|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You seem to be holding a pretty non-standard definition of feminism. Would you care to enlighten us? Feminism is ultimately about equal rights for women. Modern feminism is way beyond that point.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
new phone who dis posted:And despite making up close to half the workforce, women are still much less likely to be killed or injured in the process of performing their duties. This again? Come on. You realize that gender roles are at the root of this disparity, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Feminism is ultimately about equal rights for women. Modern feminism is way beyond that point. How so?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:That is no longer feminism or a movement about equality. It's a movement about the imposition of values ranging from reasonable arguments to the most extreme positions imaginable using feminism as a foot in the door or a cudgel, because you can always point to the default definition of feminism and ask people why they hate equality. No I think it definitely can be described as feminism because it inherits much of its tradition, methods and ideas from earlier feminist work, it also tends to be particularly concerned with sex and gender dynamics and how they affect people which certainly is a component of feminism. And it also definitely has a strong liberation element which again is strongly present in historical feminism. So it's not a name which is without merit and I really must take issue with its characterization of it being excessively moralizing as if that is some inherent aspect of the idea, that doesn't stand up to criticism I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:How so? Mostly the embracing of quotas with no regard to context. If more women choose to pursue lower-paying educational or employment opportunities because of personal choice, why should we still be demanding a 50/50 quota system? Equality is an equality of opportunity, not an equality of outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Equality is an equality of opportunity, not an equality of outcome. I 100% disagree with this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No I think it definitely can be described as feminism because it inherits much of its tradition, methods and ideas from earlier feminist work, it also tends to be particularly concerned with sex and gender dynamics and how they affect people which certainly is a component of feminism. And it also definitely has a strong liberation element which again is strongly present in historical feminism. If feminism and it's adherents want to expand feminism to encompass this wide of an array of controversial issues, then the negative feedback they require when doing so should no longer be labeled as misogynist or anti-equality, because the underlying tenets of the argument have changed. You cant cast that wide of a net and still fall back on strict and narrow definitions when defending the overall movement. Well, you can, but people are going to realize what you're doing and get turned off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I 100% disagree with this. Equality of opportunity assumes the person could have had the equal outcome if they wanted it because the system allowed it and didn't actively work against it. The end result doesn't have to be 50/50 everywhere to allow for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Mostly the embracing of quotas with no regard to context. If more women choose to pursue lower-paying educational or employment opportunities because of personal choice, why should we still be demanding a 50/50 quota system? Equality is an equality of opportunity, not an equality of outcome. Careful review of feminist arguments will show this to be a gross mistepresentation. I urge you to reread the thread. Also, equality of opportunity does not currently exist, putting the lie to your claim that "the most major battles are won".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:If feminism and it's adherents want to expand feminism to encompass this wide of an array of controversial issues, then the negative feedback they require when doing so should no longer be labeled as misogynist or anti-equality, because the underlying tenets of the argument have changed. You cant cast that wide of a net and still fall back on strict and narrow definitions when defending the overall movement. Well, you can, but people are going to realize what you're doing and get turned off. Again untrue, because the overarching goal is still to tackle power inequality, it is simply no longer restricted so strongly to male/female inequality. That remains a strong component of the subject and other forms of inequality are still inequality, so it is entirely possible for criticism of third wave feminist analysis to be counter-equality and/or misogynist. new phone who dis posted:Equality of opportunity assumes the person could have had the equal outcome if they wanted it because the system allowed it and didn't actively work against it. The end result doesn't have to be 50/50 everywhere to allow for that. The most obvious criticism then being that this assumes that what people want is born from some untouchable individualism that exists entirely free of environmental factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Careful review of feminist arguments will show this to be a gross mistepresentation. I urge you to reread the thread. More women are currently earning degrees from higher education than men. More financial aid is given to women. Class is a much more significant determination of opportunity than gender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I 100% disagree with this. So how do you propose to make it so there is equal outcome when women choose more jobs like nursing and teaching, while men take more jobs like software engineering and construction? I would prefer a practical solution to one that is, "Change society/culture...."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:08
|
|
BAD POSTER ALERT!
