...providing education for women in 3rd world countries (but not at the expense of boys)....In general, I have no issue with elevating the status of women, but not at the expense of men. You don't advance by holding someone else back, even if at the end of the day you're closer to them.Curious. Could you explain what you mean by "at the expense of boys/men"?
Because it sounds like this would mean "We can send girls to school, but if the classrooms are too crowded, kick the girls out first, we don't want to hold back those boys..."
There is a straw man if ever a saw one. What he meant was that both boys and girls receive equal education.
If you want to create a Taliban like backlash send all the girls to school and tell the boys that they have to go work in the fields or beg on the streets because they are not as worthy or oppressed as the girls.
Equalitarian (which I brought up previously) - States clearly that you are working towards equality. Egalitarian is obscure and archaic a good word but not clear.
My mother was a radical feminist, and when I was young she preached at me until I was ashamed to be male, I felt that I had to apologise for my self every time I met a woman. I also thought my father to be a dinosaur. As I grew older I discovered that women can be just as hurtful and cruel as guys (the worst bullying I recived at school was from girls - with guys I would stand my ground and fight back so that it became to much of an effort to bully me). Girls I didnt know how to deal with. It was continious, psychological abuse of a shy, fat, nerdy, redhead it wasn't just one girl it was a pack of them and at least one of them was in every class I had. I just withdrew, not much else I could do as I probably deserved it for being being male as I had grown to believe.
Eventually mum got so worried about me she asked what was going on I told her, she started to take an interest in my well-being and stopped thinking "he's a boy so he can deal with it", as I grew older and had discussions about gender and equality with my mum she changed from calling her self a Feminist to an Equalitarian.
My hero is my father - he is a quiet man with a good sense of humour that works hard to look after his family.
Now that I have 2 daughters I have to make sure I don't get preachy like mum, and be supportive from the beginning.
I always say to my eldest (who has just started school) if somebody tells you you cant do something because you are a girl, its because they are afraid that you will do it better, so don't let them stop you.
I have a lot to worry about for the future for my daughters but, hopefully they will be as strong as my mum and as wise as my grandmother and as compassionate as my wife and as funny and hard-working as my father.
@Petrus222: You provide interesting data about trends and groups, but unfortunately missed my point, which is that individual women who happen to fall into a particular group (i.e., married with no children) suffer pay discrimination because it is assumed that they will be taking time off work to raise children as if they were in the "married with children" group. This is the case even if they do not make the personal choice to raise a family. They are being penalized for the choices of others, not for their own choice.
I've never seen information to that effect. Do you have a link you could pass on?
There is a straw man if ever a saw one.
Straw man? Straw MAN! Why can't it be a straw WOMAN or WOMYN? About at least a Straw Person? You are so oblivious to your own sexism, it is pathetic.
[/sarcasm];)
EDIT: On topic, I wonder, does anyone think the idea that the term "feminism" is needed gives a feeling of continuing a sense of victimhood to people that maybe are no longer victims? If you don't agree that is the case at the moment, could you concieve a time when someone describing themselves as a feminist would seem archaic?
|
On topic, I wonder, does anyone think the idea that the term "feminism" is needed gives a feeling of continuing a sense of victimhood to people that maybe are no longer victims? If you don't agree that is the case at the moment, could you concieve a time when someone describing themselves as a feminist would seem archaic?
Yes I think it has gone far enough to have crossed some line. The term is no longer needed. Yes there are some few companies that still pay a woman less then a man. They tend to get sued and with time this ignorance will go away. there was a time when this needed to be shouted from the rooftops. that time is no more.
On topic, I wonder, does anyone think the idea that the term "feminism" is needed gives a feeling of continuing a sense of victimhood to people that maybe are no longer victims? If you don't agree that is the case at the moment, could you concieve a time when someone describing themselves as a feminist would seem archaic?
I think, for a lot of women, the term feminism implies empowerment, rather than victimhood. After all, feminism is responsible for women having the right to vote. It's responsible for fairer pay in the workplace. Feminism has raised awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace, encouraged women to go to college, and broken down barriers that prevented women from pursuing high-paying jobs. Because of feminism, more women than ever are bringing in salaries that are equal to or even greater than their husbands, and more men than ever are contributing to child rearing and household chores. I think those are some pretty amazing accomplishments and I think it should make women feel empowered.
