Feminism

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

I would like to discuss feminism with you guys. Specifically first about the masterpiece feminist book "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir. So, what do you think about it? And about feminism?

[weltanschauung]

havent read it. what do you have to say about it?

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

I think it's one of the best works of Simone de Beauvoir. Written (actually released) in 1949, the two volumes of The Second Sex are not outdated. They exploit why the female gender was always secundary, why women had never achieved as much as men.

It considers many of the social conceptions that define men and women, and it gives insights on "proofs" on female inferiority, by Freud for example.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on them. :redface: I'll share my own as the discussion goes... Let's :argue: !

[Niamh]

If you both dont mind, can you return to discussing in the Forums universal language english please so that other members of the forum, who may be interested in joining in the discussion, can. If you want to discuss the topic between yourselves, you can do it via PM.
I have also merged both of your feminism threads together under the serious discussions forum.
Thank You.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

No problem at all Niamh.

[The Atheist]

I would like to discuss feminism with you guys.

Excellent.

Count me in as a starter.

I haven't completed your poll, because I don't quite understand what you mean by equality of gender and why it should be desirable. Does this mean that men must have the babies? If so, it'll certainly solve overpopulation, but if not, could you please clarify the term for me. We can get into the desirability once we've cleared the first one.


Specifically first about the masterpiece feminist book "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir. So, what do you think about it? And about feminism?

Haven't read the book, being a bloke.

What do I think about feminism?

(Less fun than blokeism?)

A once-useful tool, now so overused as to have become a parody of itself which fails to see that men and women are actually different.


Are there such things as hardline feminist mothers?

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Excellent.

Count me in as a starter.

I haven't completed your poll, because I don't quite understand what you mean by equality of gender and why it should be desirable. Does this mean that men must have the babies?

No, I don't see why that should be, though you did know about that guy that had a baby right (he was a woman that went through a sex-change operation but kept the uterus)? I don't remember his name now though...


If so, it'll certainly solve overpopulation, but if not, could you please clarify the term for me. We can get into the desirability once we've cleared the first one.

How come men having babies also would solve overpopulation? :S

By equality of gender I mean we should (as a society) conceive men and women as simply humans, without the differences in treatment and without the great amount of social clichès biasing our judgement, the classic double-standards.


Haven't read the book, being a bloke.

What do I think about feminism?

(Less fun than blokeism?)

What's blokeism? :redface:


A once-useful tool, now so overused as to have become a parody of itself which fails to see that men and women are actually different.

True, but the parody of feminism I rather call feminazism. There are still real feminists out there I think, the only problem of actual instead of pseudo-feminism is the name, it suggests improvement of women's social condition but ignorance of men's.


Are there such things as hardline feminist mothers?

Yes, but now I just remember Bertrand Russel's first mother-in-lawn.

[The Atheist]

No, I don't see why that should be, though you did know about that guy that had a baby right (he was a woman that went through a sex-change operation but kept the uterus)? I don't remember his name now though...

Not only that, I believe he/she is pregnant for the second time. Completely irrelevant anyway, because chromosomally and physically, "he" is still a woman, just one who had extreme breast reduction. Transgendered people are a different subject.


How come men having babies also would solve overpopulation? :S

No man would be crazy emough to go through childbirth twice.


By equality of gender I mean we should (as a society) conceive men and women as simply humans, without the differences in treatment and without the great amount of social clichès biasing our judgement, the classic double-standards.

Great theory, horrible in practice, simply because of the physical differences. Men and women can't compete physically, they have divergent health needs and don't think the same way.


What's blokeism? :redface:

Blokes' rights. Men standing up to ensure that we are treated equally by a system which ofetn favours the weaker sex. Our main plank is golf tees. Women want equality? Tee off from the same damn spot we blokes must!


True, but the parody of feminism I rather call feminazism. There are still real feminists out there I think, the only problem of actual instead of pseudo-feminism is the name, it suggests improvement of women's social condition but ignorance of men's.

Doesn't acknowledgement of the differences in social conditions and needs also acknowledge that there are differences in the sexes and therefore they can't be the same?


Yes, but now I just remember Bertrand Russel's first mother-in-lawn.

Bit out of date. In those days, feminism was quite reasonable, and worked! We gave you the damn vote!

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Not only that, I believe he/she is pregnant for the second time. Completely irrelevant anyway, because chromosomally and physically, "he" is still a woman, just one who had extreme breast reduction. Transgendered people are a different subject.

Oh, I didn't knew he was still a woman. Different subject? Okey-dokey.


No man would be crazy enough to go through childbirth twice.

If men had the "apparatus" to give birth to children, I think they would.



Great theory, horrible in practice, simply because of the physical differences.

Obviously I mean they should be treated equal concerning the aspects in which they are equal, I understand that men and women have differences that require different treatments, for instance, it'd be no use to not acknowledge that most women when in period have mood swings, simply because men don't the equivalent.


Men and women can't compete physically, they have divergent health needs and don't think the same way.

I disagree. Each person thinks differently of course, but our minds work the same way. My opinion.


Blokes' rights. Men standing up to ensure that we are treated equally by a system which often favours the weaker sex.

Hmmm, the weaker sex? This for me indicates some bias... Or is it only a way of speaking in this case?


Doesn't acknowledgement of the differences in social conditions and needs also acknowledge that there are differences in the sexes and therefore they can't be the same?

Of course, that's why we have real feminism, because clearly we can't expect women to be "equal" (I'm using the term for its conotation only) to men in an social environment where men are favoured. And us women, as one might expect, want to be able to live life and achieve as much as men without having our capacity diminushed by not having the concrete means to develop it.

I realise your blokeism is to think the exact opposite, that women are the
favoured ones. So we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.


Bit out of date. In those days, feminism was quite reasonable, and worked!

Oh, I don't think so, the earlier feminism was more nazist than the feminazism we have today (I mean one of the very first). Bertrand Russel joked about her feminist attitude in his autobiography "In her opinion apparently, there would be no such thing as alcohol if God was a woman".


We gave you the damn vote!

Hmmm, that was only our right, as much as it was something men stopped having as a privilege, that was no big favor. It was no more than what we should have.

I for one am not going to be thankfull for the gracious act of men to give women the right to vote as if it were something they did as a gift, or as something udeserved.

You feel bad about the injustices blokes have to put up with? Even if other's won't recognise?

