Feminists seem to agree that if you are not a feminist, you don't support equality. Non-feminists have said that they do support equality, but are not feminists. Let's assume that neither is lying or ignorant.
The Philosopher taught, "When you encounter a contradiction, make a distinction."
Are we talking about equality as descriptive, i.e. that men and women are, as a matter of fact equal? On average? In all areas? Overall? In some specific areas?
Or are we talking about equality as prescriptive, i.e. that men and women should enjoy equal status? Is this equality of opportunity or equality of results? Is it overall equality (and how is that to be judged?) or equality in each and every measure?
For example, I believe women should have equal opportunity in employment and education, equal access to health care, equal freedom to political participation, and equal protection under the law.
But if we end up with unequal numbers of governors, senators, CEOs, nurses, physicists,. construction workers, trash collectors, doctors, lawyers, teachers, or whatever, I have no problem with that inequality, so long as no one is prevented from pursuing whatever course they choose.
And I don't think that how a married couple shares household chores is anyone's business but theirs, nor do I believe in making it an agenda to challenge inequalities in every aspect of culture. This sort of "equality" could only be achieved by denying people more basic rights.
is that feminist? Probably not. Is it equality? yes, in specific, clearly defined areas. Seriously Gnu...........(lol).
At this time,I find myself a little speechless !!!
To be honest with you,way before I got on Yahoo! Answer: I've always been faced with that touchy and yet real topic of feminists and non-feminists !!!
I have followed your questions and answers,although I still feel that deep down there is a mysterious side of you that only a person really close to you would know about(in some ways,I find you very interesting).
I don't think you ever let anyone get that close to get to know the real you.Like I told you before and I say it again,I welcome your inputs and everyone else on here.To me,it was never whose gender is better.At times we may not see eye to eye on some of your answer but tonight,I totally agreed with your comments (forgive me for not viewing it as a question).
Your words as you described them would be my definition of "equality".
All other *issues* should be under a *different topic*. Yes, I would define your beliefs as feminist. You may not identify as one, and that's fine, but your beliefs align with feminist beliefs. I think it's a great sign that people can believe these things but don't necessarily need to be involved with feminism - it shows how far women have come, I think.
I think equality means equality of OPPORTUNITY - or an open stratification system. Obviously, some people won't make as much money or have as much power as others, but they should have the opportunity to be educated and they shouldn't be discriminated against.
Where feminism goes one step further these days is really analyzing prevalent attitudes about femininity, masculinity, inferiority, and superiority. For example... my very good friend is from South Africa and he's really into rugby, and it's some sort of final thingy tomorrow. So he was telling me that he saw a funny cartoon picture of the national South African animal (don't remember what it is) fvcking the British lion. And it just made me think... why do we associate penetration with dominance? Why do we associate being penetrated with inferiority? How does this relate to our ideas about men and women? (And gay people, for that matter?)
I think it's important to recognize these little things. Can we ever be equal if we ignore the misogyny that is so prevalent, but so subtle, in our everyday lives? I'm surprised, but I agree with most all of what you said. I will say that the feminist movement, or the women's movement, whatever you may call it, is responsible for creating the legal basis of equality.
Equity is really what feminists ought to mean when they say equality--just a notion that your sex will not hold you back unnaturally from what you would like to do with your life, both in terms of career and family.
It doesn't and shouldn't guarantee that there will be equal numbers of various career people, or that everyone will adhere to a particular model of gender relations. Equality for me means no one gender is better than the other and even within one's own gender, no-one is superior to the other.
Equality also means treating both men and women as no better or worse than one another or myself.
Doesn't matter if the person has a high-paying job or not working at all, has children and is married or not, I don't see anyone as superior or inferior.
Gnu, I'm not sure exactly where I fall in regards to feminism.
Truth be told, there are ladies who are feminists who hold completely balanced views and who I completely respect, but it's the ones who look down on other women who do not live their own lives like they do or who don't completely agree 100% with their own views and who are mistaking bullying and alienation as empowerment that's given the cause a bad name. Equality is when feminist stop asking for better treatment and special benefits, they also need to stop screaming sexism and get their pants all wet over little things.
non-feminist ARE equalist, whether the feminist like it or not. It means not treating someone any differently because of gender, race, religion, or anything of the sort, no matter how benevolent the treatment may be.
It means accepting that not all members of a certain segment of the population act or think the same way.
It means allowing people to live as they please within the boundaries of the legal system.
It means ensuring that no one has more rights or less responsibilities than someone else on account of something they can't control.
It means accepting inevitable differences between groups without using them in a discriminatory manner.
It means freedom and justice for all.
Thank you. I wouldn't consider myself a feminist, nor an anti-feminist, so I guess that makes me a non-feminist. And my feelings about "equality" are pretty close to your own. To me, equality is about an individual's rights and status. I believe that all human beings should have equal opportunities, equal rights and equal status. The Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms addresses "equality" thusly :
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
To me, this is a sensible way of thinking about equality.
