Da Feminism Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal. Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

I don't consider it appropriate for her to be clad only in silver bodypaint on T4 at 10 am in the morning. More to the point, she basically just sells sex - her songs and her outfits are titilating, but they aren't much more than that. Umbrella was an exception, which is part of why it put a rocket on her popularity, but the video doesn't fit the baledic message of the song at all, it's just a scantily clad woman being scantily clad. Frankly, burlesque can be more demure.

So we have a young artist who sells herself on her sex appeal, and young women copy her, when she actually appears capable of producing a meaningful record.

The economics of marriage vary from country to country and I'm sure we could each find a counter-example to whatever point the other of us brings up. One example of how women continue to feel much more pressure than men to marry is that women who fail to marry are always derided as spinsters, whereas men are (often - not always, but certainly frequently enough for this to be a thing) considered bachelors if they never marry.

An interesting point, "bachelor" is not exactly a good state to be in at fifty though, a point in favour of paternal lineage actually - die a bachelor and your name dies with you. Personally, I think any man should find that thought disgraceful, especially if he is an only son like me.

The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

[Viking]

The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

Instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the conditions for individuality, feminism tries to reinvent the world in which there exists some sort of vicious conspiracy that aims to humiliate and control some sort of 'womankind'. It's a conspiracy theory light that asks its brave knights to charge against an invisible and non-existant enemy entity ('patriarchy', or whatever; put a name on the dragon).

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

[Papewaio]

Having the same root word does not make the derived words equivalent otherwise female would be male.

Feminism =/= feminine on a 1:1 relationship. Plenty of butch feminists.

Also the feminists of the 1960s and 70s are not the first. They are well and truly standing on the shoulders of the women workers of WW II who are predated by victorian suffragettes.

=][=

I believe in equal opportunity for all. I don't believe that all will get equal pay as there is often trade offs for work packages that aren't given a dollar sign. However equal quality and output should warran equal pay per unit of time

[ajaxfetish]

Having the same root word does not make the derived words equivalent otherwise female would be male.

I agree with the point being made (that the same root can wind up in words with significantly different meanings), but have to take issue with the example. Female and male do not share a root. In fact, female comes from French femelle (used to indicate female animals and ultimately derived from Latin femina). It was only after it ended up used in opposition to male that the pronunciation and spelling changed, with the notion that their semantic relationship must imply an etymological one as well.

/language nerd

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

In most case, it does. If you go for a job, it's highly unlikely that the will offer you a different salary based on your gender. What more often seems to happen is that men negotiate for higher pay, while women negotiate for better terms. The assumption that pay between women should be equal at the end of the day is falacious, because they are usually starting from the same point. It's a case of one size not fitting all.

[tibilicus]

In most case, it does. If you go for a job, it's highly unlikely that the will offer you a different salary based on your gender. What more often seems to happen is that men negotiate for higher pay, while women negotiate for better terms. The assumption that pay between women should be equal at the end of the day is falacious, because they are usually starting from the same point. It's a case of one size not fitting all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_969439.html

In a wider context though the difference in equality is insane. Women own just 1% of the worlds wealth. It makes sense too, the corporate world for example is a mans world. In a wider context what status do women have in Africa, Middle East, Asia? Exactly. The bigger picture is distasteful and to put it down to purely cultural practice is both dismissive and unhelpful to addressing the problem.

[Papewaio]

I agree with the point being made (that the same root can wind up in words with significantly different meanings), but have to take issue with the example. Female and male do not share a root. In fact, female comes from French femelle (used to indicate female animals and ultimately derived from Latin femina). It was only after it ended up used in opposition to male that the pronunciation and spelling changed, with the notion that their semantic relationship must imply an etymological one as well.

/language nerd

Learn something new everyday! Cheers

BTW root has a double meaning :)

[ajaxfetish]

BTW root has a double meaning :)

I concede the point. Male and Female do often share the same root after all.

Man, I would love to be a stay at home dad if my wife was making the big bucks. I could read books and play video games while my young kids slept and work on developing a podcast when they got old enough to go to school.

I think having a kid may prove a rude awakening for you.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

A greater presence of women in public situations is great, yes. However, that is only one aspect of the entire discussion. The majority of the time they only discuss "women's" issues, whilst there is an entire female consituency that is considered somehow different to the rest of society and can be pandered to as an "interest group". And yet men aren't? That strikes me as a thoroughly gendered society where people are expected to care about one thing or another because of a characteristic that they possess at birth.

