This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Feminism

But look, I can see you manner has changed from your usual self, perhaps this topic is personal to you, I dont want to upset you, so I will leave it there.

I could see that coming. You behaved as I predicted, as many/most man would behave (me included) when confronted with the prospect of hurting the (only) woman....which makes its own point about majority versus minority behaviours of men towards women.
 
http://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/the-hidden-downside-of-being-a-powerful-woman.html?cid=sf01001


 

Please do not give up Julia. I for one value your views and input not only here but elsewhere in ASF.

I am a little disappointed that more female ASF members have not contributed to this thread although not surprising, as you pointed out, in a male dominated world.

So back to what feminism means.

Thinking outside of my own personal subjective reactions and experiences and thanks to Google Fu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism, over time the definition of what feminism aimed to achieve has changed or become refined.

In recent times, it seems agreed that the feminist movement or feminism, had it's early beginnings with the Suffragette movement (voting rights, property rights, etc), then changed with the second wave feminist movement (burning the bra circa the 60's, 70's and 80's, defacto rights, job equality, sexual and physical abuse, etc) to now where feminism has morphed into a third wave of feminism.

This third wave being termed neo-feminism circa 1990 onwards, aiming to address the failings of the 2nd wave. Abolishing gender role expectations and stereotypes, and defending sex work, pornography, reproductive rights, etc, the so-called "Lipstick Feminism" of today. From a personal perspective this neo-feminism is very similar to what I view feminism to be.

Memory tells me that it takes around 20~30yrs (barring major events like world wars) for cultural attitudes to change and to permeate, become accepted and solidify throughout society, the preceding seems about right.

Now if we are in the era of neo-feminism, an era where women can choose to be whatever they set out to be, apart from equal pay and more women in positions of authority and leaving, sexual harassment, rape and DV out of it, where to from here for the modern woman and the feminist movement aka feminism?

Is it just a question of keeping the pressure on and awareness up, or as has been the case, refining what has come before and bringing on a fourth wave?
 
Feminism has contributed to the entrance of women into jobs where traditionally they have not been before.

Airline pilots, police and army combat roles to name a few.

Given that women are physically and psychologically different from men, discussion seems to have been squashed as to whether men are more suitable than women for some jobs, and also vice versa.

So, can there be true "equality" when men and women have different physical, psychological and mental characteristics ?

It sometimes irks me when education feminists think it's a national tragedy that there are less girls than boys doing certain subjects at school and uni. Maybe they just don't want to ? Surely our educational establishments don't practise discrimination in the subjects students can take ?

http://theconversation.com/study-finds-more-girls-opting-out-of-maths-and-science-12221
 

SR, that would be taking a very broad brush. I would suggest that instead of speaking in generalised terms, each of us be awarded by our individual traits much as Pixel has shown.

Surely you'd agree that there a instances where a woman could do a man's work/job equally, if not better and the same in reverse.

Physical: no argument there, it's a biological fact but I've met women that I'd never want to tangle with and I'm no minnow.

Psychological: Perhaps, just perhaps, men need to take a leaf or two out of the women's handbook on this one or, a by-product of our male dominated world.

Mental: Spatial versus abstract? Again, perhaps a by-product of our male dominated world.

At the very least, a most pleasing complimentary arrangement.

Further, the thought of women being equal is a very new notion within our society, barely a hundred years so I'd like to see how we've fared say in a couple of hundred years. Yet, like share trading, keeping the emotions by both parties out of it is the real challenge because I'm damn sure we can be equally emotional.

Ah, you've added to your post...

I'd say the fact that reproduction of our species plays a big part in a woman's choice of educational pathways and indeed, career paths. All of which feminism tries to address IMHO.
 
I'd say the fact that reproduction of our species plays a big part in a woman's choice of educational pathways and indeed, career paths. All of which feminism tries to address IMHO.

What does feminism try to "address" in the way of female career paths ?

Surely a woman's career path should be what she wants it to be, not a contest with men in particular educational areas ?

As I said, some people think it's a tragedy that girls don't take maths or science as much as boys. I think it's because girls in general are less interested in those subjects and I don't think they should be pushed into those areas for the sake of some feminist theory that they have to prove themselves "equal" to men in those areas.

eg is it a problem that there are more female nurses than males in that profession ? Should the "masculists" complain about it ?
 
Yes, fair enough, probably too much generalisation on my part.
What does feminism try to "address" in the way of female career paths ?

Surely a woman's career path should be what she wants it to be, not a contest with men in particular educational areas ?
Agreed and that's most definitely addressed by feminism.
Also agree that no one should be pushed into a "gender contest" and seriously doubt feminists set out to do this to prove a theory.

From that article it appears that our education system is at fault if maths is no longer a 'core' subject. If memory serves correctly, both Maths and Science along with English were must do subjects when I was at high school. That being said, I was part of the last tranche that sat for the Leaving Certificate as it was called back then.

