Feminism.

[Absentglare]

I don't understand. What does sexual assault have to do with segregation?

It doesn't- maybe if you reviewed feminism as defined in the OP, you could make the connection.

 

[Absentglare]

How many men WANT to teach young children? It’s not that there’s an equal number of male/female applicants for a first grade position but 99% of the time females are hired.

So you HAVE experienced segregation, thanks for admitting that.

 

[Absentglare]

Except they aren’t.

Segregation implies that something is being forced upon a group of people. Nothing is stopping a man from being a first grade teacher if that’s what he chooses for his profession.

Something is stopping them; otherwise the segregation, the being set apart, wouldn't exist.

 

[Absentglare]

Maybe the OP will come back and tell us how oppressed she is because it's frowned upon go into bathroom with urinals.

Ah, so you admit that the genders aren't treated equally, but you're happy with that inequality. Good to know. L

 

[Absentglare]

I never meant to imply that hiring or promotion are random decisions. The point remains that inequality of outcome alone is not indicative of a lack of equality of opportunity. Most NBA players are non-white but that is not, in any way, indicative of a racial bias in NBA player selection.

In a way, you are correct. But if the distribution were random, the population would show randomness. The population, however, does not seem to show randomness.

But we know how prejudice works. People have studied it. The example of black representation in the NBA was brought up. Can you credibly claim that there's no element of a self-fulfilling prophecy at play: black kids choosing to pursue basketball because they see blacks being well-represented in the NBA? I don't think so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In a way, you are correct. But if the distribution were random, the population would show randomness. The population, however, does not seem to show randomness.

But we know how prejudice works. People have studied it. The example of black representation in the NBA was brought up. Can you credibly claim that there's no element of a self-fulfilling prophecy at play: black kids choosing to pursue basketball because they see blacks being well-represented in the NBA? I don't think so.

That is a very good point. Yet sadly, it also works in reverse - if you believe that you face hopeless discrimination that will likely translate into a why even try attitude, thus a self-fulfilling prophesy of failure to compete. IMHO, what folks often call luck is simply the confluence of opportunity and preparedness. You may feel that opportunity is scare but if you use that as an excuse to not become equally, if not more, prepared then you have let yourself down.

If one lacks basic education skills (e.g. reading and math) then acquiring more advanced skills is, indeed, likely to be mission impossible or, at the least, mission improbable. Even basic carpentry requires those skills and I've met folks with a HS diploma that cannot operate a tape measure, much less comprehend the basic framing techniques required to build walls, decks or roofs.

 

[Nap]

Well, out of the three, the only one that is 'achieved' is voting rights. The others are 'much improved but still not equal.

We have laws against discrimination against women, laws to encourage discrimination for women, and laws against paying men more than women.

There are no barriers for a woman doing anything she wants in this country. There is nothing stopping a woman from getting an education in whatever field she wants and working in that field. That is equality of opportunity.

Simple fact, if a woman gets paid less than a man doing the same job, she can sue the company for breaking the law. If business could get away with paying women less they then men would be out of a job. No business is going to pay people more than they have to so if they get the same productivity and they could pay one group of people less than that is who they will hire.

 

[RAMOSS]

We have laws against discrimination against women, laws to encourage discrimination for women, and laws against paying men more than women.

There are no barriers for a woman doing anything she wants in this country. There is nothing stopping a woman from getting an education in whatever field she wants and working in that field. That is equality of opportunity.

Simple fact, if a woman gets paid less than a man doing the same job, she can sue the company for breaking the law. If business could get away with paying women less they then men would be out of a job. No business is going to pay people more than they have to so if they get the same productivity and they could pay one group of people less than that is who they will hire.

We have laws, and then we have the practical application of the laws, and then we have 'how does the business world actually work' A woman might not be fired because of being a woman, but you will find they face challenges in getting promoted, because they are women. You will find that the 'law' says equal pay for equal work, but you will find that a woman will be consistently offered less pay for equal work.

https://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I believe in equality under the law.