As far as whether or not the term will ever become archaic, I'm not sure. I certainly think it has evolved. For example, feminism today focuses more and more on how gender roles affect the lives of both men and women in society. In fact, many feminists are quick to point out that men who exhibit traits that are deemed by society to be effeminate are more likely to become victims of sexual assault. I think as long as feminism continues to fight for tolerance, and continues break down societal perceptions of what makes us men and women, it will continue to be relevant for a long time.
|
Okay, so it was poined out to me that the pushback that I had mentioned may already be starting. At least two ads during this year's Super Bowl proceeded with the premise that men had been demasculated by women and only by buying their product, in the case a portable television and a Dodge Charger in this case, could restore your manhood. Not knowing what ad agencies produced the two commercials I can't say much about them, but it seems like somebody in corporate America has decided that there is a simmering discontent among men about the feminsit movement that they can tap into to sell cars and portable electronics.
Okay, so it was poined out to me that the pushback that I had mentioned may already be starting. At least two ads during this year's Super Bowl proceeded with the premise that men had been demasculated by women and only by buying their product, in the case a portable television and a Dodge Charger in this case, could restore your manhood. Not knowing what ad agencies produced the two commercials I can't say much about them, but it seems like somebody in corporate America has decided that there is a simmering discontent among men about the feminsit movement that they can tap into to sell cars and portable electronics.
|
|
Okay, so it was poined out to me that the pushback that I had mentioned may already be starting. At least two ads during this year's Super Bowl proceeded with the premise that men had been demasculated by women and only by buying their product, in the case a portable television and a Dodge Charger in this case, could restore your manhood. Not knowing what ad agencies produced the two commercials I can't say much about them, but it seems like somebody in corporate America has decided that there is a simmering discontent among men about the feminsit movement that they can tap into to sell cars and portable electronics.Yeah. It's nothing new.
Yes but now its all but true
I think, for a lot of women, the term feminism implies empowerment, rather than victimhood.
Two sides of the same coin. You can't have empowerment if you're not disadvanataged to begin with. Keep in mind how much marxist ideals of revolution were integrated into 2nd wave feminism including the idea of a constant revolution. You can't have revolution if you're a member of the elite already.
After all, feminism is responsible for women having the right to vote.
I don't know that that's objectively true in North America. Suffragettes weren't called feminists until the 1970s and it's doubtful that many of those women would have endorsed many of the causes that feminism deeply embraced. (eg abortion).
For example, feminism today focuses more and more on how gender roles affect the lives of both men and women in society.
Again I don't know that that's true either. Consider the fact that Christina Hoff Summers wrote The war Against Boys only 10 years ago and the topics she brought up are still deeply controversal amongst organizations like NOW and capmus feminists. Can you really argue that feminists focus on male roles in society or even equality when they consistently ignore male problems (whether that be education, DV, child support, reproductive freedom, etc)?
I think as long as feminism continues to fight for tolerance, and continues break down societal perceptions of what makes us men and women, it will continue to be relevant for a long time.
While I understand there's a theoretical veneer that feminism is about "equality", in practice women who call themselves feminists don't usually appear to take mens' side into account or if they do it's not to mens' benefit. (And that's in part why so many women are backlashing against the feminist movement. it's too associated with women who truely hate men.)
Keep in mind how much marxist ideals of revolution were integrated into 2nd wave feminism including the idea of a constant revolution. You can't have revolution if you're a member of the elite already.
This says everything you need to know about how Petrus views things.
This says everything you need to know about how Petrus views things.Keep in mind how much marxist ideals of revolution were integrated into 2nd wave feminism including the idea of a constant revolution. You can't have revolution if you're a member of the elite already.
How about actually discussing the merits (or lack of for) points made rather than attacking posters?
@Petrus222: You provide interesting data about trends and groups, but unfortunately missed my point, which is that individual women who happen to fall into a particular group (i.e., married with no children) suffer pay discrimination because it is assumed that they will be taking time off work to raise children as if they were in the "married with children" group. This is the case even if they do not make the personal choice to raise a family. They are being penalized for the choices of others, not for their own choice.I've never seen information to that effect. Do you have a link you could pass on?
I went looking for such information and couldn't find any.
I did find a links that said it is "common knowledge" that this is the case but it did not go into specifics on it. The link did, however, go into detail on how women with the same "level" of education did not receive the pay as men and went on to explain that the women were not in the money making fields.
As a note, I don't think too many would consider Maria Shriver to be an anti-feminist but I think it interesting that some of her work makes statements that appear to support the view taken by Petrus222. But, at the same time I find things about the movement for equality mentioned in this piece to be troubling to me. This link relates to the following:
...providing education for women in 3rd world countries (but not at the expense of boys)....In general, I have no issue with elevating the status of women, but not at the expense of men. You don't advance by holding someone else back, even if at the end of the day you're closer to them.Curious. Could you explain what you mean by "at the expense of boys/men"?
