Personally I don't support Affirmative Action. Descrimination is descrimination. What I would support is hiring/accepting/etc. the most genuinely qualified individual for the job based completely on merit and disregarding status like gender or race completely.
That is the most balanced and equal way to do so.
Personally I don't support Affirmative Action. Descrimination is descrimination. What I would support is hiring/accepting/etc. the most genuinely qualified individual for the job based completely on merit and disregarding status like gender or race completely.
That is the most balanced and equal way to do so.
Makes sense to me. That's also what I support.
However, I don't support laws mandating that you have to hire people. I believe business owners should be able to hire whoever they choose. If employers want to hire only albino, Muslim hermaphrodites, they should have the right to do that.
It was a very nice speech, but what is she going to accomplish that other people haven't already?
It was a very nice speech, but what is she going to accomplish that other people haven't already?
Hopefully it spreads awareness and helps to motivate a slow movement towards change in people who wouldn't normally consider themselves feminists. Broad effective change will only happen when these ideas become commonly accepted and everyone takes a look at how they play into gender inequality.
@batwatch: First of all, thanks for trying to reduce everything to "if you support affirmative action you want legal sexism" as if it automatically disqualifies every action of the feminist movement for decades. Nevermind that this video had nothing to do with that, nor did my comments, and forget the fact that you posted the same sentiments earlier and when no one responded you felt compelled to tag someone else in like a troll. I'll take your troll bait even though, again, this video had nothing at all to do with Affirmative Action which you'd know if you hadn't admitted to not even watching it before spouting off in the comments, but in response you better have a damn good better way of doing things for me. Because saying "I can't support equality because some of the people that do support Affirmative Action" is already making you look bad.
No, the position I've taken is that we have a terribly broken system and our best efforts to actually make that system equal are met with resistance at every turn (like by a bunch of aging Republican douchebags who unanimously block something as obvious as an equal pay law). Therefore in order to balance the inequalities of that system we have things like affirmative action, which promotes people who would otherwise be passed over for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications. This is a crutch to make up for how our system cripples entire groups of people, and once the system no longer does that we will no longer have need of a crutch. Several coutnries around the world have "affirmative action" type laws in effect based on things like race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. Is it a perfect law? No. Is it better than previous policies of discrimination through which qualified minorities of all kinds were unable to secure jobs or receive higher education? Hell yes.
But I am really looking forward to your plan for defeating bigotry.
Yeah it's not the word I don't like but why call it feminism instead of fighting for gender equality?
Sooooo . . . It is the word you don't like?
If you're going to be immature and annoying I'll move on; I hate when someone has the nerve to repeat the same question after I answered it.
Most feminist groups aren't actively supporting things like equaling divorce procedures right now because they're currently fighting uphill battles for basic women's rights like equal pay and the right to not have someone jam something up your uterus while forcing you to name your unborn child. Not to trivialize the inequalities men face in our society, but the ones women face are for more prevalent and egregious. Maybe when we can get some of these completely basic issues like equal pay tackled we can focus on fair divorce proceedings.
Hmm, that sounds like the definition of trivializing to support a certain agenda.
And what's that quote from? Because the example it gives isn't a really good one. The first line says "feminist challenges to discriminatory, sex-specific laws helped end formal preferences for mothers," so feminist groups siding with mothers doesn't really mean much since without those same feminist groups the courts were officially biased towards the women. Yes, we can still do better in that area by having some tougher guidelines that need to be followed, but do you really think feminist groups have done more harm than good in this regard seeing as they helped to remove that official gender bias in the first place?
Ok, now I see that you're not well studied on this subject so I have to explain points with more depth; It's ok I can work with you. The link:
http://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/
The removal of maternal preference in custody decisions were removed because of gender bias that favored women in custody cases, not men.
And speaking of feminism in the 70s, it was also around that time that the Men's Liberation Movement emerged to try to break down male stereotypes and was strongly embraced by most feminist groups. Or more recently, several feminist groups rallied behind a young boy who was prohibited from joining the Girl Scouts.
This has nothing to do with the topic.
Of course most of what you hear feminists fighting for is going to be women's rights, there are many more battles to be fought for women than for men to make things equal, but it doesn't mean that the feminist movement isn't about equality for all genders.
Then you admit it's not a full circle gender equality movement but a bias for team vagina.
@albusan: So it's not the name you object to, you just wish they'd call it something else? I'm not being "immature and annoying" you've just done nothing to clarify what the difference is. Feminism is fighting for gender equality, which you seem to be in favor of. If you like that idea but you don't want to be called a feminist, how is it not the name you're objecting to?
For every single example that link gives there have been feminist groups fighting for the victims, the complaint seems to be "they don't do enough" or "but they are also focused on similar cases in which women are the victims." It even goes so far as to complain about the amount of attention the media gives to these issues, despite being one of the sources that could very well give attention to those sources themselves. Feminist groups don't control the media. I don't get to decide what Time magazine publishes stories about, because if I did I would have had them devote some space to the examples they mentioned in this article instead of having to farm links to other sources for each of those.
