I think it was Greg Pek who suggested we debate additional things in this forum so here goes one:
Do you consider yourself a feminist? Why / why not?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
gregpek, Do you feel that way all around when it comes to women or just in certain ways? By that I mean do you think its fair to hit a woman like you would a man that did something to deserve it? Personally I think women should be viewed upon as equals but men still shouldn't hit them.
Should men hit each other?
Yes I'm a feminist. And since I know a few women that would kick my butt in a fight, I'd say that's irrelevant unless you to relate that to the violence against women world wide.
Why I am a feminist.- I advocate human rights. It's just that simple. I don't see why a person should be fucked over just because they have a uterus.
I think myself a feminist but sometimes I do or say things that piss some so called feminist off. I am all for equal opportunity but simply put, some things women are better at and some things men are better at. There are exceptions though, so I am all for giving each an every individual an equal chance to prove themselves.
Unfortunately, I witness people who call themselves feminist trying to use feminism to gain the upper hand. To me feminism is about equality, to some its about screwing over men and gaining higher positions through calling the female card. I personally find this sickening and damaging to the whole idea of feminism. If I had my way, and yes this would be a pain in the butt, but it if had my way, there would be no slot for sex race religious affiliation on any application and test with public criteria that laid out exactly what the responsibilities of any job were so people could be tested and paid in accordance with performance.
All said there are examples all over the place of where women are treated unfairly in the workplace or given professions. I feel it important that the focus stay equality and not on getting ahead..
Most people I know in marginalized groups don't want to get ahead, they just want to get up to speed.
Agreed, but its the few that don't fit into the most category that ruin it for the rest of them. This is why I particularly outspoken when I see it and call attention to the distinction of problem being in part them and not the cause they hide behind. this leads me to being called all sorts of wonderful things by rather outspoken people who can get great numbers of folk to agree with most of what they say but given time the wolf sheds its wool and people realize the truth is they are usually all the things they accuse me of.
I'm glad you agree with that. Here's one that you (and probably others) may not like though. This is about civil service employment specifically. I think that there should be race and gender preference given until the demographics of the civil servants matches the demographics of the community it it serving. I think this needs to be done until the totem pole of value is eradicated. (The totem pole of value in the U.S. still has white men at the top and female children of color at the bottom.)
Here is an example: I was chatting with a while male in his early 20s who had applied for a position as a Deputy Sheriff in a small farming county that is predominantly Hispanic. He did not get the job. Instead, it went to an Hispanic woman. She scored one point lower than he did on the written exam. He was incensed. He said that since he scored higher, he should have gotten the job and that it was totally unfair. As both Hispanic and female though, she can bring things to that community that he couldn't. Things that were missing. Things that would help.
My point is, that a test score is not the final determination on who is more qualified. When determining what 'qualifies' someone for a particular job, a great deal more than tests or credentials ought to be considered.
You are right I don't like that one but I'll let others speak for themselves.
While I am aware of the argument you are making here, I don't think that the profiling someone for the job based on race sex ect... is a good Idea and I feel it propagates the exact thing we are trying to avoid which is unfair treatment based on such things. I put forth that its the test that needs to be improved if the community thinks people who are less qualified for the job are getting the positions, This why I say the criteria should be made public, this way the public can raise concerns that they think the test is unfair if they feel it it is. they can then create petitions to get the test changed and thus make the test reflect what the public feels is a fair test. Then after that if someone who does not fit the profile the demographic lays out and scores higher on the test than someone who due to sex race ect fits the bill better they deserve the job. This would represent a true equal opportunity.
Race sex and other issues like religious affiliation should not be taken into consideration when someone is applying for a job to take such things into considerations is racist or sexist ect... For example, say you were put on trial for a murder you did not commit, and for the purpose of this argument you were a black male in a community where it was well known the KKK make up the majority percent of the population. While certainly this more qualified person would not get the job in this community under the well known "Equal Opportunity" system you propose above, with the stakes higher one can see the disadvantages to making decisions based on race and gender ect..
Fundamentally and phylosophically I agree with you, Z. The fly in the ointment tho, is that we are not yet at a place where the totem poke of value is gone. Until that time, I think we need purposeful equalizers. They speed things up. Desegregation laws enacted during the 60's is a great example of that. Many in generation who saw those laws enacted railed vehemently against them. Generations of people after them simply accept it as normal.
The thread title suggested something fun but this good too. Yeah I'm a feminist but I prefer saying equalist for the reasons Zaphod brought up. At the other end of the spectrum are women that think children are a burden and all men should be castrated. The "founders" of the modern feminist movement will probably not accept them as feminist since they are almost like the degenerate men that would say "she asked for it" and a number of sensible women actually refrain from using the term anymore. Things are starting to change though. A proper women's revolution would propel our civilization a couple hundred centuries into the future in a single year. We have been moving on what is effectively a single wheel.
So children aren't a burden? You may want to try having your insides ripped out before judging people over their disdain for it.
I consider myself a feminist. However, even as a woman I find myself at odds with most of the "movement" from time to time. I think that this is inevitable, as women are, just like anyone else, individuals first and foremost and to think that we would all want to or even be able to buy into a unified doctrine is completely absurd. I'm all for the freedom to *not* have to do that, really.
So, I'm a feminist in as much that I believe that women should be valued for who they are just as much as men are. The term "feminist" however kind of throws a slant on it that directly interferes with that in my mind, though I know I'm being kind of a stickler there :)
Although this board seems to have a predominantly male presence, I will be so bold as to say that the sociological studies surrounding women's empowerment and education indicate that improving the station of women in society produces much greater and faster benefits for the society as a whole than similar improvements do when they are restricted to or focused on the males of the society. Statistics often lie, but they've been pretty clear on that and anthropologically it appears to be for good reason.
There is , also available a lot of data that indicate a correlation between increased numbers of women on corporate boards of directors and increased profitability.
A great spot to review that information is at catalyst.org
I'm a feminist all the way. I think everyone, regardless of gender, should be treated equally and without prejudice. Make note of the word "equally" because that tends to lose its interpretation as most people see fit.
I've seen a lot of interpretation for this "equal" thing... One, which I found quite intereting, was that there's a whole lot of extra some subjugated groups must be given in society to make up for a vast history of inequality, in order for groups to be seen as "equal" moving forward.
Im a whogivesafuckist people are people should be treated equally.
I advocate females' rights as well as the right of every human being and animals as well in this planet. That makes me a feminist, a humanist and an animalist. hope it doesn't sound funny...
Well, people have misused the term "feminist" of late, so perhaps we should define it specifically for the discussion. There has been a growing cancer in the modern feminist movement, one that seems to think that anything with a penis should go die in a fire, and until it is excised I am not sure how comfortable people would be with being associated with the diseased movement.