Because it sounds like this would mean "We can send girls to school, but if the classrooms are too crowded, kick the girls out first, we don't want to hold back those boys..."
From The Shriver Report, a study by Maria Shriver and the Center for American progress.
Quotes taken from this article (with emphasis added myself):
Better Educating Our New Breadwinners by Mary Ann Mason.
The good news is that women’s overall participation in postsecondary education today is remarkable. Consider these facts: Women today receive 62 percent of college associate’s degrees, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60 percent of all master’s degrees, half of all professional degrees, and just under half of all Ph.D.s.1 That’s a stunning advance. In 1970, women received fewer than half of undergraduate degrees, fewer than 40 percent of all graduate degrees, and fewer than 10 percent of all professional degrees and doctoral degrees.2But here’s the not-so-good news. While these overall numbers are inspiring, once we dig a little deeper it becomes clear that many women receiving post-secondary education are not investing in degrees that will lead to society’s highest-paying jobs. Women throughout the educational system either choose or are steered toward traditionally female careers. Even though the fastest growing careers are in traditionally female-dominated fields such as health care, the highest paying careers remain in male-dominated fields, including engineering, technology and other science-related industries and services—all fields in which women still lag very far behind men in educational degrees.
So, it appears that women are coalescing into fields that pay less money. That would coincide with Petrus222's argument pretty well, I think.
However, I think an important note to make is that although these statistics are backed with references that give an explicit reason why women would earn more, the statement that women are "steered" to these fields (in addition to or opposed to women choosing those fields themselves) is one that is made as fact but not backed with a reference.
Further, it is apparently not a good thing that women are flocking to the fastest growing industry which would have the most job openings. A very important industry at that.
As more women take on breadwinning roles, the educational system must prepare women for jobs that can support a family rather than the jobs our grandmothers were allowed to hold. This means our postsecondary educational institutions—community colleges, four-year colleges and universities and their many graduate school programs alike—will need to take further proactive steps to ensure women pursue and complete degrees that allow them to bring home the same-size paychecks and benefits from the same array of professions as men. For this to happen, these educational institutions must seek parity between the genders in all majors and concentrations from first-year postsecondary education to post-doctoral research. But this is not enough. They also need to provide family-friendly support and child care as well flexible class scheduling so that women (and men) can attain successive levels of education in order to boost their earnings in today’s economy while juggling shared responsibilities in life.
Now, there are a few things I find troublesome here.
First, this appears to state that rather than concentrate on finding the most qualified applicants as the prime directive it states that it is the job of the universities and educational programs to ensure that women enroll in curriculum that will land them bigger paychecks. So, does this mean that these institutions should not concentrate what the students wish to enroll in? I can understand attempting to steer someone out of a field that they cannot handle (an example would be steering away from engineering both men and women who have difficulty with math) but I find it appalling that it would be expected for capable people to be steered away from the Health Profession industry.
I would like to reiterate that I find this to be a remarkable concept because we are short on health care workers, especially nurses. I think it would be better to try and add men to the ranks of nurses rather than try to steer women away.
To go a little further, I have co-workers with extensive family ties to the Phillippines. People have had to PAY to be nurses in their hospitals because having the nursing degree and experience will automatically get them entry into the US. Their family will pay to support this so that they can go to the US and send money back.
Unable to find jobs, many newly registered nurses volunteer to work in big hospitals. They are not paid. They pay the hospitals instead.
This situation, according to Dr. Teresita L. Barcelo, president of the Philippine Nurses Association, underscores the reality that there is an oversupply of newly registered nurses.
It also suggests the urgency of gaining clinical experience in the hope that they may be hired by hospitals abroad, particularly in the United States.
Second, I have a problem with the idea that these institutions must seek parity between the genders in all majors and concentrations from first-year postsecondary education to post-doctoral research. So, not only should they seek to steer women AWAY from fields that they would head to and there is a great need for people to enter but they must strive for EQUAL NUMBERS in each and every field. This is not a case of demanding equal opportunity but rather a call to do whatever is necessary to make the numbers the same. If the genders make differing choices it is apparently the duty of the institutions of higher learning to teach people that they are wrong for doing so.