Then also be conscious that women too can put up with injustices that you are not aware of.

[JBI]

In all honesty, I don't believe in gender equality - women are vastly superior.

[Delta40]

Isn't the issue that a person should not be treated differently because of their biology? That is the same as saying a person should be treated differently because of their race.

How are social roles and social norms connected to biology?

For example, there are numerous women employed in small parts factories (low skilled) because (biological explanation) their hands are more nimble - but there are few female surgeons (high skilled)

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

In all honesty, I don't believe in gender equality - women are vastly superior.

:lol:


Isn't the issue that a person should not be treated differently because of their biology?

Exactly, double standards should be abolished.

[Delta40]

I agree that double standards apply here. but how do you 'abolish' them when relationships are so interrelated?

[AmericanEagle]

Isn't the issue that a person should not be treated differently because of their biology? That is the same as saying a person should be treated differently because of their race.

There is no biological basis for race, so this analogy doesn't hold up.

[billl]

I agree with American Eagle.

I definitely believe there has been a lot of discrimination against women, and that there is still plenty going on (here in the U.S.--I'm not pointing to places where it's even worse.) But the discrimination between the sexes is not, in the end, exactly comparable to that between the races.

I would like to know if the OP (or any others who are strongly engaged and knowledgeable about this issue) have envisioned an end-state in which men and women are regarded as:

1) having absolutely similar roles (on average), and

2) having absolutely similar strengths and weaknesses (on average).

Would success be a roughly 50-50 split between men and women in every area of endeavor? Or would it be simply be a "no double standards" policy that allowed for differences that might be warped by biological differences (strength, child-bearing, perhaps even testosterone/aggressiveness--and how do you feel about those who point to apparent predispositions in brain wiring, etc.)--ie. would a 90%-10% split be OK in some circumstances?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd really appreciate it if people more expert in feminism could address the question I'm asking above. But I'm going to provide one more example that sort of hits on my biggest question/conundrum (Basically the golf thing the Atheist mentioned). Maybe it isn't a big deal! Anyhow, it is my instinct to support feminist positions, but I know there's a range of approaches, etc.

AN EXAMPLE
What is your stance on the possibility of continuing, in certain cases, a policy of "separate but equal?" between the sexes?

e.g., could men join a women's university soccer team?, or would there still be separate teams? If there were still separate teams, would sufficiently talented women be forced to play with other women, or could they play on the men's team? Or would there simply be one team, with a 50-50 mandated membership? (The genders in my example could be reversed, forgive me, but I'm presenting an example in which the boys are generally more athletic and better than the women).

Perhaps a sports question seems trivial, but I think it's an easy way to clearly address some things that might bleed into other areas. (Perhaps women will dominate as airline pilots, child-care workers, surgeons, who knows? Would that be acceptable, or would feminism seek to fix such imbalances?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if someday men and women did end up being roughly the same, as far as brain chemistry and physical abilities go (maybe even childbearing?!?! :)). But it probably won't happen very fast (if it happens at all, and I'm not particularly rooting for it, neither on behalf of myself nor on behalf of any of the women I love), and we have to live with each other as we are, in the meantime.

[Joreads]

In all honesty, I don't believe in gender equality - women are vastly superior.

So true J so true.

The problem seems to be that some woman want equality only when it suits them. If we want to be equal it is all or nothing in my mind. I also have to say that I often find that it is not men that hold women down it is other woman.

[Delta40]

There is no biological basis for race, so this analogy doesn't hold up.

That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that people will discriminate based on physical biological difference. There is no biological explanation why within certain societies people with curly hair and dark skin should be allocated specific social roles and status just as there is no rationale why women should fill specific roles because they have breasts and a vagina.

[The Atheist]

Obviously I mean they should be treated equal concerning the aspects in which they are equal, I understand that men and women have differences that require different treatments, for instance, it'd be no use to not acknowledge that most women when in period have mood swings, simply because men don't the equivalent.

Bingo!

That's one very good reason why equality's a myth. A sufferer from severe PMS will be below par for 3 or 4 working days a month. If we ignore it, she's at a disadvantage through biological reasons beyond her control, and if we don't, it can only be solved by positive discrimination. (Which I think is a very bad idea.)


I disagree. Each person thinks differently of course, but our minds work the same way. My opinion.

Sure it is. It's just wrong.

Men and women don't - and probably can't - think the same way. There is such an enormous amount of data on this that I'm surprised you'd try to disagree with it. Women have different methods of processing information and use different neuron paths. I guess you could argue social conditioning.


Hmmm, the weaker sex? This for me indicates some bias... Or is it only a way of speaking in this case?

No, I should have clarified - I mean weaker as in strength.


Of course, that's why we have real feminism, because clearly we can't expect women to be "equal" (I'm using the term for its conotation only) to men in an social environment where men are favoured. And us women, as one might expect, want to be able to live life and achieve as much as men without having our capacity diminushed by not having the concrete means to develop it.

How is that capacity diminshed? I also think you're missing the obvious effect of motherhood. The enormous majority of women put their mothering before career or other aspirations, while men generally don't change aspirations through fatherhood. Again, you can claim social conditioning, but I think the mothering instinct goes a lot deeper than that.


I realise your blokeism is to think the exact opposite, that women are the
favoured ones. So we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

No, I don't think women are favoured, but because of having by far the squeakiest wheel for the past century, the pendulum is in danger of heading towards women being favoured over men.


Oh, I don't think so, the earlier feminism was more nazist than the feminazism we have today (I mean one of the very first). Bertrand Russel joked about her feminist attitude in his autobiography "In her opinion apparently, there would be no such thing as alcohol if God was a woman".

But with a lot better reason. During those days, a man more or less owned a wife. He could not be charged with raping her, he could give her a good corrective whipping and she couldn't vote. The amount of genuine complaints in 2009 - in the western world - are few.


Then also be conscious that women too can put up with injustices that you are not aware of.

Oh, I reckon I've heard of most of them. I'v employed an awful lot of women in my time and gone out with a few.


In all honesty, I don't believe in gender equality - women are vastly superior.

Your mom thanks you!


But the discrimination between the sexes is not, in the end, exactly comparable to that between the races.

Not even slightly the same, in my view. Men and women are different, and demonstrably so. I can show you biologically, genetically and factually why men and women are different. As Beauvoir Fan said, you can't do that with race. Genetically speaking, races don't exist.


