Feminism and Equality
Questioning "equality", the feminist sacred cow
Why do feminists assume "equality" is a good/natural thing?!
I challenge the basic assumption that equality in itself is a good goal. Has this even been proven to be the natural state?!
Aren't the female of the species in some animals bigger than the male, and vice versa? Some are hunters while the opposite sex isn't.
So the basic assumption that human males should have the same role as human females still needs to be proven.
For example, why do you automatically assume that the number of women in STEM fields should naturally be the same as men's?! Why assume that its lower number is because of "the system of discrimination & bias" and NOT a natural tendency?
I honestly think that this basic idea should be challenged.
It's like the assumption some philosophers make about the economy, i.e. that after removing all oppressive systems from existence, human society will become one where everybody earns the same! (While the logical thing is that the same roles will stay basically the same. Some natural leaders will emerge as leaders of the new society, while others will prefer not seeking such positions, etc.)
Mansplaining the Manspreading:
Why do you assume that male leg-spreading on a train isn't a natural psychological/physical thing, but a subtle message of dominance?.. Maybe women made this assumption just because their own natural tendency is to NOT spread their legs in this way. We have a phrase in my country that says: Every person assumes that others are like him, judging them according to his own ideas. It's like when a woman who thinks that tight t-shirts is obscene judges other women who do wear tight t-shirts.. while a different woman may see nothing wrong in others dressing like that, just because she herself also wears tight t-shirts.
I say, the natural psychological tendency for the majority of women is to NOT woman-spread, but to keep their legs closed. Asking the men to do the same is illogical, because the basic assumption is questionable, i.e. that the female way of sitting is the "correct" way.. the standard that the male should be judged by.
What's wrong with the "radical" idea that men & women are different, have different preferences and shouldn't be forced to act the same way?
I say, even when given the same equal opportunities, women will still act differently than men.
This is as valid an assumption as yours!
How can you prove that yours is the correct one?
=====
Fem:
Biological differences between men and women shouldn’t lead to differences in the rights and privileges between them. Equality doesn’t mean everyone is the same, it means everyone is treated equally regardless of sex.
Me:
You Say (it means everyone is treated equally)
How does this translate to the demand for 50% women in science labs?!
Equal treatment means: opening the field for all, NOT "half of the personnel should be female"!
You are still assuming that the natural tendency for the female population is to be in these fields. As I said, an unproven assumption still waiting for a proof.
Fem:
In clinical pathology, the majority of the scientists are women. Women overwhelmingly dominate the medical industry and are even beginning to make a majority of med students. Despite this, women on average make less money. The problem isn't intelligence or analytical thinking. Source: was a technician in an immunology lab and my degree had an emphasis in pathology
Me:
You Say (the majority of the scientists are women)
Proving my point that equality isn't the natural state!
Fem:
You know that it’s just one field, right? And that women these days are going into areas that were presumed "natural male interests" before - how can you argue anything is inherently female or inherently male when we’ve seen rapid change regarding those two categories just in the Last 50 years?
Me:
Fluctuation is a natural phenomenon. And actually this weakens the assumption that equality is the natural state!
Increase in the number of male nurses, for example, is a fluctuation.. But not a proof that the right/natural number should be 50%.
So 10% female presence in another field doesn't necessarily mean that they are oppressed nor that the system is rigged against them! It can equally mean that they simply don't want to be in this field, not comfortable in it, or simply: it doesn't suit them!
The assumption that men and women naturally like the same things still needs to be proven. And it's a huge assumption. The whole movement is built on it, and apparently it's a taboo that shouldn't be questioned!
Fem:
Well that is one possible conclusion. The other possible conclusion (especially when many people of a demographic show interest and are then discouraged) is that there are structural barriers in place to keep certain groups out of certain jobs.
As an example: I study medicine. A friend of mine wants to become a surgeon - in a specialty dominated by men for some reason - she’s brilliant, capable and the best of our group by far when it comes to surgical issues. Yet most surgery teachers and professors want to push her into gynaecology/obstetrics, family medicine and paediatrics based on the assumptions of what would be natural for her to do and want as a woman. And that’s bs. Especially as they encourage the dudes in our group to branch out into surgery - both of them have two left hands, bad eyesight and no interest in surgery whatsoever. They score lower than her and are somehow still presumed to be more capable. She’s by far not the only one to face structural barriers when showing interest in certain specialties to the point where is simply isn’t an isolated incident anymore.
It’s easy to say that people not being able to reach certain goals or fields of expertise is just natural and they just don’t want it when that argument was never something to keep you as a dude from any field you wanted.
So, please tell me, what natural qualities make men the better surgeons? Or presumably better at anything that isn’t homemaking or childcare? Because I can’t see a penis being the determining factor for greatness in any of those fields.
Fem:
Natural is not the same as right. All things created by humanity is defined as unnatural. STEM itself is unnatural. Should we stop creating then?
There is no such thing as someone simply being naturally suited. We are shaped by culture and environment.
That being said. Do we know men and women like the same or different careers? We don’t know. Let’s give them equal opportunities and better work environments and then we can find out.
Fem:
I think you're misunderstanding the goal of feminism. It isnt about everything being split 50/50, it is about access to resources. Im a white man and one of my closest friends is a black woman. When we go out together people act weird towards us - specifically her. You are correct that we are not the same in our thinking, but that isnt an issue. The issue is that she is far more likely to be stopped by security or be scrutinized than I am. I have seen it myself.
Me:
The solution to this kind of bias isn't to force a quota in STEM or to make separate categories exclusively for women at the Oscars, nor to assume that a lower female presence in a certain field is a problem.
Fem:
In every field that existed more than, what, 50 years ago, men were the majority. Culture changed, laws changed, people changed, and now women dominte in some fields. Culture is still changing, always changing, so to base argument on what you see in front of you now is very risky.
Me:
Good. You are taking the "let's wait and see" approach. This doesn't prove that when we lift all the shackles we will find half of the miners women for example!
"it's changing" doesn't logically lead to "it should be equal"!
Feminism is taking a huge leap of logic, without providing sufficient evidence for it.
Fem:
I'm not saying, "Let's wait and see." I'm saying, "Look at the pattern." Psychology was once completely dominated by men, and now it is almost completely dominated by women. There's a pattern. When cultures changes, people move with it. As people's ideas about what women are capable of changes, their role in the world changes.
I used to feel the way that you do about men and women's roles in the world, and I thought that a lot of our behavior and circumstance was tied to biology, but as you begin to unpack the heaviness of our cultural influences and as you begin to notice all of the small, unconscious influences around you, you begin to understand that you have been pushed in a direction that may not have been natural or your own preference.
We don't have to wait and see anything because we can already see the direction we are moving in. What I am waiting for, is to see how far this goes. We don't know our true potential right now, but we do know that we are capable of more than we have been doing because we are always moving in the same direction towards further participation in our society, and this does bring us closer to equity.
Fem:
Why should anyone care about the natural state?
Fem:
Why should the shear luck of what is between your legs determine your life?
Fem:
You're suggesting that inequality is natural, which isn't a revolutionary idea, but there's actually nothing natural that justifies social equality, especially since it's a fairly recent development in human history. You could've checked out an anthropology paper for that.
Fem:
You're not taking culture and learned behavior into account at all. Have you considered that STEM fields might be antagonistic towards women, or at the very least, uncomfortable and lonely for women to be a part of? Or that teachers of these fields have an unconscious bias towards males in their classrooms and treat students accordingly (calling on and encouraging boys more than girls), thus, funneling more boys towards these fields? You must consider all of the tiny biases that shape and push us as human beings.
As for man-spreading, I sit that way when I'm alone because it's comfortable, but as a woman, I don't do it in public because I am trying to be polite and considerate of the person sitting next to me. This is another unconscious learned bias--that women should be aware of/considerate of the people around them. If I'm alone on a bus or train, I'll make myself comfortable. Think also, we grow up seeing all other women sitting with their legs crossed or together. Part of that reason is a traditional sense of properness. A woman sitting with her legs spread is seen as mannish and improper. I absolutely disagree that the way I sit on a bus has anything to do with my biology. If I grew up in a society of people who rode busses with enough room to spread out and a culture accepting enough of a woman who did so, I would totally do it and be comfortable.
Me:
We return then to the same problem: assumptions.
You assume that all these small discouraging behaviors add up, preventing true equality.
How can anybody prove that?!
If I said: it will only add up to .0002%, it would have been an equally valid assumption! Because we both are speculating. The difference is that my assumption - i.e. equality in not the natural state, actually the sexes have different natural preferences/tendencies - is closer to what happens daily IRL!
As for the 2nd point.. yes there are learnt behaviors. Of course. And we have learnt them for a reason!
You are saying: What is happening (what happened for 1000s of years) isn't normal. I say: it is normal.
I say: gender roles are natural.. screwing with them will be disastrous for everybody!
Now, how can you prove my reactionary prediction wrong? with another prediction?!
Then both will be equally probable. Which is embarrassing for a movement that claims that it'll change things for the better, and is so sure about this.
At least my way is proven to NOT be a total disaster, (humanity is actually functioning)
Fem:
Is it natural for women to shave their body hair off? Is that something that we have been biologically programmed to do? This is just one small example of many I can give you. This isn't an assumption. This is our real lives we live every day.
Also, how will this be disastrous for everybody?
Fem:
If you're really interested do your research and read some papers possibly not from right wing thought leaders.
Me:
You presume to know me, which is interesting considering the subject of my question is false assumptions.
Tell me which thought leaders have I been listening to in my country?
Your dismissive "no answer" is telling.. because I'm the one who wrote a long detailed question (in a language that isn't my mother-tongue btw), sought the appropriate sub to ask it, and all you had for me was "read some papers"!
Fem:
Your post is so disingenuous that doesn't require an answer. If you actually took 5 minutes to do a scientific research you wouldn't have written any of that simplistic bullshit. English is not my first language either I don't know why that matter.
Me:
It matters because the accusation of "poor effort" doesn't mesh well with the effort of writing the post in a foreign language :)
So I'll assume you are just stalling because you really don't have an answer to the question. Thanks.
Fem:
Go ahead and live your life. You poor bitter insecure man.
Me:
You got emotional and abusive just because I asked for proof?!
Fem:
You know what else is telling? The fact that every one of your examples assumes that men are better than women at the example. The first things that pop into your head appear to be that males are superior.. perhaps you should work on that.
Equality of outcome is to give the job/task to the best person for the job, not assume that one gender is superior to the other based on bias and prejudice.
Women and men do often think differently, but that is an asset that wise employers take advantage of, they don't automatically assume men are always right and the best.
Me:
You Say (to give the job/task to the best person for the job)
Exactly. Then why assume that a certain job should have 50% women?
Why assume that the right state in movies for example is to have equal parts WonderWomen & SuperMen?!.. Why can't we agree that the superhero field is a male power fantasy more than a female one?.. Why assume that just because the majority of boys dream of shooting laser out of their eyes then girls also want the same?!
If they have to force the quota then it's not a natural tendency.
Fem:
If you want to go by numbers then gender distribution probably would work out to be about 50/50 in most workplaces. The distribution of intelligence and capability is not based on gender.
Everything else you have said there is assumption.
Sometimes employers will deliberately target a gender to bring balance to the workplace or to service a particular need. Nurses are a good example, a lot of patients prefer women. If there's too many men in a particular position the employer may choose to hire women. That's their prerogative.
Quotas are more a suggestion and rare.
You have also portrayed that the differences between men and women define that men are somehow superior. That is definitely not the case. You really need to reconsider HOW you think. You are letting slip a whole lot more than you realize.
I will leave you to your thoughts.
Me:
I've never used the words superior or inferior in any of my comments!
I prefer to use "suitable for different fields".
But if you want to go down that road then history won't be your ally.. because if it really was a war of domination as the feminists assume, and you admit that the males dominated for the majority of history, doesn't this work against the assumption that the sexes are equally strong/equipped?!
You are putting yourself in a bad position.
Fem:
I said that is how you PORTRAY things.
You're assuming again, now you are assuming what other people think. If you think beating your chest and acting like an ape is "dominating" then you need to go and live in a cave because there is no place for you in this world.
