Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it disturbing that the younger women who have benefited professionally and personally from years of proactive feminism, have the nerve to then turn around and be so dismissive of feminism today.
I am not a radical feminist, I do not think women are better than men. I have always viewed women as equal in the eyes of the law and I want all women in every country to be able to have that equality that western women fought so hard for.
If those suffragettes in New Zealand, England and the US had not put them selves out there, rebelled against the prevailing opinion in society and not been so adamant that they would have the vote we would not have the freedoms we have today.
Just pick up a book and read how women were treated 100 years ago, 500 years ago...it was not all chivalry and roses that's for sure.
Just remember that when you start writing how awful feminism is.
Well said.
I don't know if I'm radical or not. I just believe that women should have equal rights and equal opportuntities. If that makes me radical, so beit.
I don't think women are better than men but I don't think men are better than women either.
You are correct, it was the way women were treated in the past that motivated them to rebel. If they'd been treated so wonderfully, what would they have had to rebel against? People who are happy with their sitautions don't pick up picket signs and march to change it. That is reserved for people who are unhappy with their situations.
According to my grandmother, wife abuse was common. You just looked the other way. It was a family secret. You put on your public face when in public but in private, there was no telling what was going on. I'm sure there were women who were happy in their marriages but I'm also sure there were women who were miserable. It is for them that the feminists marched. Now all women have choices.
If the past was so rosy, why were so many stay at home moms prescribed "mother's little helpers" in the 60's? Women's lots have never been easy. Often they were anything but pleasant. And then there's the fact that so much of women's labor in the past has been replaced by machines. Making a home is no longer a full time job so why not have a career and contribute to our own financial success. I love that I don't have to be dependent on a man for my financial success. I can go make my own success. Men should like this too because it cuts down on the women dating them just because they're successful.
Wow I've had a flurry of anonymous reps today and just noticed I now have a star!
You may just be the voice of Reason.
I think all this radical brand of feminism today is just something else. Equality for women was a noble cause, however the kind of stuff that some women associate with feminism today is just scary.
Unfortunately, I've experienced more helpless women than I've needed help from others. I'm not the kind to EVER ask for help.
And if someone asks me to HELP them lift something? I lift it by myself, without their help, because I am capable of doing so!
I'm the type to go looking for work if I run out and I ran out often. I started as a part timer at the lab (chosen because I had two small children). I remember my first performance review. My manager gushed "I'll pit your 24 hours a week against anyone elses 40 hours a week any day.". The funny thing is, when I did, eventually, go back full time, my productivity really didn't go up. As a part timer, I was always well rested and didn't need to worry about burning myself out. Once I was full time, I was tired and paced myself so I didn't burn out. I was a bargain as a part time employee yet they put restrictions on how long we could be part time.
My sister was the same way. She was, recently, forced back full time. All that really happened is her pay went up because she was already taking work home with her. Now she just does it in the office for more pay. Sometimes, I think management is really dumb. They don't recognize a bargain when they see one.
My job didn't require lifting so I didn't have to worry about that. Most women are not as physically capable as most men so we don't take those jobs. Though I have a friend who's built like a trucker. She's been in construction for years and she's good at it. Her job would kill me.
I'd like to know why men in the justice system mistreat their own gender in divorce cases and give men heavier sentences while they let women who committed the same crime lighter ones?
Sorry but I think this is quite ridiculous. The only ones to really benefited from your brand of feminism are upper income white women. Always has been the case, always will be, it's an agenda for them, always was.
Hmmm, I do agree that it was upper class white women that initially headed the movement and sure, white women have benefited the most. But, I wouldn't rest racial disparity on the shoulders of feminism either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngletNYC
Women DO need men. That's the problem with your brand of feminism. You say we don't need men, when we in fact do. We are mammals and mammals couple, it is the natural order of things. I don't care what women were taught at their particular Seven Sisters university, we do need them.
This reminds me of a movie I watched the night before last, called Adam. He was a bright man with aspergers syndrome and there was a scene with his gf. She asked him why he wanted her to move to cali with him. He told her he needed her. He needed her to translate what the NT's (neurotypical) were thinking. He needed her to show him how to get to his new job. He needed her to learn how to speak in a normal way with NTs, etc. He did need her, and expressed as much, rather than making claims of wanting her, which is what she wanted to hear.
Point being, 'need' typically prefaces something. I need you to be happy. Ok. I need you to help pay the rent. Ok. I need you for this or that. Ok. So, when people speak of or think of need it can go in many directions depending on who is engaging in the conversation. For example, I need my husband to enjoy the day-to-day. He brings me joy. I don't need him to pay the mortgage, bills, etc. I suspect conversations go awry due to such misunderstandings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
That assumes that you are, indeed, doing the same job.
If I have to do my job, and also come over and help you do yours, then that's not "equal work".