AN EXAMPLE
What is your stance on the possibility of continuing, in certain cases, a policy of "separate but equal?" between the sexes?

e.g., could men join a women's university soccer team?, or would there still be separate teams?

Yes. Nasty little conundrum that. Not many sportswomen are feminists.


That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that people will discriminate based on physical biological difference. There is no biological explanation why within certain societies people with curly hair and dark skin should be allocated specific social roles and status just as there is no rationale why women should fill specific roles because they have breasts and a vagina.

Course there are. One quick example - midwifery.

I've met quite a few midwives in my time, and every one of them was a mother. I think it's extremely important to have mothers in the role, because a man especially has no comprehension of what's going on, and nor do childless women, although they could play empathy a bit.

Lingerie shop assistants. I'd certainly volunteer for the job, but whether many women would accept me helping them with their brassiere fitting is moot.

Lavatory attendants. Wet nurses. Take your pick.

[virginiawang]

I wonder what the phrase " gender equality" means. How can a man be equal to a woman? A man differs from a woman in his constitution, the way his brain functions, the path his feelings take, or even the preferences in study, and that is simply natural. If a woman does her best to imitate a man in any way, she will look ludicrous. In my opinion, feminism is a silly idea which people should discard without hesitation because it makes attempts to twist nature out of its beautiful shape.

[blazeofglory]

Feminism is nonsense and the voice of women is unnecessary.

Women are kind of trying to be like men and as a matter of fact they are doing disservice to their own kinds.

Is it necessary to raise the voice?

Men are by nature through evolution very strong and this strength has given him some privilege over their counterparts, women.

Now women are trying to unite themselves and this unity is not out of the motive to strengthen themselves but to be equal to men.

They are a big force, complete in themselves without external support and now the way they try to be equal women they are belittling their own races.

[Delta40]

[QUOTE.
Course there are. One quick example - midwifery.

I've met quite a few midwives in my time, and every one of them was a mother. I think it's extremely important to have mothers in the role, because a man especially has no comprehension of what's going on, and nor do childless women, although they could play empathy a bit.

Lingerie shop assistants. I'd certainly volunteer for the job, but whether many women would accept me helping them with their brassiere fitting is moot.

Lavatory attendants. Wet nurses. Take your pick.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point. having breasts and a vagina should not mean less pay. It should not mean less access to skilled positions. it should not mean a double standard within socially structured instutions. A standard for men and a standard for women. Exclusion and/or different treatment because breasts and vaginas mean something to men is not rational, however you want to explain it.

Putting this difference down to biology just isn't going to make the grade. I am not aware that exclusive membership on the earth is for penis holders only...

[Mr Endon]

Very interesting debate.

For the sake of clarity, however, I think it's important to make sure we're talking about the same definition of 'equality'.

2)uniform character, as of motion or surface.
this notion of equality is indefensible and no one in one's right mind would want men and women to be perceived as being the same.

on the other hand,

1)[...]correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
...is a more acceptable definition.
('correspondence' being the keyword).

Men and women are different. This must be acknowledged and differentiations must be set accordingly. This means that discrimination is to be welcomed when there is reason to. In sports, for instance, and in the abovementioned gender-specific occupations.

Yet so far as possible there must be equal opportunities for both genders. That's what feminism is really about, equal opportunities. The fact that some here seem to be taking on the hardline feminists that say that women are better than men makes you come across as disingenuous. What feminism says is, women shouldn't be discriminated when there is no good reason to discriminate. In politics, for example.

[crystalmoonshin]

Feminism is nonsense and the voice of women is unnecessary.

Women are kind of trying to be like men and as a matter of fact they are doing disservice to their own kinds.

Is it necessary to raise the voice?

Men are by nature through evolution very strong and this strength has given him some privilege over their counterparts, women.

Now women are trying to unite themselves and this unity is not out of the motive to strengthen themselves but to be equal to men.

They are a big force, complete in themselves without external support and now the way they try to be equal women they are belittling their own races.

1. What makes you think that?
2. In what way? Care to elaborate?
3. Of course it is. Women are human beings, too, like men. And our opinions and ideas matter, too.
4. But women in general have a higher tolerance for anything than men. And this is feminine strength, as compared to the masculine physical strength.
5. And there's nothing wrong with that.
6. No we're not belittling our own. We're just broadening our horizons and expanding our roles in the society.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

That's one very good reason why equality's a myth.

I don't think so. Equality of opportunities should always be a goal.


A sufferer from severe PMS will be below par for 3 or 4 working days a month.

We don't have to either ignore it neither give less pay to all women because some have this condition, what I see being done, and agree with, is coming up with ways to either eliminate this "handicap" or aliviate it.

Through medicine. I have friends who had this and stopped once they changed their life habits. I myself have a lot of little habits of my own, which I use not be useless when in my period.


Men and women don't - and probably can't - think the same way. There is such an enormous amount of data on this that I'm surprised you'd try to disagree with it.

There's also an enormous data supporting my opinion, I know you don't know me, so there is no way you could tell, but I am aware of a lot of data proving women's natural inferiority, but also a lot of data (which I found by far more convincing and better elaborate) proving, if you will, what I said.

I have no possibilites to summarize the works of cientists, psychologists and philosophers to you, but I can, however, give you the sources, I shall look for them and them pass them to you. Considering you're interested, naturally.


Women have different methods of processing information and use different neuron paths. I guess you could argue social conditioning.

Indeed I could, I find to say that women's brain differs in all ways from men's brain even amusing to some degree. As you probably find my "naive" opinion.


No, I should have clarified - I mean weaker as in strength.

Oh. ^^


How is that capacity diminshed?

Having less opportunities diminishes the capacity, everything needs to be nurtured to develop.


The enormous majority of women put their mothering before career or other aspirations,

I'm aware of this. That's a cultural factor. What about it? I didn't intend to say that all inequalities women face were created by men, we're all guilty, men and women, for the social gender-specific standards.


while men generally don't change aspirations through fatherhood.

Good for them. ^^ But it is sad how men are still considered much less important in the raising of a child, this I believe is one example of how men also suffer double-standards. Nobody valorizes a man that wants to focuse on raising his kid as they valorize a woman.


Again, you can claim social conditioning, but I think the mothering instinct goes a lot deeper than that.

