've ever met, implying that you only meet brilliant people. Lucky you. But, still, logically it just means you've met more men than women.
Will I be endlessly counting the number of women MP's when the numbers reach 47% or 53%?
No - I won't care. They will just be people.
Will I be endlessly asking about Boardroom appointments after the World's Major Banks start to make senior appointments from 100% of their brilliant staff instead of from 50% of their brilliant staff?
No - at that point the Board Members will just be "people"
At that point in the Future we can all happily focus on Equality.
No, we can focus on equality in the here and now. Someone who stands for equality STILL agrees with all the causes you appear to support.
The one caveat is that I think MP's/ Board members. bankers, airline pilots etc should all be selected on merit, and not appointed to try and fill a quota, even out numbers or right all the wrongs from decades gone by. .
I say do away with all discrimination and that includes the positive variety.
Well, I have always been a bit stubborn when it comes to 'some people' having the power to hijack something I see as a positive thing.
I can totally understand that.
If anything it is the more militant type of feminist that I think some people are referring to that might put others off, what is obviously a totally fair enough & just cause.
Mumsnet was given as a good example of some of the more offputting types. Some of the stuff you see on #everydaysexism is plain embarrassing and negates the totally valid things that are on there. No offence to all mumsnetters/ twitterati of course- I'm sure some of you are totally sane and rational people.
Will I be endlessly counting the number of women MP's when the numbers reach 47% or 53%?
No - I won't care. They will just be people.
Will I be endlessly asking about Boardroom appointments after the World's Major Banks start to make senior appointments from 100% of their brilliant staff instead of from 50% of their brilliant staff?
No - at that point the Board Members will just be "people"
At that point in the Future we can all happily focus on Equality.
how do you know the opportunities aren't there if women want them? Is it not biological reasons why women would rather focus on family life instead of some career which is not the be all and end all for some people. Those percentages could never change due to most women's maternal instincts.
Is that so doop ?
Maybe you could provide links to feminists campaigning for equality within jail sentencing or in the family law courts ?
There may not be feminist groups doing this - I haven't looked... but there are feminists like myself who are campaigning to remove what has been kindly described as 'benevolent sexism' in sentencing (as part of the wider campaign for penal reform). People, regardless of gender, should receive sentences based solely on individual circumstances... women are not inherently less able to cope with prison than men - their levels of self-harm are higher, but so is the suicide level of men... and they are equally likely to have complex psychological issues.
Feminism isn't about getting equality for women at the expense of men and it never was... it is about removing the old beliefs that 'women are this' and 'men are that' that underpin historic inequality. I am just as offended by the case of a man who is denied access to his children because of a society that thinks they are automatically better off with their mother as I am by the view that women cannot be surgeons or miners because they are not bright enough or strong enough.
Is that so doop ?
Maybe you could provide links to feminists campaigning for equality within jail sentencing or in the family law courts ?
Both of them provide an immensely complicated picture. In the case of some crimes (but not all) men serve longer sentences, on average, than women. But women are MUCH less likely to get a place in an open or semi-open prison than men. There are perpetrator programmes, which can lead to an earlier release date, for precisely 10 women in the whole of the UK. Women are also much more likely to be single parents, and the desire not to have young children taken into care can impact on sentencing. Women in Prison is not overtly feminist, but a reputable organisation trying to address various aspects of inequality, and to compile usable statistics on which policies can be based.
Only 4% of child custody decisions are made by family courts. If the children are old enough, their wishes must be taken into account.
There may not be feminist groups doing this - I haven't looked... but there are feminists like myself who are campaigning to remove what has been kindly described as 'benevolent sexism' in sentencing (as part of the wider campaign for penal reform). People, regardless of gender, should receive sentences based solely on individual circumstances... women are not inherently less able to cope with prison than men - their levels of self-harm are higher, but so is the suicide level of men... and they are equally likely to have complex psychological issues.
Feminism isn't about getting equality for women at the expense of men and it never was... it is about removing the old beliefs that 'women are this' and 'men are that' that underpin historic inequality. I am just as offended by the case of a man who is denied access to his children because of a society that thinks they are automatically better off with their mother as I am by the view that women cannot be surgeons or miners because they are not bright enough or strong enough.