But wait, the Canadian Charter goes on to say:
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This, I think is what causes so much trouble in the gender equality wars. When it is seen that the defined disadvantaged group (women, for example) are given favoured treatment, it is not surprising that those in the defined advantaged group (men for example) cry foul. It is, I believe, a legitimate point for argument. It is a contentious and dicey area and to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it. It will be interesting to see what happens if, for example, when men are shown to be disadvantaged in specific circumstances. Should they then be given favoured status? Stay tuned.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that It is not possible to legislate equality in other ways and I believe it is nonsensical to hold the belief that all people are "equal" in ways other than their basic rights. All people are not equal in terms of their abilities, size, intelligence, etc. And like it or not, there are differences between men and women on many measurable dimensions. But these are differences on average. I would say that on most, if not all measurable dimensions, there is overlap between the sexes. I cannot think of a SHARED dimension in which all men are superior to all women or vice-versa. It's all about the in between. Your question is addressed to "feminists and non-feminists", why not just to "women"? ("Anti-feminists" are clearly "non-feminists" otherwise it would be a contradiction!). Or "feminists" and "unFeminists" even.
As for feminism I believe that the founders of feminism, the suffagettes, were sincere people. They were fighting for universal voting rights at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property. But the movement was later corrupted by hate-filled people in NOW and in the women's studies movement. (Read some of Erin Pizzey's books about the way the feminista operates. Erin was a caring and courageous woman who was victimized and had death threat directed against her and her family for standing up to the feminista fanatics.)
Yes, women have been considered second-class citizens in various parts of the world at various times. But then again so have men.
I'm an equalist, believing that men and women are born different but equal, are of equal worth, and are deserving of fair treatment under just laws. I believe that equalism is consigning feminism and masculism into the dustbins of history.
The feminism cult wears a human mask but peel it away and you find naked hate and hypocrisy. Equality to me is that everyone should have equal opportunities and this should not be dependant on whether a person is of a classification that is considered less desirable then those who currently hold the most privilege in our society. That would mean that age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and broader equality and human rights issues should not be a reason for discrimination or oppression..
There is currently a huge disparity in allocating resources. The vulnerable populations are being ignored. We as a society need to stop blaming the disadvantaged for their misfortune. I want to be defined as a person. Not a woman as it is defined now. Woman has been defined in relation to man. Yet man has been defined in relation to himself. A woman is only defined as weak because a man defines himself as strong. A woman is considered a woman because of her body parts that are peculiar in men. We are strictly defined by characteristics seen in us that men feel they don't or should not have. I want the social equality women don't have. I want my strength (or any other characteristics) to be in reference to myself, not other women, and certainly not men.
In response to one of your responses.
you said.....
I don't object, but I don't claim the label because there is SO much that goes by "feminism" that I vehemently oppose. But if just believe what I do makes me a feminist, that's fine.
That is the reason I don't claim any religious labels?
Edit: Sorry I did not mean to insert the question mark. It was only my opinion. Not intended to be a question. OOPS. Equality would be a man showing off his man boobs and getting a wh00p wh00p from the crowds... Whenever I show off my manboobs, I get manboos BOoo Boooo gerroff the stageeeeee! "Feminists and non-feminists: what does "equality" mean to you"?
Equality means having the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. By that I mean having the right to be judged based solely upon what you have done and not upon your sex/gender. However, this can not be accomplished completely so some inequality is going to remain.
"Are we talking about equality as descriptive, i.e. that men and women are, as a matter of fact equal? On average? In all areas? Overall? In some specific areas"?
I think all humans have equal worth. That is to say that no human being is more worthy of political, economic, or social power than any other. In this sense, equality is a descriptive not a prescriptive/normative word.
"Or are we talking about equality as prescriptive, i.e. that men and women should enjoy equal status? Is this equality of opportunity or equality of results? Is it overall equality (and how is that to be judged?) or equality in each and every measure"?
My answer to the first question is that equality, in the sense that I use it, is not only descriptive but also prescriptive. That is that it doesn't just describe a situation but it is also given as a solution to a problem: inequality. However, I only mean the equality of opportunity and not the equality of outcome. For example, I believe that everyone has the right to run for governor but everyone does not have the right to win the governor's race. In my opinion, equality in all measures is completely impossible (actually that's the reality of it as well). Not only that, complete equality would diminish our freedoms that we cherish so much. So it isn't just about equality alone, it is also a matter of freedom as well. Sorry I've had a few drinks so I hope this all makes sense. :) Equality for me means equal rights, equal opportunity (not equal outcome), and equal consideration, meaning that no one group is considered to be "worth more" than any other group. it means...that neither gender should be considered better than the other.
also Guns fan should lick my boots. not becuase i think i am better than him..but just so he will shut up coz he is giving me a headache with all his feminist hate spouting. As an anti-feminist, equality to me includes personal responsibility for one's actions and equal treatment of either sex without favoritism, which is why I am against feminism.
The fact that feminism is only concerned with women and women's advantage is, by definition, sexist. Being anti-sexist, I cannot agree with any group that is self-promoting for its members at a cost to members of another group. I believe that women shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens, and I believe in equal *opportunity.*
I don't believe in quotas--like forcing companies to have 50% men and 50% women. Whoever can do the job. If it's all men, so be it; if it's all women, that's fine.
I also say get rid of Title IX as this cheats too many boys out of playing sports. |