|
OwlFancier posted:Again untrue, because the overarching goal is still to tackle power inequality, it is simply no longer restricted so strongly to male/female inequality. That remains a strong component of the subject and other forms of inequality are still inequality, so it is entirely possible for criticism of third wave feminist analysis to be counter-equality and/or misogynist. The overarching goal isn't just to tackle inequality when it expands to this level. It becomes many disparate goals, some up to and including self-segregation or supremacist movements which are happily received under the feminist umbrella as long as the correct people are voicing their opinions for them. You lose the blanket moral high ground given by a search for equality at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:So how do you propose to make it so there is equal outcome when women choose more jobs like nursing and teaching, while men take more jobs like software engineering and construction? Then I am going to disappoint you because regarding society as somehow unchangeable is rather silly I think. And it is certainly a major impactor on all our lives, so trying to work around it seems like it would be far harder. new phone who dis posted:The overarching goal isn't just to tackle inequality when it expands to this level. It becomes many disparate goals, some up to and including self-segregation or supremacist movements which are happily received under the feminist umbrella as long as the correct people are voicing their opinions for them. You lose the blanket moral high ground given by a search for equality at this point. Inequality and injustice are as complex as the society that creates them and our analysis must expand to meet that. It does not become less just for doing so, and I see no rationale for drawing a line between trying to rectify only components of it which are individually just, and attempting to unify those fights, which you seem to argue is then not just? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then I am going to disappoint you because regarding society as somehow unchangeable is rather silly I think. And it is certainly a major impactor on all our lives, so trying to work around it seems like it would be far harder. Casting a large net and having a large tent inevitably means that you will end up with undesirables in it. When you expand your movement beyond specific goals like equality between the genders to things like "critical analysis" or whatever the buzz word of the week is, you change the underlying goals and tactics of your movement. Whether or not the people within the movement like it, this will fundamentally change the way the average person views your movement. The average person knows feminism isn't just about equality between the genders any more, and that's why they avoid the label while still adhering to the original tenets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:So how do you propose to make it so there is equal outcome when women choose more jobs like nursing and teaching, while men take more jobs like software engineering and construction? Paying nurses and teachers more should be a good idea imo The fact that "women's jobs" often pay less is bad, don't know why though I read that wages at a workplace here in sweden are basically the same for men and women, but the men get more money if they get a raise, and so on Staying home with kids might have something to do with it? Idk, fathers do that a whole lot here too
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:So how do you propose to make it so there is equal outcome when women choose more jobs like nursing and teaching, while men take more jobs like software engineering and construction? The only way to practically change this in a time frame that is not multi-generational is to put less qualified members of the under-represented minority into the positions. This has it's own pitfalls because you will inevitably end up with complete disasters as a result which will sour people to the entire process. The answer that doesn't create a bunch more problems is to create some sort of program to attract those desired minorities at the beginning of the training phase. and wait for a few generations and see if it evens out. There's still a good chance it won't, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Paying nurses and teachers more should be a good idea imo Nursing and teaching are actually two of the better paying fields populated by women in the US. You can really make a killing as a nurse if you play your cards right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then I am going to disappoint you because regarding society as somehow unchangeable is rather silly I think. And it is certainly a major impactor on all our lives, so trying to work around it seems like it would be far harder. Since that is your solution then I think that feminism can stop all the hand waving about stats. It is going to take more than a school program to change our culture. And it's going to take lifetimes, like I stated before. You will need everyone alive now to die, and have a new generation brought up with gender neutral and no idea or influence at all about gender roles. Also since it's our culture, then I don't feel like I deserve any negative feelings at all. I am brainwashed by our current culture and am a product of our poo poo environment. Everyone living now should get a free pass quite frankly. Can you really undo decades of brainwashing? Even if you succeed in conscious bias you will have unconscious bias due to all these people raised in our culture. If culture flipped today to working towards a perfectly equal raising of both genders, it would still be 40-50 years before you could maybe expect to see 50/50 levels across the board. And that is optimistic since many people look at who they would be working with and say, "They don't look like me, why would I want to work with them?" Which is a huge complaint about past feminism being mostly white women. The sea of white did not feel inviting to people of color.