Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is gender equality still not a reality in 2016? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Feminists believe in equal rights for men and women. They believe women should be treated the same as men. The definition of feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of the equality of the sexes. Normal feminists do not believe that men should be inferior to women and I certainly do not. Yes, there are a small group of extreme radical feminists that maybe do but you cannot blame all feminists for them.
    But the inherent issue is that the focus in the definition of feminism inherently implies females must improve their rights to gain equality to the presently superior males... your definition focuses on advocating women's rights alone, to equal men's existing rights.

    "Women should be treated the same as men" - your own words, which implies that women are inferior than superior males (which is true and is important!) but nowhere does it accommodate the very valid point that in some areas men are worse off.

    Nowhere does it account for the disparities and unequal treatment men encounter, nor is it suggesting anyone's rights should progress beyond existing levels?

    The difference with egalitarianism is that the definition is inherently pure equality. Not equity, not focusing on female advancement, but pure equality.

    Radical feminists have tainted rhe movement. It is true that these do not represent all feminists, but frankly if your views truly supported the total equality of men and women, not simply the advance of just women's rights to equalise with men, egalitarianism is the more appropriate movement.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    It's just the way it is. As others have said go to a non western nation and you'll see true inequality. Maybe in 200 years well reach there but as of now and the foreseeable future the following won't change in the big socio-political crafts that influence the most people in the world.

    Sports: Huge difference in men and women sports. Sports is dominated by highly paid men and watched globally. The biggest sporting icons are men; Ronaldo, Federer, Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, etc. The are depicted in society as modern gods and revered by millions of children and this wont change because males are better at sport.

    Movies: Another massive industry, dominated by males. As men get older they still gain more prominent leading actor roles than women. Younger good looking women are given priority over older, this isnt true for men. Again the biggest movie stars are mostly men in current Hollywood (white and male to be specific over the whole Oscars so white saga); Robert D Junior, Mark Wallburg, Christian Bale, Matt Damon, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Benedict Cumberbatch, etc. This could change but I think the demand for male actors is more inclined to their acting ability rather than looks when compared to women so I dont see this changing.

    Politics: A bit more even but again the most powerful leaders in the world are men; Putin, Obama, Cameron, Hollande, etc. Obviously Merkel is a exception and a new British PM but you get the point. This aspect of gender inequality can definitely change.

    Business: As said in this thread, still dominated by men mostly because women can't focus solely on career if they want to start a family. Dont see this changing.*

    Music: Probably the most even of all, so gender equality in this area is fine for now.
    It shouldn't be though; as a society we need to keep working on changing it. Yes, I completely agree that there is much more inequality in non western counties. I started this thread specifically to talk about the inequalities still present in the UK because I was personally surprised by how unequal it still is when you actually look into it because I originally thought that we were equal in the UK. I'm not saying that women in the UK/western countries aren't much better off than women in eastern counties, I'm just saying that it's still not fully equal even in the west.

    For sport, I agree really with everything you've said. I think to change that more needs to be done to promote women's sport so that it is watched in the same way that men's is. While it is true that because men are stronger etc. you couldn't have men competing against women in sport in most cases, more could be done to promote women's sport so that it gets to be watched around the world on the same level as men's sport is. There's no reason why it's any less interesting to watch or any less challenging to compete in.

    For acting, again that shouldn't be the case. There are just as many talented female actors as male actors. It shouldn't be based on acting ability as a priority for men and looks as a priority for women. And it shouldn't be much more difficult for older women to get acting roles than it is for older men.

    For politics, hopefully that will change relatively soon. We now have female leaders of the UK and Germany and the possibility of a female American President so it is improving. Unfortunately, it is still more difficult for women to be successful in politics though.

    For what you've said for business, which also applies to other careers, women shouldn't be judged for having children and going straight back to work soon afterwards. Currently, people often judge women very harshly for doing that. There should also be more paid paternity leave so that the responsibility for children can be shared more evenly between a couple. Men and women should also be able to do an equal amount of childcare and housework unless one person wants to do more/all of it. Right now, women usually have to much more than men simply because society expects it. It would be less difficult for women to build careers if they weren't also expected to do the majority of the housework and childcare. Men can have children and top level careers so why shouldn't women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redwhiteandbrit)
    But the inherent issue is that the focus in the definition of feminism inherently implies females must improve their rights to gain equality to the presently superior males... your definition focuses on advocating women's rights alone, to equal men's existing rights.

    "Women should be treated the same as men" - your own words, which implies that women are inferior than superior males (which is true and is important!) but nowhere does it accommodate the very valid point that in some areas men are worse off.

    Nowhere does it account for the disparities and unequal treatment men encounter, nor is it suggesting anyone's rights should progress beyond existing levels?

    The difference with egalitarianism is that the definition is inherently pure equality. Not equity, not focusing on female advancement, but pure equality.