The fathering instinct as well. And plenty of the reasons that lead women to have kids is not a mothering instinct but social factors, otherwise we'd have much less "inefficient", negligent or simply bad mothers.


No, I don't think women are favoured, but because of having by far the squeakiest wheel for the past century, the pendulum is in danger of heading towards women being favoured over men.

I wouldn't fear that if I were you. The pendulum thing is just an ilusion, we're only going through "the aftershock" of feminism. It will be over with time. I'm speculating...


But with a lot better reason. During those days, a man more or less owned a wife. He could not be charged with raping her, he could give her a good corrective whipping and she couldn't vote.

That's still the reality in many places, many many places. And I think you need to familiarize with the "unreasonable" feminism that was the majority back then. Only few people reasoned.


The amount of genuine complaints in 2009 - in the western world - are few.

Because every woman, no matter how little knowledgeable on the issue, can call herself a feminist. We have a plague on the issue too, some insist to blame only the men for the standards...


Oh, I reckon I've heard of most of them. I've employed an awful lot of women in my time and gone out with a few.

Good for you! ;)


I wonder what the phrase " gender equality" means. How can a man be equal to a woman? A man differs from a woman in his constitution, the way his brain functions, the path his feelings take, or even the preferences in study, and that is simply natural.

That's exactly what we disagree with. That it is simply natural.


If a woman does her best to imitate a man in any way, she will look ludicrous.

That's either some discrimination women face, whenever a woman does not fit into the "female" type, whenever she does something outside the female social sphere, she is said to simply be imitating a man, and therefore she is not taken seriously.


In my opinion, feminism is a silly idea which people should discard without hesitation because it makes attempts to twist nature out of its beautiful shape.

Beautiful shape? History hardly shows any beauty in those matters, but I won't discuss taste with you.:p


So true J so true.

The problem seems to be that some woman want equality only when it suits them. If we want to be equal it is all or nothing in my mind. I also have to say that I often find that it is not men that hold women down it is other woman.

Men and women hold men and women down, by ignorantly accepting the apparently harmless stereotypes. But I agree with you, all or nothing!


I would like to know if the OP (or any others who are strongly engaged and knowledgeable about this issue) have envisioned an end-state in which men and women are regarded as:

1) having absolutely similar roles (on average), and

2) having absolutely similar strengths and weaknesses (on average).

Would success be a roughly 50-50 split between men and women in every area of endeavor? Or would it be simply be a "no double standards" policy that allowed for differences that might be warped by biological differences (strength, child-bearing, perhaps even testosterone/aggressiveness--and how do you feel about those who point to apparent predispositions in brain wiring, etc.)--ie. would a 90%-10% split be OK in some circumstances?

It would be simply a no-double standards policy, so yes, if there were no double standards, it'd be ok to happen a 90 - 10% split. But I doubt it'd happen, it is more likely to vary 50-50, 60-40, and 70-30%.


AN EXAMPLE
What is your stance on the possibility of continuing, in certain cases, a policy of "separate but equal?" between the sexes?

I don't find that advisable, we know what happened the last time they tried it. :(


e.g., could men join a women's university soccer team?, or would there still be separate teams? If there were still separate teams, would sufficiently talented women be forced to play with other women, or could they play on the men's team? Or would there simply be one team, with a 50-50 mandated membership? (The genders in my example could be reversed, forgive me, but I'm presenting an example in which the boys are generally more athletic and better than the women).

It'd be all mixed up, why not separate the teams by talent? Regardless of other things...


Perhaps a sports question seems trivial, but I think it's an easy way to clearly address some things that might bleed into other areas. (Perhaps women will dominate as airline pilots, child-care workers, surgeons, who knows? Would that be acceptable, or would feminism seek to fix such imbalances?)

If the imbalance was caused by things other than unequal opportunities, let them be.


Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if someday men and women did end up being roughly the same, as far as brain chemistry and physical abilities go (maybe even childbearing?!?! :)). But it probably won't happen very fast (if it happens at all, and I'm not particularly rooting for it, neither on behalf of myself nor on behalf of any of the women I love), and we have to live with each other as we are, in the meantime.

Leave with each other as we are wouldn't change, we would just have a greater range of possibilities to what we can be.


I agree that double standards apply here. but how do you 'abolish' them when relationships are so interrelated?

The same way you abolish anything ignorance-based, with knowledge. :idea: ;)

[The Atheist]

I don't think so. Equality of opportunities should always be a goal.

I think that exists right now. We have a woman Veep in USA, New Zealand had two women Prime Minsiters in a row, Angela Merkel in Germany, A woman head of Yahoo!....


We don't have to either ignore it neither give less pay to all women because some have this condition, what I see being done, and agree with, is coming up with ways to either eliminate this "handicap" or aliviate it.

Again, in the west, where do women not get equal pay? I can't think of any western nation where pay disparity isn't forbidden, but I can't claim to have intimate knowledge of all of them. What you seek is already enshrined in law. In enlightened nations, anwyay.


Through medicine. I have friends who had this and stopped once they changed their life habits. I myself have a lot of little habits of my own, which I use not be useless when in my period.

I doubt many women are so severely affected as to be useless, but some do have pretty bad time of it. Medication doesn't always work, so the answer would be to treat it as a disability - a women's only one.


There's also an enormous data supporting my opinion, I know you don't know me, so there is no way you could tell, but I am aware of a lot of data proving women's natural inferiority, but also a lot of data (which I found by far more convincing and better elaborate) proving, if you will, what I said.

[QUOTE=FanofdeBeauvoir;760235]I have no possibilites to summarize the works of cientists, psychologists and philosophers to you, but I can, however, give you the sources, I shall look for them and them pass them to you. Considering you're interested, naturally.

Sure, I look forward to it.


Indeed I could, I find to say that women's brain differs in all ways from men's brain even amusing to some degree. As you probably find my "naive" opinion.

Not in all ways, but some fairly major ones.


Having less opportunities diminishes the capacity, everything needs to be nurtured to develop.

I don't have a problem with the idea, but I don't really accept the notion that women have reduced opportunities.


I'm aware of this. That's a cultural factor. What about it? I didn't intend to say that all inequalities women face were created by men, we're all guilty, men and women, for the social gender-specific standards.

As I said, it's not just social construct, and I'm not using it as an excuse to discriminate, but it must be used as a reason for different treatment. It's not just a question of who looks afterv the kids when born either; as long as women carry and breastfeed their young, they have a unique position which men can't be part of. If we don't construct society to allow for that difference, I think we're kidding ourselves.


