Feminism

[merithyn]

@Meri, Another thought is that in your country abortion is still an issue of contention.  We still have some that are anti abortion but they are safely on the fringes now.

The right to access to abortion is one of the key planks in the feminist movement.  If one wishes to attack abortion rights then one needs to also attack feminism.

That's an interesting take on it. Especially because most women I know don't think of it as a "feminist" agenda, rather a "personal rights" agenda. That may be them trying to dodge the term, too, though, so it's kind of hard to tell.

[merithyn]

You have to wait for the people who came up in the bad old days to retire at least.  Among the younger demographics it looks pretty good in that respect, equal pay anyway.

The CEOs of most companies are in their 50s and 60s now. They didn't grow up in the "bad old days". They were born during them.

[Neil]

once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

Yeah, they did.

[derspiess]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

[DGuller]

I have a problem with the word "feminist".  It implies a struggle for female supremacy, not equality.  I think that to emphasize the struggle for equality, a gender neutral word should be used, like "sexist".

[merithyn]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

Yet, that's not true at all. Women are still passed over for promotions at an alarming rate. One of the things that this particular feminist talked about was that during a series of interviews with women in the news industry in 2010 (which is where Ms. Povich's focus was and is), women regularly get the lesser news stories, fewer "top" posts, etc. despite being equally as qualified as the men. The argument goes that they send men out because people are more comfortable discussing certain topics with them rather than women. Except that only seems to be the case on the kinds of stories that get the big headlines and the big paychecks.

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry. That's still very much the case, despite the vast number of them in middle management. Surely, by now, the numbers at the top would be more equal. It's been almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act passed into law. Hell, I'd settle for even a quarter of them, yet it's still less than 10%. That, to me, doesn't show an equality of genders.

Before you go there, I'm not arguing for hiring a woman over a man simply because she has a vagina. I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

[Valmy]

The CEOs of most companies are in their 50s and 60s now. They didn't grow up in the "bad old days". They were born during them.

Yeah ok whatever.  My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher

[merithyn]

I have a problem with the word "feminist".  It implies a struggle for female supremacy, not equality.  I think that to emphasize the struggle for equality, a gender neutral word should be used, like "sexist".

Yes, that's how I feel, too, which is why I resist the use of the term. What I find sad is that most women do not want supremacy. They want to be on the save level playing field as the men. Sadly, too many honestly believe that we're there, when it's just not the case, which makes me wonder if the use of feminism is such a bad thing.

[Valmy]

I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

Yes indeed there are.  But those guys are fossils and are on the way out.

[Valmy]

Sadly, too many honestly believe that we're there, when it's just not the case, which makes me wonder if the use of feminism is such a bad thing.

Well what I am  saying is the trends are there, things look to be going in the right direction.  It is going to take awhile to completely shake off the rust and rot of the old system.  I think most of the people who say 'we're there' are coming from the same place.

Women did very well in the last election for example.  But are they 'there' yet?  No but it is clearly a matter of time right now.

[garbon]

I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

Yeah it is generally just a fight for gender equality which doesn't mean tearing men down - just improving things for everyone.

[derspiess]

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

Yet, that's not true at all. Women are still passed over for promotions at an alarming rate. One of the things that this particular feminist talked about was that during a series of interviews with women in the news industry in 2010 (which is where Ms. Povich's focus was and is), women regularly get the lesser news stories, fewer "top" posts, etc. despite being equally as qualified as the men. The argument goes that they send men out because people are more comfortable discussing certain topics with them rather than women. Except that only seems to be the case on the kinds of stories that get the big headlines and the big paychecks.

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry. That's still very much the case, despite the vast number of them in middle management. Surely, by now, the numbers at the top would be more equal. It's been almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act passed into law. Hell, I'd settle for even a quarter of them, yet it's still less than 10%. That, to me, doesn't show an equality of genders.

Before you go there, I'm not arguing for hiring a woman over a man simply because she has a vagina. I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

I'm not sure I agree with the severity of your claim here, but I will go ahead and concede that this is possibly one aspect of our society that favors men.  Others favor women.

[garbon]

You have to wait for the people who came up in the bad old days to retire at least.  Among the younger demographics it looks pretty good in that respect, equal pay anyway.

The CEOs of most companies are in their 50s and 60s now. They didn't grow up in the "bad old days". They were born during them.

Most of them were working in the 80s which was still a generally bad time for women in the workplace.

[MadImmortalMan]

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry.

The top jobs are by definition outliers, which tend to be men. Boys are more likely than girls to be mentally retarded too. I don't know how much of a factor that is in the CEO world, but it has to be something. Probably not the amount that it is currently skewed.

I bet you will see it even out more in the future though. They are saying that in the younger demographics 20-30ish women are making more than men now.  That will probably translate to more women CEOs later just like how we now have sixty percent or so of college grads being female. Time will do it.