Modern Feminism

[Taure]

In my opinion feminism is rather pointless is the modern Western world.

Equal rights is now on all our law books, and actively enforced (employment tribunals, court cases ect.). Feminism was needed, and it succeeded.

Now it's a club that should have disbanded a long time ago but the members don't know how.

Any modern feminism looks not to ensure equal rights for women but superior rights.

Now, the feminist may say something like "Women may have equal protection under the law, but if you look at the statistics they are still under-represented at the highest levels of almost all employment sectors. Thus they are not equal, and feminism still has a role."

To which I say: of course women are under represented. What else do you expect from a group that leaves the workforce for several years at a time, sometimes multiple times?

Women are under represented at the top levels of employment not because of some grand conspiracy against women, but because they're less qualified for those positions (they lack the skills and experience that their male counterparts gained while they were having children).

And if there's one thing that feminism taught us it's that the person most qualified should get the job, regardless of factors such as age, sex, race and sexuality.

The fact that there are women at these highest levels of industry, even if they are under represented, shows that employers are perfectly willing to employ women in these positions, if they are the best for the job. I don't have the statistics, but I suspect if a survey was done you would find that these women who succeeded did so at the expense of not having a family.

Any feminist act that tries to change this to artificially give women who had kids an advantage over more qualified men is nothing but social engineering, and goes against all of the values that feminists originally stood for (equality, the idea that women could perform as well as men by their own merit).

In short, modern feminism wants to change the law (as it was in Finland) to give women a legal advantage over men such that they can have both a family and high-flying career. It's trying to give one gender special treatment that the other does not receive. As such it is not only a club that should have been disbanded, but as morally disgusting to me as laws in certain second and third world nations where women are denied the ability to vote, to marry who they wish, to self-determine their actions, to wear what they want, and even laws which mean a woman who is raped can be tried for adultery.

Any gender discrimination, in any direction, must be opposed.

Sure, women and men may be different. They have different desires, different ways of thinking, and so on (this is an extremely generalised statement - many women will think in a more "male" way than some men, and vice versa. In the end it comes down less to gender and more to the physiology of the brain, IMO).

But this is not something we should write into law. It is rather stupid to write expectations of certain behaviours depending on gender into the law.

Rather, give everyone equal status under the law and just let the natural difference between men and women manifest in the choices they make and the way they live their lives, given their opportunities.

 

[yasic]

In most non-physical jobs, women who do the same work as men can make as much as 20% less than men on average.

This has nothing to do with maternity leaves or qualifications as none of these apply to these (not top of the ladder) jobs.

They simply get less due to their sex rather than their abilities.


Also, a lot of what modern feminism focuses on nowadays is not just the US or UK, but on other third world countries where there is certainly no laws on the books (or they are not enforced at all), and that alone is a good cause to keep feminism going.

 

[Hypothetical]

About time for the US to try for that ERA again then?

 

[Taure]

In most non-physical jobs, women who do the same work as men can make as much as 20% less than men on average.

This has nothing to do with maternity leaves or qualifications as none of these apply to these (not top of the ladder) jobs.

They simply get less due to their sex rather than their abilities.

In which case the laws and institutions are there for these women to sue their employers. Problem solved. If the women chose not to then that's up to them.

Also, a lot of what modern feminism focuses on nowadays is not just the US or UK, but on other third world countries where there is certainly no laws on the books (or they are not enforced at all), and that alone is a good cause to keep feminism going.

First of all, you will note that my post was talking only about the place of feminism in the West.

However, I nevertheless disagree with you. Yes, many second and third world countries are in need of a feminist movement. But this movement must come from within if it is to have any success - not from Women's Studies professors at Western universities.

 

[yasic]

In which case the laws and institutions are there for these women to sue their employers. Problem solved. If the women chose not to then that's up to them.

First off, the said women might not have known that they are being taken advantage off, and the feminism movement can help shed light for them.

I mean, I know a woman who was sexually harassed at work for 4 years before she went to college and learned that she could have easily stopped it. Not everyone is born knowing the law or how it can be enforced.

Secondly, the feminist movement can help outreach to all employers out there, helping them realize they are doing both an immoral and irrational action by dishing out different paychecks, and help end the problem there.