I think this is such a good post.
If only, the media took such a fair-minded, balanced view.
how do you know the opportunities aren't there if women want them? Is it not biological reasons why women would rather focus on family life instead of some career which is not the be all and end all for some people. Those percentages could never change due to most women's maternal instincts.
Actually - Not much for me to argue about there. If the MP's gets to say 33%, and the evidence is that capable Women can get onto selection shortlists, I am happy to shut up and allow this to evolve at the pace that Women want. In fact it has to be that way. It should mirror the population but without an artificial timetable to reach that point. I hope you would accept that Womens attitude to Pariament will change over time as Parliament changes and that will change the numbers that want a political career.
On Boards - I am not in favour of Positive Discrimination. (I was at one time). But companies have to look at their best talent regardless of gender. Shortly before 2008 we had Major World Banks who had never had a Woman on the board. We both know that the banks cherry pick graduates - Men and Women. The idea that they did not identify a single outstanding (and - taking your important point....Ambitious) Woman for a Board position in the previous 50 years is of course complete nonsense. It was a mindset that had to change. As per my earlier post 100% of staff must have the opportunity.
I think feminism needs to be far more internationally aware than this thread suggests. Issues such as mass rape being a normal part of warfare, and millions of girls having their genitals cut away, are more urgent than whether women are on the board of Tesco. In a world context, women and girls still do poorly. Sometimes countries deserve international shame for the conditions they allow them to live in.
Actually - Not much for me to argue about there. If the MP's gets to say 33%, and the evidence is that capable Women can get onto selection shortlists, I am happy to shut up and allow this to evolve at the pace that Women want. In fact it has to be that way. It should mirror the population but without an artificial timetable to reach that point. I hope you would accept that Womens attitude to Pariament will change over time as Parliament changes and that will change the numbers that want a political career.
The problem with the more female MPs argument is that, well, we vote them in. You can't slap a quota on democracy. It's just something that will (or won't?) happen very slowly. I guess I'm wondering what you're suggesting if you think differently...
If you're talking about more female cabinet members that's another matter. Funnily enough, a lot of people thought Maria Miller would keep her job because the Tory cabinet was already so short of women.
The one caveat is that I think MP's/ Board members. bankers, airline pilots etc should all be selected on merit, and not appointed to try and fill a quota, even out numbers or right all the wrongs from decades gone by.
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you've posted in this thread and the only reason I picked this comment from a sea of dross was because I thought it might be interesting to discuss.
I found it rather interesting that you felt compelled to make this caveat when surely common-sense should dictate that exactly the same criteria should apply to all jobs, without exception?
I'm not even sure if it's possible to make reliable gender-based generalisations these days but, if we do apply such things, should every job not simply go to the person best suited to it and if that includes abilities that are the result of gender, so be it?
I can't help thinking, however, that this thread is intended to be little more than a trite attempt at intellectual trickery along the lines of "Aha! if you believe in equality for women then you're a feminist whether you like it or not, so nyah-nyah!"
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you've posted in this thread and the only reason I picked this comment from a sea of dross was because I thought it might be interesting to discuss.
I found it rather interesting that you felt compelled to make this caveat when surely common-sense should dictate that exactly the same criteria should apply to all jobs, without exception?
I'm not even sure if it's possible to make reliable gender-based generalisations these days but, if we do apply such things, should every job not simply go to the person best suited to it and if that includes abilities that are the result of gender, so be it?
I can't help thinking, however, that this thread is intended to be little more than a trite attempt at intellectual trickery along the lines of "Aha! if you believe in equality for women then you're a feminist whether you like it or not, so nyah-nyah!"
Well the word is defined as a belief in equality of women etc, so you could argue that is true. However in my view that doesn't mean you need to use it as a label to describe yourself if you have a term you prefer (for whatever reason, but perhaps because some feminists say/do things you don't agree with and the term has acquired negative connotations for you as a result) - in the way that some women call themselves lesbians and others use the term 'gay woman' etc. There are words ('equalist' being one used on here) that you may prefer.
I, on the other hand, object to people telling me I should not identify as a feminist because they don't agree with the things some feminists say. Hell, I don't agree with a lot of things some feminists say either, but I still prefer the term (kimindex gave good reasons earlier in the thread).