But, even that is not enough. :(
The following strongly supports that the choice of professions is a strong influence on the wage difference, especially as it relates to those with the same "level" of education:
Despite reaching college in greater numbers, women still cluster largely in traditional female majors when they choose their course of study. They receive 86 percent of the bachelor’s degrees in the health professions, which includes nursing, 79 percent in education, and 78 percent in psychology.3 These professions, often called the “helping professions” or “women’s professions,” have always attracted women and were once the only professions open to them. Men, in the era when they were typically the sole breadwinners of their families, were less attracted to these professions in large part because they offered lower wages and less career advancement, as they do today.
So, statistics do back up women (even those with degrees) entering professions that have both lesser wages and fewer opportunities for career advancement. Note that the points are referenced. These can be found as endnotes to the article.
Following along in the source (the article), one can find this examined further.
The next, I find interesting:
It is not new news that women do not receive equal pay for equal work, but what is depressing is that education, the much-touted engine for economic opportunity, fails to provide gender equality. Even with the increased numbers of women in higher education and in the workforce, the wage and power gaps remain large and stagnant at all educational levels. Women who are breadwinners simply cannot bring home a family income equal to a man with the same educational background (see Figures 1 and 2).
So, in the midst of all these facts and figures this is dropped like a bomb with no references.
Further, it is supported with information that does not actually support it. It states that women who are breadwinners simply cannot bring home a family income equal to a man with the same educational background (see Figures 1 and 2). But, every argument being made is that they DO NOT have the same educational background. The argument that the actual educational beckground is very different for the same degree (BA, AA, MA, etc.) obtained was persuasively made above. The same can be said for high school. One look at jobs such as maintenance (auto mechanics and electricians) as well as construction will show that there is a lot of money to be made in these professions. These jobs are heavily favored by many students who do not receive post-secondary education. Men have continued to dominate these fields while women have greatly increased their numbers enrolled in universities. When this pay is compared to non-skilled labor such as waiting tables it is apparent where the difference comes from. however, nowhere in this do I see evidence that women doing the same work are paid less because they are women.
Still nowhere have I seen any indication that women are paid less because they "might" become pregnant.
I think one of the things that bothers me so much about this article I found (while looking for evidence that might support the claim of women w/o children being paid less for fear of them becoming pregnant...) is its utter (IMO) devotion of ensuring equal numbers in everything as opposed to equal choices and opportunity. It is a demand that institutions ensure equal numbers in each and every thing and gives the impression that anything else is very wrong.
Worst, I think that the logic behind a huge portion of this article is troubling. This article argues that there MUST BE equality in the numbers in the highest paying professions when comparing men to women because women are increasing their numbers as breadwinners. I believe this makes great reason for equality of opportunity but it has a serious flaw with regards to equality of numbers. That flaw is that the men in these positions are breadwinners also. So, if you have both men and women competing for the same set of high paying jobs and both men and women are the breadwinners, I think that equality of opportunity is the best that you can ask for. BUT, i THINK THAT A DEMAND FOR INSTITUTIONS TO PRODUCE EQUALITY OF NUMBERS OVER AND BEYOND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN PROGRAMS HEAVILY DOMINATED BY MEN IS EXPLICITLY STATING A DESIRE TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES OF MEN BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF OPENINGS IN THESE PROGRAMS.
Note: I haven't checked through all the articles at the Shriver Report. So, maybe some of them do support the claim...
Keep in mind how much marxist ideals of revolution were integrated into 2nd wave feminism including the idea of a constant revolution. You can't have revolution if you're a member of the elite already.This says everything you need to know about how Petrus views things.
LMAO what exactly does that tell you?
For those who are actually interested:
Betty Friden was one of the big movers and shakers of 2nd wave feminism and helped co-found NOW. She was in the communist party and her thoughts on feminism were influenced by Engels and Marx.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/horo/1999/01/18/nc_18horo/index.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/3917
|
|
I don't know that that's objectively true in North America. Suffragettes weren't called feminists until the 1970s and it's doubtful that many of those women would have endorsed many of the causes that feminism deeply embraced. (eg abortion).
This implies there weren't suffragists who were men (there were). Not all suffragists were "suffragettes." Likewise, at the turn of the century some doctors and nurses promoted abortion and sterilization as "racial/social purification" and felt it was a part of Progress along with Anglo-Saxon female emancipation/suffrage (which they could use to counter black male emancipation/suffrage). This idea did not become less acceptable until WWII, when there was a backlash against Hitler's Eugenics movement.
So, yes, some suffragists were pro-abortion, others were anti-abortion. It is not "doubtful" at all.
So, yes, some suffragists were pro-abortion, others were anti-abortion. It is not "doubtful" at all.
