davidw@oregon.uoregon.edu (07/27/90)
Good evening, all. I'm basically new here, and have only read a couple of the messages in this section; so far, nothing disaggreeable. However, I would like to ask a question, if I may... Just what type of "feminism" are we talking about, here? I know people who call themselves "feminists" who simply believe that women and men should have equal job opportunities and political rights, and on the other side of the coin, I know women who call themselves "feminists" and believe that men are totally useless scumbags, and consider themselves far superior to anyone of the male gender. Being male myself (gasp), I object to this type of feminism. Hope I don't ruffle any feathers, but I personally feel that the latter type of person is really stupid. I believe that women should have an equal place with men in the business world and politically (hey, if I was old enough to vote, I would've voted for Ferraro), but I think we have to be aware of some problems this can cause. In hiring a male, one does not have to worry that he will get pregnant and have to leave work. I don't think that this should have ANY bearing on who gets hired, but many women feel that their employer should pay for their time off while they're taking care of their child. HA! Were I an employer, I would NOT set myself up to be paying for a non-working employee. The employer who WOULD is masochistic and doesn't want his(yes, or her) money. I also think it is ludicrous to suggest that a female can do equally well in a job which requires strength. Granted, there are female body-builders who are much stronger than myself (by QUITE a bit), but if you use them as an example, you must then also look at the male body builder, who is three times their size. I have nothing against females (hey, if I did, I'd have real problems with my girlfriend) and would be happy working on an equal basis with them, but I think some basic biological (and some psychological, although some people would debate that) differences have to be noted. Just to get things clear in MY mind what's going on here (in this net), does anyone DISAGREE with me? (Boy, I could get myself shot here if somebody does.) I also rather object to such statements as "THE WOMAN WHO SEEKS TO BE EQUAL WITH MEN LACKS AMBITION." Now, I realize that this COULD be trying to say that women should work to the best of their ability instead of trying to work against men. However, most of the people I know who would say something like this are ACTUALLY saying that they think they are far SUPERIOR to men, and should be treated as such. Pushaw. I'm sure you've all heard this before, but I want to get a bearing on what YOU all think, so I'm going to say my peace and see if anybody disagrees. (uh, how do I use the editor on this thing? ^ I think this should be "piece," but I've only heard it said, I've never seen it written) Men and women are DIFFERENT. EQUALITY implies that there are no differences, which is absurd. The conventional use of the word equality -- lack of discrimination, or some such thing -- is quite a bit more sensible. Well, I'm rambling on quite a bit, aren't I? Hope I haven't upset anybody. Do respond, though, whether your response is positive or violently negative. Thanx! -- David
flaps@dgp.toronto.EDU (Alan J Rosenthal) (07/31/90)
davidw@oregon.uoregon.edu writes: >I believe that women should have an equal place with men in the >business world and politically, but ... Ah, there's always a "but". I think it's only fair to say that this contradicts the first half of the sentence. >In hiring a male, one does not have to worry that he will get pregnant and >have to leave work. In hiring a woman, one also does not HAVE to worry about this. (Of course, some people will worry about everything.) She may leave for any number of reasons. Getting pregnant is just one. A man may leave a job because his lover or wife gets pregnant! People don't worry about this because this is rarely the real reason people are concerned. This pregnancy thing is just an excuse not to hire women. >I don't think that this should have ANY bearing on who gets hired, but here we go again with the "but"s... >many women feel that their employer should pay for their time off while >they're taking care of their child. FORTUNATELY, in my country there is social assistance for people who are temporarily out of work, for many possible reasons, including pregnancy. And, I also think that MY employer should pay for some of MY time off while I'm taking care of my child! What do you think about that! >I also think it is ludicrous to suggest that a female can do equally well in a >job which requires strength. Granted, there are female body-builders who are >much stronger than myself (by QUITE a bit), but ... Look, so then those "body-builders" could do better than you in a job which requires strength. These are individual people we're talking about. If a job requires strength, test strength, not genitalia. >Men and women are DIFFERENT. EQUALITY implies that there are no differences, >which is absurd. Equality implies that there are no differences relevant to the topic at hand. No two people are alike, but the word equality is not unusable. Sometimes women and men are treated equally in non-sexual situations. We should work for more of this. >(uh, how do I use the editor on this thing? indeed.