No, men have always been an interest group. It was the male interest group that didn't want women to gain the right to vote in the first place. I don't see what you are saying. You say woman's issues as if that is an artificial construct. But the fact that women have a uterus and men don't automatically make the subject of abortion more or less a woman's issue, because in all honesty men can't fully understand what it is like to have a uterus. Just like women don't really understand what the feeling of getting kicked in the balls is like.

Women are expected to care about one thing (abortion as example) because of their characteristic of being a woman because the issue itself revolves around their identity. Gender is part of our identity. When an issue targets a specific gender, it targets the individual, so of course they are expected to care about it. Is a woman going to go, "I don't care much about abortion, it's only about the freedom of my body vs the life of the kid that will grow inside me." Like wut?

I think having a kid may prove a rude awakening for you.

Ajax

Perhaps, I know roughly how tough young kids are. I am pretty sure I won't have that much time to myself for the first 6 years or so. But when they get to school, I think I can get on top of everything and have enough free time. In all honesty, math, science, history etc... up through high school is simple stuff and if my kids need help in that regard it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I was tutoring fellow students about chemistry when I was taking my high school chem class. Hell linear algebra wasn't too hard for me and yet a lot of people had trouble with it for some reason.

[Subotan]

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

Is that really the case? Surely it's preferable and more economically efficient to create a work environment where women don't feel as if they will have to drop out of their careers halfway through to raise kids at the get-go?

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

This isn't true - if it were, then the gender binary wouldn't exist were it not for feminism. Feminists recognise the differences society places upon each gender and seeks to correct them.

I suspose you haven't come across that stereotype construct. I have seen a couple of them, it makes you want to facepalm. There is equal rights then there is being completely whipped by your partner. They are basically males who only attend because their partner forces them, usually looking sulky or upset, clearly not "for the cause" but simply sprouting what their wife/girlfriend says in their ear.

Do you think that that's representative of all male feminists?

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.

Feminism does not advocate the comodification of female sexuality, nor the dismantling of "social prudishness", for lack of a better word. Feminism only seeks to see female sexuality treated as seriously as male sexuality.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death.

Why do you assume that it has to be a man who saves the rape survivor from her rapist?

That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly"

Of course it is. I think there's something very innate to being a man in the act of protecting somebody close to you from harm.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?

Define "protection". Why are men less able to do it today than before feminism?

For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist.

lolwut this is completely wrong.

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

Sure, militant feminism is essentially radical feminism. It's something I find counterproductive more than anything.

BTW root has a double meaning :)

You Australians :P

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the USA, at least, the real prejudicial divisions are Rich vs. Poor

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that really the case? Surely it's preferable and more economically efficient to create a work environment where women don't feel as if they will have to drop out of their careers halfway through to raise kids at the get-go?

Not for the individual couple. Yes, women should absolutely be allowed to return to their careers after taking 9 months maternity leave, but they will be nine months behind everyone else when they come back, that's all. On the other hand, I think women should be allowed to drop out of their careers in order to make sure their children are raised well by someone who loves them and not a paid nanny.

This isn't true - if it were, then the gender binary wouldn't exist were it not for feminism. Feminists recognise the differences society places upon each gender and seeks to correct them.

This assumes there is automatically something to correct. Historically, yes that was true but today not so much. Also, you are making a huge, and I think erroneous, assumption about the interaction between social constructs and human nature. It is a simple fact that men became politically dominant in most cultures because men are the ones who go off and do the dying in war, and therefore they demanded the biggest stake in politics to decide when to do that dying. I don't think it's any accident that we have a more sexually equal society today as well as a more peaceful one.

Do you think that that's representative of all male feminists?

I have met male feminists like that, they don't actually have good relationships with women.

Feminism does not advocate the comodification of female sexuality, nor the dismantling of "social prudishness", for lack of a better word. Feminism only seeks to see female sexuality treated as seriously as male sexuality.

We're not talking about prudishness, we're talking about manners. Manners are a way of communicating on an open and mutually understood field, and of showing respect. Men an women don't talk the same way, don't quite think the same way. Manners create a "safe" space to interact in. Part of Manners was not openly objectifying women, another part was insisting on opening the door for her. Feminists rejected traditional manners as sexist (which I think is debatable if you've ever seen a petite woman put her shoulder to a fire door) and so they denigrated the whole edifice. That created the vacumn that sexual comodification seeped into. Also, there was a period where some feminists sought to confront men with female sexuality by, say, posing naked. That didn't actually help because no man is actually impressed by a woman taking her clothes off, it just encourages objectification.