In other words we're both right?
(In any case I'm not so sure that linking feminism to eugenicism was really your goal, but if that's where you want to go with it, I'm curious to see where you're trying to end up.)|
|
So, yes, some suffragists were pro-abortion, others were anti-abortion. It is not "doubtful" at all.In other words we're both right?
(In any case I'm not so sure that linking feminism to eugenicism was really your goal, but if that's where you want to go with it, I'm curious to see where you're trying to end up.)
It's more like you are both wrong. DoveArrow for not more closely examining the roots of suffrage (because it wasn't just feminism that lead to our right to vote), and you for implying that the suffragists would be disapproving of certain views held about abortion today (which they wouldn't, neccessarily).
Frankly, my goal was only to do a service to history. History isn't pretty or simple. Racism did play a part in the suffrage movement, though it was only one part, and had more importance in some states than others that were needed to ratify the 19th ammendment.
I do like the word Equalitarian. I think it fits the feminist goals to remove gender bias. I think we have moved far enough ahead (in certain places) to remove the idea of focusing on one gender and instead compare all genders and ensure equal treatment over worrying exclusively on one genders treatment.I think you mean 'egalitarian.' :) And, I would say that many feminists call themselves egalitarians as well. You have to remember that just because people support one cause does not mean that they don't support other causes as well. Personally, I devote a lot of my time and energy outside of gaming to support LGBTQI rights. However, it doesn't mean that I don't support other organizations and/or causes with both my time and money. People as individuals can only do so much with their time, and sometimes they need to focus the majority of their energies on one cause, with the knowledge that others are focusing their energies on other causes that they care about. I don't think that makes them any less of an egalitarian. On the contrary, I think it makes it more likely that they'll accomplish something meaningful for equality.
No, I meant Equalitarian.
Egalitarian has a much broader equality subject range then sexism and its issues. I was adopting the term used earlier in this thread for the purpose of replacing the feminism/masculism feud.
Often changing the wording will activate different conscious and subconscious associations.
But I would say I am an egalitarian as well.
|
|
I wonder about the term Equalitarian. Why is the word humanitarian not acceptable? Are there too many connotations? (And don't go making jokes about "man" in humanitarian..that joke is older than Eisenhower!...which is why I made it first, didn't I.)
To answer the OP, yes, outside of the context of a history or gender studies class, Feminism no longer has much of a unified meaning. It's like saying "Socialist" - it implies a lot of things to different people, but it's like the Mayor of Oz's glasses - everyone sees a horse of a different color.
To answer the OP, yes, outside of the context of a history or gender studies class, Feminism no longer has much of a unified meaning. It's like saying "Socialist" - it implies a lot of things to different people, but it's like the Mayor of Oz's glasses - everyone sees a horse of a different color.
Which is what I was intuitively thinking.
So, outside of the "historical" context (and sometimes even there), it has been stretched and distorted to the point that it doesn't mean very much. :(
Blah blah women's salaries blah blahI've never seen information to that effect. Do you have a link you could pass on?
I wish I did, but all I have is direct experience, which probably means nothing to you. I thought about telling stories but am not confident of the privacy of the boards and, since it might be considered violation of NDAs and confidentiality agreements with the companies that employed me, it's not worth the risk.
I like to think that if the effort were for a Cause as opposed to convincing a few people on messageboards of the problem, that I'd take a stand and say something. This really makes me respect those who do.
There's a lot more to life than what can be found via Google. /boring truism
Adieu.
So, yes, some suffragists were pro-abortion, others were anti-abortion. It is not "doubtful" at all.
That is true even today.
In Asia (for instance) would not "Feminism" be strongly Anti-Abortion? Look at the gender tilt problem that has happened in China. The preference for male children actually resulted in the abortion of lots of girl babies.
|
|
So, yes, some suffragists were pro-abortion, others were anti-abortion. It is not "doubtful" at all.That is true even today.
In Asia (for instance) would not "Feminism" be strongly Anti-Abortion? Look at the gender tilt problem that has happened in China. The preference for male children actually resulted in the abortion of lots of girl babies.
I have often wondered on the ramifications of this attitude. Will it result less children overall in the coming years? Will it force an, adaptation, of culture and society?
I have often wondered on the ramifications of this attitude. Will it result less children overall in the coming years? Will it force an, adaptation, of culture and society?
The author of the linked article believes that it will result in a serious increase in the levels of violence and crime - as it did in the early years of American West.
