Forsher wrote:Faolinn wrote:
There is only one definition, the support of equal rights for women and the movement to dismantle gender inequality in both written and unwritten law.Something we still need in this world. If you support this and actively pursue this goal then you are a feminist man or woman, declared or not.
Find a source for that... you'll find ones that disagree in doing so.Faolinn wrote:You're forgetting the key word...EQUAL. Not more.
Furthermore, women have a lot more to gain, most of which as most feminists will point out to you should not and will not come at the expense of rights we men have held for over a thousand years.The ONLY difference is that women will have those same rights. Hell there are a few I know who think gender is kind of a myth. They just believe in helping those who ultimately have less for the time being.
You also seem to forget that feminists work to dismantle gender stereotypes and all disparagement that comes with acting one way when your sex decides in society what is acceptable for you, therefore, it does work in the interests of men as well.Essentially a man, should be able to take on a traditionally "feminine"" task or and a woman a traditionally "masculine" task or hobby without being ridiculed and thus showing that masculinity and femininity are more than these. A world where no one is shamed for being who they are in their own skin.
Let me ask you, what is the point of handing millionaires a bag of pennies?There is none.
I must also ask, what more rights in this era do men honestly need when much of the world is still so patriarchal?What do you give to someone who (at least by comparison) has everything?
I also think everyone needs to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opini ... wanted=all
Bad article.
That first graphic. Eight out of 35 jobs became more male or stayed the same. Two of which were still well female. Of the four down in the male part, two stayed the same. Every other job improved, in terms of worker equality. That's not what the article called "Indeed, in many arenas the progress of women has actually stalled over the past 15 years."
In terms of positions, the raw data needs to have a wider scope. It's all very knowing that such and such is true but that's meaningless without knowing why. It may be that they aren't applying, then go further... why not? don't speculate find evidence.Proponents of the “women as the richer sex” scenario often note that in several metropolitan areas, never-married childless women in their 20s now earn more, on average, than their male age-mates.
But this is because of the demographic anomaly that such areas have exceptionally large percentages of highly educated single white women and young, poorly educated, low-wage Latino men. Earning more than a man with less education is not the same as earning as much as an equally educated man.
They've gone further but, well, ignore why in that demographic men are less educated. This is helpful for the article's point. Likewise, it doesn't mention that in older age demographics men are more educated than women because, well, that's how it is. This is standard... saying one thing but not linking it to another, pretty human response, can't blame them. You can blame them for not trying, if appropriate.Among never-married, childless 22- to 30-year-old metropolitan-area workers with the same educational credentials, males out-earn females in every category, according to a reanalysis of census data to be presented next month at Boston University by Philip Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland. Similarly, a 2010 Catalyst survey found that female M.B.A.’s were paid an average of $4,600 less than men in starting salaries and continue to be outpaced by men in rank and salary growth throughout their careers, even if they remain childless.
That's better... it offers a reason that would account for the wage gap (two, actually... education and children) and explains that the wage gap still exists when they are excluded (both childless and same level of education).Among married couples when both partners are employed, wives earned an average of 38.5 percent of family income in 2010. In that year nearly 30 percent of working wives out-earned their working husbands, a huge increase from just 4 percent in 1970. But when we include all married-couple families, not just dual-earner ones, the economic clout of wives looks a lot weaker.
That's cool... are we to believe that this is down to the reasons offered earlier. Are education and sexism to blame here, as well? Maybe. The real thing to do is create a survey and ask stuff. Perhaps these women are electing of their own free wills to not earn any money? It's something that must be considered, these are human being we're talking about here... not cows.But this also reflects prejudice against working mothers. A few years ago, researchers at Cornell constructed fake résumés, identical in all respects except parental status. They asked college students to evaluate the fitness of candidates for employment or promotion. Mothers were much less likely to be hired. If hired, they were offered, on average, $11,000 less in starting salary and were much less likely to be deemed deserving of promotion.
Prejudice or pragmatism? Employers are, logically speaking when we assume they are motivated by profit, less likely to hire someone when they believe that there is a good chance they won't be able to make so much money from a person. That survey, there's a lot more stuff about that survey that we need to know for it to be meaningful. Were they all women? That's probably the most important thing.The researchers also submitted similar résumés in response to more than 600 actual job advertisements. Applicants identified as childless received twice as many callbacks as the supposed mothers.
Doesn't mention anything about fathers... in fact, the use of childless suggests, to me, that it was just childless people that did better in that study, not men regardless of child status. The reason being I've taken the article as being biased in a particular manner... which is why my discussion of it has been how it is.But at all income levels, women are still concentrated in traditionally female areas of study. Gender integration of college majors has stalled since the mid-1990s, and in some fields, women have even lost ground. Between 1970 and 1985, women’s share of computer and information sciences degrees rose from 14 percent to 37 percent. But by 2008 women had fallen back to 18 percent.
That's all very well and good. What on earth is happening in the female dominated areas of study? That's something that we need to know as well, it's important information. Again, we can't exclude the possibility that women aren't interested in these jobs. If so, why? That's also something we have to consider to be fair.According to the N.Y.U. sociologist Paula England, a senior fellow at the Council on Contemporary Families, most women, despite earning higher grades, seem to be educating themselves for occupations that systematically pay less.
When we were talking about the pay gap, was this brought up? No. It would explain the pay gap in some contexts. When talking about within occupations, obviously, it wouldn't.Men who request family leave are often viewed as weak or uncompetitive and face a greater risk of being demoted or downsized. And men who have ever quit work for family reasons end up earning significantly less than other male employees, even when controlling for the effects of age, race, education, occupation, seniority and work hours. Now men need to liberate themselves from the pressure to prove their masculinity. Contrary to the fears of some pundits, the ascent of women does not portend the end of men. It offers a new beginning for both. But women’s progress by itself is not a panacea for America’s inequities. The closer we get to achieving equality of opportunity between the sexes, the more clearly we can see that the next major obstacle to improving the well-being of most men and women is the growing socioeconomic inequality within each sex.
There we are. That top line, the first sentence of this pargraph. The topic sentence offers an explanation for the pay gap, not previously offered when, really, it should have been. What we see here is the first inklings of the idea that it's "female" behaviour that is responsible, not the state of being female... just food for thought.
What impact on feminism do you think our country had when we allowed women to vote?
