The two types of Feminism

[ruby sparks]

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

What's your take on the 'double burden' thing Loren?

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

 

[ruby sparks]

I will say this. I think many men (myself included) tend to overreact to feminism and feminists 'as if' their individual position was more radical (or 'as if' stuff said was only the thin end of some sort of wedge). If that's the case, then the next question would be, why, why do (many it seems) of us men do that?

Gonna offer a few suggested answers to my own question here. Only my personal suggestions, obviously. Not presented in any particular order. They do not all have to apply to any one individual and there may be others I'm not thinking of. Plus they are non-exclusive in that there may be overlap between them. Also, there may be men out there for whom none of these apply. All or some (or none) may also apply to non-feminist women and/or non-feminists of all or any gender. Some feminists might have them as reservations of their own while still self-identifying as feminists:

1. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) overstated.
2. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) simplistic.
3. The perception that the claims of feminism are too ideological and not empirical enough.
4. Fear of losing privileges (doesn't have to be an unsubstantiated fear).
5. The perception that men's issues are sidelined.
6. The perception that women's privileges are not properly taken into account.
7. Reluctance to embrace change.
8. Denial of the extent of the problems for women.
9. Fear of psychological annihilation.
10. Not seeing in what ways we could all be better off if men co-operated and compromised more.
11. Thinking that feminists don't co-operate or compromise enough.
12. Self-interest (ie selfishness).
13. Dislike of criticism, especially if it is felt in an individual case the criticism is either unfair or partially unfair.
14. Not wanting to say sorry (it's the hardest word) or admit past mistakes.
15. The perception that feminism often undervalues men.
16. The perception that feminism is in essence 'for women'.
17. The perception that feminism is in essence, or sometimes or often 'against men' (not the same as number 15).
18. Thinking that equality (controversially even equality of opportunity perhaps) is unrealistic, impractical or undesirable.
19. A preference for 'traditional' gender roles.
20. An inclination to stand up for and defend one's own (biological) sex.


Ok I'll stop. That quickly turned into more than a few.

I'd be curious to hear what the men here think.

What might also be interesting and illuminating and maybe useful (if only to me) would be if someone suggested an alternative list (of what they perceive as the reasons why certain people might react negatively to feminism) from what I might call a feminist or at least a female point of view, or amended my list or added to or took away from it. Or just picked up on one or two of them and commented.



Someone once said that the battle of the sexes will never be won, because there's too much fraternising with the enemy.

I think it was a man who said it. Not sure. Could have been a woman.

 

[Hermit]

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.

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

Business is run within the framework of social conditions. As such, the way it is currently run business is part of social problems. I just gave you an example via anecdote how the problems concerning women's participation and advancement can be solved.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone once said that the battle of the sexes will never be won, because there's too much fraternising with the enemy.

I think it was a man who said it. Not sure. Could have been a woman.

Summary from the Ouote Investigator:

...this joke was circulating by 1944, and the creator was unknown.

Good list, by the way.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I will say this. I think many men (myself included) tend to overreact to feminism and feminists 'as if' their individual position was more radical (or 'as if' stuff said was only the thin end of some sort of wedge). If that's the case, then the next question would be, why, why do (many it seems) of us men do that?

Gonna offer a few suggested answers to my own question here. Only my personal suggestions, obviously. Not presented in any particular order. They do not all have to apply to any one individual and there may be others I'm not thinking of. Plus they are non-exclusive in that there may be overlap between them. Also, there may be men out there for whom none of these apply. All or some (or none) may also apply to non-feminist women and/or non-feminists of all or any gender. Some feminists might have them as reservations of their own while still self-identifying as feminists:

1. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) overstated.
2. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) simplistic.
3. The perception that the claims of feminism are too ideological and not empirical enough.
4. Fear of losing privileges (doesn't have to be an unsubstantiated fear).
5. The perception that men's issues are sidelined.
6. The perception that women's privileges are not properly taken into account.
7. Reluctance to embrace change.
8. Denial of the extent of the problems for women.
9. Fear of psychological annihilation.
10. Not seeing in what ways we could all be better off if men co-operated and compromised more.
11. Thinking that feminists don't co-operate or compromise enough.
12. Self-interest (ie selfishness).
13. Dislike of criticism, especially if it is felt in an individual case the criticism is either unfair or partially unfair.
14. Not wanting to say sorry (it's the hardest word) or admit past mistakes.
15. The perception that feminism often undervalues men.
16. The perception that feminism is in essence 'for women'.
17. The perception that feminism is in essence, or sometimes or often 'against men' (not the same as number 15).
18. Thinking that equality (controversially even equality of opportunity perhaps) is unrealistic, impractical or undesirable.
19. A preference for 'traditional' gender roles.
20. An inclination to stand up for and defend one's own (biological) sex.


Ok I'll stop. That quickly turned into more than a few.

I'd be curious to hear what the men here think.

Often people hold those perceptions because most of them are true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

What's your take on the 'double burden' thing Loren?

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

Social issue, not discrimination.

 

[Arctish]

Another (female) voice on this: https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bl...demeans-women-while-claiming-to-protect-them/

Women as children, women as hysterical, women as irrational, women as incapable, women as selfish, women as unaccountable—these are all accusations that feminists throw at the so-called patriarchy. But when you put down the dictionary and look at what feminism actually says and does, who is it that insults, infantilizes and demoralizes women?

The broader culture treats women as adult humans capable of making choices and dealing with the consequences of those choices, just as we expect all men to do. Feminism is the social movement pushing to treat women as large children who need protection from their own actions.

I don't agree with her that we don't need feminism (of the first type; the battles are not yet all won). I don't agree with many of her other statements. I strongly suspect that my personal ideologies differ strongly from hers. But I do see and agree with much she says, especially the bolded.

I was going to critique that article point by point but it was like discussing a Chick tract. Strip away all the over the top invective and rhetoric and all that's left is the opinion that people who don't see the world the same way the author does are evil.

There are valid concerns regarding the way affirmative consent laws might be written or applied, or how attempts to confront micro-aggression could tempt some folks to make mountains out of molehills, but Ms. Bloomfield's straw man littered rant scarcely bothers with those. She's much more interested in name calling than inviting people to discuss the issues she raises.

The second type of feminism I refer to in the OP does exactly that. She gives a few examples in her article. You can further see it in pretty much any issue the first type of feminism tackles. The second type approaches it from a more prejudiced, infantilizing or discriminatory angle.

Consider violence against women. Feminists of the first type see it as deplorable because women are people and deserve respect and protection by virtue of being people. They see misogynists making excuses for violence and harassment against women ("Masculinism" of the sort Don2 is discussing in his thread) and they fight to put a stop to it. I am right there with them on that. Feminists of the second type see the same thing, but they see it as deplorable because it is women being hurt, see women are inherently vulnerable and weak (and their language displays this) and move beyond protecting women to displaying the same attitudes as the misogynists hold, except against male victims when it is at the hands of women. I think a the key differences between these two types is that the second sees it more tribally and as a zero sum game, prejudging women and men and treating the former as inherently the oppressed and the latter as inherently the oppressor, regardless of what is actually going on in the particular case.

A prime example of the second type of Feminist is Chanty Binx ("Big Red") who has become infamous for her activism, documented on youtube where she screams at people and literally sings "cry me a river" when they try to get her to acknowledge that men have issues too (I think that particular moment came about when male suicide rates were brought up). She also opposes CAFE (Canadian association for equality) because they advocate for everyone's rights and not just women. She was part of the group that pulled the fire alarm to disrupt Toronto Men's Rights meeting where people were talking about issues in society that men face.

Your post led me to doing a bit of research. I didn't recognize the name Chanty Binx but once I found the video I recognized the woman:

mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event

One of the most striking things about that video is that she's trying to point out what the MRAs and feminists have in common. Yes, she's being rude. She's shouting and telling people to STFU. But her list of talking points isn't anything like what you describe. She doesn't insult or infantilize women. She doesn't even insult men unless you think her telling them to STFU when they interrupt her is insulting.