It has to force some kind of adaption of their culture and society, since I do not see China just imploding. Possibly the importing of women (mail order brides) from the soon to be impoverished United States.
|
|
I have often wondered on the ramifications of this attitude. Will it result less children overall in the coming years? Will it force an, adaptation, of culture and society?The author of the linked article believes that it will result in a serious increase in the levels of violence and crime - as it did in the early years of American West.
It has to force some kind of adaption of their culture and society, since I do not see China just imploding. Possibly the importing of women (mail order brides) from the soon to be impoverished United States.
Or maybe even an increase in homosexuality.
A shift of where the inhabitants go for jobs and life style is sure to happen as well. Combined with the almost first world status in some of the more coastal region. I can see even more movements of the population. Or moving into areas like Tibet where there is not a cultural issue with unwanted daughters.
I am interested in the violence issue raised.
The USA is not impoverished yet. All it will take is 16 years of good fiscal development and the understanding that we have to pinch pennies now to make money later.
|
|
One of the problems with the "going homo" angle is that, the same cultural forces that make Chinese mothers want to name their daughters "Hopes for a Brother" or "Big Sister Waiting on Little Brother" (actual Chinese names!) also makes them want to execute their sons who engage in "extracurricular activities" with members of their own sex.
This isn't true everywhere; but it's true in enough places. And these cultural forces aren't just going away without a fight. After all, they've lasted thousands of years. The Chinese only stopped footbinding in the 1920s!
|
|
One of the problems with the "going homo" angle is that, the same cultural forces that make Chinese mothers want to name their daughters "Hopes for a Brother" or "Big Sister Waiting on Little Brother" (actual Chinese names!) also makes them want to execute their sons who engage in "extracurricular activities" with members of their own sex.
This isn't true everywhere; but it's true in enough places. And these cultural forces aren't just going away without a fight. After all, they've lasted thousands of years. The Chinese only stopped footbinding in the 1920s!
I have heard of foot binding still going on in some regions.
And yes they still have a large stranglehold over some "extracurricular activities" however with the explosion of more open regions and the influx of values from the west, or should we call them "taints" from the west this will allow some changes.
Blah blah women's salaries blah blahI've never seen information to that effect. Do you have a link you could pass on?I wish I did, but all I have is direct experience, which probably means nothing to you. I thought about telling stories but am not confident of the privacy of the boards and, since it might be considered violation of NDAs and confidentiality agreements with the companies that employed me, it's not worth the risk.
I like to think that if the effort were for a Cause as opposed to convincing a few people on messageboards of the problem, that I'd take a stand and say something. This really makes me respect those who do.
There's a lot more to life than what can be found via Google. /boring truism
Adieu.
So, basically we are supposed to take your word on something that you have no links to substantiate, I couldn't find any links myself to substantiate, and that you won't supply any details of your own personal experiences to substantiate as existing period much less as existing more than as an isolated incident?
I can relate personal experience that women receive hugely unfair treatment in their favor within the workforce but I have made no claim for it to be widespread despite the fact that I think I have enough evidence to make a compelling case.
But, so what...
|
|
Perhaps in the big cities, but I'm skeptical of it being generally accepted in the countryside or villages.
That said, I think if the Communist party also opened itself to allowing more Buddhism in China, that could help the "angry young men" problem, too.
Buddhist monasticism requires celibacy, and is a historic, and culturally traditional way of controlling population growth. Plus, I think that whole "seeking inner peace" deal could help with the "angry."
Blah blah women's salaries blah blahI've never seen information to that effect. Do you have a link you could pass on?I wish I did, but all I have is direct experience, which probably means nothing to you. I thought about telling stories but am not confident of the privacy of the boards and, since it might be considered violation of NDAs and confidentiality agreements with the companies that employed me, it's not worth the risk.
I like to think that if the effort were for a Cause as opposed to convincing a few people on messageboards of the problem, that I'd take a stand and say something. This really makes me respect those who do.
There's a lot more to life than what can be found via Google. /boring truism
Adieu.
If you've got legitimate reasons to beleive you were underpaid because you are female, it seems to me you've struck a potential goldmine. If you won't stand up for yourself and use the existing laws to do so, there's a certain deep irony in expecting someone else to. (Even moreso in a thread on feminism.)
|
|
Perhaps in the big cities, but I'm skeptical of it being generally accepted in the countryside or villages.
That said, I think if the Communist party also opened itself to allowing more Buddhism in China, that could help the "angry young men" problem, too.
