Women rights? Current situation.

[IDLEchild]

What is your opinion on current women rights around the world? Even in the U.S or your respective country?

In an argument which cost me a good aquataince, I stood to defend my view on how the current women's right climate isn't as bright as one would hope or think it is.

The gist of it went like this.

The opposition stated that is she is glad to be living in 2004 due to the changed view on women rights, that 100 years ago she would have not even wanted to be alive.

I stated: I agree but it hasn't changed as much as you think it has.

Opposition: Well it is a lot better than 20 years ago....change takes time and it is only a matter of time before full gender equality will be reached.

I: Full gender equality is a pipe dream and will never happen.

Opposition: Things are so far from 100 years ago, it can happen.

I: I agree that it should happen but how much has really changed? How much of todays society is reformed, open minded place rather then those who keep their true feelings inside to not come off as an asshole? To not come off as non PC.

Opposition: I have studied this issue far and wide, I don't think you can really discuss this with me in all seriousness

I: I hang out with guys....their baffling behavior and their views on women are absurd, same as it was 100 years ago except now it is very ignorant to exercise these views.


My main point was that not much has changed in social attitudes towards women or any issue for that matter. Most men still get irked when their wives make more money then they do, question their ability, make them watch the kids, make them cook or outright defy their judgement. While many educated men do not mind doing these trivial things too many men around the world have this complex.

In U.S alone it is surprising how many men still think a woman still belongs in the kitchen and must raise kids. Outside of U.S is whole another story, women aren't even allowed to think for themselves. Countries like Rawanda, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Peru etc etc has high spousal abuse rates and the government is lax to do anything about it. Most are made to believe they brought it upon themselves....now much improvement is that from 100 years ago?

Forget about the obvious: women get paid less for same job, still don't hold as high positions and are discriminated against simply for their features. Abuses against women are wide and tolerated by governments. So I question how much has really changed.

I fully acknowledge the fact that the cause of women has been greatly furthered in the last 100 years but I can't help but feel that, that has only happened in large cities where education is stressed more. The rest of the world seems to have fallen back and not moved. Even if all this information is somehow false I can vouch for this lack of movement from personal experiences. Coming from a nation where a woman is outright thought of as a lesser human being I can safely arrive on my opinion that not much has changed.....people have just learned to hide their true feelings in order to get along.


Opposition's final rebuttal: You haven't studied feminism and women rights history so this can not be discussed with me. You offend me by saying these things

I: So personal experiences do not count? If truth offends then that isn't my fault

Oppositon leaves.

HUH? I am all for women's rights, I am on board with her vision of full equality but why be offended by the truth? These are not my opinions, but what actually happens...i derive my opinions from this. I understand I am already in deep shit for discussing women rights with a woman while not being one and in deeper shit for sharing this where I most likely will be blasted but I stand by this untill someone can provide a good enough argument against this.

 

[Inkara1]

I just want to make sure everyone knows the difference between a feminist and a feminazi.

 

[BeardofPants]

feminazi = definition given to strong women by men scared that they're being perceived as 'without balls'.

 

[Inkara1]

Responses like yours are the exact reason I made the post I did.

 

[unclehobart]

The term feminazi denotes a woman who makes radical feminism her lifestyle; it is not a term to be applied to feminists in general, but is rather a title to be earned through extremely excessive activism. In loose terms, it is seen as an ad hominem attack.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The main reason women's rights haven't been as successful as they ought is because of 2 things.

1. BoP's statement
2. Certain members of the women's rights movement that are clearly anti-male. You don't have to hate men to be a woman any more than you have to hate women to be a man.

 

[BeardofPants]

I'm sorry but the term 'feminazi' offends me. Granted, there have been extremist feminists, but are they really worthy of the 'nazi' suffix? No!

 

[unclehobart]

The opposition stated that is she is glad to be living in 2004 due to the changed view on women rights, that 100 years ago she would have not even wanted to be alive.
She says that because of her modern knowledge and upbringing. If she was born to the period, then her mental/sociological views would have been nutured more period specific ... a good 95% chance.

