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.
Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem had their day. Back in the sixties and seventies women were relegated to secretary and nursing jobs.
No, they weren't. "Relegated" is one of those leftist smokescreen labels. It's like saying "undocumented worker" instead of illegal alien or calling government deficit spending "investment". Relegated is a meaningless term. Anybody can be relegated to anything. 90% of our military is men. Does that mean men are relegated into being soldiers?
It's a way of promoting an agenda without having to offer up any facts, since the term is so ambiguous it's impossible to prove it wrong. You can claim any situation to have been "relegated by X to be that way" in order to cast it in a negative light and promote a social cause.
The women of the 50s weren't struggling against oppression. They fully participated in the social norms of the day. Did women have less common economic opportunities than men? Yes. But were they relegated to that situation? No, they were not. They did it to themselves. They were not victims. They were willing participants in the common culture. But by using the term "relegated" you can portray the situation as one of victimization and generate an appeal to emotion.
Quote:
Women still have some distance to go to break into the various engineering fields which includes computer science and wage parity in all fields.
The current generation has more female college students than men. The current generation has more women in management positions than men. The current generation has the average woman making more money than the average man.
We only have a ways to go because not all of the older generation has retired yet. You get these disparities in income and job positions by looking at the entire workforce. When you look at what is happening with the current generation, which is the logically proper way to determine feminism's effects, you see the disparity has now gone the opposite direction.
The idea that we've come so far but we still have a ways to go is a crock. It's feminist rhetoric trying to make itself stay relevant.
Quote:
What my question is here is; Are radical feminist agendas invented by the right wing media so that their target market the middle aged uneducated male has a scapegoat for disappearing jobs?
I would guess not since I've never seen anybody but you try to link feminism to disappearing jobs.
Quote:
Also,
If these so called Feminazis do exist why aren't they screaming about the leggy blond Miss America candidates broadcasting the news on FOX?
That's a logical fallacy. I could also say since the President of the country is black, racism must not exist. That's the same type of reasoning. Sorry, but it doesn't work. It's called hasty generalization.
Because my definition of "equal" bears no resemblance to the modern feminist definition of "equal". Unless we're on the same page in what YOU mean, then we're arguing over the qualities of a widget - which is merely whatever someone imagines it to be.
just what is the "modern feminists" definition of equal in your mind? I doubt it is anywhere near what modern feminist believe.
The women of the 50s weren't struggling against oppression. They fully participated in the social norms of the day. Did women have less common economic opportunities than men? Yes. But were they relegated to that situation? No, they were not. They did it to themselves. They were not victims. They were willing participants in the common culture. But by using the term "relegated" you can portray the situation as one of victimization and generate an appeal to emotion.
let me address this part of your post. were you even around in the 50's? do you have any real first hand knowledge of how it was for women then?
yes women were oppressed in the 50's we participated in the social norms because that is all we were allowed to do. even as late as the late 60's the only real jobs open to women were homemaker, nurse, school teacher and a few were doctors and oh yes secretaries. want to be a firefighter, police, engineer or even the manager of a store you had to be a man.
you mention less common economic opportunities, absolutely. not many not only had no jobs of any real significance, the ones that did could not even get a credit card in their own names.
women have been second and third class citizens of the world for hundreds of years. they still are in some parts of the world.
I asked you the question first and you are the one who is dodging what your interpretation of what YOU think the radical feminist thinks equal is.
I gave you the website as their core beliefs are exactly what the "real" "radical" feminists of today feel equality is. I believe the same definition.
First of all, there is no definition there.
Second, they did say this:
Quote:
We won’t stand for sexists like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interpreting women’s rights as unprotected in the U.S. Constitution. In an interview, Scalia erroneously stated that women are not protected under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Right now, five justices have the power to pick and choose when women should be considered full citizens. And that’s not right.
There is no clarity here. In fact, this is blatantly false.
NOW, by implication, is defining "equality" as people everyone achieving the same. Which, by definition, is extremely radical - in that it can only be achieved by force - at gunpoint.
So, again, I'm asking you to do what NOW will not... to define the meaning of "equal" when you say you want equality.
I will tell you this, that there is only one achievable "equality", and that is, that all laws apply precisely the same to everyone. Yes, you can write laws that pretend that men can get pregnant and carry children. That women can produce sperm, etc, etc. But does that achieve "equality"?
No, it just gets stupid. Men and women can have equal legal standing, but they will NEVER be "equal". In math, when A = B, then A IS B, but men cannot be women and vice versa.
So, equality can only mean that justice is blind to gender and that law cannot limit a gender, specifically.
As to outcomes in society... NOW wants to force equality of economic and career outcomes between men and women. To do so ignores the fact that humans are inherently not the same. They actually argue that voluntary choices on the part of SOME women is proof that others are discriminated against.
Case in point - Canada discovered that female doctors do not work much past 40 hours a week, but male doctors will routinely work 50, 60, even 70 hours. And thus, women doctors do not see as many patients and it requires more of them per 100K people. Should they have exactly the same incomes?
If not, then how are things going to ever be 'equal'?
My point in all this, is that arbitrary assignments of yardsticks are neither useful nor informative. Nor do they take into account the undeniable truth that women and men ARE inherently different.
So, that is why I asked YOU for the definition of "equal". NOW's rhetoric is useless.
There is no clarity here. In fact, this is blatantly false.
NOW, by implication, is defining "equality" as people everyone achieving the same. Which, by definition, is extremely radical - in that it can only be achieved by force - at gunpoint.
So, again, I'm asking you to do what NOW will not... to define the meaning of "equal" when you say you want equality.
I will tell you this, that there is only one achievable "equality", and that is, that all laws apply precisely the same to everyone. Yes, you can write laws that pretend that men can get pregnant and carry children. That women can produce sperm, etc, etc. But does that achieve "equality"?
No, it just gets stupid. Men and women can have equal legal standing, but they will NEVER be "equal". In math, when A = B, then A IS B, but men cannot be women and vice versa.
So, equality can only mean that justice is blind to gender and that law cannot limit a gender, specifically.
As to outcomes in society... NOW wants to force equality of economic and career outcomes between men and women. To do so ignores the fact that humans are inherently not the same. They actually argue that voluntary choices on the part of SOME women is proof that others are discriminated against.
Case in point - Canada discovered that female doctors do not work much past 40 hours a week, but male doctors will routinely work 50, 60, even 70 hours. And thus, women doctors do not see as many patients and it requires more of them per 100K people. Should they have exactly the same incomes?
If not, then how are things going to ever be 'equal'?
My point in all this, is that arbitrary assignments of yardsticks are neither useful nor informative. Nor do they take into account the undeniable truth that women and men ARE inherently different.
So, that is why I asked YOU for the definition of "equal". NOW's rhetoric is useless.
you may find the "rhetoric" useless, I do not, now states the case very clearly. yes I think a job should pay the same for both men and women when they start out. your idea that canadian lady doctors work less should earn less than a male doctor who works more hours is common sense. anyone who works less hours should get less money, however if they have the same education and do the same exact job their base "hourly" pay rate should be the same.
I took a break from C-D for a few weeks. Glad to know P&OC is just as crazy as ever.
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.
