Patricia Arquette: It's time for gay people to fight for women's rights

Lotus the Cat said:

Even more words

Click to expand...

I'm not denying that it is primarily women who end up caring for children, I'm also not foolish to believe the small number of people I know are indicative of women all over the world. What I am saying though, is that you can throw as many statistics around as you like it doesn't change the fact that these women are choosing to have children and are choosing to be the one who stays home from work, not that they actually have to do that since there are thousands of working single mothers.

As for the pay gap issue, has it ever occurred to you that maybe women just tend to gravitate towards jobs that coincidentally are less well paid than the jobs that men tend to gravitate to. People need to stop making out that theres some big patriarchy out to get women because that's not the case. A lot of these "issues" are coincidences that overly-vocal rights groups overplay and blow out of proportion. People shouldn't play the victim when it is their own choices putting them into a position. I would really like it if we could stop looking at women in the western world and pretending that they're depressed.

As a side note though, I'm pleased to hear that men are entitled to that benefit. Has that changed in the last few years? I'm sure that it used to only be women entitled to it.

Lotus the Cat said:

You need to be very careful in the way that you decide to interpret the data on the gender pay gap. Statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics listed the gender pay gap at around 18%, which has increased since 2004. This is based on average weekly full time equivalent earnings. There are obviously limitations to this information as it does not:

• Account for differing age groups
• Account for experience
• Account for position.

Therefore you may dismiss this data for not having sufficient controls. What it appears you value as appropriate presentation of the data is pay that distills age groups (regardless of relative experience) and position. The problem with this, and I will touch on this later, is that it fails to address possible gender issues relating to women in high paying positions in companies (e.g. CEOs or other higher level managers).

The Bureau also provided a breakdown of pay at various age groups, which agrees with your data that the gap is insignificant in younger age groups (in this case 15 to 19 years) and increases at greater age groups before decreasing at retirement ages. However, just because the gap is smaller in younger age groups doesn't mean that there is a lagging effect and that when those 15 year olds are 35 the same gap they experienced at 15 will exist. Chances are by the time they're 35 some of the to factors I mention below will mean they earn less than their male counterpart.

The average weekly full-time equivalent earnings provides us with useful information in the following way:

• The larger than expected gap (versus if you were to compare men and women in the exact same role) in each industry suggests that less women hold the higher earning positions within companies.

These reports also show that female dominated careers are also less paid in general - but that's not really relevant here.

The point above begs the question - why?

This might be due to one or numerous of the following:

1. A lot of this has to do with flexibility in the workplace. Despite what gimmiepie likes to think women still bare the majority of caring responsibilities when they have children. Women who return to work after maternity leave will mostly do so part time. This limits their effective "experience" and therefore promotion. As a result by the time they return to full time work they may be earning less than their male counterpart.
2. Employers may not accommodate flexible working arrangements and women may change career, starting at a lower base
3. Women who return from maternity leave may face discrimination, including demotion (which while illegal does happen)
4. The role performed by the woman may be made redundant without consultation while she is on maternity leave, which may lead to the above
5. The cost of childcare may outrun work earnings making it less economical to remain in the work force until the child is school age. See point 1 for flow on effects.
6. Young women may be perceived as a pregnancy risk and may have their chances for promotion into critical roles limited.

You would be naive to think that discrimination doesn't occur. Maternity leave costs companies money - both directly in payments and in training of replacement staff.

Also, with regards to the the graph you show of women's wages rising and men's falling: that's exactly what we want to see. The way you word your comment you make it out as though the falling average wage for men is a bad thing when instead you should be focusing on the fact that they're approaching each other. If the trend continues then they will eventually equalise (with some acceptable fluctuation), which is precisely what we want to see. If women's wages exceed men's by a significant amount then we need to push the fight the other way. Until they are at equilibrium there is nothing wrong with keeping the issue in the social consciousness.

Please note I am not pushing for change in policy but ignoring what is still a problem is counterproductive.

.

Click to expand...