However, I nevertheless disagree with you. Yes, many second and third world countries are in need of a feminist movement. But this movement must come from within if it is to have any success - not from Women's Studies professors at Western universities.

Why on earth not? Many of these women have no idea about how the rest of the world works, or that they can actually have a say in it. Also, since many of them are uneducated, they do not have the intellectual push to challenge laws or actions that women in the west have the privilege to access.

If we see injustice in another country, with people being oppressed, why on earth should we let it be? I value every human life the same and I will not exclusively help those near me just because they were born in a better part of the world.

 

[lux et lex]

In my opinion feminism is rather pointless is the modern Western world.

Equal rights is now on all our law books, and actively enforced (employment tribunals, court cases ect.). Feminism was needed, and it succeeded.

Now it's a club that should have disbanded a long time ago but the members don't know how.

Any modern feminism looks not to ensure equal rights for women but superior rights.

Now, the feminist may say something like "Women may have equal protection under the law, but if you look at the statistics they are still under-represented at the highest levels of almost all employment sectors. Thus they are not equal, and feminism still has a role."

To which I say: of course women are under represented. What else do you expect from a group that leaves the workforce for several years at a time, sometimes multiple times?

Women are under represented at the top levels of employment not because of some grand conspiracy against women, but because they're less qualified for those positions (they lack the skills and experience that their male counterparts gained while they were having children).

And if there's one thing that feminism taught us it's that the person most qualified should get the job, regardless of factors such as age, sex, race and sexuality.

The fact that there are women at these highest levels of industry, even if they are under represented, shows that employers are perfectly willing to employ women in these positions, if they are the best for the job. I don't have the statistics, but I suspect if a survey was done you would find that these women who succeeded did so at the expense of not having a family.

Any feminist act that tries to change this to artificially give women who had kids an advantage over more qualified men is nothing but social engineering, and goes against all of the values that feminists originally stood for (equality, the idea that women could perform as well as men by their own merit).

In short, modern feminism wants to change the law (as it was in Finland) to give women a legal advantage over men such that they can have both a family and high-flying career. It's trying to give one gender special treatment that the other does not receive. As such it is not only a club that should have been disbanded, but as morally disgusting to me as laws in certain second and third world nations where women are denied the ability to vote, to marry who they wish, to self-determine their actions, to wear what they want, and even laws which mean a woman who is raped can be tried for adultery.

Any gender discrimination, in any direction, must be opposed.

Sure, women and men may be different. They have different desires, different ways of thinking, and so on (this is an extremely generalised statement - many women will think in a more "male" way than some men, and vice versa. In the end it comes down less to gender and more to the physiology of the brain, IMO).

But this is not something we should write into law. It is rather stupid to write expectations of certain behaviours depending on gender into the law.

Rather, give everyone equal status under the law and just let the natural difference between men and women manifest in the choices they make and the way they live their lives, given their opportunities.

Thank you for giving us a wonderful example of why feminism is still needed in the Western world.

 

[Taure]

Why on earth not? Many of these women have no idea about how the rest of the world works, or that they can actually have a say in it. Also, since many of them are uneducated, they do not have the intellectual push to challenge laws or actions that women in the west have the privilege to access.

If we see injustice in another country, with people being oppressed, why on earth should we let it be? I value every human life the same and I will not exclusively help those near me just because they were born in a better part of the world.

Because it will have zero effect. It took the suffragettes to get women the beginings of equal rights in the West, and the status of women in the Middle East (and elsewhere) is much worse that it was in the West.

What is needed for these women to get their rights is not books being published, nor armchair-activists decrying the treatment of women in this countries, but action.

That is why change must come from within. Not because we are okay with sitting back and watching, but because anything we try to do short of invading and setting up our own laws does nothing to change the mind of those in power.

Thank you for giving us a wonderful example of why feminism is still needed in the Western world.

Cute, but you might like to add some substance to your "argument" beyond pithy rhetoric.

 

[InkBlott]

I don't have the statistics, but I suspect if a survey was done you would find that these women who succeeded did so at the expense of not having a family.

Research can be tedious. Let me help you. I'll look up each of the current 15 women who are CEO's of fourtune 500 companies.

Patricia Woertz, CEO Archer Daniels Midland: three children.