I'll echo Ivory here, it's a gender neutral issue. I carry more weight in certain situations than my lab mate. His english isn't so good, or his social skills, so when we're up to bat to present to the group, it usually falls on my shoulders to have his and my work prepared for presentation, which is fine. He's a good guy and has many strengths, that's just not one of them, so I do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutz76
Nor when she or another female in the office decides to leave due to pregnancy thereby affecting the rest of the office to pick up the workload. If you're lucky your employer will hire a temp, but not everyone has that luxery since the employer would in effect be paying two people for the same job position.
IIRC, unpaid maternity leave is treated like a medical condition. We all have them from time to time (as we get older at least) and employers have to deal with it since they employ biological creatures. Whether it's back surgery (thinking of my lab mate), cancer (thinking of my dh's closing mgr), a tumor (thinking of myself), or pregnancy, stuff happens and people will need to contend with their issues. You have an issue with maternity leave because you're all effed up in the head over women. I doubt you would take issue with other medical leaves.
As far as paid maternity leave goes, that's a part of the benefits package offered by a co and it's none of your bees wax. At my co we also have paid paternity leave, adoption leave, etc. Again, none of your bees wax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Unfortunately, I've experienced more helpless women than I've needed help from others. I'm not the kind to EVER ask for help.
And if someone asks me to HELP them lift something? I lift it by myself, without their help, because I am capable of doing so!
High performers take all the help they can get. It's one of the reasons they're high performers and they're rewarded for it, ime, via bonuses, promotions, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
I think that every woman would argue that it is indeed a medical condition. As a matter of fact, you risk dying from pregnancy. As of yet, men do not. But there is specific leave addressed under FMLA for both mothers AND fathers of newborn children. Just that the men don't take advantage of said leave.
Redisca knows better than I, but women at my co can go on unpaid leave via a disability clause at my co.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngletNYC
Of course let's be real here and admit we are only talking about white collar jobs on the order of what well-off entitled white women want to do for a living... nobody really talks about whether the female cashier at Target is making $7.00 while her male counterpart is making $7.50. Nobody really cares about how much money a female guest worker from Mexico or Trinadad earns cleaning hotel rooms. Nah, you just complain about the number of CEOs and how much money VPs are earning.
I don't think this is the case across the board. Yes, white women in the US typically have greater options available, but it's not as if we're all starting out well off. CEOs and VPs are really a small percentage of the people that benefit from feminism.
Quote:
So now if these companies offering white collar jobs are intentionally paying women less than men due to sexism, why hire men at all? Why not have a workforce that is mostly female and underpaid?
Here is a truth never discussed, one I learned the hard way: men negotiate often and women often do not. Perhaps its due to men being more naturally confrontational, and the have a natural ability to take risks...
Take two college grads same major, both going for the same jobs in the same fields. Let's say you know the entry level pay range is "low 30s." When the female gets the job offer of $31k she typcially says, "Thanks, I am looking forward to working for you. When do I start?" The male gets the job offer and says, " Thanks, I am looking forward to working for you. Now let's address the salary... let me explain to you why I am worth $37k." After negotiating back and forth, he gets and accepts the offer of $35k.
Whose fault is that, that she is now getting paid less? And the problem with an inability to negotiate, is that all things being equal, in 15 years he will be earning $25k more per year. His performance based and cost of living raises will be a percentage of a higher salary as it is, and if he continues to negotiate a higher salary every time he changes jobs, he's going to be making a hell of a lot more money. (And I haven't even addressed the career effects of taking time off to bear and/or raise children.) This happens to beta male types too, they are also underpaid. When it man vs man, the disparity doesn't bother anyone.
This is true imo. I don't know if it's social conditioning or a woman's natural way, but women do have a difficult time in negotiations. Not all, but many. I ran across it when I had to negotiate my salary and it was difficult for me to push. I did, but it wasn't easy. Women also tend to be less grandiose about their abilities compared to men, which I'm sure plays a role here. Again, whether this is physiological or sociological I don't know.
What a lot of feminists fail to realize is that much of the advance in woman's conditions is technologically-driven and contextual.
Meaning that women, being physically weaker, have a much harder time reaching equality in developing countries. Most especially ones with security issues.
Picture your respective country with a submodern economy and social unrest and you will see the conditions of women drastically deteriorate back to the middle age.
What feminism has done is accelerate something that was already in movement. It has remove roadblocks, usually backward dinosaur-men, but women would've probably entered the labor work force and access independance without feminism.
That said, I have no issue with (moderate) feminism. I just think it is credited for things that would likely have occured anyway.
I also think modern feminists have overlooked the fact that for most women, working is not a choice anymore but an obligation. Most families cannot get by with only one salary like we used to. If men could stay at home like back in the day, fine. Some do, but most can't and women must work. I don't think it's a big plus for women's conditions when women have to sacrifice either their career or their motherhood or their health when they try to do both.
I think this consumption madness is a bigger concern for women (and men) than arguing over details left over in the man woman debate, which is often taken up by people who have frustration toward the opposite sex. Are we gonna wake up when children have to work as well to make ends meet?