1. I have no idea about Austrailia's gender gap as this speech was directed at US policies which may be different than Australian policies. Though the data provided doesn't have appropriate controls for Australia, I have not idea about the literature or policies beyond the US.

2. When did I say or insinuate men's falling wages and women's rising wages was a bad thing in the US?. I clearly say changing policies that already are addressing the issue (and in some cases far-surpassing the gap in the US depending on field) is not justifiable. I insinuate that changing policy to increase this rate of convergence and surpassing indiscriminately is precarious as there has already been convergence in some fields (or beyond). That would go beyond the normative goal of equality. Arquette clearly advocates for policy changes and other supporters are not aware of the trends of the young professional age group and the achievement equalization process that is already occurring (sitting around a 5% difference as of two years ago) She is therefore advocating for something without understand the current structure and policy (and if she is aware, then she is engaging in a distraction, which I will explain below).

Please don't do the "words in mouth" as a technique, cause I didn't say that equal wages are bad thing. Did I say that? Are you kidding me?
(I am effectively done after this post mainly for this reason, I absolutely don't have time to deal with someone injecting a false normative underpinning to my argument OR those who continue to use data without proper ethical methodologies to critique a current policy area.)

3. I absolutely agree with notion of field domination by gender as being negative! This goes for any and all fields, and by race. (Though I do not support affirmative action as it currently exists, and rather, structures, namely the education system need to be addressed)

4. Occupational segregation, doesn't account for lagging effects (in reference to the US again) women are graduating with Bachelor's and professional/graduate degrees at a higher rate than men, and thus it will take several years to reflect this in the population. Therefore, you must make a theoretically driven control if not, you are not measuring the CURRENT policy to the data. (with that said, there is segregation in some areas still, some closing the gap in both male and female dominated occupations.)

5. Generally, I am for reducing the degree of income inequality between fields as well in the US. Policies should target high income groups beyond gender, for instance, Patricia Arquette makes how much more than working mothers in the US? Why does our economic and political system incentivize being an actress? This gender issue is yet another disguise or distraction from higher/lower income disparities in the US.

6. "You need to be careful how to interpret data" I do social research for a living. Yes, that's why I want to measure CURRENT POLICY AND STRUCTURES, the data you continue to cite doesn't measure that. It doesn't control for old policy and structures. It's unethical to inaccurately evaluate current policy and then propose changes.

gimmepie said:

Even more other words

Click to expand...

When you make a comment on single working mothers, please consider: are they working full time and are their children school age.

Again, I'm commenting on the impact of children that are not school age. Most women with school age children work full time and there is generally no issue doing so. Even toddlers in childcare are easier to deal with. However, when they are infants in the first year of their life their care requirements are very high (E.g 4 hour feeding schedules).

I agree with you that it is a woman's choice to have kids. However, it is not necessarily her choice to be the primary carer. There are still plenty of men (I sadly have a friend married to one) who subscribe to the notion of certain things being "womens work". Therefore there would be the expectation that she sacrifice her career and not he his. What the stats show, and what you agree to is that women are generally the primary carer.

Why, by extension do you not agree that this contributes to the gender pay gap?

Also, where women dominated industries are generally paid less than male dominated industries I agree that women may gravitate to lower paying jobs in those cases. However, there is still a large pay gap in male dominated industries. Therefore this argument doesn't account fully for what is being seen. To say (and I'm not implying you are, putting it out there hypothetically) that women in male dominated careers are less ambitious or competent than their male counterparts would be sexist.

The Dark Avenger said:

thems fighting words

Click to expand...

I know you won't respond but you'll probably read this, so some final points.

I apologise if I placed words in your mouth, but me misinterpreting your intent or restating my interpretation of your intent is no reason to write off my entire argument. To say you won't respond because of that is childish and I hope you reconsider.

1. You argue with data from the USA because that's where you live and what you understand. I will do the same with information from Australia for the same reason. Also, please note that I have not been arguing on policy (personally I believe there is no issue in policy in Australia and certainly I cannot comment on US policy) but have put forward social reasons behind the data.