Woertz went right back to work after her oldest daughter, now 25, was born. When she had her twins, now 23, she drove herself to the hospital from a meeting.

Angela Braly, CEO Wellpoint: three children.

Braly says her children, who are 16, 14 and 10 and "the apples of my husband's and my eyes," also have adjusted well to Indianapolis.

Lynn Elsenhans, CEO Sunoco: unknown

Indra Nooyi, CEO Pepsi/Co: two children

Nooyi has two daughters, 14 and 23 and in her words, "a supportive husband.''

Irene Rosenfeld, CEO Kraft Foods: unknown.

Ellen Kullman, CEO DuPont: three Chrildren.

Kullman is married to Michael Kullman and they have three children, Maggie (18) and twins Stephen and David (15).

Mary Sammons, CEO Rite Aid: one child.

Family: Daughter of Lee W. and Ann (Cherry) Jackson; married Nickolas F. Sammons, September 12, 1967; children: one.

Carol Meyrowitz, CEO TJX: unknown.

Anne Mulcahy, CEO Xerox: two children.

Family: Married Joe Mulcahy (sales manager); children: two.

Brenda Barnes, CEO Sara Lee: three children.

Born c. 1955; married Randall Barnes (a business executive); children: Jeff, Erin, Brian. Education: Augustana College, bachelor's degree, 1975; Loyola University, M.B.A., 1978.

Andrea Jung, CEO Avon: two children.

Jung has two children: Lauren from her first marriage, and James from her second.

Laura Sen, CEO BJ's wholesale club: unknonn.

Susan Ivey, CEO Reynolds American: unknown.

Carol Bartz, CEO Yahoo!: one child.

Ms. Bartz, 60 years old and a married mother of a college-age daughter, has been outspoken about the tradeoffs she has made in her career and family juggle.

Christina Gold, CEO Western Union: unknown.


I was able to find the information on nine of them, all of whom have children. Their names form links to the sites where I found the information. I don't know if the lack of information on the others (whose names do not form links) is due to them not having children or to a simple lack of that information on the web.

I'm curious as to how having these facts at hand alters your opinion. Does it?

 

[InkBlott]

Cute, but you might like to add some substance to your "argument" beyond pithy rhetoric.

Yes. Substance. Please see above post. Thank you.

 

[Taure]

I'm curious as to how having these facts at hand alters your opinion. Does it?

Not really. If anything, it reinforces my opinion that the attempts to give women who have taken time off for children special treatment are misguided. Clearly from the research you have posted women are capable of achieving this highest level of employment and also having a family, without special treatment (though I'm not sure how many would choose to, as I'm sure that it's very stressful. I'd also be interested in the employment status of these women's husbands - have they stayed at home to take care of the kids?).

 

[Steezie]

Thank you for giving us a wonderful example of why feminism is still needed in the Western world.

I dont entirely disagree with him. For the most part, the impetus for feminism is gone. Women recieve, by and large, equal treatment and access to every layer of society.

Pause to note, I am speaking of the first world countries, I understand the status of women is extremely low in many third world countires; in that instance Feminism aint gonna help. If women and people in oppressive third world countries want to be treated equally, pick up a gun and fight for your rights; a little revolution will go a long way. Women make fine soldiers, just ask the Russians.

Yes there are people in first world countries who act like cave men and treat women like crap, but the majority of society in general has no real problems with women.

When I was doing my welding training, we had one girl in a class of 30 people. She was about 5'10'' and 120lbs, skinny little thing but damn stubborn. She kept up with (and in many cases did better than) guys who were three times her size in a class were physical upper body strength is very important. Not one single guy in the class had any problems with her or treated her any different for being a woman. The only person who had an issue was the teacher because he was the 1950's "Construction is for men" types. Now if a woman can walk into a class full of welders and be treated with perfect respect and equality, then I think thats a big damn signpost for the rest of society.

Not sure why he wants to get rid of maternity leave and time off with children, thats an important part of raising a family.

 

[InkBlott]

Now, the feminist may say something like "Women may have equal protection under the law, but if you look at the statistics they are still under-represented at the highest levels of almost all employment sectors. Thus they are not equal, and feminism still has a role."

