Feminism spin-off.

[VincentHanna]

They are feminists, not charity workers.

 

[Hades]

You asked what they could do. I answered. Whether they do so is up to them. But it would help more women than they are now.

 

[Irish_Tom]

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.

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.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

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?

It had a negative effect the instant there were mandatory quotas for employees from minorities or groups that were felt to be under-represented in a certain industry.

New hires from the above groups may well have been the best candidates on the planet for Job X, but they will always risk being tarred with the “only employed due to quota” brush.

 

[Angilion]

I think it was pretty obvious what @BowdonUK meant, but don't let me stop you going off on some pedantic strawman rant.

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.

 

[Angilion]

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.

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.

 

[Irish_Tom]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Clearcut]

I just want to live in a world where you are treated equally on merit.

If I needed urgent police assistance, I would hope someone would turn up who doesn't have the frame of a child. If that was my daughter I'd be terrified every time she went out.

 

[V F]

I remember you had to be a certain height amongst the checks getting into the Police Force.

 

[Angilion]

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.

 

[Irish_Tom]

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.

<sigh> another strawman.

At no point did Bowden or I suggest in any way that equality is only for the ‘right’ sex. You are the one twisting interpretations.

I don’t have the energy to continue this discussion, especially as you’re trying to get me to argue a position I don’t hold.

 

[krooton]

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.

Same experience for me, PR can be a bit cliquey, but the rest of marketing isn't, and Sales is super cliquey.

 

[datalol-jack]

... Read some books and get back to me. ...

Come on, Angie! Throw us some feminists and books written by them we all can rave about. Your rage must have a source. So why not stir back this thread to its original course? GD stands ready to be educated by your erudite self.

 

[LabR@t]

Laughing at all the men debating feminism.

 

[LabR@t]

I remember you had to be a certain height amongst the checks getting into the Police Force.

When life police had authority and were feared by little scoates.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Laughing at all the men debating feminism.

Are you saying you have to be female to discuss feminism? That’s sexist!

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Campaign, apply political pressure, fund groups that support women in these countries. If the number of people who marched in the "Women's March" which was an anti-Trump rally, had directed that message against funding or trading with countries with endemic mistreatment of women, they'd have achieved far, far more for women as a class. Saudi Arabia has just taken the step of now requiring by law husbands to notify their wives if they've been divorced by text message. And Saudi Arabia is dependent on the West so we have huge potential to influence it's domestic policies. In several African nations, FGM is routine in many areas. As it is in Pakistan. Pakistan receives huge amounts of foreign aid from the West. If the Women's March had demanded pressure on Pakistan to stamp out FGM if it wanted to continue receiving aid that would have accomplished far more. The amount of funding into such things would achieve far, far more in protective measures such as women's toilets in Africa which are proven to decrease sexual assault and increase school attendance for young girls in Africa (who frequently feel unable to go to school during their period and thus miss classes every month because of having to share toilets with men). I've put my own money towards that, btw. Feminist groups seem more interested in funding feel-good anti-Trump demonstrations, though.

I could go on for much longer about the things "Feminists" in the West could do about helping women in other countries but no amount of examples can convince those who don't want to be convinced. Case in point:

I was wondering the same.

Do you expect a UK feminist to go to Africa or something?

If your imagination is so limited that you can't think of ways Feminists in the West could help women who face actual sex discrimination and misogyny elsewhere, then I pity you. But fact is, you never even tried. You'd rather just a strawman or making an attack thinly disguised as a question.

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

What Hades said.

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

I meant Sales.

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

No. It could mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. Two very different things. Historically it would be taken to mean the latter but modern Feminism is more about the former (at best). The term is slightly imprecise which is why I am always careful to write which of the two I mean long-hand. In any case, it's perverse to assume you know for certain which of the two they meant.

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.

I don't recall seeing any ignorance on Irish Tom's part on this subject. How about me? I also take issue with your statements and I flatter myself I've pretty good knowledge of Feminism past and present. Are you going to try and claim I don't?

The idea that sexual equality is only for the "right" sex is nonsense.

Well by definition, equality replies more than one party. Can't have an equation with only one side. Now historically there were many rights denied to women. Now many of those rights were also denied to working class men (people forget that the granting of votes for women was far more universal than just women, but also allowed working class men to vote. It was a universal suffrage) but many weren't. Women as a class were denied rights that men had. This has been corrected and this is the point of the thread - that modern Feminism is no longer about equality of opportunity.

You seem to be coming in from some odd side-angle that there shouldn't be genders and everybody should be treated as an individual. Which is all well and good in theory (falls apart if applied universally though), but in either case isn't really germaine to anything anyone else is talking about. You seem to be just using it to argue that such a topic cannot be discussed. And thus I'm with Irish Tom in saying I'm probably not going to debate your one-person tangent if it continues in that refusal to agree on common terms of discussion.

Laughing at all the men debating feminism.

Lots of virtue-signalling "woke bros" male feminists.