Why is gender equality still not a reality in 2016?

so you are an intersectional feminist arguing that "postive" discrimination is good and is not just regular old discrimination?

I think that feminist are eager to find links and connections, as ockham's razor shows us that when we remove any ideological goggles allot of what feminist claim is discrimination can be explain by allot more reasonably as something else.

In response to the second argument which seems to be arguing patriarchy theory(interwoven system of oppression, is how I understand it), you must again prove that the most reasonable answer is some sort of oppressive system.

In addition say a group is disadvantaged in one category and advantaged in another(as you seem to be saying), they are not oppressed(by the correct definition of the word).

Getting called "dear" or "love" obviously doesn't have to be sexist but it can be meant in a sexist way depending on the person's intentions and the situation. I don't think that all men are accused of peadophilia if they go anywhere near children but I get your point and I didn't agree with Andrea Leadsom's comments on that. Personally, I definitely think that the sentence should depend on the crime and not the person's gender so I don't agree with women getting lighter prison sentences just because they're female. I don't think men should be expected to do more dangerous jobs either. Women are made to conform to strict body images by the media at least as much as men are if not more so and I don't think that men should be under more pressure than women to have a high income. That's part of my point. When are men supposed to physically fight for their female partners? I personally wouldn't want or expect my partner to either pay for me or be the breadwinner/main earner. I would pay for my own stuff and would prefer to earn a similar amount to my partner. No, you're right, there isn't and I don't agree with that! I don't think men should be pressured into earning really high salaries. I wouldn't care if a man was poor or earned less than me so I'm not being hypocritical.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's discrimination that more men are in prison when it's affected by women getting lighter sentences just because of their gender etc. It's not discrimination when it's affected by men just committing more crimes. The earnings gap isn't only due to personal life choices. It's not about blaming men for nothing or about blaming men for women's own personal issues. Yes, there are some radical feminists but you can't blame all women who want gender equality for them. We shouldn't have either of those.

1) okay- if you're saying that men are put in prison more because they commit more crimes then I don't see why the "wage gap" is about discrimination whatsoever - it is merely "women wanting the easier jobs, generally" - right? so it's not an issue in 2016. it's the same concept applied to a different institution. the representation of males in prison is about their choices (although obviously there are fewer women in prison than there otherwise would be due to women being perceived culturally as less deserving of prison and I'd be interested if you disputed this) and the representation of women in, say, sexwork or fashion, is about their choices just as well.

Getting called "dear" or "love" obviously doesn't have to be sexist but it can be meant in a sexist way depending on the person's intentions and the situation.

Women are made to conform to strict body images by the media at least as much as men are if not more so

and I don't think that men should be under more pressure than women to have a high income. That's part of my point. When are men supposed to physically fight for their female partners? I personally wouldn't want or expect my partner to either pay for me or be the breadwinner/main earner. I would pay for my own stuff and would prefer to earn a similar amount to my partner. No, you're right, there isn't and I don't agree with that! I don't think men should be pressured into earning really high salaries. I wouldn't care if a man was poor or earned less than me so I'm not being hypocritical.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's discrimination that more men are in prison when it's affected by women getting lighter sentences just because of their gender etc. It's not discrimination when it's affected by men just committing more crimes.

The earnings gap isn't only due to personal life choices.

You said "we" as in the people on this thread who are arguing against me. Those are some of the most stupid comments I've had on this thread and hopefully you agree that they are far from sensible. Some of them clearly are against women's rights; anyone can see that. I don't have a biased man hating attitude! Where have I said anything that suggests I hate men? I don't go around calling people sexist either. My entire point is that there is still discrimination and inequality in Western countries. Can you please read all of my posts on this thread before commenting because I'm bored with having to repeat myself many times because so many people don't read the rest of the thread. My comments have a clear direction which should be obvious to anyone. If anyone doesn't know what they are talking about on this thread it's not me. I am not saying that inequality in Eastern countries isn't much worse that in Western counties. It obviously is and I care about that very much but caring about inequality in the West doesn't mean you don't care about inequality in the East. Just because the problems in the East are worse doesn't mean that there aren't problems here. It also doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems here. We should keep trying to prevent both. So am I! I am also an egalitarian so we should agree on this. Feminism does want equal rights or it certainly should and that is definitely what I want. The point isn't to get special rights for women; the point is to get women the same rights and opportunities as men.

If you're referring to the part where I spoke about equal treatment resulting in differing results for men and women, then no. I am saying that simply because men and women are treated the same way in a given respect, that does not mean that whatever outcome you might get is just and unobjectionable, and that the issue can be put to bed.

This doesn't mean that I think women should be given a leg-up. I think that is an artificial, facile way to approach these issues and doesn't necessarily solve anything.

The example which comes to mind (although it's probably not the best example, I'm just trying to illustrate my point) relates to methods of education and measuring performance in education. It has been claimed that boys, at a population-wide level, do better than girls when they are given a small number of exams in which to prove themselves, while girls (generally) do better when the course is broken down into modules which are assessed in smaller chunks, including by coursework. If that is right, then making every student sit a single exam for each subject at the end of their A-levels would affect boys and girls differently (at the population-wide level), even though they would be receiving the same treatment. The fact that disproportionate numbers of girls might fail under those conditions wouldn't necessarily be justified by pointing to the fact that everyone was treated equally. *



I don't think I said anything about oppression. What I am saying is that problems experienced by both men and women alike can have common causes and should not just be examined in isolation, because they can be better understood and therefore more fruitfully tackled as smaller parts of a bigger problem. To illustrate my point again, an example might be the social role of women as primary caregivers to children (to the extent that this still applies). That has harmed both men and women in different ways, and I think it is less productive to focus on the isolated effects, e.g. (a) employers passing over women due to an assumption that they'll quit work or (b) courts ruling against fathers in custody battles, than it is to focus on the common problem.*

You can look and hope to find overarching links and systems all you want, but if the more reasonable explanation for a given issue does not allude to an overarching problem, looking for such problem is not useful. In fact what you are doing is just denying reality, because you want to create some sort of convoluted story/explanation. However lets say I do look for links in these issues, the explanation for these issues is much more likely to lye in biology rather than sociology. A great example of this is that higher rates of eating disorders for women were recorded by Hippocrates in ancient times, which then defeats the common assumption that this phenomena caused by the media today.