Good for them. ^^ But it is sad how men are still considered much less important in the raising of a child, this I believe is one example of how men also suffer double-standards. Nobody valorizes a man that wants to focuse on raising his kid as they valorize a woman.

While you're right in general, I think you're wrong in many cases. There's a definite section of the population - younger professionals - which doesn't think as you say, and does recognise and share child-reaing.


The fathering instinct as well. And plenty of the reasons that lead women to have kids is not a mothering instinct but social factors, otherwise we'd have much less "inefficient", negligent or simply bad mothers.

Can you explain this further? I don't get the connection at all.


That's still the reality in many places, many many places.

Not in the west it isn't, unless you can show me evidence the contrary,


And I think you need to familiarize with the "unreasonable" feminism that was the majority back then. Only few people reasoned.

I'm familiar enough with it, but I don't think it's relevant. My wife comes from a long line of suffragettes.


Because every woman, no matter how little knowledgeable on the issue, can call herself a feminist. We have a plague on the issue too, some insist to blame only the men for the standards...

What? You're not going to say it's all our fault? Is that playing fair?

:D

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

I think that exists right now.What you seek is already enshrined in law. In enlightened nations, anwyay.

I'm talking globally. :p


I doubt many women are so severely affected as to be useless, but some do have pretty bad time of it.

I meant useless as in can't work.


Medication doesn't always work, so the answer would be to treat it as a disability - a women's only one.

My bad, I was trying to talk about measures, generally science-based, to help it. It's not that much of a women's only disability, yes, the period is women's only, but some hormonal irregularities can also happen with men it was recently found.

I don't know where you could find the article though...



Sure, I look forward to it.

Some of it:

The book I mentioned in my first post: The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir.

The tales of these authors: Clarice Lispector, Origenes Lessa. They're not essays on the issues but I'm sure you'll get where I'm coming from.

BBC's documentaries, all of them. But mainly the ones with "mind", "human" or "body" in the title.

Works by Freud, Jung etc. Of course they're sexist, but it should be an enlightment in terms of a few roots for sexist beliefs.


Not in all ways, but some fairly major ones.

:lol: Ok.


I don't have a problem with the idea, but I don't really accept the notion that women have reduced opportunities.

Again, globally.




As I said, it's not just social construct, and I'm not using it as an excuse to discriminate, but it must be used as a reason for different treatment.

They tried to do that before, didn't do much good. 'Cause the different treatment was based on prejudices instead of facts.


It's not just a question of who looks after the kids when born either; as long as women carry and breastfeed their young, they have a unique position which men can't be part of.

Not really, more and more they find out how the father's role is greatly important. That's good news for men as far as I'm concerned...



While you're right in general, I think you're wrong in many cases.

Well, I was talking general after all, as to the cases, I think we should look at them specifically and separatly.


There's a definite section of the population - younger professionals - which doesn't think as you say, and does recognise and share child-raising.

Thank goodness for these people. But they are still a percentage that needs to grow.


Can you explain this further? I don't get the connection at all.

What more exactly about it don't you connect? Again though, BBC's documentaries on parenting, human mind and development should be enlightning (and entertaining :)).


Not in the west it isn't, unless you can show me evidence the contrary,

:lol: That'd be difficult for me, considering where I live. But I rather tackle the issue on a global manner, since to tackle it specifically I would have to be much more knowledgeable than I am on every region.


What? You're not going to say it's all our fault? Is that playing fair?

:D

;)

[Drkshadow03]

Some of it:

The book I mentioned in my first post: The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir.

The tales of these authors: Clarice Lispector, Origenes Lessa. They're not essays on the issues but I'm sure you'll get where I'm coming from.

BBC's documentaries, all of them. But mainly the ones with "mind", "human" or "body" in the title.

Works by Freud, Jung etc. Of course they're sexist, but it should be an enlightment in terms of a few roots for sexist beliefs.



Those are all philosophy books, fictional tales, and theoretical works. Any actual studies that involves science?

[billl]

I'm talking globally. :p




Well, this is great to know. I think there is a lot of basic work to be done globally, for sure. Still, I am interested to know how simple and clean your position is re: no double standards.




Quote:
AN EXAMPLE
What is your stance on the possibility of continuing, in certain cases, a policy of "separate but equal?" between the sexes?
I don't find that advisable, we know what happened the last time they tried it. :(


I almost didn't use the phrase "separate but equal" due to its strong connection to Jim Crow laws and segregationist policies in the U.S. and other places. Rest assured, I am no fan of that. It is the difference between Racism and Sexism that I am, in fact, trying to bring out by taking a look at "separate but equal" policies.

Do you really think that "separate but equal" has worked out just as badly in the sphere of male/female issues in a country like the U.S.?


First, right out of the gate, we have a system of public restroom facilities which has served us well, I think. It's so obvious, that I simply mention it in case it helps to distance me from the sort of discrimination that might have inspired the frowny face in the quote above. :)

Second, here in the U.S., we have a women's basketball league, the WNBA. This league would not exist without rules forbidding men players. The women playing on the teams would not be able to make a living playing basketball, if it weren't for this league. And improvements in the abilities of women to play basketball would be dealt a significant blow if the league were eliminated.

In your response to the university basketball example I gave above, you suggested that additional teams or leagues could be created, once the distinction between men's and women's teams was eliminated. However, in the case of many sports today (I think it would be fair to say that the exceptions would be rare), additional teams would simply be "manned" by more male players, leaving women out entirely (or almost entirely).

Currently, there is a "separate but equal" policy in U.S. university and high school athletics. Any school that receives federal funding must ensure that scholarships are equal--so women are able to compete, and receive money towards their tuition in the university. Without women's teams, women would not have equal participation in athletics. If university athletic scholarships were handed out based solely on athletic ability (without regard for sex), women would not receive as much financial assistance.

I have watched WNBA games, and the stands are dominated by women. Some men attend, and I definitely have enjoyed watching the WNBA on television on a few occasions. But the (selling!) point of the league, and the point of the application of Title IX ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX ) to school athletics in the U.S., is to provide women with the chance to compete and develop as professional athletes, and to provide role models for young women.

Third, another simple issue to ponder would be: What would happen to the Olympic Games if women and men competed against each other in all events? How many women would be competing? Would it perhaps hurt efforts to end discrimination against women?