I also believe in equal pay for equal work. But there is a caveat to that. I don’t believe you are entitled to a raise you never ask for. And unfortunately women, in general, tend to be less willing to ask for a raise than men. That will lead to inequality in pay that is not the fault of the employer.

 

[Nap]

We have laws, and then we have the practical application of the laws, and then we have 'how does the business world actually work' A woman might not be fired because of being a woman, but you will find they face challenges in getting promoted, because they are women. You will find that the 'law' says equal pay for equal work, but you will find that a woman will be consistently offered less pay for equal work.

https://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

In many cases that women do get paid less are largely due to personality and not sex. Women are on average more agreeable than man. Women who go and take assertiveness training courses typically see a rise in wages. There are so many factors involved that to simply point to sex and say that is the reason is simply lazy.

 

[Nap]

We have laws, and then we have the practical application of the laws, and then we have 'how does the business world actually work' A woman might not be fired because of being a woman, but you will find they face challenges in getting promoted, because they are women. You will find that the 'law' says equal pay for equal work, but you will find that a woman will be consistently offered less pay for equal work.

https://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

Also, you do realize your own link points to the main causes being job choice and child birth as the driving factors behind It? If you look at the chart the average woman outpaces men to around 30 years which is the average age college educated women give birth. Now this is simply the average of all women, women who decide to not go through child birth are likely paid more than men.

 

[RAMOSS]

The cases that women do get paid less are largely due to personality and not sex. Women are on average more agreeable than man. Women who go and take assertiveness training courses typically see a rise in wages. There are so many factors involved that to simply point to sex and say that is the reason is simply lazy.

That's the excuse many give. However, I know a young lady entering the work force for engineering, and typically, the offers she gets are about 80% of what the men in her class were getting.

 

[Nap]

That's the excuse many give. However, I know a young lady entering the work force for engineering, and typically, the offers she gets are about 80% of what the men in her class were getting.

Did she pull up the numbers to show what the average salary was and argue as to why she should get paid the same or more?

 

[RAMOSS]

Did she pull up the numbers to show what the average salary was and argue as to why she should get paid the same or more?

SHe argued for more, and they came 10% up

 

[Nap]

SHe argued for more, and they came 10% up

Either she didn't argue well enough or that particular business likely pays less than the average. There are more factors than simply sex.

 

[RAMOSS]

Either she didn't argue well enough or that particular business likely pays less than the average. There are more factors than simply sex.

Or, you are just trying to make a claim for equality that just isn't there.

 

[Nap]

Or, you are just trying to make a claim for equality that just isn't there.

Or you are making a claim of inequality that just simply doesn't exist. Businesses are going to low ball every potential employee and pay as little as possible, this is how negotiations work. It is up to the individual to argue their salary and if you merely accept the first offer it is on that individual.

 

[Absentglare]

For or against ? The definition,

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms:the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More

I don't see how anyone would be against equality of the sexes.

It's really sad that a bunch of dishonest posts, trying to change the definition of feminism, came in and ruined the discussion.

It would have been nice if people could just agree that women should be treated equally, but the politics of identity resentment are very strong in the gullible American right.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's really sad that a bunch of dishonest posts, trying to change the definition of feminism, came in and ruined the discussion.

It would have been nice if people could just agree that women should be treated equally, but the politics of identity resentment are very strong in the gullible American right.

I agree women should be treated equally and as far as I can tell they are better in some cases. Feminism had nothing to do with that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Even though I chuckle at the examples given above, I still understand WHY they happen.
Feminist movements start out each generation as anarchy movements.
They get attention. It's very effective. Then when they are asked to sit at the table and LEAD, they have to do away with the anarchists and come up with solutions.
So my money is on the women who are ready to lead and offer solutions.
They're out there, and I'll support them.

It is important to distinguish between the loud displays of a protest movement and the IDEAS of the women who wanted the movement in the first place. We can't always get our protesters qualified through Central Casting, we have to go with whoever is ballsy enough to do it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Basically, as far as I can see, the biggest difference is that some people are more flamboyant about how they protest. The basics are the same. When it comes to some of the more 'modern' versions, there is an acknowledgement that women of minorities have been overlooked, and they also , or in some respects even more so need equality.