I stated: I agree but it hasn't changed as much as you think it has.Dress codes? Abortion? Self determination in education and the selection of a mate? The right to vote?... and in some cases the right to work itself? In many places women were legally the property of their husband or father and all of their assets were the same. They couls own little more than their own jewels and necklaces. That is no longer the case in western socitey. I would agree that large chunks of Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia haven't changed in a defacto sense. In other parts of the world the lack of change is mere traditional rather than legal. I would have to say that the lot of women has improved in a most drastic fashion.

Opposition: Well it is a lot better than 20 years ago....change takes time and it is only a matter of time before full gender equality will be reached.
It will get a little better... but only a little better. Large chunks of the globe can make great strides... but the developed world probably will not. In countries where women have the right to vote, they are almost always the majority of the population, and thus can modify their destinies at will if they would only legislate it. Why they choose not to?... apathy, ignorance... or possibly the majority are content with the way things are. I would not hazard a guess.

I: Full gender equality is a pipe dream and will never happen.
I agree in the physical and social sense, but not in the legal one. Gender equality can be legislated, but it will still come down to the sheer fundamental that women and men are very different and they have different capacities and predispositions of the world around them. For my own stake in it, if a woman wants to be a fighting soldier, so be it. If she can lug 50 kilo sacks of concrete all day, so be it. I would let her do what she is qualified for.

Opposition: Things are so far from 100 years ago, it can happen.
Its time to let the developed nations simmer for a while and start to work on the nations that are pulling up the rear. They would be the largest anchor to the whole magilla.

I: I agree that it should happen but how much has really changed? How much of todays society is reformed, open minded place rather then those who keep their true feelings inside to not come off as an asshole? To not come off as non PC.
If expressing your true feelings means coming off as an asshole... so be it. The whole concept of a code of 'PC' is silly to me. PC isnt about changing a fundamental attitude as it is another instrument of mental/social supression. That would be another wrong.

Opposition: I have studied this issue far and wide, I don't think you can really discuss this with me in all seriousness
She has stated that she does not respect your opinion nor willing to discuss the matter because you have different views. The discourse is over. She asks that the world become more open minded and then shows that she herself is not open minded.

I: I hang out with guys....their baffling behavior and their views on women are absurd, same as it was 100 years ago except now it is very ignorant to exercise these views.
Not knowing the content of this baffling and absurdity, I cannot comment.


In U.S alone it is surprising how many men still think a woman still belongs in the kitchen and must raise kids. Outside of U.S is whole another story, women aren't even allowed to think for themselves. Countries like Rawanda, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Peru etc etc has high spousal abuse rates and the government is lax to do anything about it. Most are made to believe they brought it upon themselves....now much improvement is that from 100 years ago?
A great deal of an improvement considering the way it was.

Forget about the obvious: women get paid less for same job, still don't hold as high positions and are discriminated against simply for their features. Abuses against women are wide and tolerated by governments. So I question how much has really changed.
I have yet to see where anyone can show me, at least in my own nation, where a woman gets paid less for an equal job. I think that it is possible and probable for second and third world nations... but I've not seen it here.
Spousal abuse rates have remained pretty much static throughout the years. You can't legislate away bad behavior, but you can punish it better. Such punishments have come a long way in, again, the western world. Little has changed for much of the aforementioned countries. It will surely get worse before it gets better as each countries individual upheavals for equality throughout history have never been bloodless.

The rest of the world seems to have fallen back and not moved.
Its a natural reaction. Grand social change happens in leaps and slides. For every three steps you take forward, you slide back two.

Opposition's final rebuttal: You haven't studied feminism and women rights history so this can not be discussed with me. You offend me by saying these things
If she wishes to discuss social issues that affect everyone in the world, then everyones opinion is valid. To discard people for whatever reason is sheer elitism. She is part of the problem in this instance. You dont win hearts and minds by talking down to the crowd.

HUH? I am all for women's rights, I am on board with her vision of full equality but why be offended by the truth? These are not my opinions, but what actually happens...i derive my opinions from this. I understand I am already in deep shit for discussing women rights with a woman while not being one and in deeper shit for sharing this where I most likely will be blasted but I stand by this untill someone can provide a good enough argument against this.
Find new friends. This one has a stick up her ass.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I'm sorry but the term 'feminazi' offends me. Granted, there have been extremist feminists, but are they really worthy of the 'nazi' suffix? No!