*****
I know that "separate but equal" has a sad and tragic history in race relations. But might current efforts to help advance women's athletics be justifiable--whether the goal is an eventual "no double standards" policy or not?

[The Atheist]

I'm talking globally. :p

Then you need to specifically aim at those countries where the problems exist. By trying a "one for all" approach, I think you're neglecting a huge number of men who'd gladly join in the fight against non-christian religious bigotry. I'd gladly join that fight.


My bad, I was trying to talk about measures, generally science-based, to help it. It's not that much of a women's only disability, yes, the period is women's only, but some hormonal irregularities can also happen with men it was recently found.

You'd probably be best to sweep all that under the general heading of "mental health" as they're indistinguishable from other chemical imbalances, as far as I can tell, but you'd still need different rules as you'd be using different chemicals.


:lol: That'd be difficult for me, considering where I live. But I rather tackle the issue on a global manner, since to tackle it specifically I would have to be much more knowledgeable than I am on every region.

;)

I don't think you would - the areas of bigotry are reasonably well defined. As I said above, I don't think it's something you can use one size of brush to paint with.

How are conditions in Brazil? I'm certainly unfamailiar with them, but where I am - New Zealand - we have a proud record of being first in many women's rights.


Third, another simple issue to ponder would be: What would happen to the Olympic Games if women and men competed against each other in all events? How many women would be competing? Would it perhaps hurt efforts to end discrimination against women?

More medals for blokes!! Yay!

[TheFifthElement]

I think it might be a good idea to read the book. I've dipped in and out of The Second Sex and have found it to be excellent though a little dated now. It is feminist but it is not 'feminism' as we all probably know it - no Germaine Greer approach. Instead I think you find de Beauvoir is not sympathetic to women on the whole. She finds women as much accountable for their 'lesser' status as men through allowing themselves to be moulded into a role and accepting it as their 'lot'.

I find this also in the workplace. In my workplace there are many more men in positions of authority than women and there are, doubtless, some men who still discriminate against women of childbearing age because of the fear that they will have a child, take maternity leave and may or may not return to work. I think, on the whole, this is an unfair judgement because it puts gender as the primary decider as opposed to the individual skills and merit of the candidate. One might equally argue that a man is more likely to use the position to move on to a competitor or a different role for better pay and prospects so appointing a man doesn't give any certainty either. But at the same time it doesn't seem to me to be a groundless fear. In my working life I have known of only three women, one being myself and the others two driven colleagues, who have chosen to return to a career after having children. For everyone one woman like me there have been 10 that have either quit work after having a child, asked to come back part time, or come back just to do the day to day role. Now there's nothing wrong with that, each individual must act according to their own desires and needs, but it is hard to break through the barriers that our own gender creates and not always fair to blame that on men.

I believe that everyone, regardless or race, gender, political or sexual persuasion, should be given fair opportunities, fair pay and conditions. I would not be happy to find that I earned less than my male colleagues of the same grade simply because I am a woman and neither would I be happy to find I had been denied an opportunity because I am a women. In fact this did happen to me twice in a previous role and on the second occasion (after being told directly by my manager that I might be considered for a future role providing I didn't have any more babies!) I took this as a case at an employment tribunal and was successful. I did not accept my 'lot' and the 'system' supported me. But it take effort beyond bra burning to make a real change and a large part of this must come from women themselves. Women shouldn't be barred from traditionally 'male' roles, equally as men shouldn't be barred from traditionally 'female' roles. I think de Beauvoir puts this across very well in her book.

I still think there is some way to go to achieve equality in both respects. Positive discrimination doesn't help the issue. But you still find that in many roles where it is considered 'professional' it is dominated by men. For example women are 'cooks' whilst men are 'chefs'; women are midwives while men are obstretricians, and so on. The same doesn't seem to occur in reverse. If a women is able to build she is still a builder, there's no higher grade greater pay and status equivalent role.

[virginiawang]

Feminism reminds me of myself as a senior high school girl. It dates back to so many years ago, but the memory of it remains clear. My senior high school is one in which all the smart and tough young ladies gather together, and I assure you I've seen the queerest sort of ladies I could ever imagine. Many of them achieved the best grades in all of the subjects, attained the standard of perfection in all kinds of sports, and had the best performance in all social activities, whether to give a speech or to organize a group whatever, because they had grown accustomed to perfection. I think few of the men at this age could emulate these strange creatures in any fields including sports. A statement given by our principal to all of us that stood out in my memory even till now was, " We aim to be presidents rather than their wives in the future." Every time I heard it, I was brimmimg over with ire because I thought I had been thrown into the category of man-like women and lost all the feminine qualities as a result. Fearing that I should become one of them, I seldom studied. I was quite stupid at that time. I never studied until I entered an English Department through a transference exam that tested only on my English.
All of the above tells me the fact that every human being is unique, and people can never tell what talents one may have from his/her gender. For example, my math and physics scores had always been the highest in class in junior high school when most people considered men as having more talents in those subjects than women. I didn't like history and geography, which women were considered to have more talents in.

Therefore women and men should be given equal opportunities in all fields.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Those are all philosophy books, fictional tales, and theoretical works. Any actual studies that involves science?

BBC's documentaries involve science, and are actual studies, The Second Sex may have philosophy but involves a bloody lot of science. Only the tales are just fictional.


Well, this is great to know. I think there is a lot of basic work to be done globally, for sure. Still, I am interested to know how simple and clean your position is re: no double standards.



I almost didn't use the phrase "separate but equal" due to its strong connection to Jim Crow laws and segregationist policies in the U.S. and other places. Rest assured, I am no fan of that. It is the difference between Racism and Sexism that I am, in fact, trying to bring out by taking a look at "separate but equal" policies.

Do you really think that "separate but equal" has worked out just as badly in the sphere of male/female issues in a country like the U.S.?


First, right out of the gate, we have a system of public restroom facilities which has served us well, I think. It's so obvious, that I simply mention it in case it helps to distance me from the sort of discrimination that might have inspired the frowny face in the quote above. :)

Second, here in the U.S., we have a women's basketball league, the WNBA. This league would not exist without rules forbidding men players. The women playing on the teams would not be able to make a living playing basketball, if it weren't for this league. And improvements in the abilities of women to play basketball would be dealt a significant blow if the league were eliminated.