If maths and science interest or take up is so disproportionate against the female gender and from that article the numbers speak for themselves, we must determine why this is the case. Of more interest, why is it important that women are represented in this space?

I can't see it as a contest or theoretical ploy but I can understand the concern as without that female representation, women orientated studies/research et al, done by women (especially for women) and from a purely female perspective, without it, this will mean that male domination, male bias and the male perspective is inbuilt into those fields of endeavour. Again, making it easy to buy into the male dominated ethos. A downside is that it would be seen as playing right into the feminist hands.

So yeah, I can see the reasoning behind the need to encourage more female participation in the upper echelons of maths and science.

eg is it a problem that there are more female nurses than males in that profession ? Should the "masculists" complain about it ?

Interesting. I think you're making the incorrect distinction between equality in terms of rights and the equality in terms of the percentage of any gender within any given profession. I think it is a given that some professions will have a bias one way or another. If it means a very low percentage of females in maths and science because of a natural penchant against these disciplines so be it.

Still, in terms of job equality, I'd like to see how we fare in a couple of hundred years time simply because women being accepted and treated as equals, is relatively new in the scheme of things.
 
Craton said:
So yeah, I can see the reasoning behind the need to encourage more female participation in the upper echelons of maths and science.

So I wonder if we should have separate strands of Maths and Science specifically aimed at boys and girls ?

I wonder how that would be done. Possibly taking into account what we know from neurology as to how males and females think differently. Having women teachers & scientists set the syllabus for the girls course, and men for the boys course ?
 
Please excuse my entrance in to this topic.

I am aware, as you all should be that people in 100 years time people will p themselves laughing at our conclusions as we do of those heading in to the Great War 100 years ago.

I am male, of Viking and Celt ancestry, presently defined as Australian.

My view of women is as mothers, aunts, sisters, daughters and delightful others and wise others.

I see Feminism as a passing fad to assuage the guilt of over-educated women, much as over-educated men bemoan the fact that they are not rich, or have a beautiful girlfriend, or powerful or some other such transient grasp at power.

Feminists are as much muppets as the over-educated.

They seek what they will never have.. Friendship, intimacy and belonging.

Just my take on it all.

gg
 
Surely you'd agree that there a instances where a woman could do a man's work/job equally, if not better and the same in reverse.
An example of this might be in finance/investment. I know a couple of female full service brokers, but no female financial planners. All but a very few economists and other commentators on finance, markets, and investment are male.

On retirement and super forums, a common remark is "if anything happens to me my wife wouldn't have any idea how to manage the Super". Yet no suggestion that this be changed.

On this forum the membership is overwhelmingly male. The occasional comment comes from another female on politics or religion. Why is it so? There are no physiological or age related factors that should deter women from being good at making money, yet there seems to be still an outdated assumption amongst some men, and women for that matter, that it belongs to the boys' club.
 

There are a number of highly placed female executives, business owners, judges, barristers, scientists, you name it so there don't appear to be as many barriers in the way of women making it big in whatever they want to do as there were in years past.

I think we need to distinguish between areas where there is still some discrimination by the "boy's club" and those areas that women generally aren't particularly interested in, and we should be careful not to engage in gender warfare on a false premise.
 

I don't think that would be necessary but if it's a solution, why not?
However I'll defer discussion on that to others more suitably qualified to comment.

You've mentioned the neurological differences between the sexes a few times now, please expand on this for me. On second thought, nope, it's OK. I'll DMOR.
 
Julia, you rightly pointed out that this forum is mostly male. Personally I would like to see a higher input by females, and there is no barrier to that happening.

Perhaps ladies are more worried about being shouted down by more aggressive males (I know that doesn't bother you as I've found out a few times ), however there is always going to be argument and debate on forums, so maybe it is a generally female characteristic to avoid confrontation even on an anonymous forum. I've noticed this on other forums too.
 
I would not be surprised if some of the members that we think are male are actually female. We know what stuff the girls go through including one who was hassled in this forum. In fact I think you might really be a girl Sir Rumpole (just kidding).
 

I guess it also comes down to personal interest, I don't think there is an absense of women because of sexism, they just don't choose to visit this site.

There are probably lots of female dominated sites, on various other topics.

I am a feminist, but I am against mandating certain participation levels in things, I mean I am against forcing boards or managements to have certain numbers of each sex mandated.

I don't care whether board members are male or female, as long as they have the skills, but to say " we better higher her because we need to up our female / male ratio" is wrong.
 
Possibly taking into account what we know from neurology as to how males and females think differently.

If men and women do think differently, it seems to be a result of our culture not biology.

From here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...e-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html

 
If men and women do think differently, it seems to be a result of our culture not biology.

From here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...e-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html

I wonder if the author of that article is a feminist.

Research has shown that the structure of men's and women brains are different and that leads to a different way of thinking by the sexes. One is not more or less intelligent than the other, they just use grey and white cells in different ways.


The article you posted seems fairly typical of feminists who try and alter the reality of biology to mesh with their own views of "equality".
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...