If men are at a 8 of a scale out of 10 of being well-off and women are at a 5, feminism is about getting women up to 8, rather than getting either of the genders up to a 9.
To what extent is feminism relevant today?
- Thread starter Her
- Start date
If men are at a 8 of a scale out of 10 of being well-off and women are at a 5, feminism is about getting women up to 8, rather than getting either of the genders up to a 9.
The problem with that is that women aren't a five on that scale. It's more like men are an eight and women are a seven/seven-and-a-half. At least in the Western world. Personally I don't think a single notch on our scale (if that) really legitimises an entire movement seeking to improve the rights of women when there are groups that are more like a four (ignoring the obvious overlaps between groups).
Elysieum
Requiescat en pace.
- 258
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 31
- By the lake.
- Seen Sep 8, 2019
This.
It's also problematic that the ratio fluctuates geographically. There are parts of the world that can justly be described as an equality disaster-area, where women can only dream of a 5.
I think one thing about it is certain - there has very rarely been cases of women having an even slightly higher score on that hypothetical scale than men. I have heard of a real matrilineal society in Tibet, but such examples are so few that the tendency remains overwhelmingly skewed to the opposite side.
- 2,964
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 32
- A place you dread and envy
- Seen May 18, 2022
If men are an 8 on this scale then women are an 8 too, or perhaps even higher with all the benefits they get just for having a vagina. It's amazing that somebody said they'd be a 5. Which part of the world do you live in? You clearly need to move.
If you genuinely can't afford it then sure. If I couldn't afford decent razors, shaving foam and moisturiser I would by cheaper cheaper products or skip a step. I certainly wouldn't start a movement trying to get pennies off tax because most women don't have to shave their faces.
Well a lot of them do want to be desirable [as do men] but that is not what I was getting at, women want to buy more desirable clothing. They buy more clothing than men, they buy more varieties of clothing. Women have far more choice in clothing than men too, just look at the high street. As for the build quality issue, I can only assume it's because men's clothing is generally a bit more heavy duty and simple in design. I'm sure it isn't hard to find good quality women's clothing though. Or maybe that is actually patriarchy at work , they've found a way to exploit women through giving them crap quality clothing. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED.
Yeah, the bra issues wasn't really feminism related. I continued on with what somebody else said because I wanted an excuse to google bras.
I really don't think it does, as long as a women is smartly dressed, clean and good at her job she'll get exactly the same respect as a man would. I'm not saying that sexism won't occur in the workplace but that's by a small minority of people. On a related not, I saw an interesting study on the topic of women's clothing at work a while back. Basically it states that women that take the male approach to work clothing [few simple sets which you don't have to think about] will be far less stressed out and actually more productive. This probably has stemmed from a 1950s mentality but really most people aren't going to care now, you are no longer furniture in the workplace.
As for interviews and makeup, everybody has to make an effort. If an ugly person and a beautiful person, male or female, attend an interview with identical cvs and attitudes we know which one will get the job, it's how we've evolved. It's also another case of modern day workplace vs the olden days for me, I don't believe the majority of interviewers would reject a woman with good credentials because she hasn't tarted herself up. If I was a people manager I'd possibly be turned off by somebody overdoing it. Look at it this way, makeup is a weapon for women right now so abuse it whilst you can.
So yeah, a lot of issues are there but only in your heads and sadly those insecurities will be passed on to the next generation and the flames are being fed by nutjob feminists. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't real issues but it certainly isn't tampons, Lara Croft's arse or sexist air conditioning.
If you genuinely can't afford it then sure. If I couldn't afford decent razors, shaving foam and moisturiser I would by cheaper cheaper products or skip a step. I certainly wouldn't start a movement trying to get pennies off tax because most women don't have to shave their faces.
Well a lot of them do want to be desirable [as do men] but that is not what I was getting at, women want to buy more desirable clothing. They buy more clothing than men, they buy more varieties of clothing. Women have far more choice in clothing than men too, just look at the high street. As for the build quality issue, I can only assume it's because men's clothing is generally a bit more heavy duty and simple in design. I'm sure it isn't hard to find good quality women's clothing though. Or maybe that is actually patriarchy at work , they've found a way to exploit women through giving them crap quality clothing. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED.
Yeah, the bra issues wasn't really feminism related. I continued on with what somebody else said because I wanted an excuse to google bras.
I really don't think it does, as long as a women is smartly dressed, clean and good at her job she'll get exactly the same respect as a man would. I'm not saying that sexism won't occur in the workplace but that's by a small minority of people. On a related not, I saw an interesting study on the topic of women's clothing at work a while back. Basically it states that women that take the male approach to work clothing [few simple sets which you don't have to think about] will be far less stressed out and actually more productive. This probably has stemmed from a 1950s mentality but really most people aren't going to care now, you are no longer furniture in the workplace.
As for interviews and makeup, everybody has to make an effort. If an ugly person and a beautiful person, male or female, attend an interview with identical cvs and attitudes we know which one will get the job, it's how we've evolved. It's also another case of modern day workplace vs the olden days for me, I don't believe the majority of interviewers would reject a woman with good credentials because she hasn't tarted herself up. If I was a people manager I'd possibly be turned off by somebody overdoing it. Look at it this way, makeup is a weapon for women right now so abuse it whilst you can.