To which I say: of course women are under represented. What else do you expect from a group that leaves the workforce for several years at a time, sometimes multiple times?

Women are under represented at the top levels of employment not because of some grand conspiracy against women, but because they're less qualified for those positions (they lack the skills and experience that their male counterparts gained while they were having children).

Not really. If anything, it reinforces my opinion that the attempts to give women who have taken time off for children special treatment are misguided. Clearly from the research you have posted women are capable of achieving this highest level of employment and also having a family, without special treatment (though I'm not sure how many would choose to, as I'm sure that it's very stressful. I'd also be interested in the employment status of these women's husbands - have they stayed at home to take care of the kids?).

You have very neatly contradicted yourself here.

A healthy society has a vested interest in allowing all of its members to reach their full potential. This means that we value the full potential of both children who need to be raised and the women who bear them. If our current system sacrifices the potential of one to the other, it behooves us to make whatever adjustments are necessary in order to correct the problem. There are women currently bearing children who have the potential of becoming the top executives in Fortune 500 companies, as demonstrated by the achievements of the nine women I have researched. There are daughters being born to them who have that potential as well. To leave any of them behind with a smug wave of the hand is unconscionable. As long as there are those who are willing to engage in such hand-waving there is a role for the feminist movement yet to play.

As for the CEO's husbands, I will leave that research up to you. Until you provide the results of that research I for one will decline to discuss that factor, as your suppositions do not add (How did you put it?), "...substance to your 'argument.'"

 

[lux et lex]

Cute, but you might like to add some substance to your "argument" beyond pithy rhetoric.

It wasn't "pithy rhetoric". I thought you presented your case against feminism quite neatly, which made it very apparent that feminism is still needed.

Granted, I'm only a liberal feminist, not a radical, and many of the goals of liberal feminism have already been met, you're correct. However, when you went on to talk about women not being equal in higher positions because they take of great amounts of time is where I started to bristle. There is still an equality struggle for women in higher positions that is legitimate: single women or women without children. I've been told while in law school that I shouldn't bother wasting my money with law school because I'll never reach my full potential. I don't plan on having children, or getting married for that fact. Why should I be treated differently when being considered for promotions because I have the potential to need maternity leave? That is disparate treatment. Shouldn't I be treated and paid like a man since I am a single woman with no future family plans?

Once there is absolute pay equality and advancement potential equality for men and women is when I will quit being a feminist.

 

[sidhe]

The inherent issue with the OP is the assumption that gender discrimination laws are worded to only protect women from discrimination. I decided to check the various mandatory laws posted in the breakroom here...discrimination is based on gender as a whole. Men cannot be paid less just for being men, either.

...not that that would ever happen, of course, as everyone recognizes how much men are worth.

 

[yasic]

The inherent issue with the OP is the assumption that gender discrimination laws are worded to only protect women from discrimination. I decided to check the various mandatory laws posted in the breakroom here...discrimination is based on gender as a whole. Men cannot be paid less just for being men, either.

...not that that would ever happen, of course, as everyone recognizes how much men are worth.

Look into salary figures for women in physics compared to men.

They tend to get about 10% more than us. So there are in fact a few places where women tend to do better.

 

[morningstar2651]

In my opinion feminism is rather pointless is the modern Western world.

Equal rights is now on all our law books, and actively enforced (employment tribunals, court cases ect.). Feminism was needed, and it succeeded.

Now it's a club that should have disbanded a long time ago but the members don't know how.

Any modern feminism looks not to ensure equal rights for women but superior rights.

Now, the feminist may say something like "Women may have equal protection under the law, but if you look at the statistics they are still under-represented at the highest levels of almost all employment sectors. Thus they are not equal, and feminism still has a role."

To which I say: of course women are under represented. What else do you expect from a group that leaves the workforce for several years at a time, sometimes multiple times?

Women are under represented at the top levels of employment not because of some grand conspiracy against women, but because they're less qualified for those positions (they lack the skills and experience that their male counterparts gained while they were having children).

And if there's one thing that feminism taught us it's that the person most qualified should get the job, regardless of factors such as age, sex, race and sexuality.

The fact that there are women at these highest levels of industry, even if they are under represented, shows that employers are perfectly willing to employ women in these positions, if they are the best for the job. I don't have the statistics, but I suspect if a survey was done you would find that these women who succeeded did so at the expense of not having a family.