I, on the other hand, object to people telling me I should not identify as a feminist because they don't agree with the things some feminists say. Hell, I don't agree with a lot of things some feminists say either, but I still prefer the term ().
Yes, I agree. It is rather coarse debating tactics to suggest that if someone calls themselves a feminist, they are somehow responsible for every single thing that anyone else who calls themselves a feminist says. I am very dismayed, for example, by the small number of 'feminist' writers who are extremely transphobic ("All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive"), but to my daughter - a far fierier feminist than I manage to be - they are just old dinosaurs who are stuck in the past, and can just be ignored by sensible people. Sadly, newspapers and tv programmes do regularly go on a 'find a 'feminist' nutter' hunt, so people get a false impression that these horrible women actually represent ordinary feminists. How they used to love Andrea Dworkin, who was not only lacking in common sense, but was also fat and unattractive! What a gift to them, eh?
Yes, I agree. It is rather coarse debating tactics to suggest that if someone calls themselves a feminist, they are somehow responsible for every single thing that anyone else who calls themselves a feminist says. I am very dismayed, for example, by the small number of 'feminist' writers who are extremely transphobic ("All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive"), but to my daughter - a far fierier feminist than I manage to be - they are just old dinosaurs who are stuck in the past, and can just be ignored by sensible people. Sadly, newspapers and tv programmes do regularly go on a 'find a 'feminist' nutter' hunt, so people get a false impression that these horrible women actually represent ordinary feminists. How they used to love Andrea Dworkin, who was not only lacking in common sense, but was also fat and unattractive! What a gift to them, eh?
Ahh La Dworkin... she was unbelievable... should have listened to the sage advice that Mark Twain probably didn't give... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
Out of idle curiosity ... what is it that some of the gender of the male think the gender of the female lacks, to make them inferior?
One of things mentioned in this thread is strength.
Okay strength.
Why is the possession of it an indicator of superiority - does possession of superior strength make one of the male gender superior to another of the male gender? Is it a male gender indicator of superiority between themselves?
Would it be valued male to male more say than the ability to reason and construct ways to overcome a problem requiring greater strength than a male possessed for a particular task?
Would the problem solver be on a equal standing in the superiority stakes with the possessor of strength?
If the male possessed of physical strength then decided he was superior to the problem solver male with less physical strength and decided to prove this by overpowering him physically is he now superior?
That's just stereotyping again, not all women want to or become pregnant and in fact some countries women serve on the frontline the same as men do, which is why the ban here must be abolished because it serves no purpose other than discrimination.
Interesting though that the numbers never even come close to matching up. Females tend to avoid serving in the army, its been a historical position that men are more disposable. Same reason that 95% of work related deaths are male, if the other way round it would be top tier news.
Out of idle curiosity ... what is it that some of the gender of the male think the gender of the female lacks, to make them inferior?
One of things mentioned in this thread is strength.
Okay strength.
Why is the possession of it an indicator of superiority - does possession of superior strength make one of the male gender superior to another of the male gender? Is it a male gender indicator of superiority between themselves?
Would it be valued male to male more say than the ability to reason and construct ways to overcome a problem requiring greater strength than a male possessed for a particular task?
Would the problem solver be on a equal standing in the superiority stakes with the possessor of strength?
If the male possessed of physical strength then decided he was superior to the problem solver male with less physical strength and decided to prove this by overpowering him physically is he now superior?
BIB: Thats pretty much how the entire human race has been run since the dawn of our kind. "you may be smarter but I have bigger guns". Its awesome isn't it haha.
Out of idle curiosity ... what is it that some of the gender of the male think the gender of the female lacks, to make them inferior?
One of things mentioned in this thread is strength.
Okay strength.
Why is the possession of it an indicator of superiority - does possession of superior strength make one of the male gender superior to another of the male gender? Is it a male gender indicator of superiority between themselves?
Seems, to me, that in practical terms it only really matters when a particular attribute might be relevant to a particular role.
I mean, if you had a job vacancy for, say, somebody to load large, heavy parcels into vans all day then, all other things being equal, you'd probably give the job to a guy who looked big and strong rather than a runty little guy, right?
So, that being the case, why would it be wrong to apply the same criteria when choosing between employing a man and a woman for that job?
