What does a modern feminist look like?
If more of them are looking like Dr. Helen Smith, I can start to get behind feminism again.
Where do you think the feminist movement is heading these days? Do you think it is still emphasizing gender equality, or has it moved on to other agendas?
Agreed! Thank you.
Original Post by rain_bows:
Original Post by class_matters:
Original Post by rain_bows:
Original Post by class_matters:
Original Post by rain_bows:
I have never been nor will I ever label myself as a feminist, because it can't be about equality if it's all about women.
This has not been my experience with the view from most feminism or feminists.
In fact during discussions on feminist topics one of the things that often come up is how patriarchal culture also limits men from our full potential. Patriarchy hurts both women and men.
You were standing in their company when they said this?
Yes. I've taken part in a number of feminist study groups.
I be skeptical, I would say your presence may have had some influence.
except the fact that it's a topic that also appears in feminist writings.
Original Post by class_matters:
except the fact that it's a topic that also appears in feminist writings.
It must be true then.
I find it all rather amusing that women are the first to shout when given a label directed solely at the female form, yet give themselves a label which does just that.
If a label is necessary I prefer Suffragist.
“But that doesn’t mean the superiority of women. What has happened is that [a legitimate movement for equality] has morphed into a whole political system based on women having special privileges, and the more privileges they have the more entitled they feel.”
She doesn't sound like your average feminist as she is spouting common MRA beliefs, and I've had the displeasure of talking to many feminists. She hasn't cited one terrible study on rape or whined about the imaginary wage gap once.
I gladly welcome this sort of attitude in feminism, and I think the ideology/cult needs it after losing so much popularity.
All I know is that I recently got passed over for a machining job. A man got hired even though I have more experience, better production numbers, and better quality stats. I was referred to the assembly dept (where most of the people are women). I told them I was not interested in making 4 dollars less an hour to do a job I am over-qualified for. The two women at my old job were also paid the least, compared to men with less experience. I have never encountered this before and I found it very upsetting to realize that my sex has something to do with it.
We still have reason to fight for women's equality. Not just in health issues but work related as well.
Original Post by rain_bows:
Original Post by class_matters:
except the fact that it's a topic that also appears in feminist writings.
It must be true then.
I find it all rather amusing that women are the first to shout when given a label directed solely at the female form, yet give themselves a label which does just that.
If a label is necessary I prefer Suffragist.
the term feminist is not limited to just women.
Original Post by agana:
All I know is that I recently got passed over for a machining job. A man got hired even though I have more experience, better production numbers, and better quality stats. I was referred to the assembly dept (where most of the people are women). I told them I was not interested in making 4 dollars less an hour to do a job I am over-qualified for. The two women at my old job were also paid the least, compared to men with less experience. I have never encountered this before and I found it very upsetting to realize that my sex has something to do with it.
We still have reason to fight for women's equality. Not just in health issues but work related as well.
It seems to me that gender roles are reinforced with gender discrimination, especially in the blue collar field. Men work at certain jobs (factories, construction, dangerous hard labor jobs), and women work at certain jobs (customer service jobs).
I've seen employers have propensities for hiring or promoting one gender based on the gender appropriateness (defined by rigid gender roles) of the job. There have been times when I didn't want to work in a stereotypical male field, but employers had a preference for hiring only females.
It can go both ways and its BS anyway you look at it. Its just that typically the male dominated jobs pay more at entry level. A entry level machinist pays a heck of a lot more than an entry level secretary. That is where my beef is. I am forced to take a lower paying job because of my gender.
hmm...i just realized that i know pretty much nothing about modern feminism.
Original Post by agana:
It can go both ways and its BS anyway you look at it. Its just that typically the male dominated jobs pay more at entry level. A entry level machinist pays a heck of a lot more than an entry level secretary. That is where my beef is. I am forced to take a lower paying job because of my gender.
wait...but if a man were to take an entry-level secretary position, would he make more than the woman who took the secretary position? and can only men be machinists?
like i said, i know zip about feminism, but this comment really confused me.
Original Post by class_matters:
Original Post by rain_bows:
Original Post by class_matters:
except the fact that it's a topic that also appears in feminist writings.
It must be true then.
I find it all rather amusing that women are the first to shout when given a label directed solely at the female form, yet give themselves a label which does just that.
If a label is necessary I prefer Suffragist.
the term feminist is not limited to just women.
I'll agree to differ with you.
Original Post by kotov_syndrome:
Original Post by agana:
It can go both ways and its BS anyway you look at it. Its just that typically the male dominated jobs pay more at entry level. A entry level machinist pays a heck of a lot more than an entry level secretary. That is where my beef is. I am forced to take a lower paying job because of my gender.
wait...but if a man were to take an entry-level secretary position, would he make more than the woman who took the secretary position? and can only men be machinists?
like i said, i know zip about feminism, but this comment really confused me.
The likelihood of a man taking a secretary position for anything other than an executive is slim. I think the likelihood of an employer considering a man for a regular secretary position is also slim. They would probably think he wouldn't stay long.