2. As I said above, I apologise for putting words in your mouth. However, you have now stated what I tried to note, that the decrease in men's wages approaching women's may mean men will be paid less than women in the future. You can't confidently extrapolate those trends to form that conclusion. Also, I can't comment on the data in the US, but in Australia the only instance where the wage gap favours women is for part time workers and then it's only 2% (an insignificant level). All other fields show women earning less, with the greatest gaps sitting around 30%. This of course does not include the controls for role, age or experience and instead suggests what I pointed to earlier about women not achieving higher paying roles.

3. Horray, we agree on something.

4. I'm still skeptical that any lagging effect is due to policy and education levels. As I have mentioned I think it's a culture shift that will make the most impact.

5. I also agree that there is a bigger issue with pay disparity between high and low income earners. Thankfully it isn't nearly as bad here as the US. Still, that doesn't mean we should ignore gender issues.

6. Part of the problem is that we're arguing from two different points. I am not concerned with policy (see above for reasons), I'm concerned with social reasons why women generally earn less over their lifetime than men. You have failed to address any of those points, by the way, and they are extremely relevant. Disregarding my data and interpretation thereof because it does not fit your argument is inappropriate. I'm simply providing a counter argument on what the gender gap means. To think that gender issues are only affected by policy and not social expectations or changes in working conditions is naive.

Lotus the Cat said:

I didn't actually mean to delete part of that but I'm too lazy to get it back...

Click to expand...

I just want to point out that you're not entirely correct when you say suggesting women in male dominated industries might be less industrious, hard-working etc would be sexist. I can think of one very obvious scenario in which this is not the case: what if it's true?

I mean, obviously it would be ridiculous to suggest it is true of all women - or even the majority. However there are plenty of times where women in these industries don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job. The sad thing is, these women can then go and carry on about gender inequality and pay gaps and "the patriarchy" and people will actually listen because we as a society actually seem to believe that women are oppressed by men.

I admit that there are cases of chauvinism and sexism, I admit that sometimes having children can derail one's career plans. However you seem to labouring under the illusion that the majority of men think lowly of women, when in fact most of us are generally decent people who want equal treatment and nothing more. Not to mention that there is plenty of stereotyping and the like that negatively affects mens careers as well, do you know how few men teach in primary schools in Australia and how hard it is for men to get jobs working with children? It's not just women with these problems but it's only the problems with women that you hear about because of stupid vocal groups who mistake "women's rights" with "equal rights". The most irritating part of that though, is that as I said before these women have no right to complain about how half of these things affect their job when a lot of it is brought on by their own choices. Honestly, I appreciate your point of view but considering these things there is no way anyone will be swaying my point of view any time soon.

I won't say there's no sexism in our country, or in any other. I will say though, that a lot of this perceived sexism towards women is an illusion and that there are far more important problems to worry about than a few people complaining because Mr. Man got promoted instead of Ms. Lady.

gimmepie said:

I mean, obviously it would be ridiculous to suggest it is true of all women - or even the majority. However there are plenty of times where women in these industries don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job. The sad thing is, these women can then go and carry on about gender inequality and pay gaps and "the patriarchy" and people will actually listen because we as a society actually seem to believe that women are oppressed by men.

Click to expand...

This is just straight up old-fashioned sexism. Men can also be crap at their jobs. Being crap at a job is in no way related to one's gender. There's still a wage gap, and that accounts for both men and women who are terrible at their jobs. There is no sub population of women that are championing the wage gap because they're mad they don't get paid more because they're bad at their job - that's in your head, and is a really sexist stereotype.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

This is just straight up old-fashioned sexism. Men can also be crap at their jobs. Being crap at a job is in no way related to one's gender. There's still a wage gap, and that accounts for both men and women who are terrible at their jobs. There is no sub population of women that are championing the wage gap because they're mad they don't get paid more because they're bad at their job - that's in your head, and is a really sexist stereotype.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that's sexist. He didn't say that those women suck at their jobs because they are women, let alone that women tend to suck at their jobs because of their gender. He states it quite plainly, really, that that "there are plenty of times where women ... don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job". Because they're women? No... because they're incompetent. Incompetent because they're women? Well, that's a stretch given what gimmepie's said. The connection isn't stated explicitly, and I don't know how you would make that kind of inference. There doesn't seem to be much ground you stand upon to accuse gimmepie of sexism.

