The two types of Feminism

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. There are far more men than women that choose jobs that mean staying late at the office an awful lot and not having a lot of time with their kids.

I'm not saying what path people should take, I'm talking about the paths people do take. After having kids she's likely to do a 40 hr week--but that's not the path to CEO.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Exactly. There are far more men than women that choose jobs that mean staying late at the office an awful lot and not having a lot of time with their kids.

I'm not saying what path people should take, I'm talking about the paths people do take. After having kids she's likely to do a 40 hr week--but that's not the path to CEO.

Correlation is not causation.

You fail to take into account the cultural pressure that if you work late you’re not a bad dad, but you are a bad mom.

Again, your credentials on knowing the motivation of mothers is not in evidence.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Do they value it, or do they feel they have to because they'd be a bad mother if they don't, as everyone is telling them?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

Sure. My sister is a doctor and her husband isn't as educated and would make significantly less if he was working full time with her staying home and raising the kids, who they are home schooling. I am sure that factored into the decision for her to work her 48 hour shifts and him to work part time and be the primary caregiver.

More often the genders are reversed in that scenario but I am sure the logic is often the same. What of it? Why is it a problem? There was nothing stopping my sister and brother in law from doing the same thing.

 

[bilby]

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.

You appear to have missed the first part of the post of mine that you quoted.

It provides a context for the bit you did include above; by removing it you have created an objection that is nonsensical in the context of the entire post.

Here it is again. The second half or the second paragraph depends on the context established by the preceding paragraph and a half:

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]

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.

Why is the onus on Loren here? Shouldn't you have to show actual discrimination and not just unequal numbers and a skip to "so they must be discriminated against?". And even then, could it be some who are and not others, or must we treat all women as a monolith?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You appear to have missed the first part of the post of mine that you quoted.

You are right and I apologize. I did miss it. I also missed the post above it referring to a double standard being claimed in which women are judged poorly for not spending "adequate time" with kids whereas men are not. That's what I get for reading this on my phone while out instead of on my PC at home lol

Where such a double standard exists it should be eroded and done away with. That falls under the first type of feminism mentioned in the OP. I'm not totally sold on it being widespread, as my sister and many other women I know are the primary breadwinners in their families with men at home raising the kids. Perhaps its a cultural difference between countries, but I just asked my sister and she says she's never seen any stigma for her being the one away from the family.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Do they value it, or do they feel they have to because they'd be a bad mother if they don't, as everyone is telling them?

It's complicated, isn't it? The 'bad mother' thing related to, for instance, working full time when you have little children, has waned substantially (in my personal experience). Added to which, there are also opposite pressures on mothers (including from feminism) not to deprioritise their career or define themselves domestically. Roles and expectations are in flux, and to some extent the individual man or woman is unsure about what they are any more.

One of the unfortunate outcomes for women, imo, and I'm generalising here, has been that many get trapped doing the 'double shift', when, say, in a family where both the mother and the father are working full time (let's hypothetically assume similar hours) the mother, for various reasons, ends up with most of the 'traditional' parenting responsibilities during non-work (non-paid work to be exact) time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden#Gender_differences

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Don2 in the thread about Masculinism has now inspired me to call the second type of "feminist" above "femininists". It fits with what he and some others quoted in a wikipedia article call "Masculinism" (men pushing patriarchy, misogyny and otherwise misbehaving) as opposed to "Maculism" (men's equal rights egalitarian movement).

 

[humbleman]

Exactly. There are far more men than women that choose jobs that mean staying late at the office an awful lot and not having a lot of time with their kids.

I'm not saying what path people should take, I'm talking about the paths people do take. After having kids she's likely to do a 40 hr week--but that's not the path to CEO.

Correlation is not causation.

You fail to take into account the cultural pressure that if you work late you’re not a bad dad, but you are a bad mom.

Again, your credentials on knowing the motivation of mothers is not in evidence.