As to female sexuality being treated "as seriously", they have achieved that - because it is now as trivialised as male sexuality, as a result female sexual activity is also trivialised - which is bad because it encourages young women to engage in casual sex which can have serious reprocussions. I get the point about repression of female sexuality, but it's not a constant even in a "Patriachal" society, it varies quite a lot.

Why do you assume that it has to be a man who saves the rape survivor from her rapist?

I don't, the point is about how women encourage men to behave.

Of course it is. I think there's something very innate to being a man in the act of protecting somebody close to you from harm.

I agree, but a feminist would ask, "why do I need protecting?" which misses the point.

Define "protection". Why are men less able to do it today than before feminism?

because women are less likely to let them.

lolwut this is completely wrong.

No, it isn't. Read a lad's mag to see the start of the problem. Men have to compete, with other men and not women, deny them that and they become frustrated and act out. In some cases they become ardant football supporters (there are recorded cases of sexual dysfunction if a man's team is on a losing streak), they join gangs or become hooligans, in extreme cases they rape women in order to exercise power. Rape is all about power and subjugation. If you stop casting the ideal man as the White Knight then the average man is more likely to exhibit tendancies of the Black Knight.

[Andres]

Yes, women should absolutely be allowed to return to their careers after taking 9 months maternity leave, but they will be nine months behind everyone else when they come back, that's all.

9 months? What workers' paradise do you live in? Here it's 3 months. Agree with the rest.

Side note: I wouldn't be too surprised if employers refused childless women aged +/- 30 in a relationship for a job (unless they are extremely well qualified) if there are other suitable candidates, because it's likely she'll start to procreate which means 1 or 2 times 3 months of maternal leave. That's a form of discrimination that exists, unfortunately. Don't know if movements or laws can change that, since an employer can invent 1.000 of reasons to refuse an applicant or hire another one who is "better". Movements won't change a thing about that. Then again, one can argue if it's truly discrimination. Her male counterpart simply cannot get pregnant and doesn't have the right to have 3 months maternal leave, so their situations are not the same. A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

On the other hand, I think women should be allowed to drop out of their careers in order to make sure their children are raised well by someone who loves them and not a paid nanny.

Why would you only allow that to women and not to man? In Belgium, both mothers and fathers have the right to take a (far too short) break in their career for their children.

[Subotan]

'I've already addressed this.'

Do it again as I don't see how

I'm not here to educate you. Find it yourself.

This assumes there is automatically something to correct. Historically, yes that was true but today not so much. Also, you are making a huge, and I think erroneous, assumption about the interaction between social constructs and human nature. It is a simple fact that men became politically dominant in most cultures because men are the ones who go off and do the dying in war, and therefore they demanded the biggest stake in politics to decide when to do that dying. I don't think it's any accident that we have a more sexually equal society today as well as a more peaceful one.

Does "not so much" mean just that, or not at all?

We're not talking about prudishness, we're talking about manners. Manners are a way of communicating on an open and mutually understood field, and of showing respect. Men an women don't talk the same way, don't quite think the same way. Manners create a "safe" space to interact in. Part of Manners was not openly objectifying women, another part was insisting on opening the door for her. Feminists rejected traditional manners as sexist (which I think is debatable if you've ever seen a petite woman put her shoulder to a fire door) and so they denigrated the whole edifice. That created the vacumn that sexual comodification seeped into. Also, there was a period where some feminists sought to confront men with female sexuality by, say, posing naked. That didn't actually help because no man is actually impressed by a woman taking her clothes off, it just encourages objectification.

Eh, the use of the word "manners" looks like a smokescreen to me to justify treating women who acted as non-sexual beings as china dolls.

As to female sexuality being treated "as seriously", they have achieved that - because it is now as trivialised as male sexuality, as a result female sexual activity is also trivialised - which is bad because it encourages young women to engage in casual sex which can have serious reprocussions. I get the point about repression of female sexuality, but it's not a constant even in a "Patriachal" society, it varies quite a lot.