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:Since that is your solution then I think that feminism can stop all the hand waving about stats. It is going to take more than a school program to change our culture. And it's going to take lifetimes, like I stated before. You will need everyone alive now to die, and have a new generation brought up with gender neutral and no idea or influence at all about gender roles. No because statistical analysis gives us a measure of how insufficient our current arrangement is, that does not cease to be relevant because the solution is difficult and a long term solution does not preclude the use of shorter term ones either. False dichotomy there. Additionally that you are a product of society does not absolve you of individual responsibiltiy because we are all components of society. We have a responsibility each to use our understanding of the world to push it in a better direction. Whether you feel bad or not is irrelevant, that doesn't help any. All I require is proper action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:More women are currently earning degrees from higher education than men. More financial aid is given to women. Class is a much more significant determination of opportunity than gender. The fact that despite slightly higher academic achievement, women are still suffering from a jobs and income imbalance is excellent proof that there are other factors severely hampering equality of opportunity. As for financial aid, I'm not exactly sure of what you're talking about. Tax breaks are one of the hugest forms of financial aid, and they disproportionately benefit men, for example. It is true that class struggle is also necessary, to a different extent than feminism, but the fights are linked through intersectionality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The fact that despite slightly higher academic achievement, women are still suffering from a jobs and income imbalance is excellent proof that there are other factors severely hampering equality of opportunity. Income imbalance is impacted by more things than structural inequality. If women have more access to education than men and still choose to go into lower paying jobs of their own free will, there isn't an issue feminism needs to solve involved. A teacher isn't going to make the same as a businessman or an engineer. That's not a problem for feminism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The only way to practically change this in a time frame that is not multi-generational is to put less qualified members of the under-represented minority into the positions. This has it's own pitfalls because you will inevitably end up with complete disasters as a result which will sour people to the entire process. The answer that doesn't create a bunch more problems is to create some sort of program to attract those desired minorities at the beginning of the training phase. and wait for a few generations and see if it evens out. There's still a good chance it won't, though. You reminded us that women's academic achievement is better, so how in God's name would there be a risk of putting less qualified under-represented minorities in the positions? That doesn't make sense. If anything, it would remove more incompetent men than it adds incompetent women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Income imbalance is impacted by more things than structural inequality. If women have more access to education than men and still choose to go into lower paying jobs of their own free will, there isn't an issue feminism needs to solve involved. A teacher isn't going to make the same as a businessman or an engineer. That's not a problem for feminism. To what extent is this a free choice, though? Feminists claim that it is not, and point to the fact that imbalances in academic specializations begin at an age where gender is irrelevant, and are compounded by many outside factors. Structural inequality begins in the classroom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Income imbalance is impacted by more things than structural inequality. If women have more access to education than men and still choose to go into lower paying jobs of their own free will, there isn't an issue feminism needs to solve involved. A teacher isn't going to make the same as a businessman or an engineer. That's not a problem for feminism. I again take issue with your apparent belief that people's decisions stem from some free floating soul which is completely unaffected by their circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You reminded us that women's academic achievement is better, so how in God's name would there be a risk of putting less qualified under-represented minorities in the positions? That doesn't make sense. If anything, it would remove more incompetent men than it adds incompetent women. Generalized academic achievement does not translate into specific training for high-paying jobs. More women have access to higher education and then choose to use it for lower-paying positions. They were free to choose the higher-paying path and didn't. That's not an issue that feminism needs to solve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No because statistical analysis gives us a measure of how insufficient our current arrangement is, that does not cease to be relevant because the solution is difficult and a long term solution does not preclude the use of shorter term ones either. False dichotomy there. Stats work great to show failures. But instead of just being given data, the american people get brow beat about not having enough women in XXX field. Software Engineering/Computer Science has been taking a beating lately, being called all sorts of names, since they aren't seen as inviting enough to women, when in fact, there isn't enough women in the field to have 50/50 ratio. So if the stats were just used to show short comings, that would be a massive improvement over the current situation. How do you propose pushing it in a better direction? What is your proper action?