In your response to the university basketball example I gave above, you suggested that additional teams or leagues could be created, once the distinction between men's and women's teams was eliminated. However, in the case of many sports today (I think it would be fair to say that the exceptions would be rare), additional teams would simply be "manned" by more male players, leaving women out entirely (or almost entirely).

Currently, there is a "separate but equal" policy in U.S. university and high school athletics. Any school that receives federal funding must ensure that scholarships are equal--so women are able to compete, and receive money towards their tuition in the university. Without women's teams, women would not have equal participation in athletics. If university athletic scholarships were handed out based solely on athletic ability (without regard for sex), women would not receive as much financial assistance.

I have watched WNBA games, and the stands are dominated by women. Some men attend, and I definitely have enjoyed watching the WNBA on television on a few occasions. But the (selling!) point of the league, and the point of the application of Title IX ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX ) to school athletics in the U.S., is to provide women with the chance to compete and develop as professional athletes, and to provide role models for young women.

Third, another simple issue to ponder would be: What would happen to the Olympic Games if women and men competed against each other in all events? How many women would be competing? Would it perhaps hurt efforts to end discrimination against women?

*****
I know that "separate but equal" has a sad and tragic history in race relations. But might current efforts to help advance women's athletics be justifiable--whether the goal is an eventual "no double standards" policy or not?


Actually, a little language misunderstanding might have happened, I indeed associated the "separate but equal" with the segregationist laws. But once you clarified what you meant, I can't say these are measures I'm against, on the contrary, I think it's great this sort of thing exists, and that is a point towards the equal opportunities, not against it.

When I say I think it would be ideal not to separate the groups by sex, I mean given 1) men's and women's performance are at the same level or 2) we have different levels of performance, not only the best of the best should be allowed to play, and smaller teams could have *example only* men and women who are not so good.

Of course, if women prove to be that much worse than men in almost everything (in sports), then separate by sex is certainly a good option. But I don't think the majority of women is that less physically strong or skilled, though I don't have any statistics to confirm so.

[AmericanEagle]

It is important to remember that there is no single category of 'woman'. Women of different races, classes, sexualities, and disabilities experience more forms of discrimination.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Then you need to specifically aim at those countries where the problems exist. By trying a "one for all" approach, I think you're neglecting a huge number of men who'd gladly join in the fight against non-christian religious bigotry. I'd gladly join that fight.

To mention a few for now: Afghan http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/,
South Asian countries.


How are conditions in Brazil? I'm certainly unfamiliar with them,

Not that bad where I live, but in the poorer areas we have a lot of problems with little girls' prostituition, the selling of girls and the lack of education.


but where I am - New Zealand - we have a proud record of being first in many women's rights.

:thumbs_up


I think it might be a good idea to read the book. I've dipped in and out of The Second Sex and have found it to be excellent though a little dated now. It is feminist but it is not 'feminism' as we all probably know it - no Germaine Greer approach. Instead I think you find de Beauvoir is not sympathetic to women on the whole. She finds women as much accountable for their 'lesser' status as men through allowing themselves to be moulded into a role and accepting it as their 'lot'.

I find this also in the workplace. In my workplace there are many more men in positions of authority than women and there are, doubtless, some men who still discriminate against women of childbearing age because of the fear that they will have a child, take maternity leave and may or may not return to work. I think, on the whole, this is an unfair judgement because it puts gender as the primary decider as opposed to the individual skills and merit of the candidate. One might equally argue that a man is more likely to use the position to move on to a competitor or a different role for better pay and prospects so appointing a man doesn't give any certainty either. But at the same time it doesn't seem to me to be a groundless fear. In my working life I have known of only three women, one being myself and the others two driven colleagues, who have chosen to return to a career after having children. For everyone one woman like me there have been 10 that have either quit work after having a child, asked to come back part time, or come back just to do the day to day role. Now there's nothing wrong with that, each individual must act according to their own desires and needs, but it is hard to break through the barriers that our own gender creates and not always fair to blame that on men.

I believe that everyone, regardless or race, gender, political or sexual persuasion, should be given fair opportunities, fair pay and conditions. I would not be happy to find that I earned less than my male colleagues of the same grade simply because I am a woman and neither would I be happy to find I had been denied an opportunity because I am a women. In fact this did happen to me twice in a previous role and on the second occasion (after being told directly by my manager that I might be considered for a future role providing I didn't have any more babies!) I took this as a case at an employment tribunal and was successful. I did not accept my 'lot' and the 'system' supported me. But it take effort beyond bra burning to make a real change and a large part of this must come from women themselves. Women shouldn't be barred from traditionally 'male' roles, equally as men shouldn't be barred from traditionally 'female' roles. I think de Beauvoir puts this across very well in her book.

I still think there is some way to go to achieve equality in both respects. Positive discrimination doesn't help the issue. But you still find that in many roles where it is considered 'professional' it is dominated by men. For example women are 'cooks' whilst men are 'chefs'; women are midwives while men are obstretricians, and so on. The same doesn't seem to occur in reverse. If a women is able to build she is still a builder, there's no higher grade greater pay and status equivalent role.

At least someone else read the book. :D

[blazeofglory]

Feminism is nonsense and tomorrow another ism may come up as malism.

[Hurricane]

I'm a female who lives and works in an extremely male dominated environment. Feminists worked hard to make sure that I could have the right to vote, control my own body, and have the opportunities that I do. If I were born twenty or thirty years ago, I couldn't do anything that I want to do.
I wouldn't go so far to say that feminism is irrelevant (in the US), but it's getting there. In my experience, though, too much outside interference on the behalf of women in male-centric environments is almost always negative. There are practical considerations that need to be taken care of, obviously, but lots of women in these situations don't always want or need the extra attention.
There's also not that much closed to women anymore. The biggest one I can think of off the top of my head would be combat arms in the military (Infantry, tanks, etc.), but that line already gets blurred and I think the physical restrictions and practical aspect would mean that most women couldn't do these things anyway. A woman will never be, for example, a Navy SEAL. I just don't think it's physically possible. But women can be serious contenders in politics, surgeons, lawyers....almost everything is allowed, it's just a matter of time before it's more socially acceptable as well.
For professions that women take part in that are still dominated, the best advice I've ever gotten is that just being thick skinned and competent does infinitely more than bellyaching.

[Scheherazade]

Feminism is nonsense and tomorrow another ism may come up as malism.Well, that should settle it...