IIRC, unpaid maternity leave is treated like a medical condition. We all have them from time to time (as we get older at least) and employers have to deal with it since they employ biological creatures. Whether it's back surgery (thinking of my lab mate), cancer (thinking of my dh's closing mgr), a tumor (thinking of myself), or pregnancy, stuff happens and people will need to contend with their issues. You have an issue with maternity leave because you're all effed up in the head over women. I doubt you would take issue with other medical leaves.
As far as paid maternity leave goes, that's a part of the benefits package offered by a co and it's none of your bees wax. At my co we also have paid paternity leave, adoption leave, etc. Again, none of your bees wax.
If a woman gets paid maternity leave then I want paid paternity leave. Fair is fair. This is the issue facing the UK. Women get close to 40 weeks of maternity leave, the vast majority of which is PAID LEAVE!!! Men get 2 weeks for paternity leave. There is a push both for equalizing the leave between genders and crying by childless women who want that kind of paid vacation time for themselves. The first I agree with, but the second group can pound sand. This is also the reason CEOs are so hesitant to hire women at peak childbearing age. Basically women are pricing themselves out of the market by demanding all the benefits they get over there and the US may follow in kind if feminists have their way. Women already get several multiples of time off that men get following a birth.
Personally I think if men and women want to have kids then it should be out of their own sick leave and/or personal leave. If they don't have the leave, just as if they can't afford to feed the kid in the first place, then obviosly having a child is just irresponsibble and being selfish and not a wise move. Sure accidents happen, but personal responsibility comes first. Bailing out people for irresponsibility just breeds more irresponsibility. That's what's destroying western civilization. Feminism, as well as other flavors of socialism, is about getting all the benefits while marginalizing personal responsibility. SOMEONE has to pay up and it's often the ones who are the law abiding good citizens who make the right choices in life. It's a lot like the housing and financial crisis. The ones being bailed out are the ones who bit off more than they could chew. Who DOESN'T get any help? The ones who did the right thing and were personally responsible for their own assets and wellbeing. What bizarro world do we live in that that's not rewarded, but the real-world Idiocracyites are.
If a woman gets paid maternity leave then I want paid paternity leave.
You do if you work for my company, or my husband's. I believe my company pays four weeks and his pays six or eight. Both companies also offer the same maternity and paternity leave for adoptions.
(a) General rules. Eligible employees are entitled to FMLA leave
for pregnancy or birth of a child as follows:
(1) Both the mother and father are entitled to FMLA leave for the
birth of their child.
(2) Both the mother and father are entitled to FMLA leave to be
with the healthy newborn child (i.e., bonding time) during the 12-month
period beginning on the date of birth. An employee's entitlement to
FMLA leave for a birth expires at the end of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the birth. If state law allows, or the
employer permits, bonding leave to be taken beyond this period, such
leave will not qualify as FMLA leave. See Sec. 825.701 regarding non-
FMLA leave which may be available under applicable State laws. Under
this section, both the mother and father are entitled to FMLA leave
even if the newborn does not have a serious health condition.
(3) A husband and wife who are eligible for FMLA leave and are
employed by the same covered employer may be limited to a combined
total of 12 weeks of leave during any 12-month period if the leave is
taken for birth of the employee's son or daughter or to care for the
child after birth, for placement of a son or daughter with the employee
for adoption or foster care or to care for the child after placement,
or to care for the employee's parent with a serious health condition.
This limitation on the total weeks of leave applies to leave taken for
the reasons specified as long as a husband and wife are employed by the
"same employer." It would apply, for example, even though the spouses
are employed at two different worksites of an employer located more
than 75 miles from each other, or by two different operating divisions
of the same company. On the other hand, if one spouse is ineligible for
FMLA leave, the other spouse would be entitled to a full 12 weeks of
FMLA leave. Where the husband and wife both use a portion of the total
12-week FMLA leave entitlement for either the birth of a child, for
placement for adoption or foster care, or to care for a parent, the
husband and wife would each be entitled to the difference between the
amount he or she has taken individually and 12 weeks for FMLA leave for
other purposes. For example, if each spouse took 6 weeks of leave to
care for a healthy, newborn child, each could use an additional 6 weeks
due to his or her own serious health condition or to care for a child
with a serious health condition. Note, too, that many State pregnancy
disability laws specify a period of disability either before or after
the birth of a child; such periods would also be considered FMLA leave
for a serious health condition of the mother, and would not be subject
to the combined limit.
There's your paternity leave.
In the US maternity leave is a mere fraction of what other countries have. In Europe, NZ and Australia maternity leave is very generous and the tax payer picks up the tab (generally). There is a general recognition of the direct correlation between stability in the family and productivity in the workplace.
Given the fact it is normally the woman who breastfeeds, it benefits both Mother and baby for her to have a longer period of leave.
(I can't get into maternity & paternity leave because it is of no interest to me.)
I just figured out what I don't like about modern feminism though.
Classic feminism = gender equality
Modern feminism = transference of power
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well said. 