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Generalized academic achievement does not translate into specific training for high-paying jobs. More women have access to higher education and then choose to use it for lower-paying positions. They were free to choose the higher-paying path and didn't. That's not an issue that feminism needs to solve. Alternatively we are socialized about what we should do with our lives and it is absolutely not a free choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I again take issue with your apparent belief that people's decisions stem from some free floating soul which is completely unaffected by their circumstances. If you can afford a 4 year degree, you have a plethora of choices available to you no matter where you choose to attend. Most people choose something that they would personally like over something that pays a shitload. When women, who have more access to higher education than men, choose their own path, they choose lesser paying ones generally. Nobody is forcing that choice on them. In fact, there are many well-paying areas of employment desperate for women to improve their diversity quotas. Even in this environment, women choose their personal preferences. There's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Generalized academic achievement does not translate into specific training for high-paying jobs. More women have access to higher education and then choose to use it for lower-paying positions. They were free to choose the higher-paying path and didn't. That's not an issue that feminism needs to solve. Of course it is, much like how most women used to be "happy" to "choose" the quiet life of a stay-at-home wife used to be an issue that feminism needed (and still need) to solve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:Stats work great to show failures. But instead of just being given data, the american people get brow beat about not having enough women in XXX field. Software Engineering/Computer Science has been taking a beating lately, being called all sorts of names, since they aren't seen as inviting enough to women, when in fact, there isn't enough women in the field to have 50/50 ratio. So if the stats were just used to show short comings, that would be a massive improvement over the current situation. I'm sure that computer science will struggle on somehow under the unbearable weight of it being publicly known that it's a sausagefest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Nursing and teaching are actually two of the better paying fields populated by women in the US. You can really make a killing as a nurse if you play your cards right. not in sweden lmao. sorry, speaking from own perspective. I heard nursing in the US is a bit different too 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:If you can afford a 4 year degree, you have a plethora of choices available to you no matter where you choose to attend. Most people choose something that they would personally like over something that pays a shitload. When women, who have more access to higher education than men, choose their own path, they choose lesser paying ones generally. Nobody is forcing that choice on them. In fact, there are many well-paying areas of employment desperate for women to improve their diversity quotas. Even in this environment, women choose their personal preferences. There's nothing wrong with that. I wonder what might determine what people like. Certainly not their lives up to that point, that would be silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively we are socialized about what we should do with our lives and it is absolutely not a free choice. This is elitist bullshit where only you are the one truly enlightened enough through your personal beliefs to know what you really want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:This is elitist bullshit where only you are the one truly enlightened enough through your personal beliefs to know what you really want. Why on earth would I not be a product of my environment? I want what I want because everything in my life has influenced my decision to want it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder what might determine what people like. But we're not talking about structural inequality any more at this point. We're veering off onto some philosophical tangent where all these women you were so ready to fight tooth and nail for equality are now all victims oblivious to their plight and only you can see it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm sure that computer science will struggle on somehow under the unbearable weight of it being publicly known that it's a sausagefest. Wow Owl. I thought we were having a nice debate. We aren't so far apart ideologically. It's just that to me, changing how we raise our children is a massive task and super complex. It's easy to say, "X is a problem and all we need to do is fix Y." But we both know that the goal can be easily stated but the fix is a complicated mess. Merely pointing out a problem does not do much good if there isn't a clear and precise plan on how to fix that problem. And changing the actions of 300 million+ people is just not a workable solution. I doubt we could even get all feminists to agree on what should be done. poo poo, we can't even agree over how children should multiply and divide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:But we're not talking about structural inequality any more at this point. We're veering off onto some philosophical tangent where all these women you were so ready to fight tooth and nail for equality are now all victims oblivious to their plight and only you can see it. Buddy I'm trying to disabuse you of the idea that bold ubermenschen striding forth with their imperturbable will and forcing it on the earth exist at all. Not that I'm secretly the only one in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:This is elitist bullshit where only you are the one truly enlightened enough through your personal beliefs to know what you really want. It's really not. Why women "choose" different lines of work has been explored at length by feminist authors, and the answer is not that it is inherent to their nature as women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:It's really not. I'm sure Darlene from Chicago will happy to know that a feminist author suspects that deep down she doesn't really want to be a teacher. Talk about paternally sexist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 08:41
|
|