    Radical feminists have tainted rhe movement. It is true that these do not represent all feminists, but frankly if your views truly supported the total equality of men and women, not simply the advance of just women's rights to equalise with men, egalitarianism is the more appropriate movement.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do understand what you are saying. Like I said, I came to the conclusion that I support feminism going by the actual definition but I don't agree with radical feminists and I definitely care about equal rights for everyone regardless of gender, race, religion etc. so maybe I should describe myself as an egalitarian rather than a feminist. From my interpretation of the actual definitions I would say that I am both but I see what you mean about feminism not taking account of instances where men are disadvantaged which I do also care about so yes I'm probably actually an egalitarian.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    bc brexit
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    I do understand what you are saying. Like I said, I came to the conclusion that I support feminism going by the actual definition but I don't agree with radical feminists and I definitely care about equal rights for everyone regardless of gender, race, religion etc. so maybe I should describe myself as an egalitarian rather than a feminist. From my interpretation of the actual definitions I would say that I am both but I see what you mean about feminism not taking account of instances where men are disadvantaged which I do also care about so yes I'm probably actually an egalitarian.
    Yes, yes you should. The F word is what puts a lot of guys off. It's not the idea of gender equality that puts guys off, it's the idea that equality movements should only be based on improving things for women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MisterPC)
    Women can. Obviously, a lot don't want to though. Being able to spend more time with children is one of the greatest privileges women have and it's a shame men are not given this too.
    Sorry, I know they can, I know it is possible, but it is more difficult for women to do both. I personally do really want both in the future if I can. I would definitely support men being able to do that if they want to. I wouldn't mind at all if my partner wanted to do more childcare and I worked longer hours. I just think we should have better equality so that people can choose rather than women being expected to do most of the childcare and housework and men being expected to earn the most/work for longer hours. If a man wants to do most of the childcare and housework then they shouldn't be judged for that. Similarly, if a woman wants to do less housework and childcare and work longer hours then she shouldn't be judged for that. I also don't think it should bother men so much if their partner earns more than them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheeseIsVeg)
    bc brexit
    What? We haven't even triggered article 50 in order to start the process of leaving the EU yet so it can't possibly be because of brexit yet. It is true that women's rights and worker's rights could be taken away in the future though because of brexit but hopefully that won't happen.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    What? We haven't even triggered article 50 in order to start the process of leaving the EU yet so it can't possibly be because of brexit yet. It is true that women's rights and worker's rights could be taken away in the future though because of brexit but hopefully that won't happen.
    :rofl:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    joke in tribute to mock the week
    its nothing to do with brexit ofc - its bc nothing is accepted in society yet or something depressing like that
    I just like to make this joke, ill just leave, fine fml
    :getmecoat:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    What? We haven't even triggered article 50 in order to start the process of leaving the EU yet so it can't possibly be because of brexit yet. It is true that women's rights and worker's rights could be taken away in the future though because of brexit but hopefully that won't happen.
    I believe their post was nowt but cheeky banter
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange crush)
    Yes, yes you should. The F word is what puts a lot of guys off. It's not the idea of gender equality that puts guys off, it's the idea that equality movements should only be based on improving things for women.
    I probably will because I think that is a more accurate representation of what I believe but it is sad that radical feminists have made people think that feminism is such a negative thing when it shouldn't be.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by MisterPC)
    It doesn't bother men if their partner earns more than them!

    The first thing to fix to get more men at home with children would be equal maternity/paternity time.
    Which is already the case, the leave is shared between the parents if a set of perfectly reasonable criteria are met

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheeseIsVeg)
    :rofl:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    joke in tribute to mock the week
    its nothing to do with brexit ofc - its bc nothing is accepted in society yet or something depressing like that
    I just like to make this joke, ill just leave, fine fml
    :getmecoat:
    Oops, I accidentally took it seriously because I've had some really strange responses on this thread, most of which have been serious! Aww, no you don't have to leave haha!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Oops, I accidentally took it seriously because I've had some really strange responses on this thread, most of which have been serious! Aww, no you don't have to leave haha!
    :rofl:
    thats ok
    I know what u mean
    Spoiler:
    Show
    :teehee:
    alrite I'll stay, if you insist
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I believe their post was nowt but cheeky banter
    Yeah, I get it now lol. I just thought it was serious because of some of the weird responses I've had previously which have been serious!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by MisterPC)
    I think this is only true for statutory pay unless I'm mistaken? Most women get more than that so shared parental leave is not really economically viable.
    Well anything above statutory is down to the employer, is it not, so there isn't exactly much you can do without making it effectively more statutory pay anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MisterPC)
    It doesn't bother men if their partner earns more than them!

    The first thing to fix to get more men at home with children would be equal maternity/paternity time.
    Unfortunately, as far as I know, it often does. Would it not bother you then?

    I agree, I've already said that several times in response to other people on this thread.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by MisterPC)
    I think this is only true for statutory pay unless I'm mistaken? Most women get more than that so shared parental leave is not really economically viable.
    Having double checked it, it is onky different for the first 6 weeks, the mother gets 90% of normal earning, the partner would get the lower of 90% normal and the flat rate, but for the other 33 weeks both get exactly the same.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IronicalMan)
    If you're nice to a woman she won't be as attracted to you as opposed to if you was a bit of a ********
    That's just not true.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The wage gap can be explained by women having less pressure to be high earners, do less demanding/risky and therefore higher paying jobs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by MisterPC)
    Employers often pay all or a significant percentage of a women's salary for longer than the statutory period.

    Although I agree, the new rules are a step in the right direction
    If employers don't extend that to partners all it should take to rectify it is a single court case on the basis of discrimination and then common law will do its magic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.