Wish you had posted sooner; would have saved us about 40 posts.

:p

[Virgil]

Feminism is nonsense and tomorrow another ism may come up as malism.

Very good Blaze. I agree. :)

[NickAdams]

You guys shouldn't mock malism; Mr. Dr. Mr. Adam Machismo, PH.D. has written an excellent book on the -ism: After Firsts I'll have Seconds, Sex.

[Babyguile]

Why did this thread develop into a debate on feminism between two male posters who are clearly not feminists, by their own admission?

All we always get when the subject is brought up is people who perceive feminism to be faulted in certain ways based on cultural contortions and I don't believe that the male posters of this thread have read a feminist book between them. And if you have then all the more shame for you for what you have posted in this thread.

Feminism is not about equality. That's pie in the sky hippy nonsense. Feminism is about liberation. It is about the liberation of women.

I actually think many of you actually need to be told the ways in which women are oppressed in our society.

Learn that before you attempt to debate feminism. This thread is weak, very weak.

[JuniperWoolf]

Why did this thread develop into a debate on feminism between two male posters who are clearly not feminists, by their own admission?

All we always get when the subject is brought up is people who perceive feminism to be faulted in certain ways based on cultural contortions and I don't believe that the male posters of this thread have read a feminist book between them. And if you have then all the more shame for you for what you have posted in this thread.

Feminism is not about equality. That's pie in the sky hippy nonsense. Feminism is about liberation. It is about the liberation of women.

I actually think many of you actually need to be told the ways in which women are oppressed in our society.

Learn that before you attempt to debate feminism. This thread is weak, very weak.

Thank you for posting this. When I try to respond to people who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to feminism, I get really angry and usually have to go away. That's why I avoid these threads. So thanks for saying it for me.

[Babbalanja]

Why did this thread develop into a debate on feminism between two male posters who are clearly not feminists, by their own admission?

All we always get when the subject is brought up is people who perceive feminism to be faulted in certain ways based on cultural contortions and I don't believe that the male posters of this thread have read a feminist book between them. And if you have then all the more shame for you for what you have posted in this thread.

Feminism is not about equality. That's pie in the sky hippy nonsense. Feminism is about liberation. It is about the liberation of women.

I actually think many of you actually need to be told the ways in which women are oppressed in our society.

Learn that before you attempt to debate feminism. This thread is weak, very weak.Hear, hear.

In the USA, we're still congratulating ourselves over the demise of the Equal Rights Amendment thirty years back. There's a sense of noble victory in how America put 'women's libbers' in their place. The term 'feminist' has become a derogatory term for a benighted fanatic who subscribes to ideas as obsolete as the flat Earth theory. It's a constant source of irritation to my wife, who still laments the death of old-school feminism.

The condescension and bigotry with which people rewrite history never fails to amaze me. But it would amaze me even more if any of the posters here had actually read anything by mainstream feminists. I'd wager their understanding of the subject is informed more by the ranting of right-wing talk-radio hosts than by familiarity with the ideas of actual feminist activists.

Regards,

Istvan

[The Comedian]

I'd wager their understanding of the subject is informed more by the ranting of right-wing talk-radio hosts than by familiarity with the ideas of actual feminist activists.

Perhaps you could share your wisdom with us? What are actual feminist activists writing these days?

[billl]

I, for one, was involved in the 'debate'. I'm not sure who the "two male posters who are clearly not feminists" that TheDave is referring to were, though. I wouldn't describe myself as non-feminist, at least in the sense that I completely support the idea of "the liberation of women"--and not in some lawyerball-wink-wink-right-wing-caricature version either, I don't think. I, while no expert on the latest writers, am inclined to support feminism. It's true though, that, while not ANTI-feminist, I am not qualified to argue in favor of modern feminist positions. In that sense, I guess one could say I wouldn't deserve to call myself a feminist--but I wonder if anyone complaining here would disagree with my support for what seems like feminist policies in college athletics, in my posts contra the out-of-date feminism that was up for discussion.

Also, the "other side" in the discussion was FanOfBeauvior (they began the thread), who seemed like a feminist to me.

If someone wants to clear things up about what modern feminism is, I think that'd very interesting. I studied a bit of Andrea Dworkin (sp?) in a philosophy of law class years ago, but can't say I remember precisely what it was about now.

As the most recent posters probably know, Simone de Beauvoir was an extremely influential woman in the development of feminism--but probably not a good example of more modern feminism. So, I addressed the simplistic and old-fashioned feminism that the thread began with (the discussion did not "devolve" into anything, by the way, it pretty much started there).

I think it would be great if, now that the disappointment has been made clear by those with great interest in the subject, someone would patch things up with a much better case for how to keep working at the project of the liberation of women.

[JuniperWoolf]

I wasn't criticizing you Bill. Like I said, I try very hard to avoid these discussions because they ruin my day. However, I saw that TheDave had posted, and I wanted to read what he said so my eyes just skimmed over this:


Feminism is nonsense and tomorrow another ism may come up as malism.

And the support as illustrated here:


Very good Blaze. I agree. :)

Which pissed me off. As for "modern" feminism, I think Istvan gave an accurate representation here:



In the USA, we're still congratulating ourselves over the demise of the Equal Rights Amendment thirty years back. There's a sense of noble victory in how America put 'women's libbers' in their place. The term 'feminist' has become a derogatory term for a benighted fanatic who subscribes to ideas as obsolete as the flat Earth theory. It's a constant source of irritation to my wife, who still laments the death of old-school feminism.

[Scheherazade]

OP:
I would like to discuss feminism with you guys. Specifically first about the masterpiece feminist book "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir. So, what do you think about it? And about feminism?What do you think?

[Gregory Samsa]

Well, were I live the father is home with his children almost as long the mother, you often see women drive the car and the man sit next (which I don’t use to see in other countries) and so on. I think we are very equal. Still everybody calls themselves feminist, and I think that’s right, because they are other fields we could improve.

[irishpixieb]

I'm a fan of the Catholic Church's view on this, seperate but equal. Sorry ladies, we are never going to be as fast as the fastest guy. Biology works against us. But, we are human beings and deserve to be treated with the same respect as a man.

Oh, woman have not always been treated poorly. The Irish, pre-britain, was a matriarchal society. I haven't read the book that this thread was orignally started on, but I do know that women have had their say once in a while.