As for the fact that "there is no sub population of women ...", there isn't. But that's not what gimmepie's talking about. He's not referring to a social movement or anything like that. Just women who rag on about social problems to avoid thinking about their own shortcomings. There are men who do that too, use a gendered critique of society to justify their own issues. Let's not pretend that there aren't people of any kind that blame external "causes" and use that to justify against self-improvement. But that gimmepie points out that some women do this doesn't make him sexist.

However, women can have grievances about sexual repression in a way that men simply can't - men aren't oppressed by women, there's no matriarchy, nor is there "meninism". This is what gimmepie is talking about. The gender divide is very different across either side - men and women experience the gender divide in different ways. But I'm sure you'd recognize that it is not sexist to point this out.

Kanzler said:

I don't see how that's sexist. He didn't say that those women suck at their jobs because they are women, let alone that women tend to suck at their jobs because of their gender. He states it quite plainly, really, that that "there are plenty of times where women ... don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job". Because they're women? No... because they're incompetent. Incompetent because they're women? Well, that's a stretch given what gimmepie's said. The connection isn't stated explicitly, and I don't know how you would make that kind of inference. There doesn't seem to be much ground you stand upon to accuse gimmepie of sexism.

As for the fact that "there is no sub population of women ...", there isn't. But that's not what gimmepie's talking about. He's not referring to a social movement or anything like that. Just women who rag on about social problems to avoid thinking about their own shortcomings. There are men who do that too, use a gendered critique of society to justify their own issues. Let's not pretend that there aren't people of any kind that blame external "causes" and use that to justify against self-improvement. But that gimmepie points out that some women do this doesn't make him sexist.

Click to expand...

He says that women in male dominated industries sometimes don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job. That can be said of any group of people in any profession; so why bring up that example in the first place? He also says that suggesting that women in these industries are less hard working etc. is not sexist. Yes, some individuals are indeed less hard working, but the poster he was replying to was talking about women as a group. Not as individuals. So yeah, it would be sexist to suggest that women as a group are less industrious. This idea, that it is sexist to say women are less hard working etc., is an idea he tried to contradict by putting up a poor argument that "some women are crap at their jobs." Again no one was talking about individual women, they were talking about the group as a whole - so he's making an irrelevant argument. The fact that he tried to refute that concept at all shows an interesting amount of implicit sexism.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

This is just straight up old-fashioned sexism. Men can also be crap at their jobs. Being crap at a job is in no way related to one's gender. There's still a wage gap, and that accounts for both men and women who are terrible at their jobs. There is no sub population of women that are championing the wage gap because they're mad they don't get paid more because they're bad at their job - that's in your head, and is a really sexist stereotype.

Click to expand...

That was just straight up jumping to conclusions without actually reading my post.

I simply stated that there are women who don't succeed in their profession because they aren't very good at it. But for some reason everyone seems inclined to think if a woman doesn't succeed it's because the evil man conspiracy doesn't want them to. There's plenty of men who are horrible at their jobs too, but when we fail nobody claims it is women trying to keep us down, it's straight up because we're shit at our job.

You need to not jump down peoples throats and scream sexist just because they have a different opinion to you. I'm not a sexist. I don't believe myself superior to woman, I don't devalue women and I don't think having a certain type of genitalia affects your performance at any given job. I'm just not afraid to say that there's a lot of people who think western women are some oppressed group, take a look at women in the middle east - there women are oppressed. People need to stop complaining about imaginary problems in our society and focus on real ones.

