• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Feminism....why?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feminism exists because true gender equality is still nonexistant.

partially for that reason, yes.

Women are still generally punished from an employment standpoint for having children...

if you mean by "punished" that they are passed up for opportunities, yes, and i agree with it. from an employer's standpoint, a woman who is not pregnant, or a man, is going to be more valuable than a woman who is pregnant, or some guy who for whatever reason can't work for half a year or more. if women want to succeed in the workplace, they should probably not get pregnant and have to take time off. that's not sexist, that's discrimination based on ability.

and then everyone bitches that kids today are f*cked up because no one was home to raise them properly. Maybe that's because the mom had to work 40 hours or more per week to avoid being fired for missing work to take care of junior.

maybe mom should have used her head a little before becoming mom.

Maybe it's because women's health issues are chronically underfunded. I mean sure, there are the stereotypical buzz-cut angry females on any given college campus, but they aren't the only feminists in the world, stupid.

whatever. when's the last time you saw a "walk for prostate cancer"? or prostate cancer ribbons?

There are also women like my wife's grandmother who served in the NC house of representatives for 25 years and authored such laws as the NC Marital Rape law....that's right, prior to that a man could do whatever the f*ck he felt like to his wife and she had no established legal basis by which to press charges. Nice huh?

so how long ago was that? you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the *laws* need changing these days.
 
I'd rely on neither, if I were you. Reports and statistics are easily skewed and biased.

i rely on two things, the report, and my analysis of it.
 
that, and the fact that most of the corporate bigwigs making the money have been in the business, steadily climbing the corporate ladder for 20 years, at a time when there was alot more gender inequality. So for there to be more males in higher positions is a product of the past, not the present. Now if we were to look at the difference between how women and men are hired today, that'd be a totally different story
 


<< if you mean by "punished" that they are passed up for opportunities, yes, and i agree with it. from an employer's standpoint, a woman who is not pregnant, or a man, is going to be more valuable than a woman who is pregnant, or some guy who for whatever reason can't work for half a year or more. if women want to succeed in the workplace, they should probably not get pregnant and have to take time off. that's not sexist, that's discrimination based on ability. >>



Congratulations. That is by far the most ignorant statement I have seen in quite some time (a close second to

<< you want to know why they are that way? it's because they're ugly. i'm not kidding, go to my website and read my rant about it. ugly b!tches. >>



So you are basically saying that women have one of two choices: a career or rearing children. Nice. Your grasp of pre-20th century social issues is excellent.

Idiot.

Fausto
 
Congratulations. That is by far the most ignorant statement I have seen in quite some time (a close second to

<< you want to know why they are that way? it's because they're ugly. i'm not kidding, go to my website and read my rant about it. ugly b!tches. >>



So you are basically saying that women have one of two choices: a career or rearing children. Nice. Your grasp of pre-20th century social issues is excellent.

Idiot.

instead of personal attacks, how about defending your position with more than baseless attacks on mine?

women do have two choices, that is correct. last i checked, men have one: career. so... who's worse off?

edit: actually i was thinking, and men can rear children too i guess. but their career will also suffer.

btw, this discussion is about equality. this is equality. if a man had to take that long of a time period off of work, his career would suffer too.
 
in my profession I have yet to meet a senior married woman with children. Its all men, single women, or married women with no kids.
its like that not because of discrimination, but rather self selection.
 


<< if a man had to take that long of a time period off of work, his career would suffer too. >>


It would be interesting to be able to put that notion to a test and see if it holds true. Many writers have commented that if men could bear children, they would be able to take whatever time they needed with no penalties.
 


<<

<< if a man had to take that long of a time period off of work, his career would suffer too. >>


It would be interesting to be able to put that notion to a test and see if it holds true. Many writers have commented that if men could bear children, they would be able to take whatever time they needed with no penalties. >>



feminist writers? 😛

i have a hard time believing that in such a situation, between two men who are otherwise completely equal, the employer would not choose the man who would not have to take time off work. that just doesn't make any sense.
 


<< if you mean by "punished" that they are passed up for opportunities, yes, and i agree with it. from an employer's standpoint, a woman who is not pregnant, or a man, is going to be more valuable than a woman who is pregnant, or some guy who for whatever reason can't work for half a year or more. if women want to succeed in the workplace, they should probably not get pregnant and have to take time off. that's not sexist, that's discrimination based on ability. >>


Okay, so for women to be successful at work, they should just not bother with having a family because they would be forced to take maternity leave. A man can get married, and can have kids, because his wife will be the one burdened with the apparently bothersome chore of propagating the species. That sounds perfectly fair to me.
 


<< It would be interesting to be able to put that notion to a test and see if it holds true. Many writers have commented that if men could bear children, they would be able to take whatever time they needed with no penalties. >>



Many writers are full of sh1t as well.



<< Okay, so for women to be successful at work, they should just not bother with having a family because they would be forced to take maternity leave. A man can get married, and can have kids, because his wife will be the one burdened with the apparently bothersome chore of propagating the species. That sounds perfectly fair to me. >>



If you think that's not fair, the only one you have to bitch to about it is God.
 
Okay, so for women to be successful at work, they should just not bother with having a family because they would be forced to take maternity leave. A man can get married, and can have kids, because his wife will be the one burdened with the apparently bothersome chore of propagating the species. That sounds perfectly fair to me.

well if you view the role of a father as solely to dump money into the family. i know that when i'm a father i'll have a more proactive role, however.

what would you propose? a company is solely concerned with what you can give to it. it is unconcerned with the propagation of the species, as it will be long gone by the time we are extinct from lack of procreation. employees who are able to give less will earn less. to change it so that women have to give less to earn the same amount... now THAT would be inequality.
 


<<

<<

<< if a man had to take that long of a time period off of work, his career would suffer too. >>


It would be interesting to be able to put that notion to a test and see if it holds true. Many writers have commented that if men could bear children, they would be able to take whatever time they needed with no penalties. >>



feminist writers? 😛 >>


Would a non-feminist writer bother staking such a claim??



<< i have a hard time believing that in such a situation, between two men who are otherwise completely equal, the employer would not choose the man who would not have to take time off work. that just doesn't make any sense. >>


Usually the argument entails a role-reversal. If males were indeed responsible for bearing children, there would be no "penality" it. It would just be one of those things. "Oh, Roy's out on his paternity leave for the next 3 years but he still gets to collect pay and benefits."
That kind of thing.
 
Usually the argument entails a role-reversal. If males were indeed responsible for bearing children, there would be no "penality" it. It would just be one of those things. "Oh, Roy's out on his paternity leave for the next 3 years but he still gets to collect pay and benefits."
That kind of thing.

well that's an interesting argument. however, with one role reversal, another comes about. i bet you that there would be penalties, and the women would get ahead. unless that is, you subscribe to the notion that men are inherently meant to be in positions of power.
 
The whole point that you are so obviously missing (and something that is on the mind of most of those ugly-ass feminists) is that there is no reason a woman can't have a career and children. Why should she have to choose? Because the corporation might not make as much money that quarter because of all those worthless female employees wasting time having babies?





<< instead of personal attacks, how about defending your position with more than baseless attacks on mine? >>



That's rich. Your argument consists of "feminists are that way cuz they're ugly b1tches", "women shouldn't undermine company profits by having babies", "whatever", and "the laws today are just fine" and you accuse me of just throwing epithets and not defending my position....

Let's take just your "Firing/not hiring women who are or may become pregnant is all about discrimination based on ability" for starters:

So any issue that may take someone away from their job and undercut profits is grounds for dismissal or non-hiring? What if someone breaks a leg skiing and is out for a few months....should they discriminate based on one's hobbies and the likelyhood that they might cause one to miss work? You could even get into the argument about whether or not an employer could do genetic screening for the odds a potential employee might develop cancer or other serious illness. This would also fall under your moronic "discrimination based on ability" position.

Fausto
 
The whole point that you are so obviously missing (and something that is on the mind of most of those ugly-ass feminists) is that there is no reason a woman can't have a career and children. Why should she have to choose? Because the corporation might not make as much money that quarter because of all those worthless female employees wasting time having babies?

why should the company be forced to pay an employee the same amount as a more valuable one? why does the woman have to choose? because it just so happens that they are blessed with the ability to have children. with new abilities, come new opportunity costs. there is no free lunch pal.

That's rich. Your argument consists of "feminists are that way cuz they're ugly b1tches",

nope, read again.

"women shouldn't undermine company profits by having babies",

nope, try again. i'm saying that companies are going to pay women who have children less because they contribute less.

"whatever", and "the laws today are just fine"

which they are.

and you accuse me of just throwing epithets and not defending my position....

and now i'm going to accuse you of ignoring my arguments in favor of select sentences. try reading the whole thing, not just skimming. that was a nice attempt at a distraction, but the fact remains, all you did was insult me, with no argumentative basis.

Let's take just your "Firing/not hiring women who are or may become pregnant is all about discrimination based on ability" for starters:

for starters, i never said anything about firing, not hiring, etc. i'm talking about promotions, raises, etc.

So any issue that may take someone away from their job and undercut profits is grounds for dismissal or non-hiring? What if someone breaks a leg skiing and is out for a few months....should they discriminate based on one's hobbies and the likelyhood that they might cause one to miss work? You could even get into the argument about whether or not an employer could do genetic screening for the odds a potential employee might develop cancer or other serious illness. This would also fall under your moronic "discrimination based on ability" position.

and yes, i would be less likely to favor an employee if they engaged in activities that frequently interfered with their ability to contribute to the company.

you seem to have some misunderstanding. i'm not saying women should get paid less because they have the potential to have children. i am saying that it is not surprising that women get paid less, because they have children. there is a difference.
 


<< I think those people need a good talking to >>



Linuxboy,

A "good talking to"? Damn, man, that's harsh. This topic must really get you riled up.

Gopunk,

You go - punk!

BTW, women rule the world. We spend the first nine months trying to get out, then the rest of our lives trying to get back in. Who really has the power?

Russ, NCNE
 


<< well that's an interesting argument. however, with one role reversal, another comes about. i bet you that there would be penalties, and the women would get ahead. unless that is, you subscribe to the notion that men are inherently meant to be in positions of power. >>


Inherently is hard claim to stake. However, male dominance in society grew up over many thousands of years. Consider if you will the idea that from a physical perspective both genders retain their current physical characteristics, save now men bear children and women don't. Then, assume that aside from this fact, society and history developed the exact same way. Would today's men be penalized for childbirth, or would it be lauded?

I agree that it's a hard situation to consider b/c you have to control so many variables. I don't really agree with the idea, but it's interesting to think about.
 


<< I am saying that it is not surprising that women get paid less, because they have children. there is a difference. >>


That's called sexism.
 


<<

<< I am saying that it is not surprising that women get paid less, because they have children. there is a difference. >>


That's called sexism. >>



no that's not. it has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with ability to put out for the company. if deja vu (strip joint) refuses to employ male dancers, is that sexism?
 
Inherently is hard claim to stake. However, male dominance in society grew up over many thousands of years. Consider if you will the idea that from a physical perspective both genders retain their current physical characteristics, save now men bear children and women don't. Then, assume that aside from this fact, society and history developed the exact same way. Would today's men be penalized for childbirth, or would it be lauded?

well i guess that's where we split. i don't assume that society and history would be unchanged, if men could have children, and women couldn't. i think that would have a pretty damn big impact on society and history.
 
Gopunk,

You go - punk!

just fighting for a little equality in this crazy world...

BTW, women rule the world. We spend the first nine months trying to get out, then the rest of our lives trying to get back in. Who really has the power?

bwahaha.... 😀

btw if feminists really want equality, they should take a gander at divorce and custody laws.
 


<< well i guess that's where we split. i don't assume that society and history would be unchanged, if men could have children, and women couldn't. i think that would have a pretty damn big impact on society and history. >>

Where we split? Go read that last 2 lines again--I don't really buy it either.



<< btw if feminists really want equality, they should take a gander at divorce and custody laws. >>


Many feminists are concerned with areas where men are put down, as well.
 


<< I am saying that it is not surprising that women get paid less, because they have children. there is a difference. >>




<< no that's not. it has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with ability to put out for the company. if deja vu (strip joint) refuses to employ male dancers, is that sexism? >>


According to Webster's Dictionary (The Voice of Authority, as claimed on the cover 🙂) sexism is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Paying a woman less because they have to take maternity leave is discrimination. A strip joint refusing to hire male dancers is discrimination. I bet if a male were to go and try to get a job and were denied, they could make a case for sex based discrimination.

30 to 40 years ago people were having this same discussion. Only it was about why blacks get paid less then their white counterparts. And guess what? That problem is still haunting us.
 
Where we split? Go read that last 2 lines again--I don't really buy it either.

you're right, my bad.

Many feminists are concerned with areas where men are put down, as well.

yes, i applaud those feminists. i know a few of them, and i have to say they are pretty cool, because they're not all fake like a lot of the other feminists these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top