Why does young women having casual (by which I mean, safe, consensual etc.) sex potentially have serious repercussions? Does the same apply to men?

I don't, the point is about how women encourage men to behave.

I would hope that everybody would encourage everyone else to intervene if they saw a rape taking place.

I agree, but a feminist would ask, "why do I need protecting?" which misses the point.

A criticism like that is very circumstantial.

because women are less likely to let them.

It's definitely patronising to always assume that women are in need of protection. Couldn't the reason for the decline in the need for men to protect people come about from the decline in violence you mentioned earlier?

No, it isn't. Read a lad's mag to see the start of the problem. Men have to compete, with other men and not women, deny them that and they become frustrated and act out. In some cases they become ardant football supporters (there are recorded cases of sexual dysfunction if a man's team is on a losing streak), they join gangs or become hooligans, in extreme cases they rape women in order to exercise power. Rape is all about power and subjugation. If you stop casting the ideal man as the White Knight then the average man is more likely to exhibit tendancies of the Black Knight.

I definitely agree that rape is about power and subjugation, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached from your premise i.e. that the breakdown of gender roles is causing rapists to rape.

EDIT:

A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

Or, make materinity/paternity leave equal for both parents and use-it-or-lose-it for each individual.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I consider myself a feminist. I think some people get a bit caught up on the sound of the terminology, that feminism is somehow emasculating or anti-men, when it's not. Tiaexz defined the term Egalitarianism, as it encompasses feminist issues among others. I consider myself an egalitarian as well, but as most of the principles and spirit of the two are the same I use them interchangeably, and don't particularly stress out on the distinction.

Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view. Egalitarianism is, well, more egalitarian. I don't believe the two are interchangable because they come from different starting point. Egalitarianism says all people should equal, or equitable, feminism says women have been historically oppressed and this should change. Feminism was important when most men thought it was ok for women to be disenfranchised, now I consider it worse that useless because it skews the argument about gender relations and I consider that harmful to the health of society and individual relationships.

I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist. I won't deny that traditional steryotypes are somewhat sexist, or that they weren't used to oppress women, but they also served to constrain that oppression. They required modification, not rejection.

Where feminism addresses patriarchy is in regards to a system of society and not on men itself. If someone is declaring all men evil and on and on, then it's not feminism. Subotan already addressed the issue about extremists, and as in any group, are off base with the majority of the group or its principles.

What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.

I think some men hear about the term patriarchy and feel that it's being portrayed as some conscious malicious force that men are actively enforcing to keep women down out of some inherent hatred, and they don't see that connection in themselves or the other good men around them, so it doesn't resonate. Again, the focus on feminism on patriarchy isn't on men as a generic archetype or directly at an individual level, but the way that society has evolved that structurally puts women at a disadvantage contrasted to men.

In some sense it is true that women were at a disadvantage, but to describe it as "Patriarchy" implies a (possibly concious) development of a social construct over a more egalitarian primitive state. I don't think that holds water, for the basic reason that division of certain tasks between men and women is economically efficient. Also, society no longer puts women at a structural disadvantage, the remaining disadvantage is, I think, a result of the basic gender difference, which is down to hormones and childbirth. I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete. It's also worth noting that men and women both compete within their gender, and clearly need to for reproductive and psychological reasons, but in different ways.

I think men, in particular, need a place to compete free of women, because if women compete with men it ceases to be a valid ranking exercise.

After saying all that however, the system was, and in many places still is, actively imposed by men on women. One quick but prominent example: the Abrahamic religions all have doctrine that establishes the place of women beneath men. The New Testament in Christianity forbids women from teaching or holding any authority over a man. Women are prohibited in scripture from speaking in church, and had to ask their husband any questions they had privately. In most ancient societies the church was a place of significant political power, so having no voice there was more limiting then that might let on. Those are some examples of major things that impacts a womans life when they're imposed.

Pet peave, can we not talk about "Abrahamic" religions, or "Judeo-Christianity" either? Now, you are correct about Paul, which is the only place in the New Testemant where women are prohibited as you describe, and about the teaching and formal organisation of religions in the Classical and pre-modern world. However, and this is very important, women had the power of prophecy, and prophecy is extremely influencial in shaping the decisions with religious Councils make. It's also important to recognise that religious organisation reflects the society the religion inhabits. The core religious doctrine can be largely a-sexual, but if the society is dominated politically by men then the religious organisation is likely to reflect that.