You seem to be of the opinion that just because I'm a man that doesn't support the women's rights movement I'm a sexist. There are women who don't support it either, are they sexist too? I support equal rights for everyone, not this stupid feminist quest to fix a problem that doesn't exist. You on the other hand, by coming in here and screaming sexist simply because I'm a man with a non-femenist point of view have shown that you yourself, are in fact sexist.

Read a post more carefully before you start insulting people.

gimmepie said:

You seem to be of the opinion that just because I'm a man that doesn't support the women's rights movement I'm a sexist. .

Click to expand...

I'm not a feminist either. I don't think you're sexist because of that. I think you're sexist because you can't acknowledge that women face problems in our society because of their gender. Both genders do. Fact is fact. I'm not insulting you, I'm just calling it what it is. You're trying to erase the very real problems of 50% of the population because you don't like the ideas or presentation or whatever of a few feminists, and because you have deemed their problems to not be extreme enough. Perhaps "oppression" is too strong of a word for you. Fair enough, but even if what women go through doesn't qualify as oppression for you doesn't mean that gender roles are not problematic for them. Again, most people by default don't think that a woman is being poorly compensated at her job because of TEH PATRIARCHY, they will first and foremost look at her competence. Feminist thinking is not as popular of an idea as you think it is, but the internet gives the illusion that it's everywhere.

But yes, I am definitely sexist. Everyone is to some extent by virtue of how our cognitive processes work.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

I'm not a feminist either. I don't think you're sexist because of that. I think you're sexist because you can't acknowledge that women face problems in our society because of their gender. Both genders do. Fact is fact. I'm not insulting you, I'm just calling it what it is. You're trying to erase the very real problems of 50% of the population because you don't like the ideas or presentation or whatever of a few feminists, and because you have deemed their problems to not be extreme enough. Perhaps "oppression" is too strong of a word for you. Fair enough, but even if what women go through doesn't qualify as oppression for you doesn't mean that gender roles are not problematic for them. Again, most people by default don't think that a woman is being poorly compensated at her job because of TEH PATRIARCHY, they will first and foremost look at her competence. Feminist thinking is not as popular of an idea as you think it is, but the internet gives the illusion that it's everywhere.

But yes, I am definitely sexist. Everyone is to some extent by virtue of how our cognitive processes work.

Click to expand...

If you don't think feminism is a popular idealism you need to take a look around.
Still, that's not the issue here.

The point I'm making is that this "fight for women's rights" or whatever that Arquette is championing is ridiculous for two simple reasons
1. Women in Western culture don't have it as bad as so many seem to want to think
2. If you want equality you can't just look at the problems facing one group, especially if those problems are insignificant compared to a lot of others.

I'm also going to say one more time, actually read my posts before you get hostile. I have not once said that women don't face a single problem. What I have said, is that a lot of these supposed problems are caused by decisions women have made themselves and that because of overly vocal activists, other issues are totally overlooked. Of course there are going to be issues for women, every group on Earth has some kind of problem. However, there is far too big a focus on women's rights, especially because so many groups consider problems women bring on themselves with their choices as rights issues.

I won't argue about pay gaps or anything any further here, that's not even what this thread is about, although if you make one I'll gladly go at it for hours. What it boils down to in this thread though, is that Arquette was wrong in her statement for a whole host of reasons.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

I'm not a feminist either. I don't think you're sexist because of that. I think you're sexist because you can't acknowledge that women face problems in our society because of their gender. Both genders do. Fact is fact. I'm not insulting you, I'm just calling it what it is. You're trying to erase the very real problems of 50% of the population because you don't like the ideas or presentation or whatever of a few feminists, and because you have deemed their problems to not be extreme enough. Perhaps "oppression" is too strong of a word for you. Fair enough, but even if what women go through doesn't qualify as oppression for you doesn't mean that gender roles are not problematic for them. Again, most people by default don't think that a woman is being poorly compensated at her job because of TEH PATRIARCHY, they will first and foremost look at her competence. Feminist thinking is not as popular of an idea as you think it is, but the internet gives the illusion that it's everywhere.