I disagree. Some extremeist views are almost 100% equal to what the nazi's did to the European Jewish population, ie, it was a crime just to be Jewish, just as some women feel that it should be a crime to be a man. For every 1000 women who feel that equality is just that, you'll find a smattering who believe that men are inferior. The reverse is also true. Some men believe that women are inferior. That makes them gender nazi's as well. By being silent on the extremist issues, and they are 'issues', you give them tacit approval to forward their agenda over the whole body of women. Did you know that some women believe that all sex is rape, and should be treated accordingly? I've heard this from 'Women's Rights' groups that actively campaign on College and University campuses all over the US.

 

[Aunty Em]

What is your opinion on current women rights around the world? Even in the U.S or your respective country?

In an argument which cost me a good aquataince, I stood to defend my view on how the current women's right climate isn't as bright as one would hope or think it is.

The gist of it went like this.

The opposition stated that is she is glad to be living in 2004 due to the changed view on women rights, that 100 years ago she would have not even wanted to be alive.

I stated: I agree but it hasn't changed as much as you think it has.

Opposition: Well it is a lot better than 20 years ago....change takes time and it is only a matter of time before full gender equality will be reached.

I: Full gender equality is a pipe dream and will never happen.

Opposition: Things are so far from 100 years ago, it can happen.

I: I agree that it should happen but how much has really changed? How much of todays society is reformed, open minded place rather then those who keep their true feelings inside to not come off as an asshole? To not come off as non PC.

Opposition: I have studied this issue far and wide, I don't think you can really discuss this with me in all seriousness

I: I hang out with guys....their baffling behavior and their views on women are absurd, same as it was 100 years ago except now it is very ignorant to exercise these views.


My main point was that not much has changed in social attitudes towards women or any issue for that matter. Most men still get irked when their wives make more money then they do, question their ability, make them watch the kids, make them cook or outright defy their judgement. While many educated men do not mind doing these trivial things too many men around the world have this complex.

In U.S alone it is surprising how many men still think a woman still belongs in the kitchen and must raise kids. Outside of U.S is whole another story, women aren't even allowed to think for themselves. Countries like Rawanda, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Peru etc etc has high spousal abuse rates and the government is lax to do anything about it. Most are made to believe they brought it upon themselves....now much improvement is that from 100 years ago?

Forget about the obvious: women get paid less for same job, still don't hold as high positions and are discriminated against simply for their features. Abuses against women are wide and tolerated by governments. So I question how much has really changed.

I fully acknowledge the fact that the cause of women has been greatly furthered in the last 100 years but I can't help but feel that, that has only happened in large cities where education is stressed more. The rest of the world seems to have fallen back and not moved. Even if all this information is somehow false I can vouch for this lack of movement from personal experiences. Coming from a nation where a woman is outright thought of as a lesser human being I can safely arrive on my opinion that not much has changed.....people have just learned to hide their true feelings in order to get along.


Opposition's final rebuttal: You haven't studied feminism and women rights history so this can not be discussed with me. You offend me by saying these things

I: So personal experiences do not count? If truth offends then that isn't my fault

Oppositon leaves.

HUH? I am all for women's rights, I am on board with her vision of full equality but why be offended by the truth? These are not my opinions, but what actually happens...i derive my opinions from this. I understand I am already in deep shit for discussing women rights with a woman while not being one and in deeper shit for sharing this where I most likely will be blasted but I stand by this untill someone can provide a good enough argument against this.

I totally agree with you and don't find ur comments offensive at all, but what ur talking about isn't legislation it's attitude and that takes longer to change... I believe that one day that attitude will have changed, but don't look this side of the next coupla hundred years or so... after all it took thousands of years to develop it...

 

[MrBishop]

I have yet to see where anyone can show me, at least in my own nation, where a woman gets paid less for an equal job. I think that it is possible and probable for second and third world nations... but I've not seen it here.