Go straight to the point: Someone HAS to do the job and HAS to stay more than 8 hours work assignment, because the job usually requires it.

For you, in your personal opinion, you have a family, both parents can qualify equally to get the job, which one of them should take it and why?

Decide for one of them only, do not compare in your decision but just give the reason why the one chosen by you should go.

Example:

There is a job vacancy hiring people for walking dogs. Husband and wife want to apply. Job requires flexibility according to schedules of the owners of the dogs. Dogs in many cases are not trained to obey orders, and might not get alone walking with other dogs. This couple has three children at home, one of them 2 years old, the others in elementary school.

Your opinion should be like, the woman is most qualified and must take the job instead of the husband because as a woman and mother she this and that, this and that, etc.

So, please explain your point this way to check what exactly are you talking about beyond your argument of "cultural pressure"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. There are far more men than women that choose jobs that mean staying late at the office an awful lot and not having a lot of time with their kids.

I'm not saying what path people should take, I'm talking about the paths people do take. After having kids she's likely to do a 40 hr week--but that's not the path to CEO.

Correlation is not causation.

You fail to take into account the cultural pressure that if you work late you’re not a bad dad, but you are a bad mom.

Again, your credentials on knowing the motivation of mothers is not in evidence.

You fail to understand that that is not discrimination.

The company is in no way responsible for the attitude that a woman who takes that path is a bad mother.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Why is the onus on Loren here? Shouldn't you have to show actual discrimination and not just unequal numbers and a skip to "so they must be discriminated against?". And even then, could it be some who are and not others, or must we treat all women as a monolith?

The discrimination warriors take the numbers as proof of discrimination and try to shift the burden to those of us who point out that it's not proof.

 

[ruby sparks]

It can still be discrimination though. We could call it cultural discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's complicated, isn't it? The 'bad mother' thing related to, for instance, working full time when you have little children, has waned substantially (in my personal experience). Added to which, there are also opposite pressures on mothers (including from feminism) not to deprioritise their career or define themselves domestically. Roles and expectations are in flux, and to some extent the individual man or woman is unsure about what they are any more.

I'm not talking about the woman working 40 hr/wk--I'm saying that 40 hr/wk isn't going to get you into the CEO slot. That's 60 or 80 hr/wk.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's complicated, isn't it? The 'bad mother' thing related to, for instance, working full time when you have little children, has waned substantially (in my personal experience). Added to which, there are also opposite pressures on mothers (including from feminism) not to deprioritise their career or define themselves domestically. Roles and expectations are in flux, and to some extent the individual man or woman is unsure about what they are any more.

I'm not talking about the woman working 40 hr/wk--I'm saying that 40 hr/wk isn't going to get you into the CEO slot. That's 60 or 80 hr/wk.

Nor am I talking about a particular amount of hours.

Sometimes, by restricting ourselves to very specific (or legal) factors, we can miss, or understate, the subtle or wider ones.

I do take what I think is your particular point though. I just wasn't addressing it in my post, the second part of which mentioned the so-called 'double shift' (or 'double burden') which you didn't comment on....so far.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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).

So when we talk about oppressed victims like Kate in Marxist like "patriarchy," that's the second kind of feminism? Here's Kate:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...connecticut-high-school-student-a8203191.html

 

[Hermit]

Women are liberated here.

They have equality before the law. That does not mean they are liberated from the fear of being raped. Or breaking through the glass ceiling, Or coming home from paid work only to be confronted with having to do the majority of the domestic chores. Nor the bulk of the child rearing. ...

]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?

Precisely because the much vaunted mothering instinct is not as free from the influence of conditioning and tradition as you appear to think. I brought in other mammals to show that the effects of the mothering instinct are not even universal, so stop it with the natural fallacy already, thanks.

What more are you asking for?

Social equality.

Where people are not being forced against their interests to find this 50-50 you spoke of?

Stop yacking on about use of force. Nobody here advocates it. At least I do not. Legislating a 50-50 state of affairs and punishing transgressions is an exercise in futility. Education, persuasion and conditioning provide better prospects for progress.

Don't you think women who want to be stay at home moms deserve as much respect as those who don't?

They do deserve as much respect as those who don't. Relevance?

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.

You know that how?

 

[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.

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.

True. They generally do not put in the 50 or 65 hour weeks. That's because they are lumped with an unfair proportion of child rearing and other "domestic" duties. Are you going to invoke "maternal instincts" again?

As I mentioned, pregnancy did not stop my sister from running her business. Bringing up two daughters did not stop her from working long hours either. (You can't run a business that employs a couple of dozen people on a 40 hour week.) Firstly, her husband, who also owned and ran a business, pitched in more than most fathers do. Secondly, being the boss in her work place, she had a crèche built in it. She, and her female employees had their infants close by, and it was free of charge. As the children entered school, the crèche was enlarged and adjusted to cater for their needs.

This is one aspect through which doors can be opened for women. There should me more of this. Much, much more.

 

[Arctish]

Interesting article that has a direct bearing on the topic of this thread, 7 Fallacies That Undermine Antifeminism

It starts with the straw man argument and cherry-picking, and ends with a type of ad hominem the author calls PC-baiting. The conclusion:

The root of the issue here seems to be whether to judge feminism based on its definition or on the current situation of the movement. Some say the definition is ok, but that the movement is rotten. As I argued, the truth is that in the absence of opinion polls we can’t be sure. And even if opinion polls do reveal extreme opinions to prevail in the contemporary feminist community (which I doubt), this will only be a valid objection to feminism as it happens to be at the moment, not to the ideology in principle. Feminism in one form or another is supposed to have existed at least since antiquity ¹. Is rejecting the term altogether really the only legitimate attitude even in the scenario of the movement actually having become infected with radicalism? I for one would rather try and steer it back on track.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They have equality before the law. That does not mean they are liberated from the fear of being raped. Or breaking through the glass ceiling

Nobody is liberated from assault. The glass ceiling is more illusion than reality these days. It used to be more of a thing. Today we have laws and cultural taboos against discriminating against people doing the same job based on gender. Where you can find that, you can shut it down.

Or coming home from paid work only to be confronted with having to do the majority of the domestic chores. Nor the bulk of the child rearing.

Confronted you say? Those who do that take it on voluntarily. Nobody forces them to marry men who won't agree to do hhousework or raise kids. Short of rape, nobody forces women to have children at all. It is perfectly feasible for a woman to marry a man who then stays home and raises the kids (as my sister has) or to hire a nanny or to not have kids. Women who prioritize work over family can do so. Fewer want to. That's just the fact of the matter.

I brought in other mammals to show that the effects of the mothering instinct are not even universal, so stop it with the natural fallacy already, thanks.

There are animals that eat their children... What other mammals do is irrelevant. And you don't need the mothering instinct to be universal in order for it to have a statistically significant effect.

What more are you asking for?

Social equality.

Then why did you call for 50-50? That isn't social equality. That is equality of outcome and presumed equivalence of interests.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It starts with the straw man argument and cherry-picking, and ends with a type of ad hominem the author calls PC-baiting. The conclusion:

The root of the issue here seems to be whether to judge feminism based on its definition or on the current situation of the movement. Some say the definition is ok, but that the movement is rotten. As I argued, the truth is that in the absence of opinion polls we can’t be sure. And even if opinion polls do reveal extreme opinions to prevail in the contemporary feminist community (which I doubt), this will only be a valid objection to feminism as it happens to be at the moment, not to the ideology in principle.

Yes. That is very much what I was writing about in the OP. Only I am not convinced that the second type I wrote about (that patronizes women and treats them as weak victim non-agents instead of empowering them) is the same ideology. I think it has used and abused the first type of Feminism (women's lib).