Women can be machinists. It's not that hard. Not many women are interested in being machinists. The ones that are have a hard time convincing someone to hire them.
Original Post by kotov_syndrome:
Original Post by agana:
It can go both ways and its BS anyway you look at it. Its just that typically the male dominated jobs pay more at entry level. A entry level machinist pays a heck of a lot more than an entry level secretary. That is where my beef is. I am forced to take a lower paying job because of my gender.
wait...but if a man were to take an entry-level secretary position, would he make more than the woman who took the secretary position? and can only men be machinists?
like i said, i know zip about feminism, but this comment really confused me.
It would be more difficult for a man to get a secretary position just like its difficult for a woman to get a machinists job. The problem is not only am I less likely to get the machinist job but also likely to get paid less then the men to do it. I do believe that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men and that is across all job types.
Its also true that a man is less likely to get a secretaries job but he would probably be paid a little more than a woman too.
Original Post by catwalker:
Original Post by kotov_syndrome:
Original Post by agana:
It can go both ways and its BS anyway you look at it. Its just that typically the male dominated jobs pay more at entry level. A entry level machinist pays a heck of a lot more than an entry level secretary. That is where my beef is. I am forced to take a lower paying job because of my gender.
wait...but if a man were to take an entry-level secretary position, would he make more than the woman who took the secretary position? and can only men be machinists?
like i said, i know zip about feminism, but this comment really confused me.
The likelihood of a man taking a secretary position for anything other than an executive is slim. I think the likelihood of an employer considering a man for a regular secretary position is also slim. They would probably think he wouldn't stay long.Women can be machinists. It's not that hard. Not many women are interested in being machinists. The ones that are have a hard time convincing someone to hire them.
I have been a machinist before. This is only a problem I have come into contact with in the last couple of years. Its like we are experiencing some sort of back lash.
h'okay. that's more or less what the other person i just asked said too. :P
he also said that men seem to be more likely to try and negotiate salary, but also that when women do it, they're less likely to have their terms agreed upon.
that's never been the case for me, so i have a very narrow scope of this topic. i'mma zip it and listen now.
Original Post by kotov_syndrome:
h'okay. that's more or less what the other person i just asked said too. :P
he also said that men seem to be more likely to try and negotiate salary, but also that when women do it, they're less likely to have their terms agreed upon.
that's never been the case for me, so i have a very narrow scope of this topic. i'mma zip it and listen now.
Your friend is right. This just happened at my last job. A man that got hired on negotiated his wage and got 2 more bucks an hour. When I asked to negotiate they flat out denied me any chance. It was pretty awful. I had never experienced this until recently. Its like if we don't stay on top of equality then it starts backsliding. Its pretty frickin lame. I was a kick arse machinist but I had to change careers because I couldn't get anywhere.
There are inequalities on both sides of the fence. I like the comment above about how gender roles hurt both sexes. There is also some backlash against men, which is also unfair.
The woman in the linked article seems to complain about reduced opportunities for men in sports because of Title IX. There are reduced opportunities for men in sports, but that's because there are only so many sports dollars available. If you open up opportunities for women and the women get a bigger share of the sports dollars, then there are less available for men.
What's frustrating to hear is that she negates to mention that women had so very few opportunities in sports before Title IX. Was that OK by her? Should we just go back to that so men have all the opportunities again? What does she really want?
She follows thru with this logic the entirety of the piece. Mentioning how men keep getting their benefits and rights eroded. I don't want men to be convicted without evidence and just under an accusation, but I also don't want women to be abused without recourse of justice either. What exactly are the standards of evidence that she claims are so eroded to allowing conviction with little to no evidence?
I did really like the last portion of the article when it delved into the violent kids and her comments there.
I agree with you catwalker.
The male blue collar jobs can pay more, but what comes with it is higher risk of death and injury. Most work related deaths are made up of males.
CW - I'm waiting for her book to get the details, but I'm somewhat familiar with the evidentiary issues she's talking about. There are several.
1 - Due process requirements at colleges and universities for allegations of sexual assault are being loosened dramatically. When she talks about Title IX, understand that this does not just refer to sports programs - Title IX covers "sex-based discrimination that denies access to educational opportunity." Sex assault investigations are coming under the purview of Title IX based on that language. Examples of some of the lowered requirements include things like when an accused receives notice of the accusation, the standard of proof, the type of evidence that can be presented (hearsay), right to counsel, etc. This is what she means when she's talking about Title IX making college campuses less friendly environments towards men.
2 - Availability of civil anti-harassment or domestic violence orders. These usually fall under a "preponderance of the evidence" civil standard rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which in and of itself might not be horrible, except that there can be all kinds of collateral consequences resulting from a DV finding - federal laws will restrict firearm rights and other types of licensing; state laws can affect professional licensing, eligibility for benefits, child custody, etc.
3 - Slightly more remote is the growing popularity of "child hearsay" rules that permit a child's accusation of child abuse to be introduced into court by the listener without the child having to testify.
Basically, these rules are making it easier for men to be punished for wrongdoing simply on a woman's say-so.