I tend to agree with most of what you've said with this exception. I've seen it implemented but was never in any position to do more than call up the Régie and complain. The problem is that salary is not only based on what you do, but also how well you do it and how much prior experience that you have in doing it. Many job postings around here have Salary: DOE (Dependant on experience) along with a scale. (ie 27-35k DOE). It is fairly easy for the recruiters/HR/whomever is deciding on the salary to bias the salary in favour of the men who apply and use this loophole as an out.

Legally...it's a nest of hornets. If you can't prove that the woman's salary is based solely on her prior experience (lets say that you have one man doing the same job, earning 4k/yr more but has less prior experience or total experience)...then you're in deep doo-doo.

The problem is that salary is a secret...you're not supposed to discuss salary with your fellow emps...nor is that info meant to be released to anyone but the boss or the employee in question. So...it's kinda hard to find out if there is inequality based on gender.

 

[MrBishop]

In addition...I am also seeing hiring practices that seem more out of the stone-ages than the 21st century.

Young women (especially between the ages of 18-25) are being looked over because of their odds of getting pregnant...and the maternity-leave associated with that. In Quebec...maternity leave is 1year. If you hire a new asst.manager, and she gets pregnant after 9 months with the company...you have to pay for her to take 1 year off AND hire someone to replace her AND guarantee her job when she gets back.
You can't, with a serious face, tell me that this idea doesn't come into the mind of the person doing the hiring. It's not fair...in any way, shape or form, but it is a reality.
As is the small number of women in the higher ranks of any company, or in politics, or in certain jobs which are considered 'manly' (ie Firefighter, police, armed forces, construction).

Despite our vaunted equality...there are still men's jobs and women's jobs.

Don't get me started about the segregation of men and women in professional sports or the Olympics.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I tend to agree with most of what you've said with this exception. I've seen it implemented but was never in any position to do more than call up the Régie and complain. The problem is that salary is not only based on what you do, but also how well you do it and how much prior experience that you have in doing it. Many job postings around here have Salary: DOE (Dependant on experience) along with a scale. (ie 27-35k DOE). It is fairly easy for the recruiters/HR/whomever is deciding on the salary to bias the salary in favour of the men who apply and use this loophole as an out.

Legally...it's a nest of hornets. If you can't prove that the woman's salary is based solely on her prior experience (lets say that you have one man doing the same job, earning 4k/yr more but has less prior experience or total experience)...then you're in deep doo-doo.

The problem is that salary is a secret...you're not supposed to discuss salary with your fellow emps...nor is that info meant to be released to anyone but the boss or the employee in question. So...it's kinda hard to find out if there is inequality based on gender.

Although you have a point, the thing you missed is this...Women, on average don't work as long on any one job as men. They tend to do things like 'take time off for family', get pregnant, and have other needs that men usually do not. Thus the difference in pay scales. If I'm working a job steadily, with no large breaks in attendance, for 20 years, why should anybody who takes large gaps of time off get paid the same as me? In cases where women work equally with men in terms of time on the job, the pay is equal. Fact, not fiction.

 

[unclehobart]

Oh I absolutely agree that there is a hiring bias because of the entire double+ cost of the pregnancy gamble on an employer. The greater the benefits, the greater the bias.

Insofar as the salary disputes, I can only speak from what I personally have seen throughout my life. My friends have been everything from paramedics, to stocking clerks, to sales, to managers... and the pay scales have been a matched flat hourly rate and equal benefits scale. Sales jobs have always been upon a comission rate. That is equal pay even taking into account such things as senority. The more responisibilty, the more the pay.

 

[Gonz]

I'm sorry but the term 'feminazi' offends me. Granted, there have been extremist feminists, but are they really worthy of the 'nazi' suffix? No!

Yes.

The actions of those so termed should also offend you.

 

[Winky]

I just want to make sure everyone knows the difference between a feminist and a feminazi.

 

[Professur]

This makes me laugh my ass off. Wimmen whining about equal benefits, and equal pay.

Parental perks tops in Quebec

By NELSON WYATT





MONTREAL (CP) - Quebec moms and dads with new babies will be able to take more time off with higher benefits than in the rest of Canada under a new program to be controlled exclusively by the province.