I have zero problem with protesters being flamboyant.
They HAVE to be, in order to jerk our complacency into a new mode of thinking.
Look at the big huge women's marches. 99% of the women who showed up are just normal women that we see all the time, our moms, sisters, wives, coworkers, people that we know and love.
They needed a bit of a circus to attract attention, and the performers are doing what performers do best, performing.

Don't equate the circus act with the main building blocks of feminism.
Common sense says, equal pay for equal work, dignity, respect, equal access to opportunities and an end to sexual assault, intimidation and harassment.

If you think about it, guys...in some ways they are helping clear out some of the creeps that we don't even like all that much either. I love the movies that The Weinstein Company has helped make possible but if I had to spend a lot of time WITH Harvey Weinstein himself, even as a MAN, I would have wanted to shoot him a long time ago, or just push him out of a hotel balcony.

And if you knew some of the creepier aspects of his personality, not just toward women, but that AND in general, you'd probably want to do the same.

Harvey Weinstein is just the WHITE version of Suge Knight, need I say more?
No wonder women had it in for him, he had it coming.

 

[Absentglare]

I agree women should be treated equally and as far as I can tell they are better in some cases. Feminism had nothing to do with that.

It did, it's part of history. Women weren't treated as equals a hundred years ago. We even had sociobiologists who did "studies" to "prove" why women shouldn't be allowed to go to college.

Without our choice to make those changes, they would not have occurred. Hell, women's suffrage isn't even a hundred years old.

If some militant woman tries to hijack the cause of "feminism" today and claim that i, as a man, cannot be a feminist, i'll go ahead and tell the militant woman what i think of her bull****. But let's not pretend that feminism is bad because militant extremists tried to hijack a worthy historical cause. Feminism will fundamentally continue to be relevant as long as we value equality for women.

 

[CLAX1911]

It did, it's part of history. Women weren't treated as equals a hundred years ago.

I accept that it's part of History just not that it's part of current events.

Without our choice to make those changes, they would not have occurred. Hell, women's suffrage isn't even a hundred years old.

you make those changes by having good arguments.

If some militant woman tries to hijack the cause of "feminism" today and claim that i, as a man, cannot be a feminist, i'll go ahead and tell the militant woman what i think of her bull****. But let's not pretend that feminism is bad because militant extremists tried to hijack a worthy historical cause. Feminism will fundamentally continue to be relevant as long as we value equality for women.

Being a feminist currently is like being an abolitionist there's no need. Women have equal opportunity.

 

[JMR]

There is obvious differences between the genders, men are physically stronger on average for example.
I never said women & men were one & the same, and we might have different needs, but we are equals and individuals, just like every other human being. I'm for equal opportunities, and against gender-based segregation women face on a daily basis.

We have come a long way in my lifetime in promoting equality for women. There was a time when high schools did not have girls' sports teams, and when some college classes were segregated by sex. Happily those situations no longer exist, and women are increasingly present in work careers that were once closed to them. The issue of equal pay is still very much on the table. My state recently introduced a bill to make it illegal for a potential employer to ask what the interviewee's previous salary was. Simple fact, as long as employers could use that information in determining salary, there was a built in bias, and men were paid more, because they had been paid more in the past.

So I'm for feminism, and identify as a feminist. I am also a NY Giants fan, but have never dyed my hair blue or felt the need to wear a jersey. As in any movement there are extreme players.

 

[JMR]

I believe in equality under the law.

I also believe in equal pay for equal work. But there is a caveat to that. I don’t believe you are entitled to a raise you never ask for. And unfortunately women, in general, tend to be less willing to ask for a raise than men. That will lead to inequality in pay that is not the fault of the employer.

I disagree. I think a fair employer has the obligation to look at the benefits he offers his employees, and distribute those on the basis of merit. Not who is the most intimidating.