Buddhist monasticism requires celibacy, and is a historic, and culturally traditional way of controlling population growth. Plus, I think that whole "seeking inner peace" deal could help with the "angry."
Yeah I don't see it much in the country side myself. I did watch a video, I wish I could find it now, where some travelers in china found a gay bar in the middle of nowhere. turned out if was a gay friendly area so a lot of youths just moved that way.
I had not heard that they had opened up much religiously. I know the Catholic Church has been butting heads with the Government for some time now. They seem to think from an historical view point that religion = political affiliation.
It may help with the angry. What we do not need though is 2 billion angry Chinese.
|
|
@Petrus222*: Dude, she left the thread already. Take a chill pill.
*edit.
@CJ: Yeah, there is an unfortunate connection between religion=politics in China. i think it would depend on the "kind" of Buddhism they'd be espousing.
Also, the history of Catholicism with Colonialism in China might make that religion extra suspect, since it originally came along with the Opium Wars and the fall of the empire.
Or maybe even an increase in homosexuality.The author of the linked article believes that it will result in a serious increase in the levels of violence and crime - as it did in the early years of American West.
It has to force some kind of adaption of their culture and society, since I do not see China just imploding. Possibly the importing of women (mail order brides) from the soon to be impoverished United States.
This also presumes that gender preference is a learned (or chosen) behavior.
This I do not believe. The biggest counter argument is that for almost 2,000 years, homosexual behavior (especially among men) has been actively demonized and persecuted. So, if it was a "choice" why would anyone choose it?
Going back to topic, the reason I brought up about China's gender problem is that it shows that Feminism will have radically different meanings in different places, and for good reasons.
Or maybe even an increase in homosexuality.The author of the linked article believes that it will result in a serious increase in the levels of violence and crime - as it did in the early years of American West.
It has to force some kind of adaption of their culture and society, since I do not see China just imploding. Possibly the importing of women (mail order brides) from the soon to be impoverished United States.
This also presumes that gender preference is a learned (or chosen) behavior.
This I do not believe. The biggest counter argument is that for almost 2,000 years, homosexual behavior (especially among men) has been actively demonized and persecuted. So, if it was a "choice" why would anyone choose it?
Not actually taking a side either way with this specific line of discusson but rather challenging the logic used here.
Murder has been persecuted and reviled for thousands of years. So, if it was a choice, why would anyone choose it?
|
|
Or maybe even an increase in homosexuality.The author of the linked article believes that it will result in a serious increase in the levels of violence and crime - as it did in the early years of American West.
It has to force some kind of adaption of their culture and society, since I do not see China just imploding. Possibly the importing of women (mail order brides) from the soon to be impoverished United States.
This also presumes that gender preference is a learned (or chosen) behavior.
This I do not believe. The biggest counter argument is that for almost 2,000 years, homosexual behavior (especially among men) has been actively demonized and persecuted. So, if it was a "choice" why would anyone choose it?
[spoiler]And this is spinning way off topic.[/ooc]
I was trying to choose my words carefully so as not to go there. I happen to think it is both and yet neither. We all have a capacity for behaviors and that capacity is affected by what we learn, and in fact how we learn it, or if we can or will learn a behavior as well. But yeah lets leave this for another thread, another day.
|
|
Going back to topic, the reason I brought up about China's gender problem is that it shows that Feminism will have radically different meanings in different places, and for good reasons.
Yes it does and the ramifications there of also bring this to bear. Will there be a suffrage movement in China? If so how and in what way? Will they learn from the mistake we made and do it in another way?
|
|
I think CJ meant an increase in open homosexuality, as opposed to people who may be gay but are "in the closet" because they don't want their government to kill them as "subversives" or their parents to kill them "for honor."
In other words, the people who were gay will continue to be gay, but in a way that's more open. I don't think the actual percentage of gay people will incrase or decrease, just like left handed people don't decrease or increase when they are "switched" to right-handed (the brain is still wired to left-hand-right-brain dominance despite the switch in mechanical activity)
Not actually taking a side either way with this specific line of discusson but rather challenging the logic used here.Murder has been persecuted and reviled for thousands of years. So, if it was a choice, why would anyone choose it?
Murder is a choice. It arises from the human passion of Wrath.
Thieft is usually a choice. It arises from the very human passion of Greed.
Extramarital affairs are a choice. They arise from several complex human passions.
The "Gender Preference" arguement does become an issue when there is no option - see the American Prison system. But when there is a choice, even a difficult one, the basic genetic inclination will take over.
|
|
SORRY CJ!