There's a second video of her that contains that "cry me a river" bit. It's from the same event as the first one, apparently recorded a short time later. What I found most striking about this one is how dishonestly it's been portrayed. I don't think you were the one who's being deceptive. I think you accepted it as true because it came from a source you trusted. But it's a dishonest bit of character assassination nonetheless:

Loud feminist mocks a man who committed suicide

It starts off with her reacting to something she's just be told. She says "Oh, because apparently men have been oppressed for being men!" and then doing a fake belly laugh at how ludicrous that is. Then someone says that's a mental health issue not a men's rights issue, and the man she's mostly talking to says "'There are about four...." when she starts singing "Cry Me a River". Then she starts reading their list and her immediate reaction to the very first line "Traditionalism is a choice, not an obligation" is "No shit!" She then points out that they expect her to read their list but wouldn't let her read hers that "pretty much said the same fucking thing".

So where's the part where she mocks a man who committed suicide? No where. Her "cry me a river" comes before any mention of a guy killing himself. Where's the part where she denied men have issues? It's not there either. She was mocking the claim that men are being oppressed for being men.

The suffregettes and the women angrily burning bras in the 70s were both examples of the first type of feminist, out for equal rights and with the attitude of "Anything you can do, I can do!". These are the ones that seek to break down barriers and destroy what is left of the glass ceiling. They are coming from a genuine sense of equity and are opposing prejudice and double standards. I support them strongly, and I believe most of us here do.

It looks to me like he's saying that nice, friendly feminists are okay but he doesn't like rude, obnoxious ones.

No. They often coincide, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm looking at something more substantial to the ideologies of these two types of feminism. One empowers women while the other infantilizes them. One pushes against discrimination and prejudice while the other pushes for it. You can be very rude and stay within the first type, and you can sugar coat the second type. We usually see the second type as more aggressive and offensive because prejudice and discrimination are at its core. The second type of feminism sometimes has more in common with misogyny than it does with the first type of feminism.

I found two articles that I think are well worth reading. The first one, Meet the women who hate feminism, is from The Walrus. It's fairly long but very interesting. It has a lot about Janet Bloomfield, who the author spent time with at her home.

The second one, Chanty Binx speaks up after 3 years of harassment, capped by bizarre privacy breach is from the feminist blog We Hunted the Mammoth. It's short and appalling. The privacy breach was also reported in The National Post if anyone needs verification of that part of the story.

You said you agreed with Janet Bloomfield when she wrote that "Women as children, women as hysterical, women as irrational, women as incapable, women as selfish, women as unaccountable—these are all accusations that feminists throw at the so-called patriarchy. But when you put down the dictionary and look at what feminism actually says and does, who is it that insults, infantilizes and demoralizes women?". After reading both articles I believe it's Bloomfield who insults, infantilizes and demoralizes women:

she has stated that the underage victims in high-profile rape cases are “dumb fucking whores,” and that single mothers are “clearly really, really shitty at making life decisions.” She routinely uses phrases such as “little dumbass feminists.” Her latest campaign, #WhyWomenShouldNotVote, advocates stripping women of the vote.

she believes women shouldn’t have the right to vote, because they’re not eligible for the draft, they make bad economic decisions (particularly when it comes to military defence), and they’re too pro-immigration. Or, as she puts it on Judgy Bitch: “Women have had the vote in the West for almost 100 years, and all they have done is vote to destroy and destabilize the world men built for us, while protecting themselves from the blood consequences"

Talk about treating women like they're hysterical, irrational, incapable, selfish, unaccountable children!

 

[ruby sparks]

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

What's your take on the 'double burden' thing Loren?

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

Social issue, not discrimination.

Thought as much.

I would refer you to item 8 on my list above, or a subset of it which I would call, "Denial of the extent of the problems for women which arise from unfairness in gender issues and/or from discrimination (part cultural, part individual) and the exercise of male privileges".

This is not entirely unlike the time you said something similar about racial discrimination when I posted the study about the 'blind' job applications.

Carry on. As you were. Just don't expect me personally to buy it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Often people hold those perceptions because most of them are true.

Sure.

And there's always the issue of how true (or not) they are, or when, since most of these things are on a sliding scale and depend on particular situations or the people in them. I think that's particularly true of perceptions.

 

[southernhybrid]

Sadly, there have always been insecure men that viewed feminism as something terrible, something that might take away their power or leave them feeling wounded. This has been true since the first wave. If you click on my link, you will see some examples of cartoons that were used to diminish feminism during the suffragette movement. Some things never change, do they?

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/12/28/where-do-negative-stereotypes-about-feminists-come-from/

A more systematic investigation into what people think about feminists found that many people think that feminists are ugly, uptight, angry, aggressive, harsh, strident, demanding, dogmatic, man-hating lesbians… or think other people think they are. Only 26 percent of people say that feminist is a positive term.

This suggests that actual feminists have lost control over their own reputation. It would be counterproductive, after all, for feminists to portray themselves as unlikeable. Negative stereotypes about feminists, instead, are likely spread by anti-feminists.

Anti-suffrage campaign material is one example. The images below — from the collection of Catherine Palczewski — tell a story about who the feminist women fighting for suffrage are and what they want. It’s all pre-1920s, but the stereotypes and fears are similar.

 

[ruby sparks]

Often people hold those perceptions because most of them are true.

Plus, many of the things on the list aren't about perceptions of feminism. Many of them are suggested traits of non-feminists, perhaps especially male non-feminists. They are, of course, my perceptions about such traits.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sadly, there have always been insecure men that viewed feminism as something terrible, something that might take away their power or leave them feeling wounded. This has been true since the first wave. If you click on my link, you will see some examples of cartoons that were used to diminish feminism during the suffragette movement. Some things never change, do they?

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/12/28/where-do-negative-stereotypes-about-feminists-come-from/

A more systematic investigation into what people think about feminists found that many people think that feminists are ugly, uptight, angry, aggressive, harsh, strident, demanding, dogmatic, man-hating lesbians… or think other people think they are. Only 26 percent of people say that feminist is a positive term.

This suggests that actual feminists have lost control over their own reputation. It would be counterproductive, after all, for feminists to portray themselves as unlikeable. Negative stereotypes about feminists, instead, are likely spread by anti-feminists.

Anti-suffrage campaign material is one example. The images below — from the collection of Catherine Palczewski — tell a story about who the feminist women fighting for suffrage are and what they want. It’s all pre-1920s, but the stereotypes and fears are similar.

Gotcha.

On a related front, I always liked this cartoon:

View attachment 14538

and this is a hoot too:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w[/YOUTUBE]

But on your general point, I think it's partly to do with a general human fear of change, or a tendency towards inertia, which is often most pronounced among those who might have most to lose (in this case arguably men, though some would say otherwise), and I reckon we could find a similar effect when looking at many issues. I hope (in fact I do think) things have improved.


PS most men are at least somewhat insecure.

PPS most humans are at least somewhat insecure.

I'm not necessarily just talking about Americans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

Business is run within the framework of social conditions. As such, the way it is currently run business is part of social problems. I just gave you an example via anecdote how the problems concerning women's participation and advancement can be solved.

You provided a bad example--you described a case of a business acting in the interest of it's top person rather than in the interest of the business itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will say this. I think many men (myself included) tend to overreact to feminism and feminists 'as if' their individual position was more radical (or 'as if' stuff said was only the thin end of some sort of wedge). If that's the case, then the next question would be, why, why do (many it seems) of us men do that?

Gonna offer a few suggested answers to my own question here. Only my personal suggestions, obviously. Not presented in any particular order. They do not all have to apply to any one individual and there may be others I'm not thinking of. Plus they are non-exclusive in that there may be overlap between them. Also, there may be men out there for whom none of these apply. All or some (or none) may also apply to non-feminist women and/or non-feminists of all or any gender. Some feminists might have them as reservations of their own while still self-identifying as feminists:

1. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) overstated.
2. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) simplistic.
3. The perception that the claims of feminism are too ideological and not empirical enough.
4. Fear of losing privileges (doesn't have to be an unsubstantiated fear).
5. The perception that men's issues are sidelined.
6. The perception that women's privileges are not properly taken into account.
7. Reluctance to embrace change.
8. Denial of the extent of the problems for women.
9. Fear of psychological annihilation.
10. Not seeing in what ways we could all be better off if men co-operated and compromised more.
11. Thinking that feminists don't co-operate or compromise enough.
12. Self-interest (ie selfishness).
13. Dislike of criticism, especially if it is felt in an individual case the criticism is either unfair or partially unfair.
14. Not wanting to say sorry (it's the hardest word) or admit past mistakes.
15. The perception that feminism often undervalues men.
16. The perception that feminism is in essence 'for women'.
17. The perception that feminism is in essence, or sometimes or often 'against men' (not the same as number 15).
18. Thinking that equality (controversially even equality of opportunity perhaps) is unrealistic, impractical or undesirable.
19. A preference for 'traditional' gender roles.
20. An inclination to stand up for and defend one's own (biological) sex.


Ok I'll stop. That quickly turned into more than a few.

I'd be curious to hear what the men here think.

Most of these are true to varying degrees.

The basic problem is to many feminists simply look at what's good for women without looking at what's fair to both sexes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Social issue, not discrimination.

Thought as much.

I would refer you to item 8 on my list above, or a subset of it which I would call, "Denial of the extent of the problems for women which arise from unfairness in gender issues and/or from discrimination (part cultural, part individual) and the exercise of male privileges".

This is not entirely unlike the time you said something similar about racial discrimination when I posted the study about the 'blind' job applications.

Carry on. As you were. Just don't expect me personally to buy it.

Except this is nonsense--it's like the first evidence of someone being an alcoholic is that they deny being an alcoholic. That's how a woman I used to know got diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. (She truthfully answered yes to "Have you lost any friends due to alcohol?" Note that the question doesn't say whose alcohol use.)

 

[ruby sparks]

The basic problem is to many feminists simply look at what's good for women without looking at what's fair to both sexes.

There isn't a 'The basic problem', there's lots. To get it better sorted, imo, it's more useful, if admittedly difficult, to admit that some of the problems are with you (in the general sense, of 'oneself', not you personally, or me personally, necessarily) that is to say with us men. Some men. Most of us, I reckon, to one extent or the other. And there doesn't always have to be a but, as in, 'I agree, but [insert chosen counter-example]....'. We are all, individually, responsible for our own shit.

That, what you said above, might be an issue, to some extent. Yes. Generalising. That said, if (if) one accepts that women generally have suffered this or that (and it wasn't only women of course and isn't) then it's as understandable as, by analogy with for instance, Black Rights persons focusing on Blacks. It's sort of partly inevitable, actually, imo. To me, it's not something which should prevent positive engagement, or even just listening and nodding in agreement where appropriate rather than thinking up a comeback.

Except this is nonsense--it's like the first evidence of someone being an alcoholic is that they deny being an alcoholic. That's how a woman I used to know got diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. (She truthfully answered yes to "Have you lost any friends due to alcohol?" Note that the question doesn't say whose alcohol use.)

I'm not actually sure what you mean. Plus, I'm gonna have trouble discussing this with you because I think you are doing a bit of discrimination-denying. Imo, there's no reasonable way we can look at the double burden thing without bringing discrimination into it. I mean, even in an individual case, one person can discriminate against another (whether it's to do with race, or gender or disability or whatever), and on a wider scale this can be a cultural issue. I might be able to agree with someone who said that the gender discrimination component is sometimes overstated (though even then my guess is that if that someone was you we'd disagree about the size of the component). Also, being a social issue does not preclude it being discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem is to many feminists simply look at what's good for women without looking at what's fair to both sexes.

There isn't a 'The basic problem', there's lots. To get it better sorted, imo, it's more useful, if admittedly difficult, to admit that some of the problems are with you (in the general sense, of 'oneself', not you personally, or me personally, necessarily) that is to say with us men. Some men. Most of us, I reckon, to one extent or the other. And there doesn't always have to be a but, as in, 'I agree, but [insert chosen counter-example]....'. We are all, individually, responsible for our own shit.

That, what you said above, might be an issue, to some extent. Yes. Generalising. That said, if (if) one accepts that women generally have suffered this or that (and it wasn't only women of course and isn't) then it's as understandable as, by analogy with for instance, Black Rights persons focusing on Blacks. It's sort of partly inevitable, actually, imo. To me, it's not something which should prevent positive engagement, or even just listening and nodding in agreement where appropriate rather than thinking up a comeback.

Except this is nonsense--it's like the first evidence of someone being an alcoholic is that they deny being an alcoholic. That's how a woman I used to know got diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. (She truthfully answered yes to "Have you lost any friends due to alcohol?" Note that the question doesn't say whose alcohol use.)

I'm not actually sure what you mean. Plus, I'm gonna have trouble discussing this with you because I think you are doing a bit of discrimination-denying. Imo, there's no reasonable way we can look at the double burden thing without bringing discrimination into it. I mean, even in an individual case, one person can discriminate against another (whether it's to do with race, or gender or disability or whatever), and on a wider scale this can be a cultural issue. I might be able to agree with someone who said that the gender discrimination component is sometimes overstated (though even then my guess is that if that someone was you we'd disagree about the size of the component). Also, being a social issue does not preclude it being discrimination.

You are assuming the discrimination exists and therefore anyone denying is actually supporting the discrimination.

You're one of the people who are determined that she was an alcoholic.

 

[Hermit]

Once again, you're blaming business for society issues.

Business is run within the framework of social conditions. As such, the way it is currently run business is part of social problems. I just gave you an example via anecdote how the problems concerning women's participation and advancement can be solved.

You provided a bad example--you described a case of a business acting in the interest of it's top person rather than in the interest of the business itself.

Orly?

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.

Had there been male employees in charge of raising kids they would have had access to the crèche as well, but of course there weren't any.

Also, my sister knows how to use a spreadsheet. She worked out that a crèche was cheaper than the cost of employing temporary staff or replacing someone altogether. Even though she was just a woman, give her some credit. She had started her business from scratch with her then partner, then bought him out and run it for another 10 years already by the time she got pregnant the first time, so she must be doing something right.

 

[ruby sparks]

You are assuming the discrimination exists...

No, I'm not. I'm simply following the evidence of all varieties and coming to that apparently reasonable conclusion, just as most if not all of those who study it in great detail have done. I don't think your analogy with the non-alcoholic covers it. That was a case of temporary semantic ambiguity, of very incomplete information, easily resolved by simple clarification. Imo, your discrimination denial is untenable. But I already know how far you are prepared to go with it, after you were presented with the results of the study on 'blind' job applications vis-a-vis racial discrimination, so partly because of that I tend to discount your personal views quite a lot. No personal offence intended, but your argument is crap, imo. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm about to stop discussing it with you, because I think you've got your fingers metaphorically stuck in your ears, for whatever reason, unfortunately. As to your points of view, you are welcome to them and good luck with them.

 

[Hermit]

You are assuming the discrimination exists and therefore anyone denying is actually supporting the discrimination.

In 2008 Julia Gillard was the deputy leader of the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition. Senator Heffernan claimed that she is not qualified to lead the country because she is "deliberately barren". "One of the great understandings in a community is family, and the relationship between mum, dads and a bucket of nappies" he explained. It did not occur to him that four previous Prime Ministers, all male, would have to be disqualified for the same reason. Another Senator, George Brandis, expressed similar sentiments. He said that Gillard "doesn't understand the way parents think about their children", and is hardly able to comment on some issues of childhood because she "had chosen not to be a parent".

OK, just a couple of anecdotes, but if there are enough of them they turn into evidence of wide-ranging discrimination. Similar assertions about Angela Merkel's and Theresa May's barrenness making them unsuitable for national leadership have been made too, by the way. I am pretty sure that both Germany and the UK were led by a number of male Chancellors and Prime Ministers that were not said to be unqualified for the office on account of barrenness, deliberate or otherwise.

Success or not in preventing women from attaining leadership is irrelevant. The very fact that childlessness supposedly disqualifies women from becoming government heads but does not disqualify men is discrimination.

You are arguing that discrimination does not exist because you are deliberately turning a blind eye to it.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm fairly sure he'll have a different view on that.

Imo, you'd likely be spending your time more productively even if you did nothing more than just sat down and rearranged the words, 'brick', 'talking', 'a', 'it's', 'to', 'wall' and 'like' into a sentence. At least then you'd end up with something that made sense.

Maybe just thank your lucky stars you don't have to actually live with the guy or listen to him all day.