Click to expand...

women face problems in society but these problems are fairly small and unimportant and the inflation of problems that women face is far more detrimental to actual equality in the sexes because not only because it's essentially lying to the public but because it casts doubt in actual cases of people facing discrimination based on their sex. making it difficult to see the truth leads to false attitudes; women I would say have quite a few advantages over men, and in some cases men have advantages towards women - honesty is the best policy because it allows us to have a more accurate world view

in some cases this overhyping of how women feel can actually be highly detrimental, just look at this document I found online, it's from a university

the issue I personally have with this woman is that she honestly thinks that what women face and what LGBT faces are comparable, actually correction women face apparently worse problems than LGBT, when in reality women face far less issues than LGBT does. of course it's not exactly a bad thing for LGBT to also support women's rights but it should not necessarily be forced upon them because let's get real here they have way more real life problems to deal with.

Not going to bother quoting at this point. I agree that the person this thread is about is misguided and going about things the wrong way, I also agree that trying to solve false problems takes away from the actual problems women (and other groups) face.

I don't get it though. I think trying to solve every group's problems is worthwhile. This isn't the oppression olympics - everyone has it bad to some extent and it shouldn't matter who has it "worse". There is no utility to comparing groups to find subtle advantages or disadvantages over the other, everyone needs and deserves help.

I see feminism all over the internet, but when I've talked to people about it in real life most people either have a strange view of it or aren't familiar with it at all. I took an entry level women's studies class once not too long ago that was composed of mostly people taking it as an elective, and when the teacher asked who was a feminist out of about 25 people only 3 people raised their hands. The internet can be misleading.

I don't see how I'm being hostile. Perhaps blunt and tactless is a better word. I can assure you that I'm not particularly upset or offended. I'm mostly just posting to kill time before I go to a job interview.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

He says that women in male dominated industries sometimes don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job. That can be said of any group of people in any profession; so why bring up that example in the first place?

Click to expand...

Sure. But bringing that example up in the first place, even if we disregard the context, should not be construed as sexist. Given the context, however, that women's (as a group) experience of the gender divide is informed by feminism, patriarchy, oppression, etc., gimmepie is pointing out that some women who justify their personal shortcomings with barriers of the gender as a whole is highly disingenuous. I don't think that's sexist at all. I will explain the "why" in further detail below.

As an aside, both gimmepie and Lotus state explicitly that it would be sexist or ridiculous to suggest that women as a whole are less ambitious or competent than men.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

He also says that suggesting that women in these industries are less hard working etc. is not sexist. Yes, some individuals are indeed less hard working, but the poster he was replying to was talking about women as a group. Not as individuals. So yeah, it would be sexist to suggest that women as a group are less industrious. This idea, that it is sexist to say women are less hard working etc., is an idea he tried to contradict by putting up a poor argument that "some women are crap at their jobs." Again no one was talking about individual women, they were talking about the group as a whole - so he's making an irrelevant argument. The fact that he tried to refute that concept at all shows an interesting amount of implicit sexism.

Click to expand...

It may have been the case that he was responding to a poster who was talking about women as a group, but the semantics of what he was saying is unambiguous.

"However there are plenty of times where women in these industries don't succeed simply because they're crap at their job."

Clearly not all. 'Plenty' implies 'some', and philosophically speaking, 'all' can mean 'some', so I'll grant that it's certainly not impossible that gimmepie could've meant all women. But that's a stretch, in my opinion, to suggest that we was discussing women as a group (implying all women), especially if we consider the following:

'Times'. At this point it is clear that he is referring to individuals or individual occurrences, not a group. Now, it's true that the plural of a certain word can have multiple connotations: 1) simply referring to a multiple of the object, or 2) referring to all members of that object as a single body, a group. You've been reading him using the second connotation, but I think I have provided sufficient evidence that he in fact used the first one.

Now to explain the "why", gimmepie was responding to the unqualified statement from Lotus that suggestions that women are less industrious than men are sexist.

