Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by ryobi, Aug 5, 2019.
How long have you been a feminist?
I believe people should be accountable for the consequences of their bad choices and actions rather than blaming other people for the consequences of their bad choices and actions-such as, say, the wage gap.
I believe in gender equality, therefore, I am not a Feminist.
Okay....then neither am I.
But you don't see many women working down the coalmines.
You don't see many peoe of any gender in coal mines because the industry is dead, dingus
But in a lot of "manly men" jobs, there's been a lot of barriers and pushback to keep women out.
Rubbish. Name the jobs. You will not find any type of work whereby there is a planned, deliberate policy of "keeping women out". There are coal mines in operation and even when the Feminist movement first became a radical nasty, anti-men movement they still did not fight to join the coalminers.
99.9% of garbage collectors are men.
Why aren't Feminist protesting this obvious case of gender discrimination???
The wage gap has been proven false time and again.
That's really only because they biologically bare and nurture children, and have more direct physical access to the children (especially if the father abandons the children, which is more common than the mother doing so). So "nature" is likely to blame here.
This myth is somewhat fallacious:
1. Women in history have always almost done "work" or some degree of resource provision for the self and the family (unless a woman had the financial luxury to be completely supported by a male, which generally was less common in lower socio-economic demographics). In the past it was much easier to pay less or arbitrarily discriminate against women solely based on sex, but that has been met with legal changes.
2. In reality, socio-economics have and still are the primary overriding factor.
In history, women in positions of power, authority, and influence have always existed - societies as far back as ancient Egypt and Greece have had female rulers, as well as mathematicians, poets, and other prominent female influencers.
Or as recent as the 1800s, women of high intellectual ability such as Marie Curie or Victoria Regina have had more career influence and actualization than the "average" or "below-average" woman today does. In the past, birth played a bigger role in this, and "upward mobility" for the "average" person was less.
It's a moot point, because the "status quo" has always recognized female rulers, mathematicians, poets and such, and whichever historical time period you go back to, said women held more status and influence for their day and age than the "average" woman today does.
If anything, the only difference (which is rather miniscule in light of history) is that more changes to prevent arbitrary discrimination against working women have been effected.
Just as how job satisfaction today among "average" women is barely any different than it is among the male demographic, and how much of the "work" in question, not just in the past but today as well is imposed by the mere need to earn a paycheck rather than higher personal or intellectual pursuits (e.x. is with prominent female entrepreneurs today, or their equivalents in times past, such as Marie Curie - they were and still are a minority, just as they are in men).
Likewise, some of the "need" in women as it relates to pregnancy is simply due to the biological fact that women bare the children (and in times past, infant mortality rates were higher) - so naturally a pregnant woman will need more "care" during her pregnancy than the male partner.
In the grand spectrum of things, such as historically, anthropologically, and so on - the areas of vaguely defined "equal rights" you're referring to are miniscule compared to the overarching socioeconomic and other human circumstances presently and historically (And that's not even getting to the actual practical enforceability of the "equal rights" in question beyond just the theoretical legislation). Circumstances such as birth, wealth, intelligence, talent, ambition, character, and socioeconomic conditions today and previously are much more defining.
For example, no matter how "level" the playing field could theoretically become, a woman born into a wealthy family, or a woman of 130 IQ, or a woman who in addition to other traits was simply more creative or ambitious in life would naturally have an upper hand by default no matter what (likewise, if a woman becomes pregnant by 12 and winds up on welfare with several kids by several different fathers by age 18, that is going to contribute to significant hardship in work and personal life).
It's pretty much a moot point since none of the "men" you mention on average have, or ever would have been top-level individuals in whatever field of labor your talking about - such as top company executives, world leaders, professional athletes, scientists, inventors, artists, musicians, and so forth.
A more "average" man will have to deal with people (both men and women) "above" and "on par" with him today just as he always would have in the past - at times much more so than today, since no man in ancient times could have ever pretended that a female ruler, sovereign, or high-status such as Queen Cleopatra wasn't "above him", whether such things were determined more by birth or not.
As another humorous example, in ancient times it wasn't totally uncommon for a female Queen or King to own male eunuch slaves and force them to work in the harem. The Bible, for example mentions a Queen Candice of Ethiopia who had her own entourage of male eunuch servants. And in the past if a lower-status man didn't want to serve his Queen or Empress, he couldn't just bitch and moan about it on the internet - he'd have a good chance of having his head lopped-off if he expressed such juvenile sentiments.
Separate names with a comma.