That article even uses the absolute extreme in an attempt to build a strawman for all feminists. It reveals this when it starts projecting a joke T-Shirt reading "kill all men" as an actual feminist ideology. The entire thing basically just cherry picks select few groups identifying themselves as feminists who have chosen the wrong side and projects their values on all feminists. Of course it's not right to act as if domestic violence against males isn't also a problem in our society, but just because you can name one instance of a feminist group saying domestic violence against females is a larger problem doesn't mean that that's a value of feminism.
And speaking of feminism in the 70s, it was also around that time that the Men's Liberation Movement emerged to try to break down male stereotypes and was strongly embraced by most feminist groups. Or more recently, several feminist groups rallied behind a young boy who was prohibited from joining the Girl Scouts.
This has nothing to do with the topic.
Ok, so you're arguing that feminist groups do nothing for men. You give an example you think demonstrates this, I give examples of feminist groups fighting to break down male stereotypes and allow males access into areas of society that were previously deemed exclusively for females. How is this not relevant?
Then you admit it's not a full circle gender equality movement but a bias for team vagina.
If you're going to be immature and annoying . . . Why don't you read again. What I said was the feminist movement is about equality for all genders, but our system is far more unbalanced for women than it is for men, and therefore far more battles must be fought on behalf of women, which is why you hear about them more often. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If you have two holes, one is deeper than the other, and you want them to both be evenly filled in you don't achieve that by adding the same amount of dirt to each. One of them has to receive more because it's starting with less, but it doesn't mean the other hole isn't getting filled, too.
@albusan: So it's not the name you object to, you just wish they'd call it something else? I'm not being "immature and annoying" you've just done nothing to clarify what the difference is. Feminism is fighting for gender equality, which you seem to be in favor of. If you like that idea but you don't want to be called a feminist, how is it not the name you're objecting to?
Uhh, you repeated it again, last chance after this. I'm not offended by the name and I don't care if the name changes, I've told you already how feminism doesn't fight for full gender equality.
For every single example that link gives there have been feminist groups fighting for the victims, the complaint seems to be "they don't do enough" or "but they are also focused on similar cases in which women are the victims." It even goes so far as to complain about the amount of attention the media gives to these issues, despite being one of the sources that could very well give attention to those sources themselves. Feminist groups don't control the media. I don't get to decide what Time magazine publishes stories about, because if I did I would have had them devote some space to the examples they mentioned in this article instead of having to farm links to other sources for each of those.
Ok, give an example of the fem groups that fight for the male victims. Actually, feminist groups support the far left, who has the most control in media. Feminist don't even support strong women who are on the right.
That article even uses the absolute extreme in an attempt to build a strawman for all feminists. It reveals this when it starts projecting a joke T-Shirt reading "kill all men" as an actual feminist ideology. The entire thing basically just cherry picks select few groups identifying themselves as feminists who have chosen the wrong side and projects their values on all feminists. Of course it's not right to act as if domestic violence against males isn't also a problem in our society, but just because you can name one instance of a feminist group saying domestic violence against females is a larger problem doesn't mean that that's a value of feminism.
“Misandry” is big business now. Best sellers on Amazon that thrive off of misandry, such as, male tear mugs that sell for over 20 dollars makes the point for the article. There is no value of feminism that helps men with their rights.
And speaking of feminism in the 70s, it was also around that time that the Men's Liberation Movement emerged to try to break down male stereotypes and was strongly embraced by most feminist groups. Or more recently, several feminist groups rallied behind a young boy who was prohibited from joining the Girl Scouts.
This has nothing to do with the topic.
Ok, so you're arguing that feminist groups do nothing for men. You give an example you think demonstrates this, I give examples of feminist groups fighting to break down male stereotypes and allow males access into areas of society that were previously deemed exclusively for females. How is this not relevant?
Because it's vague with no actual detail and that example of the boy is a political, marketing, headline grabber. It holds no value to men's rights and many women would disagree with their choice to support it.
Then you admit it's not a full circle gender equality movement but a bias for team vagina.
If you're going to be immature and annoying . . . Why don't you read again. What I said was the feminist movement is about equality for all genders, but our system is far more unbalanced for women than it is for men, and therefore far more battles must be fought on behalf of women, which is why you hear about them more often. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If you have two holes, one is deeper than the other, and you want them to both be evenly filled in you don't achieve that by adding the same amount of dirt to each. One of them has to receive more because it's starting with less, but it doesn't mean the other hole isn't getting filled, too.
Feminist need to show they are for equality for all gender with actions. You generalize the issue by grouping the unbalance in the system more for women. Some women have it worst and the same can be said for men. I'd challenge you to research the bias and hurdles men have against them. The stigmas that men have to put up with.
