Nerdfighters

I am a feminist.
I am heterosexual.
I occasionally wear dresses.
I usually shave my legs and underarms, unless I'm in a hurry.
I believe in equality for all.
I believe every person has basic rights.
I don't believe a fetus is a person. I believe it's a potential person which should be more valued than say, a dog; but less valued than an existing person.
I don't believe anyone is superior to anyone else.
I don't believe all____ are inherently_____. People are different, there are usually exceptions.

At it's core, I think feminism is about equality. It's not about superiority, it's not about man-hating. What do you think feminism is about? What do you think makes a feminist? Why are you or aren't you a feminist?

Tags: abortion, chauvinism, equality, feminism, misandry, misogyny, rights, sexism

Views: 3268

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I did used to wonder about the father's rights and it is a question I'm not sure about. In the event of a pregnancy here are the following scenarios:

  • Both parents want an abortion
  • Neither wants an abortion
  • Mum wants abortion, Dad doesn't
  • Dad wants abortion, Mum doesn't

The first two are simple, the latter more complicated. In the event of the Dad wanting an abortion I would say it's unreasonable to expect him to have any involvement in the child, whether that be financial or otherwise. I'd say the Mother should carry all responsibility from that moment on, and the Father forfeit any guardianship rights he has.

If the Mother wants an abortion what happens? As I've said before a fetus is not a person, and remains the property of the woman. The question is does the father have any rights as regards the fetus? It is his sperm and if carried to full term it would be equal his child as the Mother's. But it will be the mother who will carry the baby and give birth to it. It seems unreasonable to force the woman to do that against her will, but likewise it seems unfair to abort if the father wants a child. It's very tricky. What are your thoughts?

This is just what I believe:

Men and women can never be truly equal. It is just a physical fact. But I think all should still be given the same chances. That is true equality. Noboby should be treated differently because of their sex. Not better, not worse. So what if there are more men that run firms...as long as it is in their own merrits. Because they are smarter or in some way better suited for the job than other applicants, men and women. Everyone should be drafted or atleast drafted because of their physical traits etc. I find that true equality doesn't always occur. For both men and women.

 

For me an example of true eguality is this:

In Finland there are no female motorcycle cops. That is not because of their femininity, but because none has passed all the test required. Only men have passed all the tests. It is true equality that the standards have not been lowered for women.

 

So the question is: Do women actually be treated equally or do we want the standards to be lowered for us?

 

Ps. I'm a girl and I think we all should be treated equally.

Well, it is true that men and women are different.  Men and women can't be the same, but that doesn't mean they can't be equal.  Such as when we were all cavemen, let's say that the men went out and hunted for food, and the women collected water from streams and brought it back for the tribe.  Even though the man was bringing food, the woman was bringing water.  Is food more important than water?  No, because you'll die without water just as you'll die without food.  Even if men and women can't be biologically equal, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated equally and can't be equal.  What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?

 

So the question is: Do women actually be treated equally or do we want the standards to be lowered for us?

 

I take issue with this comment.  For the Finland example the answer is no, the standards shouldn't be lowered because ultimately wouldn't that hurt the general public?  It's good that they're keeping the standards high, even if that means that only males are getting into the program for whatever reason. 

But women do want to be treated equally.  There are phenomenons in the job market that are treating women unfairly.  Two of these are the Glass Elevator Effect and the Glass Ceiling Effect.  The Glass Ceiling is an invisible but real barrier that keep women out of the top jobs and executive offices.  It's not just because the men are doing better at their jobs and that's why the top jobs just happen to be filled with men, it is because they're keeping women out.  The Glass Elevator happens when a male is put in a traditionally "female" job and is promoted to the top much faster above all the women who have worked there longer.  Here's a real example.  One of my professor's sons is a nurse at a hospital.  He started out at the bottom, and within a couple of months he was promoted to manage the branch of the hospital he was working in.  Why?  Because of the Glass Elevator.  The son said that he was promoted because, unlike the female nurses working there, he was always on time, and he never left early, and he didn't take as many days off.  But why were the other women workers late and leaving early and taking days off?  Because they needed to leave early to pick up their sick kid, or their kid left their lunch at home and they had to go back to get it, or they had to take their kid to the dentist or doctor or Parent Teacher Meeting.  Why didn't the son have to do any of that stuff?  Because his wife was doing that stuff for him, just like all the nurses he just got promoted over.  So he got promoted not because he was doing his job better than the nurses that had been working there for years, not because he knew the job better than the nurses that had worked there for years, and not because he was some extraordinary nurse god, but because of the Glass Elevator.

Hmm.

 

As for the glass elevator thing, I guess the only way to deal with it is to make parents share responsibility over their children. How to accomplish that, I have no idea, although things seem to be going in that direction.

 

As for the glass ceiling...I guess we could pass a law preventing executives from knowing a potential candidates gender or name?

 

I don't know. I'm not good at this sort of thing.

Well perhaps what needs to change is not government legislation but attitudes of sharing the upbringing of children between men and women? I've no idea how you would do that mind.

The son said that he was promoted because, unlike the female nurses working there, he was always on time, and he never left early, and he didn't take as many days off.  But why were the other women workers late and leaving early and taking days off?  Because they needed to leave early to pick up their sick kid, or their kid left their lunch at home and they had to go back to get it, or they had to take their kid to the dentist or doctor or Parent Teacher Meeting.

 

How valid the other nurses' excuses were i irrelevant.  The job went to the most reliable and responsible employee and anything else would be discrimination.

Presumably, the issue is not that he was promoted over them, but the fact that they had to deal with children while the males didn't.
If you have kids then that's a mountain of responsibility you've accepted.  How many personal and career sacrifices are made and the division of labor in child-rearing is between the father and the mother; it's not the job of employers or the government to make things easier on mothers because they agreed to take more time for their children than the fathers.
That's also what I had in mind
it's not the job of employers or the government to make things easier on mothers because they agreed to take more time for their children than the fathers.

However, the reason mothers agree to take more time for their children than the fathers is that there is a prejudice in society that women make for better parents than men. And that there is an expectation on women to take care of the children that men are mostly spared of.

Adressing those two structual problems are the job of the goverment.
No they aren't.  The government's job is to make sure we all have the freedom to make these choices for ourselves.  It is not the government's job to tell it's people how to think.
The government's job is to make sure we all have the freedom to make these choices for ourselves. It is not the government's job to tell it's people how to think.

That's pretty misguided ambition. Pepole make choices based on influences. Whether it's goverment or somebody else telling us how to think someone will tell us how to think, and we will be affected by it. So if goverment tells us how to think our ability to make choices for ourself won't in any way be affected, it will just be one more force influencing our way of thinking.

If we use goverment to steer these things these things will at least have some kind of steering (rather than being up to coincidence).

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service