This isn't a thread on religion so I'll cut that off there, but my point with that is it's one tangent that has shaped a great deal of the world in terms of the rights of women. Things are very different in much of the world today, but a lot of its notions have lingered much longer, like that a man is the ruler of the house hold, and that a woman's place is in the home, the stigma on a woman's display of sexuality, etc. Here in the United States women weren't allowed by constitutional amendment to vote until 1919. If much of the worlds society impacted by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were based around a much more egalitarian code, how much sooner might that day have arrived?

Do you know, one medieval cure for impotence was to invite all the goodwives to the bed of the aflicted man and have them laugh at his flacid penis? Religion has been used to oppress women at certain period s throughout history, but while it often enshrines gender roles it does not consistantly enshrine oppression. For example, Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally. Also, to see the man as "ruler of the household" is to miss that the women runs the household.

As to the arrival of women's sufferage, I would say that it arrived when it did because such a large number of men went to war and as a result women demostrate a competence that gave credence to their demand for sufferage. This brings us back to eagilitarianism, because you narrative ignores that, historically, voting rights had far more to do with wealth and social class than gender. In most medieval governmental systems high class women had more political power or influence, provided they held wealth or title, than low class men.

I'm not saying that religion alone is to blame however, but there has been a very real act of the suppression of womens rights that continues to be active in much of the world today and still has much of its influence. Those things were enforced, and by men.

Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).

I don't really see this as much of an argument in regards to equality here. Impact on history? Absolutely. But murder tends to have a big effect on changing its course, and people tend to be more susceptible when it's from someone they trust.

Biologically, maybe, but we live in a world where intellectual contribution is just as important. Limiting women to purely domestic issues cuts the talent pool of 50% of our population in an area where it may not be best suited. There are many brilliant women in medicine and science for example whose skill set and talents lend them to that field and have greatly contributed to society. You don't have to go far back in history to a point where that was almost universally scoffed at.

While you're right about women being unjustly excluded, we're talking about the top percentage there - in straitened economic circumstances a couple doesn't have the luxury of following their ideal dream career, they have to make the most of what they have in order to raise their children.

That depends on the ideology itself. I'd argue that feminism expands your horizons far more than it could ever close them. Also, most people who are feminists aren't JUST feminists. They have other beliefs and convictions, usually step for step with egalitarianism.

I would say egalitarianism includes all the goals of feminism, but the reverse is not also true.

I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.

As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?

So your feminist friend is contradicting your own opinion on what feminists do? And are you telling that feminists should take their responsibillity by disbanding?

No, because I was talking about the law of unintended consequences, some feminists thought it would be provocative to take their clothes, but the core issue is the wrecking ball of feminism going through male sexual mores, rather than female ones.

You can adapt for it though. Being pregnant is something quite natural and wanted also from a societal viewpoint after all. The dad can get 87,5% (same as the mother) of the parental leave here.

that works, but it's still not best use of resources for the couple, two interupted careers instead of one.

[Ironside]

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.

Let see now, you reject that feminists has anything more to do nowadays and I'm going to guess that the rap music video connection is about the sexual liberation for woman. You don't supose a modern feminist might be interested in working against that rap culture? Equality is about more than more sex you know.

Missed with the majuscules. I was talking about the Madonna, you know virgin Mary? It's only two states. And even the Madonna is also problematic for equality viewpoint, since it's assumes that the woman is the lesser gender that you need to protect. Compare to children. Caring for them? Sure. Seeing as equals? No.

And about the Patriarchy. You consider female sexual liberation to be a problem, due to increased objectification. You are noticing the still ongoing strong link of woman value related to sex correct? Both from you and those you oppose (on the objectification matter, I understand that you greatly oppose it). Ergo that old thing are still alive and kicking.

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

But in most countries, it's still biased a lot towards the man still working while the female stays home. By the legal system.

I don't remember if this was approved or not, but it's interesting to notice that the compulsary mother only 6 weeks are an improvement from the former EU laws in general. Gender equality indeed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This Proposal aims at improving the protection and rights of pregnant women, women who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding, in order to better protect the interests of mothers and their children.

Maternity leave is extended from 14 to 18 weeks. This corresponds to 12 non-compulsory weeks that women can choose to take before or after confinement and six compulsory weeks after confinement. If the actual date of confinement differs from the presumed date, the period of leave before the birth could be extended without having an effect on the post-natal period. Moreover, additional leave may be granted in the event of premature childbirth, children hospitalised at birth, the birth of children with disabilities and multiple births.