No, you think you've told me how feminism doesn't support equal rights, but what you've really done is cherrypicked a handful of select cases and projected these as the values of all feminists. And threatening to leave isn't helping your case, I'll remind you again, you sought this argument out yourself, you had already made your misconceptions clear but then you had to find someone to preach to. So leave whenever you want.
I also gave you examples already, you may recall saying something like "your examples are irrelevant and mine is somehow more important and must be addressed first." I guess the example your article brings up (saying how the feminist movement of the 70s and 80s directly contributed to breaking down official gender biases in courts) counts for nothing too. But please feel free to refer to previous posts instead of just dismissing them, or since later in your post you tell me to do my own research, how about you remain consistent and do it yourself? In the meantime though, all you've continued doing is saying "here's what you believe, I know this is what you believe because these select few cases here illustrate that." It would be like saying all Muslim people are terrorists because ISIS is an Islamic terrorist group. Or like saying all conservatives are pro big government because some want the government involved in women's reproductive rights. You don't get to misrepresent someone else's values based on an extreme group who is also doing wrong by the group they claim to represent. It doesn't further your argument in any way, it just shows either a lack of understanding or a willful misrepresentation of the truth.
Oh is misandry a big business? I guess t-shirts and mugs with slogans like "get back in the kitchen" would never sell, right? Oh, wait.... a quick google search found several such items. So the existence of those items must say something about all men right, since the existence of those other items clearly speaks for all women and feminists? Or is that just a really crappy debate tactic?
So males being allowed access to parts of society which have historically been exclusively for females doesn't have any value to men's rights? I'd love to hear what you think does. What should feminists be doing as their top priority for furthering men's rights, and more importantly, why aren't you out there doing it? All you people like to complain about how things are currently being done and how no one is championing your values, but you never go out and do anything about it. Just like that Time article complaining about low media coverage for those issues while simultaneously not covering them when they happened.
You want to make a difference? Stop trying to tear down other people and do it yourself. How is you claiming to know what feminism is about better than people who call themselves feminists helping you achieve your goals?
@batwatch: First of all, thanks for trying to reduce everything to "if you support affirmative action you want legal sexism" as if it automatically disqualifies every action of the feminist movement for decades. Nevermind that this video had nothing to do with that, nor did my comments, and forget the fact that you posted the same sentiments earlier and when no one responded you felt compelled to tag someone else in like a troll. I'll take your troll bait even though, again, this video had nothing at all to do with Affirmative Action which you'd know if you hadn't admitted to not even watching it before spouting off in the comments, but in response you better have a damn good better way of doing things for me. Because saying "I can't support equality because some of the people that do support Affirmative Action" is already making you look bad.
No, the position I've taken is that we have a terribly broken system and our best efforts to actually make that system equal are met with resistance at every turn (like by a bunch of aging Republican douchebags who unanimously block something as obvious as an equal pay law). Therefore in order to balance the inequalities of that system we have things like affirmative action, which promotes people who would otherwise be passed over for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications. This is a crutch to make up for how our system cripples entire groups of people, and once the system no longer does that we will no longer have need of a crutch. Several coutnries around the world have "affirmative action" type laws in effect based on things like race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. Is it a perfect law? No. Is it better than previous policies of discrimination through which qualified minorities of all kinds were unable to secure jobs or receive higher education? Hell yes.
But I am really looking forward to your plan for defeating bigotry.
I actually never said that mainstream feminism's support for legalized sexism undid the progress of feminists throughout history. Obviously, women were lacking a lot of legal equality in the early twentieth century, and I praise the people who led the way in that movement. However, those earlier successes do not negate the fact the most modern feminists are now interested in preferential treatment for women, such as that found in Affirmative Action, rather than equality under the law.
Your answer to my question is that you do believe discriminating on the basis of sex for the benefit of women is okay because women are incapable of thriving without the government giving them certain legal advantages over men.
I understand that viewpoint, and I appreciate you being honest about it. Personally, I haven't noticed women being to weak to succeed in the United States. Rather, I see women succeeding every day. From my perspective, I can't think of anything more demeaning to women than to tell them that they can't succeed unless the game is rigged in their favor. I believe women are perfectly capable of succeeding on their own and don't need discriminatory laws as a crutch.
As far as my plan for establishing equality, I think we would best succeed in this endeavor by treating men and women equally. Legally speaking, men and women should have the same rights. Personally speaking, we should treat men and women equally. I know establishing equality by treating people equally isn't as logical as establishing equality by treating people unequally, but it's just so crazy I think it might work.
Well time to debunk Emma Watsons speech.
@those_eyes: Hater :D
Lets remain civil.
I found this recently and it applies so much to the discussion going on here. Just had to post it.
Basically replace communism with femenism and it's the exact same.
@comicstooge: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
@comicstooge: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
@comicstooge: MALE SUPREMACIST!
@comicstooge: MALE SUPREMACIST!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment