The two types of Feminism

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdbD7EF4Byw[/YOUTUBE]

An interesting watch. Yes, it's multi-faceted.

Imo, there is one pragmatic thing that would help (and it was mentioned or implied in that video) which is that if it was roughly as common for men to have such 'roles', a lot of the perceived (inequality) problem would be mitigated. I'm not saying it's that simple or that there are only sexist reasons that men are currently under-represented (nor am I saying that there are currently no male examples). Some might see it as 'two wrongs don't make a right' but imo, well, you can never bring everyone onside. I'm just talking about a reduction in or a dilution of the perceived problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You would expect male CEOs to outnumber female ones. Tails of distributions show a greatly magnified effect from small differences in the center of the curve. (For an extreme example, look at how black professional basketball players are. Most of that is due to a tiny difference in the average height between black and white.) CEOs are for the most part the most driven people--basically incompatible with taking time off to have children.

Are they? I thought CEOs weren't responsible for the shit their companies do.

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

 

[Hermit]

You would expect male CEOs to outnumber female ones. Tails of distributions show a greatly magnified effect from small differences in the center of the curve. (For an extreme example, look at how black professional basketball players are. Most of that is due to a tiny difference in the average height between black and white.) CEOs are for the most part the most driven people--basically incompatible with taking time off to have children.

Are they? I thought CEOs weren't responsible for the shit their companies do.

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

Well, it didn't take long for someone to say what I predicted: that if women did not keep interrupting their careers by getting preggers, they'd be doing much better. The problem with that is that women's pregnancies do not stop them from working for most of that time, in extreme cases just about none. My youngest sister employed 23 to 26 people when she had a caesarian. The day after the operation she did the payroll for all of them in hospital bed.

Another problem is child raising. Do tell me why this should not be a 50-50 thing (says I, being careful not to bring up my own past behaviour). No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You would expect male CEOs to outnumber female ones. Tails of distributions show a greatly magnified effect from small differences in the center of the curve. (For an extreme example, look at how black professional basketball players are. Most of that is due to a tiny difference in the average height between black and white.) CEOs are for the most part the most driven people--basically incompatible with taking time off to have children.

Are they? I thought CEOs weren't responsible for the shit their companies do.

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

Oh I get it. You are saying that because women CEOs make less than male CEOs, they can’t afford daycare. Meaning they have to stay home.

Or are you saying that the belly bump prevents women from working?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

Well, it didn't take long for someone to say what I predicted: that if women did not keep interrupting their careers by getting preggers, they'd be doing much better. The problem with that is that women's pregnancies do not stop them from working for most of that time, in extreme cases just about none. My youngest sister employed 23 to 26 people when she had a caesarian. The day after the operation she did the payroll for all of them in hospital bed.

Another problem is child raising. Do tell me why this should not be a 50-50 thing (says I, being careful not to bring up my own past behaviour). No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

It is one thing to empower people to break traditional gender roles. It is another thing entirely to demand that they do so. Women generally are more interested in raising young and generally do take more time off after giving birth, not because some government agency is forcing them to, but because they want to. There are exceptions (my sister and her husband are one) but this WILL affect the data.

Would you seek to force women to dedicate more time to work and less to family? Would you seek to force men to work less?

We should empower both women and men to live their lives as they wish. But we should not expect that to mean the numbers will come out 50-50.

 

[RavenSky]

CEOs are for the most part the most driven people--basically incompatible with taking time off to have children.

Male CEOs don't have any children?

Really?

 

[Hermit]

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

Well, it didn't take long for someone to say what I predicted: that if women did not keep interrupting their careers by getting preggers, they'd be doing much better. The problem with that is that women's pregnancies do not stop them from working for most of that time, in extreme cases just about none. My youngest sister employed 23 to 26 people when she had a caesarian. The day after the operation she did the payroll for all of them in hospital bed.

Another problem is child raising. Do tell me why this should not be a 50-50 thing (says I, being careful not to bring up my own past behaviour). No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

It is one thing to empower people to break traditional gender roles. It is another thing entirely to demand that they do so. Women generally are more interested in raising young and generally do take more time off after giving birth, not because some government agency is forcing them to, but because they want to. There are exceptions (my sister and her husband are one) but this WILL affect the data.

Would you seek to force women to dedicate more time to work and less to family? Would you seek to force men to work less?

We should empower both women and men to live their lives as they wish. But we should not expect that to mean the numbers will come out 50-50.

Where did I mention the use of force?

As for women wanting to raise young, that is not a matter of free choice. It's a matter of conditioning and, as you say, tradition. You do realise that a significant percentage of Muslim women "want" to wear a hijab, don't you? Traditionally, women were not allowed to vote, once they were married they could not be raped by their husbands, could not own property or sign contracts in their own right and so on. Traditions are not worth keeping just because they are traditions. Many of them are worth changing, and that takes a lot of work, more often than not involving a fight against determined resistance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As for women wanting to raise young, that is not a matter of free choice. It's a matter of conditioning and, as you say, tradition.

Both are involved. As I said above, we should empower women (and men!) to do whatever jobs they want and live their lives prioritizing work or family as much as they want. But look to nordic countries and you see that even in a society where they push really really hard to get equal numbers, women still gravitate towards people oriented jobs and men still gravitate towards techy type stuff. Women (on average) are more personable and more interested in forming relationships, raising or dealing with children, etc. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part that is basic human nature. No amount of feminism is going to change it.

You do realise that a significant percentage of Muslim women "want" to wear a hijab, don't you?

Yes. And I understand the reasoning of some of them who actually DO want to. It keeps the prying eyes of men off of them and can be quite liberating for them. They really do see it that way and I don't feel a need to tell them they can't do what they want. Others are oppressed and pushed into it by men. We should try to erode the oppression without taking away the woman's right to do what she wants. She can wear a hijab, or even a burka if she wants, or she can go topless if she wants. It should be her choice.

Traditionally, women were not allowed to vote, once they were married they could not be raped by their husbands, could not own property or sign contracts in their own right and so on.

And we rightfully changed that. Note how we don't force them to vote own property or sign contracts and we don't look down on them more than we would men for choosing not to do so.

No the goal is not equal numbers ("50-50" as you put it). The goal is not equal outcomes. The goal is equal rights, options and opportunities. The goal is to end discrimination for or against people based on gender (or race, etc).

 

[Hermit]

look to nordic countries and you see that even in a society where they push really really hard to get equal numbers, women still gravitate towards people oriented jobs and men still gravitate towards techy type stuff.

You speak as if "pushing really hard" in the Nordic countries has freed its peoples from the effects of tradition and conditioning. Having spent time in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway I can assure you this is not the case.

And thanks for repeating Loren Pechtel's appeal to nature fallacy.

She can wear a hijab, or even a burka if she wants, or she can go topless if she wants. It should be her choice.

Agreed, but please keep in mind what I posted earlier. What you think of as an individual's free choice is more a matter of conditioning and, as you said, tradition, than the result of an autonomously acting human.

Note how we don't force them to...

Why do you keep bringing up force in the context of something like "forcing women to be equal to men"? Who suggested we do that? Certainly not I. Historically, the only force, at least in democracies, that has been applied in the endeavour to attain equality of the sexes was against those who opposed it.

The goal is equal rights, options and opportunities.

You seem to have missed the fact that merely granting women equal rights, options and opportunities has not lifted very real handicaps imposed on them. For instance, relying on women to do the bulk of nurturing has deprived them of being as successful as men in other fields. I reiterate: No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

 

[Learner]

I believe the second type of feminism gives the word "feminism" a bad connotation. So I would like to clearly distinguish between the two types and I don't know the labels to do that. What do you call the first type? What do you call the second type? And how can I show support for the first but opposition to the second in just a few words?

I think from what appears from various media, the "second type" is true imo as underlined in Jolly's quote. A whole different group today.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You seem to have missed the fact that merely granting women equal rights, options and opportunities has not lifted very real handicaps imposed on them. For instance, relying on women to do the bulk of nurturing has deprived them of being as successful as men in other fields.

Women are liberated here. They have agency. They do not have to have children. They can have abortions. They can give kids up for adoption. They can hire nannies and rarely see their kids. They can find male (or female) mates who stay at home and raise the kids (like my sister did).

What more are you asking for? Where people are not being forced against their interests to find this 50-50 you spoke of? Advertising campaigns pressuring but not forcing? Don't you think women who want to be stay at home moms deserve as much respect as those who don't?

Many of not the vast majority of them want to raise the kids, because yes they have a stronger maternal drive than most men have paternal drives.

I reiterate: No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

Why doesn't it wash? And why are other mammals relevant? Humans are not other mammals. Humans are humans, and there is a very wide array in mammalian behaviour.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

Well, it didn't take long for someone to say what I predicted: that if women did not keep interrupting their careers by getting preggers, they'd be doing much better. The problem with that is that women's pregnancies do not stop them from working for most of that time, in extreme cases just about none. My youngest sister employed 23 to 26 people when she had a caesarian. The day after the operation she did the payroll for all of them in hospital bed.

Another problem is child raising. Do tell me why this should not be a 50-50 thing (says I, being careful not to bring up my own past behaviour). No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

I'm not talking about the effects of pregnancy. As you say, it's minimal.

I'm talking about the effects of being a parent. The CEOs are mostly from the people that worked long hours for a long time--something mothers generally do not do.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm talking about the effects of being a parent. The CEOs are mostly from the people that worked long hours for a long time--something mothers generally do not do.

So are you suggesting that this is something women are incapable of doing, or something that a patriarchal society has blocked them from doing?

 

[bilby]

I do not understand your response here.

I was simply pointing out that CEOs are going to be very disproportionately those whose work/life balance is tipped way towards work. That means few mothers will be included.

Well, it didn't take long for someone to say what I predicted: that if women did not keep interrupting their careers by getting preggers, they'd be doing much better. The problem with that is that women's pregnancies do not stop them from working for most of that time, in extreme cases just about none. My youngest sister employed 23 to 26 people when she had a caesarian. The day after the operation she did the payroll for all of them in hospital bed.

Another problem is child raising. Do tell me why this should not be a 50-50 thing (says I, being careful not to bring up my own past behaviour). No, don't bring in the mothering instinct. The appeal to nature does not wash. Besides, there are enough mammalian species where this division of labour does not apply.

I'm not talking about the effects of pregnancy. As you say, it's minimal.

I'm talking about the effects of being a parent. The CEOs are mostly from the people that worked long hours for a long time--something mothers generally do not do.

But fathers do, apparently either without harming their children by doing so, or if harm is done, without that harm being viewed by society as a bad thing.

Either parenting is compatible with long work hours, in which case mothers shouldn't be less well represented amongst CEOs; or it is incompatible with long work hours, in which case CEOs should all be required to give proper attention to their duty as parents, and there should still be no gender imbalance. That half of potential CEOs (but not the other half) are given a pass on harming their children, with the choice of who is in which half being made on the basis of gender, is unacceptable.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So are you suggesting that this is something women are incapable of doing, or something that a patriarchal society has blocked them from doing?

Its more about interest than capacity. Do you want to make people miserable by forcing people to live against the way they themselves wish to live? I think we all agree that a woman who wants to dedicate all her time to the job should be treated no worse than a man who does the same. I think Loren is just saying that more men are interested in doing that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That half of potential CEOs (but not the other half) are given a pass on harming their children, with the choice of who is in which half being made on the basis of gender, is unacceptable.

I think I missed something here. Who was saying anybody is "harming their children"? Who was saying that women should be chastised for having husbands who stay home and raise the kids while they work long hours and become CEOs? Who was saying men should be "given a pass" that women shouldn't?

Either I missed something somebody said or you have inserted this yourself.

 

[Rhea]

Has it not occurred to you people that perhaps families make a choice for the woman to stay at home because her pay is less and that’s a forced financial choice for the family?

 

[Rhea]

I see two very different groups claiming the "Feminist" name. I strongly support the one and strongly oppose the other, but I don't know what label to call each of them to distinguish them.

First there is the notion that women should have all of the legal rights that men should have and should not be discriminated against because of gender. This is about equality of opportunity for all, regardless of gender. This is the notion that women can work, or stay home and be housewives, or be the sole breadwinner with house husbands, can have casual sex to whatever degree they wish or remain virgins forever, and can go wear hijab or go topless if they like. It is about freedom. I can get 100% behind this kind of feminism. Women should not be discriminated against for being a woman. There should be no barriers to women becoming doctors, lawyers, C.E.O.s and any other job they seek and win by merit. And they should not be patronized or treated paternally. Nor should their agency be taken from them or should they be held less responsible due to their gender. Women are to be treated as individuals with their gender being irrelevant when it comes to anything not specifically tied to it (issues such as abortion, etc).

This sort of feminism/egalitarianism is what I consider basic human fairness, but is lacking in much of the world to various extents, and political battles need to be won to win it. Usually but not always the enemy is religion. Sometimes, ironically, the enemy is the second type of feminism's demanding attention be drawn away from this.

The second of feminism, that is very much the opposite of the above, pushes for rather than against gender bias and double standards. It doesn't push for individuals to be treated equally regardless of gender, but instead for people to be treated according to the gender group they are identified with. It is paternalistic towards women, treating them as fragile and demanding they be seen through a lense of victimhood, and in many situations as without having equal agency. Yet ironically it rails against "the patriarchy". This ties into the marxist ideas of oppressor group (here all men) and oppressed group (here all women).

I’m trying to fairly and honestly parse what you are saying here. It sounds like you think that noticing that women are victimized equals thinking of them as victims? That finding discrimination needs more than individual chutzpah equals patronizing them?


I’m trying to be fair here; I can’t tell in which group you would place activities like studying and publishing that women are more often victimized, more often discriminated against and fixing it needs all hands on deck. It sounds a lot like you are covering that in the undesireable group 2. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you group as the victimizing, patronizing, de-agencying activities? Can you list some, please?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm talking about the effects of being a parent. The CEOs are mostly from the people that worked long hours for a long time--something mothers generally do not do.

So are you suggesting that this is something women are incapable of doing, or something that a patriarchal society has blocked them from doing?

I'm saying it's something most women do not choose to do as they value being with their kids more.

 

[Rhea]

I'm saying it's something most women do not choose to do as they value being with their kids more.

Citation needed.
I’m not confident in your credentials on reporting what women want. You’ll need to back that up.