Seems sort of obvious really, it's all about comparative advantage. On a vaguely related note.
Seskany wrote:Feminism (At least, the
proper kind) is about equal rights for the sexes. So, no. "Feminists," however,
are just bigots with different prejudices then the mainstream terrible people. Note my clever use of quotation marks, there. Fortunately, quotation-mark-feminists are few, and far between. Unless you're on the internet, I mean.
Feminism goes about trying to get gender equality by approaching it from the female perspective. This, when all is said and done, is not surprising when one remembers that feminism began as a ideology that was about getting women equal rights. Now that has largely been achieved (where feminism began) feminism has broadened its scope to deal with all inequality wherever it sees it. Which is the problem, there's inequality that will get left behind and will be ignored by feminism. Not because feminists want to ignore it but because they don't see it. However, maybe if feminism was more successful with what it does see then, perhaps, in an incredibly cynical attempt to stay relevant it will be able to see more... just as it did last time it needed to update.
That bit about not seeing has been something that NSG has been either unable or unwilling to grasp. In the eyes of many on here feminism can do no wrong and this extends to it having no flaws. In fact on similar thread saw me quite deliberately point out an instance of selective quoting on my part in the post where that happened and then spend ages dealing with the feminist arm in that thread that accused me of selective quoting. This wouldn't have been a problem if they had just read and understand my post with the mentioning of selective quoting. It was really quite dense on their part. (I selectively quoted for humour, why else?)
the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes
This is my go-to definition of
feminism. It's from a highly respectable source and is only criticised because I don't bother with other definitions (for the most part I disagree with those definitions and they are as respectable in origin). What we see here is that feminists agree with equal rights. More than that, really, they
want equal rights. The important bit to note is that they advocate
women's rights. What does this mean? Well, quite simply,
feminists advocate women's rights to achieve gender equality. Not hard at all to understand, right? Experience here says otherwise, that said this is a new way of explaining this so maybe this time.\
Feminism complains about women not being paid as much. Often, they look at job locations not jobs. If most women are on the checkouts they'll have lower average pays because stacking shelves pays more, for example. This is really more a statistical thing that I wanted to point out. In fact,
most people would make this error and I probably only identify it because I've had cause to sit down and think about it some more. This paragraph really exists to show you how easily one can create a passage that is critical of feminism. The bolded sentence exists to elevate me over the rest as I bother to point out that this is something feminists do but
it is not a flaw of feminism. (In other words, bias is really easy to create.)
People do complain about the under-acheivement of boys in relation to girls in schools.
Boys and English is practically the same thing as
Girls and Maths. I'm not sure which is better known, given that I've seen a
Simpsons episode working with the latter I am inclined to say in the US, at least,
Girls and Maths is. However, that's also the view that's more beneficial to my point (fair, if not balanced). Certainly, having to think about which is better known tells me that they are, at least, equally well known things. That sounds good, right? Well, not really. The simple fact is that boys do worse in English when compared to girls than girls do in maths when compared to boys. This, in an equal society, should mean that that as a problem should be better known. In fact, education is
both a glaring success and a glaring failure for feminism as a result of this.
All in all, society is better off for having feminism than it would be for not having it. The challenge today is making sure that feminism continues to be beneficial. The more examples of sexist feminists there are out there is quite possibly for the best. Feminism will be forced to rename itself and "feminism" will go the way of "masculism". The new "equalists" as I dub them will have a clean slate and that should mean that they
can do more for gender equality.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:24 pm