*blushes with embarassment for speaking for someone else*
I think China is really trying to change things to value women more, but, given their already imbalanced population, I think hearing women's voices in China may become even harder, not easier, as the crisis becomes worse. I mean, speaking not just metaphorically, but literally!
Going back to topic, the reason I brought up about China's gender problem is that it shows that Feminism will have radically different meanings in different places, and for good reasons.Yes it does and the ramifications there of also bring this to bear. Will there be a suffrage movement in China? If so how and in what way? Will they learn from the mistake we made and do it in another way?
This makes me think of the bombardment we had a few years back about mythical chinese stories made into movies.
They were mythical stories from a time and place that women wer subjugated and yet they had essential and very powerful female characters. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is one and Hero is a second. These movies told stories essential to the mythology and history of China and they were simultaneously designed to reinforce the sacrifice of the individual for the nation (Communism with the nameless Hero), designed to show support for tradition with respect to family power and martial arts discipline (in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) and to systematically integrate powerful females into these mainstream mythological stories. I think they are taking steps to try and stay ahead of the curve in some respects. How this will work against the parts where they are trailing the curve will be interesting to watch, IMO.
|
|
SORRY CJ!
*blushes with embarassment for speaking for someone else*
I think China is really trying to change things to value women more, but, given their already imbalanced population, I think hearing women's voices in China may become even harder, not easier, as the crisis becomes worse. I mean, speaking not just metaphorically, but literally!
its ok my wife does it for me all the time. :)
Truth be known I was trying to avoid the subject for fear of upsetting people since I know do not agree with many on this subject.
While I feel from experience of friends that some are gay the same way some people are left handed instead of right. I also feel some people are gay due to more allowance of experimenting. I even know one lady who does not feel she is gay, she just fell in love with another woman and that woman is gay. She prefers men.
Not actually taking a side either way with this specific line of discusson but rather challenging the logic used here.Murder has been persecuted and reviled for thousands of years. So, if it was a choice, why would anyone choose it?
Murder is a choice. It arises from the human passion of Wrath.
Thieft is usually a choice. It arises from the very human passion of Greed.
Extramarital affairs are a choice. They arise from several complex human passions.
The "Gender Preference" arguement does become an issue when there is no option - see the American Prison system. But when there is a choice, even a difficult one, the basic genetic inclination will take over.
But, the argument you were making is that "If" it were a choice then why would people choose it when they were persecuted for it
So, saying that other things are a "choice" that people choose despite persecution does not prevent homosexuality from being a choice that people make despite persecution.
I am interested in the violence issue raised.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24761-2004Jul2.html?r eferrer=emailarticlepg
This one's on polygamy but that has some interesting parallels to China's excess male issue.
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem
"Hudson and den Boer suggest that societies become inherently unstable when sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females: in other words, when one-sixth of men are surplus goods on the marriage market."
@Petrus222*: Dude, she left the thread already. Take a chill pill.
*edit.
?
|
Or maybe even an increase in homosexuality.The author of the linked article believes that it will result in a serious increase in the levels of violence and crime - as it did in the early years of American West.
It has to force some kind of adaption of their culture and society, since I do not see China just imploding. Possibly the importing of women (mail order brides) from the soon to be impoverished United States.
This also presumes that gender preference is a learned (or chosen) behavior.
This I do not believe. The biggest counter argument is that for almost 2,000 years, homosexual behavior (especially among men) has been actively demonized and persecuted. So, if it was a "choice" why would anyone choose it?
I would say the biggest argument against this scenario is that it has never occurred previously. There have been a number of times throughout history where wars and invasions have caused a significant skew in gender balance, and an "outburst of homosexuality" has never been documented.
Unless you count the explosion of lesbian relationships in the US and Europe after WWII, that is. [/sarcasm]
(because it wasn't just feminism that lead to our right to vote.)
Personally, I think that's pretty nitpicky. Granted, Gerrit Smith may have brought the women's suffrage movement to the attention of the American people during his presidential campaign in 1848, but it was his cousin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who encouraged him to do so. Similarly, President Woodrow Wilson may have supported the XIX Amendment in 1918, but it was ultimately women founded organizations- like the NWP- who encouraged people to vote against anti-suffrage senators in order to get the amendment passed. Saying that feminism is only partially responsible for a woman's right to vote is like saying that sit-ins are only partially responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It may be technically true, but it very much undermines the impact that these organizations and demonstrations had on our nation's history.
Beside, this isn't a graduate thesis dissertation. It's a frikkin' messageboard! I'm allowed to speak in generalities if I want to, damnit. :-P