So yeah, a lot of issues are there but only in your heads and sadly those insecurities will be passed on to the next generation and the flames are being fed by nutjob feminists. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't real issues but it certainly isn't tampons, Lara Croft's arse or sexist air conditioning.
Just a thought, a little tired of hearing about pink tax... perhaps it's not so much a gender-related issue but more a supply-and-demand-related issue? Let's think about this for a second; if you owned a business, how would you price your ware? Would it possibly have anything to do with the demand of an item? Let's think about this for a minute; can everyone agree with me that, unfortunate as it may or may not be to you, "frivolous spending" might be a stereotype of (young) girls? Young girls possibly just starting puberty?
I feel like it's just more of a sales tactic than anything. But I could be wrong!
I feel like it's just more of a sales tactic than anything. But I could be wrong!
If men are at a 8 of a scale out of 10 of being well-off and women are at a 7 or a 7.5, feminism is about getting women up to 8, rather than getting either of the genders up to 8.25.
The numbers don't really matter. The point is that feminism is more so about decreasing the disparity between the genders more so than increasing the welfare of everybody. It's like how in socialism you're more concerned with the income and wealth disparity between classes more so than increasing economic growth for everybody. It doesn't mean that a socialist can't be in favour of increasing economic growth, just that it doesn't mean that a feminist can't be in favour of supporting men's issues. The movement's priority is increasing the equality between the genders and that's what I've tried to highlight with that example.
Take that logic to an extreme, and the only groups that are legitimate are those advocating for the poor and convicted felons. I guess what you're saying is that women's issues aren't significant enough to warrant its own movement? This line of discussion ties nicely to this thread.
BREAKING NEWS - The Western world is overrun by a mass movement of migrants seeking refuge from gender inequality. Experts estimate that some 800 million people will find themselves in a First World country where women face no disadvantages compared to men by the end of this year.
My response to you would be the same as the one to gimmepie - the numbers don't really matter. But I'm surprised that you would claim that men and women are equal at an 8. Surely workplace discrimination, political and workplace underachievement, and sexual and domestic violence contributes to at least half or a single point docked.
I don't recall suggesting that feminism was about improving things for everybody. Haven't I been saying that's my biggest problem with feminism? It's focusing entirely on a group that don't really have it that bad and ignoring everyone else in the world. I don't question the nobility of the movements intentions, I question their methodology.
I find your choice to compare to socialism interesting though I have to say, since I consider myself an advocate of socialism.
And I don't think I suggest that you suggested that. I think I gave an honest statement that says - look, feminism isn't about improving things for everybody, but that's not to say a feminist can't support other facets of social justice. However, and we might not have been addressing it in the thread so far, some feminists would argue by making men and women more equal, you're improving the conditions of life for everybody - that all of society would benefit in an absolute way if men and women were more equal. I'm not that feminist, but I'd be really interested to hear what that means from somebody who takes that position.
Not going to lie, I had that in mind when I was deciding how to respond.
Feminist is a term used to describe those who believe women are equal to men. To say you are not a femenist is to say you do not support equal rights of men and women. What most of you are referring to is not Feminism but rather the actions pertaining to its supporters. Some of them are incredibly unnecessary, but when women ARE discriminated for gender they should have support, just as a man should were he ever rejected for his gender. I myself even feel some activists are much too extreme. That being said, the purpose of simply being there in case something truly oppressive does happen is not irrelevant to our times.
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
See, it's this whole "with us or against us" black and white mentality that makes me unwilling to consider myself part of ANY social movement, let alone feminism.
However, I do agree that it should be renamed from "Feminist" to "Femenist." Then the title might be more descriptive towards the goal that the movement proclaims.
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
I tend to have this "do what you want so long as it doesn't bring harm or inconvenience to me" approach when it comes to social movements. I'm not against women being treated with equal fairness to men and I'm sure every single reasonable person in existence feels the same way.
But I don't consider myself feminist. Of course, this could stem from me being reluctant to label myself as anything period.
I call myself feminist because I use the denotation of words when I speak. That's just a personal thing. I don't support those crazies who think women are above men or think it's discrimination to say more men than women are computer programmers (since, ya know, it's true).
Except that it's not. I provided you with the actual definition on the previous page and it's vastly different to what you're suggesting.
- 5,256
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Age 26
- Leicester, UK
- Seen yesterday
Why is it that discussions on feminism always devolve into semantics, anyway?
Not entirely sure.
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
Probably because radicals have given the public a perverted view of the ideology. You know the old saying "a few bad apples spoil the bunch?" In not many other ideologies is this more noticeable than feminism.
- 11,468
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Seen yesterday
Focusing on semantics allows for distraction from the original issue itself.
I think it's important for people to know what they're actually talking about considering this is a section routed in logic and facts. Semantics plays a part because people are trying to argue pro-feminism based on an incorrect definition of what feminism is.
Pretty sure I've been happy to discuss the issue at hand and have done so. I'm not discussing semantics to avoid that, I'm discussing semantics because I think it's a part of that.
KorpiklaaniVodka
KID BUU PAWAA
- 3,318
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 25
- Eastern Europe
- Seen Sep 26, 2016
Feminism is another definition for double standard.