If you think history so far is anything to be proud of you need to put a boulder in that cave entrance and never come out. One word, war.
Me:
It can be argued that war, a horrible thing, is beneficial. Most of our technology originated during wartime. War saved millions of people from living under weak corrupt governments (because good strong governments usually don't lose wars), etc.
This is a complicated subject you try to reduce to "one word"!.. It's not as simple as that.
Especially when you take into consideration the type of war during most of the human history, where civilians had very little to fear.
Fem:
You are on the verge of being banned for both general and specific violations of our “be courteous and respectful” rule. You won’t get another warning.
Fem:
First of all, nobody is saying that any job needs to have 50% women. As other people have pointed out, it's not about equality, it's about equal opportunity. It's still very common for girls to be told that they shouldn't pursue a career in STEM because they're not suited for it, or for girls to not even consider it as a career path because they lack role models in these fields. In this context, it is interesting to look at computer programming: The first programmers were mostly women, because computers replaced jobs done by women. When people realised that this job was not just a menial task, men got into the field and were given preference in hiring.
Overall, you need to consider that any time you talk about 'interest' or 'natural tendency', it's highly influenced by the gender roles society teaches kids. If a girl only gets pink toys and princess parties, whereas a boy gets blue toys and superhero action figures, it's no wonder that superheroes feature more prominently in male fantasies. Because there are fewer female examples, fewer women will imagine themselves as superheroes.
It is possible that men have a natural tendency to fantasise about being superheroes, but our current gender socialisation is so skewed that it is impossible to tell whether that is the case.
Me:
You Say (When people realised that this job was not just a menial task, men got into the field and were given preference in hiring.)
There was no "hiring" back then!
It was a young field.. a wild west. Are you seriously pushing the conspiracy theory that men pushed women out of the field?!
This is a lame excuse IMHO. It's like saying: PoC basketball players who dominate a team are oppressing the white minority in it!
No, their natural suitability for the task proved itself.. "the best person for the job", right?
So for the white players to blame them is a false accusation, because the best person won fair and square.
Fem:
Nope, now that you bring racism into it, we’re definitely done here.
(Permanent Ban from r/AskFeminists)
Why do feminists assume "equality" is a good/natural thing?!
I challenge the basic assumption that equality in itself is a good goal. Has this even been proven to be the natural state?!
Aren't the female of the species in some animals bigger than the male, and vice versa? Some are hunters while the opposite sex isn't.
So the basic assumption that human males should have the same role as human females still needs to be proven.
For example, why do you automatically assume that the number of women in STEM fields should naturally be the same as men's?! Why assume that its lower number is because of "the system of discrimination & bias" and NOT a natural tendency?
I honestly think that this basic idea should be challenged.
It's like the assumption some philosophers make about the economy, i.e. that after removing all oppressive systems from existence, human society will become one where everybody earns the same! (While the logical thing is that the same roles will stay basically the same. Some natural leaders will emerge as leaders of the new society, while others will prefer not seeking such positions, etc.)
Mansplaining the Manspreading:
Why do you assume that male leg-spreading on a train isn't a natural psychological/physical thing, but a subtle message of dominance?.. Maybe women made this assumption just because their own natural tendency is to NOT spread their legs in this way. We have a phrase in my country that says: Every person assumes that others are like him, judging them according to his own ideas. It's like when a woman who thinks that tight t-shirts is obscene judges other women who do wear tight t-shirts.. while a different woman may see nothing wrong in others dressing like that, just because she herself also wears tight t-shirts.
I say, the natural psychological tendency for the majority of women is to NOT woman-spread, but to keep their legs closed. Asking the men to do the same is illogical, because the basic assumption is questionable, i.e. that the female way of sitting is the "correct" way.. the standard that the male should be judged by.
What's wrong with the "radical" idea that men & women are different, have different preferences and shouldn't be forced to act the same way?
I say, even when given the same equal opportunities, women will still act differently than men.
This is as valid an assumption as yours!
How can you prove that yours is the correct one?
=====
Fem:
Biological differences between men and women shouldn’t lead to differences in the rights and privileges between them. Equality doesn’t mean everyone is the same, it means everyone is treated equally regardless of sex.
Me:
You Say (it means everyone is treated equally)
How does this translate to the demand for 50% women in science labs?!
Equal treatment means: opening the field for all, NOT "half of the personnel should be female"!
You are still assuming that the natural tendency for the female population is to be in these fields. As I said, an unproven assumption still waiting for a proof.
Fem:
In clinical pathology, the majority of the scientists are women. Women overwhelmingly dominate the medical industry and are even beginning to make a majority of med students. Despite this, women on average make less money. The problem isn't intelligence or analytical thinking. Source: was a technician in an immunology lab and my degree had an emphasis in pathology
Me:
You Say (the majority of the scientists are women)
Proving my point that equality isn't the natural state!
Fem:
You know that it’s just one field, right? And that women these days are going into areas that were presumed "natural male interests" before - how can you argue anything is inherently female or inherently male when we’ve seen rapid change regarding those two categories just in the Last 50 years?
Me:
Fluctuation is a natural phenomenon. And actually this weakens the assumption that equality is the natural state!
Increase in the number of male nurses, for example, is a fluctuation.. But not a proof that the right/natural number should be 50%.
So 10% female presence in another field doesn't necessarily mean that they are oppressed nor that the system is rigged against them! It can equally mean that they simply don't want to be in this field, not comfortable in it, or simply: it doesn't suit them!
The assumption that men and women naturally like the same things still needs to be proven. And it's a huge assumption. The whole movement is built on it, and apparently it's a taboo that shouldn't be questioned!
Fem:
Well that is one possible conclusion. The other possible conclusion (especially when many people of a demographic show interest and are then discouraged) is that there are structural barriers in place to keep certain groups out of certain jobs.
As an example: I study medicine. A friend of mine wants to become a surgeon - in a specialty dominated by men for some reason - she’s brilliant, capable and the best of our group by far when it comes to surgical issues. Yet most surgery teachers and professors want to push her into gynaecology/obstetrics, family medicine and paediatrics based on the assumptions of what would be natural for her to do and want as a woman. And that’s bs. Especially as they encourage the dudes in our group to branch out into surgery - both of them have two left hands, bad eyesight and no interest in surgery whatsoever. They score lower than her and are somehow still presumed to be more capable. She’s by far not the only one to face structural barriers when showing interest in certain specialties to the point where is simply isn’t an isolated incident anymore.
It’s easy to say that people not being able to reach certain goals or fields of expertise is just natural and they just don’t want it when that argument was never something to keep you as a dude from any field you wanted.
So, please tell me, what natural qualities make men the better surgeons? Or presumably better at anything that isn’t homemaking or childcare? Because I can’t see a penis being the determining factor for greatness in any of those fields.
Fem:
Natural is not the same as right. All things created by humanity is defined as unnatural. STEM itself is unnatural. Should we stop creating then?
There is no such thing as someone simply being naturally suited. We are shaped by culture and environment.
That being said. Do we know men and women like the same or different careers? We don’t know. Let’s give them equal opportunities and better work environments and then we can find out.
Fem:
I think you're misunderstanding the goal of feminism. It isnt about everything being split 50/50, it is about access to resources. Im a white man and one of my closest friends is a black woman. When we go out together people act weird towards us - specifically her. You are correct that we are not the same in our thinking, but that isnt an issue. The issue is that she is far more likely to be stopped by security or be scrutinized than I am. I have seen it myself.
Me:
The solution to this kind of bias isn't to force a quota in STEM or to make separate categories exclusively for women at the Oscars, nor to assume that a lower female presence in a certain field is a problem.
Fem:
In every field that existed more than, what, 50 years ago, men were the majority. Culture changed, laws changed, people changed, and now women dominte in some fields. Culture is still changing, always changing, so to base argument on what you see in front of you now is very risky.
Me:
Good. You are taking the "let's wait and see" approach. This doesn't prove that when we lift all the shackles we will find half of the miners women for example!
"it's changing" doesn't logically lead to "it should be equal"!
Feminism is taking a huge leap of logic, without providing sufficient evidence for it.
Fem:
I'm not saying, "Let's wait and see." I'm saying, "Look at the pattern." Psychology was once completely dominated by men, and now it is almost completely dominated by women. There's a pattern. When cultures changes, people move with it. As people's ideas about what women are capable of changes, their role in the world changes.
I used to feel the way that you do about men and women's roles in the world, and I thought that a lot of our behavior and circumstance was tied to biology, but as you begin to unpack the heaviness of our cultural influences and as you begin to notice all of the small, unconscious influences around you, you begin to understand that you have been pushed in a direction that may not have been natural or your own preference.
We don't have to wait and see anything because we can already see the direction we are moving in. What I am waiting for, is to see how far this goes. We don't know our true potential right now, but we do know that we are capable of more than we have been doing because we are always moving in the same direction towards further participation in our society, and this does bring us closer to equity.
Fem:
Why should anyone care about the natural state?
Fem:
Why should the shear luck of what is between your legs determine your life?
Fem:
You're suggesting that inequality is natural, which isn't a revolutionary idea, but there's actually nothing natural that justifies social equality, especially since it's a fairly recent development in human history. You could've checked out an anthropology paper for that.
Fem:
You're not taking culture and learned behavior into account at all. Have you considered that STEM fields might be antagonistic towards women, or at the very least, uncomfortable and lonely for women to be a part of? Or that teachers of these fields have an unconscious bias towards males in their classrooms and treat students accordingly (calling on and encouraging boys more than girls), thus, funneling more boys towards these fields? You must consider all of the tiny biases that shape and push us as human beings.
As for man-spreading, I sit that way when I'm alone because it's comfortable, but as a woman, I don't do it in public because I am trying to be polite and considerate of the person sitting next to me. This is another unconscious learned bias--that women should be aware of/considerate of the people around them. If I'm alone on a bus or train, I'll make myself comfortable. Think also, we grow up seeing all other women sitting with their legs crossed or together. Part of that reason is a traditional sense of properness. A woman sitting with her legs spread is seen as mannish and improper. I absolutely disagree that the way I sit on a bus has anything to do with my biology. If I grew up in a society of people who rode busses with enough room to spread out and a culture accepting enough of a woman who did so, I would totally do it and be comfortable.
Me:
We return then to the same problem: assumptions.
You assume that all these small discouraging behaviors add up, preventing true equality.
How can anybody prove that?!
If I said: it will only add up to .0002%, it would have been an equally valid assumption! Because we both are speculating. The difference is that my assumption - i.e. equality in not the natural state, actually the sexes have different natural preferences/tendencies - is closer to what happens daily IRL!
As for the 2nd point.. yes there are learnt behaviors. Of course. And we have learnt them for a reason!
You are saying: What is happening (what happened for 1000s of years) isn't normal. I say: it is normal.
I say: gender roles are natural.. screwing with them will be disastrous for everybody!
Now, how can you prove my reactionary prediction wrong? with another prediction?!
Then both will be equally probable. Which is embarrassing for a movement that claims that it'll change things for the better, and is so sure about this.
At least my way is proven to NOT be a total disaster, (humanity is actually functioning)
Fem:
Is it natural for women to shave their body hair off? Is that something that we have been biologically programmed to do? This is just one small example of many I can give you. This isn't an assumption. This is our real lives we live every day.
Also, how will this be disastrous for everybody?
Fem:
If you're really interested do your research and read some papers possibly not from right wing thought leaders.
Me:
You presume to know me, which is interesting considering the subject of my question is false assumptions.
Tell me which thought leaders have I been listening to in my country?
Your dismissive "no answer" is telling.. because I'm the one who wrote a long detailed question (in a language that isn't my mother-tongue btw), sought the appropriate sub to ask it, and all you had for me was "read some papers"!
Fem:
Your post is so disingenuous that doesn't require an answer. If you actually took 5 minutes to do a scientific research you wouldn't have written any of that simplistic bullshit. English is not my first language either I don't know why that matter.
Me:
It matters because the accusation of "poor effort" doesn't mesh well with the effort of writing the post in a foreign language :)
So I'll assume you are just stalling because you really don't have an answer to the question. Thanks.
Fem:
Go ahead and live your life. You poor bitter insecure man.
Me:
You got emotional and abusive just because I asked for proof?!
