Just another thread, because I'm really curious about this subject. Feminists claim to want equality but it seems feminists and I have differing opinions on what equality is.
I support equality of opportunity while feminists seem to support equality of outcome. Even though many women have made career decisions based on their desired lifestyle, leading to an underrepresentation of women in politics and other time consuming careers, feminists are moaning about how there are more men than women in these areas. But I don't get it. What's the problem with their gender? Why is it wrong for men to be politicians if more men happen to be the best for the job? And there's no proof that the few amount of women in politics and business boardrooms is down to sexism or gender roles.
Despite there being many logical explanations for why men earn more than women overall, such as women taking time off work to have a family, feminists complain about the pay gap, reject all other explanations and insist it is sexism. Yet funnily enough, young women earn more than young men (
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237196/Women-win-gender-pay-war-20s-earning-men-age.html).
Why don't we see feminists complaining about this inequality? Do they only complain about inequality when men are doing better? But when women are doing better, they keep quiet and brush it under the carpet?
Is inequality bad even when it's not down to sexism? Are feminists happy for men to dominate in certain careers even if the men got their jobs fairly and due to being better? Or are feminists bitter about men dominating in several fields because of their sex and are only interested in equality of outcome or even female supremacy?
So feminists and non-feminists, do you want equality of opportunity or do you want equality of outcome or even female supremacy? And why?