The Proposal should also improve protection for working women and incite them to return to work after giving birth. Thus, during their maternity leave, they should receive a payment that is equal to their full salary. Member States may also however cap the allowance at the same level as for sick leave. In addition, women will have more leeway to choose the time at which they take the non-compulsory part of their leave (before or after birth). They will no longer be obliged to take a specific part of their leave before the birth, which is currently the case in some Member States

The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

Instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the conditions for individuality, feminism tries to reinvent the world in which there exists some sort of vicious conspiracy that aims to humiliate and control some sort of 'womankind'. It's a conspiracy theory light that asks its brave knights to charge against an invisible and non-existant enemy entity ('patriarchy', or whatever; put a name on the dragon).

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

The problem with going for individualism is focus. It's like peace in the world.

Sure,they are related, but to simply say that all should reach equality and then do nothing because the matter is too large is ineffective.

About patriachry and gender issue. Sure, at some points it becomes silly since it's a blurry concept, but sometimes it's even obvious for a 4 year old.

TBH, the endgame for a race/gender/etc issue, is exactly that it should only give a meh I don't care when it's coming up. Problem is getting there, instead of giving up halfway because you're aren't that much on the recieving end of it, so you don't notice it unless you think about it.

Only by Feminist definitions, those terrible mysoginistic northern miners (steryotype) give all their pay at the end of the week to their wives.

The fact is, if you actually look at very "Patriarchal" cultures, historically, men did a good job of dominating the public sphere but they did an exceedingly poor job of dominating their private relationships with women. Empress Matilda might never have been crowned queen of England but she made life jolly difficult for Stephen and her son did take the throne.

Those bloody Jewish bankers and lawyers. It's obvious that they are the masterminds.

Or more on the point instead of vague references. If it's almost impossible to have domination in the public sphere, some massive channeling on the private sphere occurs amoung ambitious people.
Edit: The evil mother-in-law comes from this powerstruggle btw.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let see now, you reject that feminists has anything more to do nowadays and I'm going to guess that the rap music video connection is about the sexual liberation for woman. You don't supose a modern feminist might be interested in working against that rap culture? Equality is about more than more sex you know.

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.

Missed with the majuscules. I was talking about the Madonna, you know virgin Mary? It's only two states. And even the Madonna is also problematic for equality viewpoint, since it's assumes that the woman is the lesser gender that you need to protect. Compare to children. Caring for them? Sure. Seeing as equals? No.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death. That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly"

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he? For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist. The really worrying thing is this has seeped into mainstream culture, the Guardian did a thing last year where it compared the statements about women from lad's mags and convicted rapists. Guess what?

Most people had trouble telling them apart.

And about the Patriarchy. You consider female sexual liberation to be a problem, due to increased objectification. You are noticing the still ongoing strong link of woman value related to sex correct? Both from you and those you oppose (on the objectification matter, I understand that you greatly oppose it). Ergo that old thing are still alive and kicking.

Sex is probably cheaper now than at most periods throughout history, the sexual revolution has allowed the sexually astute to dominate everything from sex itself to the media. Yes, the meat market is a historical blight, not a new invention. The point is - things are getting worse, not better, and Feminism needs to carry some of the responsibility. News flash girls, giving a man an erection does not empower you in any way, and taking your clothes off does not make you sexier. The sexiest women I know, who is also a feminist, is sexy because of what she doesn't show, do, or say - not what she does. She's also sexy because she's smart, witty and self confident.

But in most countries, it's still biased a lot towards the man still working while the female stays home. By the legal system.

That's not something you can fix - you shouldn't get a free pass if you take time off work, be it to have children or go hiking in Borneo. It's not your employer's responsibility to look after you, beyond the conditions you work in.

I can't remember what maternity leave is here, I think it's more generous than that.

Those bloody Jewish bankers and lawyers. It's obvious that they are the masterminds.

Or more on the point instead of vague references. If it's almost impossible to have domination in the public sphere, some massive channeling on the private sphere occurs amoung ambitious people.
Edit: The evil mother-in-law comes from this powerstruggle btw.

the point is, their wives let them - and often still do. Most men with big ambitions need someone to share them with in order to grab ahold of them.