Fem:
You know what else is telling? The fact that every one of your examples assumes that men are better than women at the example. The first things that pop into your head appear to be that males are superior.. perhaps you should work on that.
Equality of outcome is to give the job/task to the best person for the job, not assume that one gender is superior to the other based on bias and prejudice.
Women and men do often think differently, but that is an asset that wise employers take advantage of, they don't automatically assume men are always right and the best.
Me:
You Say (to give the job/task to the best person for the job)
Exactly. Then why assume that a certain job should have 50% women?
Why assume that the right state in movies for example is to have equal parts WonderWomen & SuperMen?!.. Why can't we agree that the superhero field is a male power fantasy more than a female one?.. Why assume that just because the majority of boys dream of shooting laser out of their eyes then girls also want the same?!
If they have to force the quota then it's not a natural tendency.
Fem:
If you want to go by numbers then gender distribution probably would work out to be about 50/50 in most workplaces. The distribution of intelligence and capability is not based on gender.
Everything else you have said there is assumption.
Sometimes employers will deliberately target a gender to bring balance to the workplace or to service a particular need. Nurses are a good example, a lot of patients prefer women. If there's too many men in a particular position the employer may choose to hire women. That's their prerogative.
Quotas are more a suggestion and rare.
You have also portrayed that the differences between men and women define that men are somehow superior. That is definitely not the case. You really need to reconsider HOW you think. You are letting slip a whole lot more than you realize.
I will leave you to your thoughts.
Me:
I've never used the words superior or inferior in any of my comments!
I prefer to use "suitable for different fields".
But if you want to go down that road then history won't be your ally.. because if it really was a war of domination as the feminists assume, and you admit that the males dominated for the majority of history, doesn't this work against the assumption that the sexes are equally strong/equipped?!
You are putting yourself in a bad position.
Fem:
I said that is how you PORTRAY things.
You're assuming again, now you are assuming what other people think. If you think beating your chest and acting like an ape is "dominating" then you need to go and live in a cave because there is no place for you in this world.
If you think history so far is anything to be proud of you need to put a boulder in that cave entrance and never come out. One word, war.
Me:
It can be argued that war, a horrible thing, is beneficial. Most of our technology originated during wartime. War saved millions of people from living under weak corrupt governments (because good strong governments usually don't lose wars), etc.
This is a complicated subject you try to reduce to "one word"!.. It's not as simple as that.
Especially when you take into consideration the type of war during most of the human history, where civilians had very little to fear.
Fem:
You are on the verge of being banned for both general and specific violations of our “be courteous and respectful” rule. You won’t get another warning.
Fem:
First of all, nobody is saying that any job needs to have 50% women. As other people have pointed out, it's not about equality, it's about equal opportunity. It's still very common for girls to be told that they shouldn't pursue a career in STEM because they're not suited for it, or for girls to not even consider it as a career path because they lack role models in these fields. In this context, it is interesting to look at computer programming: The first programmers were mostly women, because computers replaced jobs done by women. When people realised that this job was not just a menial task, men got into the field and were given preference in hiring.
Overall, you need to consider that any time you talk about 'interest' or 'natural tendency', it's highly influenced by the gender roles society teaches kids. If a girl only gets pink toys and princess parties, whereas a boy gets blue toys and superhero action figures, it's no wonder that superheroes feature more prominently in male fantasies. Because there are fewer female examples, fewer women will imagine themselves as superheroes.
It is possible that men have a natural tendency to fantasise about being superheroes, but our current gender socialisation is so skewed that it is impossible to tell whether that is the case.
Me:
You Say (When people realised that this job was not just a menial task, men got into the field and were given preference in hiring.)
There was no "hiring" back then!
It was a young field.. a wild west. Are you seriously pushing the conspiracy theory that men pushed women out of the field?!
This is a lame excuse IMHO. It's like saying: PoC basketball players who dominate a team are oppressing the white minority in it!
No, their natural suitability for the task proved itself.. "the best person for the job", right?
So for the white players to blame them is a false accusation, because the best person won fair and square.
Fem:
Nope, now that you bring racism into it, we’re definitely done here.
(Permanent Ban from r/AskFeminists)
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق