Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,884
They are feminists, not charity workers.
I do occasionally see old-fashioned anti-women sexism, but very rarely. And it's been exclusively in the field of marketing. I think you still get it in the City, in investments, et al. Marketing doesn't surprise me - it's the field of choice for people who are aggressive but not very academically inclined / book-learned. It's also a field that is very cliquey and network-y. So it doesn't surprise it's one of the last main bastions of that sort of sexism in the West.
It's really started to have a negative affect now too. Several of us have said it's no longer worth our time putting in extra effort to get something finished on time or answering a work call on holiday, because we simply aren't going to affect our promotion prospects because of it. We're not going to get a promotion or pay rise so why bother doing more than is necessary to keep the job?
I think it was pretty obvious what @BowdonUK meant, but don't let me stop you going off on some pedantic strawman rant.
I think you're looking for an argument. As someone else said in the thread it is obvious what I meant.
The word we're using is equality i.e. being equal, meaning there needs to be at least 2 elements for one to be equal to the other. There can't be equality for only one element as it wouldn't be equal to anything.
I don't think it's obvious that anyone means the complete opposite of what they wrote. Unless there's good evidence, I'll assume that a person means what they wrote.
And "equality for women" means all women being equal to each other. Like segregationist USA being about all "whites" being equal to each other. Not in reality, of course. The "equality" is always more fictional than real, but that was the claimed principle of the USA at the time.
The idea that equality between two different groups is only for one of those groups is so nonsensical that it's far from obvious that's what you meant. And I still think it's not what you meant.
That’s because you take everything literally and have no ability to process nuance, context, insinuation or any form of literary device.
You took one sentence out of context, applied your own twisted interpretation of it, and now you’re trying to start an argument about something that was neither stated nor implied. It’s the perfect example of a strawman argument.
You need to apply some context and reasoning:
1. This thread is about Feminism, so it directly relates to women and women’s issues.
2. There was a time when women were unequal to men (some may argue that it’s still a problem today, but let’s not get in to that).
3. When @BowdonUK says he’s “all for equality for women” he means in relation to men — voting rights, education and work opportunities, equal pay etc.
4. When he says he’s “all for equality for women” he is therefore saying that he is “all for equality for everyone”. Based on other things he has posted, it’s obvious that he’s talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome (so don’t even try and argue that point).
It really is as simple as that.
Any other conclusions you have drawn are figments of your own comprehension failure.
The failure of comprehension is yours because you are ignorant of feminism. Read some books and get back to me. You have no understanding of the context and your "reasoning" is backwards from a preconceived idea that contradicts the evidence.
The idea that sexual equality is only for the "right" sex is nonsense. It doesn't matter how much you twist the meaning to pretend it meets your interpretation. It doesn't.
As someone who works in Marketing, I’ve only ever seen or heard of old-fashioned anti-women sexism from Sales people, usually directed at female Marketing Managers.
If anything, I've found the Marketing sector to be more progressive than most when it comes to 'feminist issues' such as flexi-time for childcare etc (that actually applies to both men and women). I also see a lot of women in top Marketing positions, and I have work with plenty of mild-mannered, non-cliquey and well-educated people who hate networking… So unless you’re combining ‘Sales and Marketing’ as the same group, everything you just said about Marketing people (based on my own experience) is completely wrong.
... Read some books and get back to me. ...
When life police had authority and were feared by little scoates.I remember you had to be a certain height amongst the checks getting into the Police Force.
Are you saying you have to be female to discuss feminism? That’s sexist!Laughing at all the men debating feminism.
I've seen this posted a few times in similar format. What on earth are people expecting feminists to do about the middle East and Africa? The combined world of do-gooders has done nothing but make it worse in these places for decades.
I was wondering the same.
Do you expect a UK feminist to go to Africa or something?
They could petition those governments directly. They could raise funds here for donation to womens organisations within those countries. They could offer services either in this country or go there to help organise events there. They could demonstrate in those countries, or if unsafe to do so, outside of their embassies in safe countries to cause embarrassment. There is plenty they could do.
As someone who works in Marketing, I’ve only ever seen or heard of old-fashioned anti-women sexism from Sales people, usually directed at female Marketing Managers.
If anything, I've found the Marketing sector to be more progressive than most when it comes to 'feminist issues' such as flexi-time for childcare etc (that actually applies to both men and women). I also see a lot of women in top Marketing positions, and I have work with plenty of mild-mannered, non-cliquey and well-educated people who hate networking… So unless you’re combining ‘Sales and Marketing’ as the same group, everything you just said about Marketing people (based on my own experience) is completely wrong.
And "equality for women" means all women being equal to each other. Like segregationist USA being about all "whites" being equal to each other. Not in reality, of course. The "equality" is always more fictional than real, but that was the claimed principle of the USA at the time.
The failure of comprehension is yours because you are ignorant of feminism. Read some books and get back to me. You have no understanding of the context and your "reasoning" is backwards from a preconceived idea that contradicts the evidence.
The idea that sexual equality is only for the "right" sex is nonsense.
Laughing at all the men debating feminism.