I just want to point out that you're not entirely correct when you say suggesting women in male dominated industries might be less industrious, hard-working etc would be sexist. I can think of one very obvious scenario in which this is not the case: what if it's true?

Click to expand...

Gimmepie is not responding that the unqualified statement that women are less industrious than men are not sexist - he is responding that it is not sexist to state that there are times when women are unsuccessful in their jobs because they are incompetent. In more general terms, he was sceptical about an unqualified statement, and provided an example to support his scepticism. This is why his mentioning that some women are indeed incompetent at their jobs is relevant - he felt that the belief that the assertion that women are less competent than men is always sexist is as over-generalized as the belief that women are less competent than men. He wasn't generalizing, on the contrary, he was merely pointing out a caveat to what he thought was a generalization.

I don't mean it personally or anything, but I found those criticisms of gimmepie's posts lacking in support. I'm well aware that I've been picking on you for the form of your argument and not discussing the thread topic at all, but I think it's in the spirit of this forum to point out flaws in arguments. It's nothing personal, it's just business :P

Now getting back on topic: one aspect in which the female gender is privileged is their rising success in the educational system to the point that girls perform better than boys pre-university (not to say that women don't do better than men during university, I can't recall anything off the top of my head). This trend has been going on for decades, where is it going to lead us in the future? Again, making sure that it's not that girls are performing just as well as boys, it's that their performance is exceeding that of boys. Usually we talk about women's disadvantages, but what I've mentioned above isn't something that I think is talked about - anywhere, really.

It's never a good idea to compare one groups oppression/suffering with another group, it only serves to make the fight for equality seem fractured when it should be united (also it tends to derail conversations and start flamewars...).

As for the statement the lady made...well she gives the impression that one group can't help another anymore without expecting something in return...

Kanzler said:

I don't mean it personally or anything, but I found those criticisms of gimmepie's posts lacking in support. I'm well aware that I've been picking on you for the form of your argument and not discussing the thread topic at all, but I think it's in the spirit of this forum to point out flaws in arguments. It's nothing personal, it's just business :P

Click to expand...

I would agree with this. When I woke up this morning and re-read my post and his post, I had a moment of "what the hell was I thinking last night" and "ugh now I gotta commit to this." I really misread his post, basically. I thought he was saying that the entire wage gap concept came from women being bad at their jobs and trying to shift the blame from themselves. Which would be sexist, except that wasn't what he was saying. I am laughing at myself for basically continuing to dig myself into a hole over something I didn't even agree with. I'm sorry, gimmiepie, I don't think you're sexist. After re-reading your posts, all I can see is you seem disillusioned with feminism, which is where I'm also at personally so I can understand where you're coming from.

I really just wish there would be a united gender rights movement. I think the problems either gender face are linked together - to solve one set of problems, you also have to address the other gender. I don't think it can be worked out in a vacuum.

I've come back to address a few things (not in response to any one particular post or poster).

First, I'm going to start with the perception of feminism that is constantly brought up in these arguments as a dirty word. The definition of feminism follows: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Note that it is about equal rights, not more rights. Feminism isn't about displacing men and it should therefore not be something that is threatening. It seems odd to me that it is considered so negatively. I admit there are extreme "feminists" out there, but like with all minority extremists, it's unfair to pass judgement on an entire group based on the poor behaviour of few. The feminist movement has shifted from equal rights now to equal treatment. Also, if a man believes in equal rights/treatment for men and women, that makes him a feminist.

As far as I can tell women have all the same legal rights as men. I personally never argue in these gender based debates because I perceive women have less rights - that would be misguided. However, simply because women are now legally equal to men, it does not mean we face unfair discrimination as a group.

As an example, people of colour have the same legal rights as white people but does that mean racism doesn't exist? Should we ignore race discrimination because their legal rights are equal?

It is important to understand that sexism (both conscious and unconscious) does affect women in the workplace. I have linked below two articles that describe some of the ways that women are affected. It is also important to remember that women are sometimes the perpetrators of negative discrimination of other women in the workplace (second article).

Ignoring that there is a gender bias helps no one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/o...kristof-straight-talk-for-white-men.html?_r=0

http://fortune.com/2015/03/03/femal...sorry-to-all-the-mothers-i-used-to-work-with/

Magic Christmas Lights said:

I would agree with this. When I woke up this morning and re-read my post and his post, I had a moment of "what the hell was I thinking last night" and "ugh now I gotta commit to this." I really misread his post, basically. I thought he was saying that the entire wage gap concept came from women being bad at their jobs and trying to shift the blame from themselves. Which would be sexist, except that wasn't what he was saying. I am laughing at myself for basically continuing to dig myself into a hole over something I didn't even agree with. I'm sorry, gimmiepie, I don't think you're sexist. After re-reading your posts, all I can see is you seem disillusioned with feminism, which is where I'm also at personally so I can understand where you're coming from.

I really just wish there would be a united gender rights movement. I think the problems either gender face are linked together - to solve one set of problems, you also have to address the other gender. I don't think it can be worked out in a vacuum.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted, these things always get heated and quite frankly that's part of the fun.

As for my disillusionment with feminism, I should be clear. I actually support the same ideal that feminism supposedly (note the use of this word) does and I think that back in the 20's when it emerged it was a wonderful thing. Now however it has evolved to a point where the ideal of gender equality is overlooked in favour of continuing this trend of "women's rights". In the 20's the focus did need to be on women's rights because women practically had none, but times have changed and the movement has failed to change with them.

Lotus the Cat said:

I've come back to address a few things (not in response to any one particular post or poster).

First, I'm going to start with the perception of feminism that is constantly brought up in these arguments as a dirty word. The definition of feminism follows: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Note that it is about equal rights, not more rights. Feminism isn't about displacing men and it should therefore not be something that is threatening. It seems odd to me that it is considered so negatively. I admit there are extreme "feminists" out there, but like with all minority extremists, it's unfair to pass judgement on an entire group based on the poor behaviour of few. The feminist movement has shifted from equal rights now to equal treatment. Also, if a man believes in equal rights/treatment for men and women, that makes him a feminist.

As far as I can tell women have all the same legal rights as men. I personally never argue in these gender based debates because I perceive women have less rights - that would be misguided. However, simply because women are now legally equal to men, it does not mean we face unfair discrimination as a group.

As an example, people of colour have the same legal rights as white people but does that mean racism doesn't exist? Should we ignore race discrimination because their legal rights are equal?

It is important to understand that sexism (both conscious and unconscious) does affect women in the workplace. I have linked below two articles that describe some of the ways that women are affected. It is also important to remember that women are sometimes the perpetrators of negative discrimination of other women in the workplace (second article).

Ignoring that there is a gender bias helps no one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/o...kristof-straight-talk-for-white-men.html?_r=0

http://fortune.com/2015/03/03/femal...sorry-to-all-the-mothers-i-used-to-work-with/

Click to expand...

That's the problem with feminism, you've highlighted it yourself by posting the definition. The movement aim for equality of the sexes by focusing on women's rights. Surely you can see that there's a flaw in that methodology? You can't create equal rights and status for the sexes if you're going to predominately focus on one.

I support the notion of equal rights and status for the sexes, however feminism inadvertently seeks to raise the rights and status of women above men because it doesn't do anything about the challenges facing men or the perception of men by many women.
Feminism = "We want equality. There's lots of problems facing women, let's fix those."
Equalitarian (because I can't think of a better word) = "We want equality. Let's fix the problems facing both men and women."

I'm going to say this now, I believe in equal rights for men and women but I am no feminist. Why? Because I don't seek equality through improvement of womens' rights. I seek equality through recognising and removing the complications facing both genders.

You're right about one thing though, sexism most certainly can affect women in the workplace. However the same problem faces men, it's just that there's no exposure to the problem from a male perspective. But as someone who intends to work in the education industry and who has experience working with children let me tell you, any woman who thinks only women face sexism in regards to employment have never seen how hard it is for men working in primary school education or nursing.