There are plenty of jobs where, for example, small hands and good manual dexterity are desirable attributes and that's why women often get those jobs in preference to men.
It'd seem pretty churlish (not to mention make poor business sense) to give such a job to a ham-fisted man who was only capable of half the productivity simply out of some sense of "equality".
Comments
You said you'd met more brilliant men than women. I was asking how many brilliant people you've met because I've met very few, and certainly not enough to extrapolate that the entire population of brilliant people includes more men than women.
You then asked if you should count (not name) everybody you've ever met, implying that you only meet brilliant people. Lucky you. But, still, logically it just means you've met more men than women.
Well, I have always been a bit stubborn when it comes to 'some people' having the power to hijack something I see as a positive thing.
Is that so doop ?
Maybe you could provide links to feminists campaigning for equality within jail sentencing or in the family law courts ?
Yes, apart from certain times when I'm on DS.
No, we can focus on equality in the here and now. Someone who stands for equality STILL agrees with all the causes you appear to support.
The one caveat is that I think MP's/ Board members. bankers, airline pilots etc should all be selected on merit, and not appointed to try and fill a quota, even out numbers or right all the wrongs from decades gone by. .
I say do away with all discrimination and that includes the positive variety.
I can totally understand that.
If anything it is the more militant type of feminist that I think some people are referring to that might put others off, what is obviously a totally fair enough & just cause.
Mumsnet was given as a good example of some of the more offputting types. Some of the stuff you see on #everydaysexism is plain embarrassing and negates the totally valid things that are on there. No offence to all mumsnetters/ twitterati of course- I'm sure some of you are totally sane and rational people.
how do you know the opportunities aren't there if women want them? Is it not biological reasons why women would rather focus on family life instead of some career which is not the be all and end all for some people. Those percentages could never change due to most women's maternal instincts.
There may not be feminist groups doing this - I haven't looked... but there are feminists like myself who are campaigning to remove what has been kindly described as 'benevolent sexism' in sentencing (as part of the wider campaign for penal reform). People, regardless of gender, should receive sentences based solely on individual circumstances... women are not inherently less able to cope with prison than men - their levels of self-harm are higher, but so is the suicide level of men... and they are equally likely to have complex psychological issues.
Feminism isn't about getting equality for women at the expense of men and it never was... it is about removing the old beliefs that 'women are this' and 'men are that' that underpin historic inequality. I am just as offended by the case of a man who is denied access to his children because of a society that thinks they are automatically better off with their mother as I am by the view that women cannot be surgeons or miners because they are not bright enough or strong enough.
Both of them provide an immensely complicated picture. In the case of some crimes (but not all) men serve longer sentences, on average, than women. But women are MUCH less likely to get a place in an open or semi-open prison than men. There are perpetrator programmes, which can lead to an earlier release date, for precisely 10 women in the whole of the UK. Women are also much more likely to be single parents, and the desire not to have young children taken into care can impact on sentencing. Women in Prison is not overtly feminist, but a reputable organisation trying to address various aspects of inequality, and to compile usable statistics on which policies can be based.
Only 4% of child custody decisions are made by family courts. If the children are old enough, their wishes must be taken into account.
I think this is such a good post.
If only, the media took such a fair-minded, balanced view.
Actually - Not much for me to argue about there. If the MP's gets to say 33%, and the evidence is that capable Women can get onto selection shortlists, I am happy to shut up and allow this to evolve at the pace that Women want. In fact it has to be that way. It should mirror the population but without an artificial timetable to reach that point. I hope you would accept that Womens attitude to Pariament will change over time as Parliament changes and that will change the numbers that want a political career.
On Boards - I am not in favour of Positive Discrimination. (I was at one time). But companies have to look at their best talent regardless of gender. Shortly before 2008 we had Major World Banks who had never had a Woman on the board. We both know that the banks cherry pick graduates - Men and Women. The idea that they did not identify a single outstanding (and - taking your important point....Ambitious) Woman for a Board position in the previous 50 years is of course complete nonsense. It was a mindset that had to change. As per my earlier post 100% of staff must have the opportunity.
The problem with the more female MPs argument is that, well, we vote them in. You can't slap a quota on democracy. It's just something that will (or won't?) happen very slowly. I guess I'm wondering what you're suggesting if you think differently...