Any feminist act that tries to change this to artificially give women who had kids an advantage over more qualified men is nothing but social engineering, and goes against all of the values that feminists originally stood for (equality, the idea that women could perform as well as men by their own merit).

In short, modern feminism wants to change the law (as it was in Finland) to give women a legal advantage over men such that they can have both a family and high-flying career. It's trying to give one gender special treatment that the other does not receive. As such it is not only a club that should have been disbanded, but as morally disgusting to me as laws in certain second and third world nations where women are denied the ability to vote, to marry who they wish, to self-determine their actions, to wear what they want, and even laws which mean a woman who is raped can be tried for adultery.

Any gender discrimination, in any direction, must be opposed.

Sure, women and men may be different. They have different desires, different ways of thinking, and so on (this is an extremely generalised statement - many women will think in a more "male" way than some men, and vice versa. In the end it comes down less to gender and more to the physiology of the brain, IMO).

But this is not something we should write into law. It is rather stupid to write expectations of certain behaviours depending on gender into the law.

Rather, give everyone equal status under the law and just let the natural difference between men and women manifest in the choices they make and the way they live their lives, given their opportunities.

Have you ever heard of the glass ceiling?

 

[sidhe]

Look into salary figures for women in physics compared to men.

They tend to get about 10% more than us. So there are in fact a few places where women tend to do better.

Precisely. And that is equally illegal unless there are other factors such as experience, etc.

 

[yasic]

Precisely. And that is equally illegal unless there are other factors such as experience, etc.

Well, the best answers I got to why this is (and again its just pure speculation) is that women are, do to natural social biases, less likely to take up physics as a career. The few that do are thus more likely to be true physics enthusiasts or ones that have a lot of talent in it. So when they graduate, they are more capable of doing work in the physics department, and thus more and better work = more cash

 

[PassionFruit]

Well, the best answers I got to why this is (and again its just pure speculation) is that women are, do to natural social biases, less likely to take up physics as a career. The few that do are thus more likely to be true physics enthusiasts or ones that have a lot of talent in it. So when they graduate, they are more capable of doing work in the physics department, and thus more and better work = more cash

I think it may have to do with the fact even though the feminist movment has essentially said that women are just as capable in those fields like men are, in those fields, there is still this belief that men are naturally better at stuff like math, science, physics, etc. I also think it may have to do with the fact that it doesn't seem to me that women are really encouraged to enter into those fields. But I could be wrong about this. Because there have been studies to show that girls are doing just as well as boys in math. So maybe in the future we might start seeing more women enter into these fields.
Girls' math skills now equal boys' - Education- msnbc.com
Thought I'd post this.

Pause to note, I am speaking of the first world countries, I understand the status of women is extremely low in many third world countires; in that instance Feminism aint gonna help. If women and people in oppressive third world countries want to be treated equally, pick up a gun and fight for your rights; a little revolution will go a long way. Women make fine soldiers, just ask the Russians.

Many people aren't aware of the fact there are women's rights actvitiy happening in third world countries. I had the pleasure of meeting feminists from India during my time in college. I think that's interesting you say that the women in third world nations should fight for their own equality, because more often than not people often accuse Western feminists as not caring about the plight of women in those nations. This couldn't be further from the truth. The issue is, when Western feminists did tried to help these women, what ended up happening was that it ended turning into a kind of colonialism and also many feminists from West treated these women like they were helpless. They also didn't bother to learn about their culture or their societies. So at this point, we can only be their allies and it seems the feminists in these nations would perfer it that way.

So just wanted to raise this point.

 

[keith99]

The inherent issue with the OP is the assumption that gender discrimination laws are worded to only protect women from discrimination. I decided to check the various mandatory laws posted in the breakroom here...discrimination is based on gender as a whole. Men cannot be paid less just for being men, either.

...not that that would ever happen, of course, as everyone recognizes how much men are worth.

Actually when it comes to being a porn star men are paid less. Just about the only environment I can think of where men suffer when it comes ot pay. There are some situations where it seems if there is any dirty or remotely dangerous job it usually goes to the man, sometimes men in those situations get paifd more, sometimes not.