Self-employed workers will also be eligible for the maternity-parental leave program, which was turned over to Quebec on Tuesday by the federal government after months of intensive negotiations. Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario have been watching the negotiations between the federal and Quebec governments, but federal Human Resources Minister Lucienne Robillard said no other province has so far indicated it wants control over its parental leaves.

"Not at this time but it's open to them if they want to," she said at a news conference..

The new deal, which Quebec had sought since the late 1980s, was officially requested by the former Parti Quebecois government of Lucien Bouchard in 1997.

Quebec has one of the lowest birthrates in Canada although provincial Family Minister Michele Courchesne said statistics released last week indicated the number of babies born in the province has increased slightly. But she's optimistic the new program will help the province's birthrate.

"We feel that this sort of program will encourage definitely families to give birth and maybe to have more children," she said.

Under the current federal leave plan which applies across the country, parents can get 55 per cent of their income up to $39,000 for 50 weeks.

Quebec parents will have two options for the amount of time they take off for their infants when the program begins in January 2006, said Courchesne.

Quebec mothers will receive higher benefits and can take up to 50 weeks off under the agreement but exact figures still have to be worked out. The province's fathers can take off up to five weeks of paid paternity leave.

The two-week waiting period for benefits will no longer apply under the agreement with Quebec.

Self-employed workers will also be eligible for benefits for the first time under the Quebec program. They do not qualify in the rest of Canada.

The federal government will turn over $750 million annually to Quebec to run the program.

The money will come in the form of reduced Employment Insurance premiums for Quebec to allow the provincial government to collect premiums for its own leave program.

The Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on a request by Quebec and Ottawa to decide whether parental leave is a federal or provincial responsibility.

The province's family groups hailed the deal.

"Everybody is thrilled," said Jennifer Beeman, a spokeswoman for a women's group focusing on labour-market issues.

"On the whole, it's going to be vast improvement on what exists under the Employment Insurance regime," she said, calling the new program "the best in Canada."

"Just as in the day-care system, Quebec is really leading the way and I'm sure the other provinces will watch closely to see how it works out."

Federal Transport Jean Lapierre, who is Prime Minister Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant, insisted Canadians should not view the accord as special treatment for Quebec.

He pointed out, for example, that British Columbia wants special consideration for efforts to promote trade with Asia.

"There's no special deal for Quebec," Lapierre added, pointing out Quebec will make up the difference in funds, although Quebec's contribution has not yet been determined.

Lapierre pointed out the deal is an example of how federalism can work.

"It shows that we can be flexible and there's no need to have a wall-to-wall solution," he said.

Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier echoed Lapierre.

"We are going to build a country that is based on more flexibility and is adaptable to the needs of its multiple and different constituents," he said

What the fuck is equal about that?

Someone convince me that there's any benefit to my company to hire any woman under the age of 50.

 

[Winky]

I would say it is the opposite of a 'benefit'

(detriment)

 

[Camelyn]

This makes me laugh my ass off. Wimmen whining about equal benefits, and equal pay.

What the fuck is equal about that?

Someone convince me that there's any benefit to my company to hire any woman under the age of 50.

Actually, as far as I know, the leave is called parental leave, and can be taken for up to 52 weeks. This can be taken entirely by either the mother or the father, or split between the two either concurrently or consecutively. Which means that a mother and father are entitled, if they choose, to take 26 weeks each of concurrent or consecutive parental leave.

Most parents choose the option of having the mother take all 52 weeks, with the father being eligable for some time off as well. This makes sense, because of breastfeeding and such.

"The father and mother of a newborn child and a person who adopts a minor child are entitled to unpaid parental leave of not more than 52 consecutive weeks. An employee who adopts the child of his or her spouse is not entitled to this leave."

source

I know acouple at my work who did that. They both stay home for 26 weeks.

And btw, your company doesn't pay for this leave. We all do, in the form of employment insurance. And it pays you to hire any woman under fifty because she is just as willing to work hard for your company as any man under 50.

 

[Professur]

Cam, that above is the new deal, signed yesterday.