If you're talking about more female cabinet members that's another matter. Funnily enough, a lot of people thought Maria Miller would keep her job because the Tory cabinet was already so short of women.
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you've posted in this thread and the only reason I picked this comment from a sea of dross was because I thought it might be interesting to discuss.
I found it rather interesting that you felt compelled to make this caveat when surely common-sense should dictate that exactly the same criteria should apply to all jobs, without exception?
I'm not even sure if it's possible to make reliable gender-based generalisations these days but, if we do apply such things, should every job not simply go to the person best suited to it and if that includes abilities that are the result of gender, so be it?
I can't help thinking, however, that this thread is intended to be little more than a trite attempt at intellectual trickery along the lines of "Aha! if you believe in equality for women then you're a feminist whether you like it or not, so nyah-nyah!"
Well the word is defined as a belief in equality of women etc, so you could argue that is true. However in my view that doesn't mean you need to use it as a label to describe yourself if you have a term you prefer (for whatever reason, but perhaps because some feminists say/do things you don't agree with and the term has acquired negative connotations for you as a result) - in the way that some women call themselves lesbians and others use the term 'gay woman' etc. There are words ('equalist' being one used on here) that you may prefer.
I, on the other hand, object to people telling me I should not identify as a feminist because they don't agree with the things some feminists say. Hell, I don't agree with a lot of things some feminists say either, but I still prefer the term (kimindex gave good reasons earlier in the thread).
Yes, I agree. It is rather coarse debating tactics to suggest that if someone calls themselves a feminist, they are somehow responsible for every single thing that anyone else who calls themselves a feminist says. I am very dismayed, for example, by the small number of 'feminist' writers who are extremely transphobic ("All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive"), but to my daughter - a far fierier feminist than I manage to be - they are just old dinosaurs who are stuck in the past, and can just be ignored by sensible people. Sadly, newspapers and tv programmes do regularly go on a 'find a 'feminist' nutter' hunt, so people get a false impression that these horrible women actually represent ordinary feminists. How they used to love Andrea Dworkin, who was not only lacking in common sense, but was also fat and unattractive! What a gift to them, eh?
Ahh La Dworkin... she was unbelievable... should have listened to the sage advice that Mark Twain probably didn't give... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
One of things mentioned in this thread is strength.
Okay strength.
Why is the possession of it an indicator of superiority - does possession of superior strength make one of the male gender superior to another of the male gender? Is it a male gender indicator of superiority between themselves?
Would it be valued male to male more say than the ability to reason and construct ways to overcome a problem requiring greater strength than a male possessed for a particular task?
Would the problem solver be on a equal standing in the superiority stakes with the possessor of strength?
If the male possessed of physical strength then decided he was superior to the problem solver male with less physical strength and decided to prove this by overpowering him physically is he now superior?
Interesting though that the numbers never even come close to matching up. Females tend to avoid serving in the army, its been a historical position that men are more disposable. Same reason that 95% of work related deaths are male, if the other way round it would be top tier news.
BIB: Thats pretty much how the entire human race has been run since the dawn of our kind. "you may be smarter but I have bigger guns". Its awesome isn't it haha.
Seems, to me, that in practical terms it only really matters when a particular attribute might be relevant to a particular role.
I mean, if you had a job vacancy for, say, somebody to load large, heavy parcels into vans all day then, all other things being equal, you'd probably give the job to a guy who looked big and strong rather than a runty little guy, right?
So, that being the case, why would it be wrong to apply the same criteria when choosing between employing a man and a woman for that job?
There are plenty of jobs where, for example, small hands and good manual dexterity are desirable attributes and that's why women often get those jobs in preference to men.
It'd seem pretty churlish (not to mention make poor business sense) to give such a job to a ham-fisted man who was only capable of half the productivity simply out of some sense of "equality".
https://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2704889/Have-completely-misunderstood-concept-Women-Against-Feminism-blog-sparks-fierce-backlash-statements-I-like-men-compliment-body.html
I totally agree with them. The modern feminist movement has little credibility in today's society and has been replaced by Egalitarianism.
It's made that awfully unfunny Sarah Millican quite rich, I believe