“Equality” is one of those Rorschach Blot terms that means a dozen different things to different audiences, but ISTM that many people on the gender-equality spectrum both want and do not want men and women to be perceived equally - or at least feel that it is not possible.
Examples:
Many recent threads about women being required to register for Selective Service: many people are adamant that daughters being drafted to go die in a war is very different than sons being sent off to die.
Many feminists have complained that an authoritative woman leader in the workplace is considered “bossy” whereas an authoritative male leader is “boss” - entirely different perception.
A man slapping a woman in the face will always be perceived differently by society than vice versa. Difference in size, strength, historical factors, etc…but even if the man is of equal or lesser size or strength than the woman, it is still perceived as “wronger” than vice versa.
Many feminists complain that women are judged more much than men on the basis of looks.
If an adult female teacher has sex with an underage male high school student, society regards the male victim very differently than if an adult male teacher has sex with an underage female student.
Etc.etc.
ISTM this is often a force running into an immovable object. At a certain point, you cannot expect society to perceive two different genders the same way any more than you can demand people to see the color red and green as the same. Is there really a movement afoot for equal gender perception?
A lot of it comes down to the simple fact that eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap. Across the animal kingdom, whatever gender invests more heavily in procreation gets different treatment than the animal that invests less heavily. Generally the female invests more heavily but I some species it is the male. The behaviors are different based on which genders reproduction is the bottleneck of procreation.
This fact is always going to cause some pushback against gender equality,especially with things like point 1, 4 and 5.
Having said that, we aren’t blind robots following our genetics. If women want to enter battle then have at it.
I think most people favor gender equality while still being aware we are still just animals.
This is part of a larger and more complex discussion regarding the role of women in the military.
Historically, women have tended to get paid less than their male counterparts and often hit a “glass ceiling” where they are not promoted any higher. I disagree somewhat with the “bossy” complaint, as there is a difference between being authoritative and acting like a bitch.
Mostly because of the greater size and strength. Fat pudgy Turtle from Entourage fighting MMA champion Ronda Rousey for a date is funny. Mike Tyson fighting a woman is not.
Not just “feminists”. As long as I can remember, many women have complained than men are viewed as “attractive” at a much older age than women. Men “upgrading” to a younger, more attractive wife has historically been a thing. Women in Hollywood typically have a much shorter shelf life than their male counterparts and are often cast in much older roles than their actual age would imply (i.e. Sally Field playing Tom Hank’s mother in Forest Gump when she is only 10 years older than he is. Or Angelina Jolie playing Colin Farrell’s mom in Alexander when she is actually a year younger than him).
Pretty sure both cases are “frowned upon”.
I’m sure if you look hard enough in the world, there is some level of movement for just about anything. But I think when most people think “equality”, they think in terms of being given an equal opportunity to compete for the same jobs or roles in society and not be immediately discounted because of their gender, age, sex, race, religion or socioeconomic background.
Where it gets complex is with things like gender where men and women have different physical and biological traits. Less important in an office environment, but perhaps more of an issue for certain physical jobs.
Similarly, “equality” becomes an issue where one’s upbringing or personal network can play a role in career success. Certainly being smart and good at your job is a requirement for lawyers, investment bankers and strategy consultants. But it also doesn’t hurt to have a network of successful peers from your prep school lacrosse team.
Except the concern is that it’s the same type of behaviour that gets judged differently, depending on the boss’s gender, not their actions.
I’ve seen this in the workplace myself. Behaviour that in male bosses is considered normal is sometimes seen as “bitchy” when it’s a female boss.
Not disagreeing with this point in general, but I think this isn’t the best example.
Sally Fields’ main scenes were as mother to young Forrest, when she was fighting the school system to get him fair treatment. Her age as Young Forrest’s mom was appropriate (especially conserving her … unorthodox … persuasion for the superintendent). I don’t even remember her scenes with Hanks.
This is a complaint that is wrong and irritates me when I hear it. I have had male bosses who were authoritative, some good and some bad. The same with female bosses.
My complaint is that this is trotted out and used as a crutch whenever a female boss decides to be an insufferable bitch and makes the whole workplace miserable. Instead of looking at her own actions, she handwaives it away by saying that her subordinates just cannot handle a female boss.
So now the higher ups start walking on eggshells because she has pulled out the gender card and do not want to fire her or give into the complaints of the underlings for fear of a Title IX lawsuit. So then the underlings continue to work in a miserable environment, coloring their view of female bosses for the future.
But to your larger point, I certainly agree. I have a daughter that will be an adult the next time I blink. I believe, and I have stressed this to her, that she does and should have the full ability to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, soldier, business owner, or housewife. Whatever she wants to do is no longer, nor should it be constrained by things that my grandfather’s generation thought were the proper role of women. Anyone that makes her feel differently will face my wrath.
However, there are two genders (let’s not get into that) with differences, physical and biological, which consciously or subconsciously play a part in society and some are biological imperatives. If she gets married and her and her husband want to have a child, she cannot ask why she has to be pregnant for nine months and how it is unfair that he doesn’t have to do that.
When she goes to work in the morning, is it “fair” that she should have to spend in excess of an hour getting ready while her male co-worker wakes up, splashes water on his face, and is out the door in ten minutes?
I could go on with many more examples, but I do not believe that it is possible nor desirable to remove all references, differences, thoughts, or perceptions about men and women from society. We should quit trying. The goal, I thought, was the equality of opportunity, not a complete eradication of gender. Sometimes I worry, though, that this is indeed the goal.
Not at all to the same extent. I have seen comment threads on news stories in which a female teacher screws an underage male teenager and there were dozens of winking comments to the effect of “oooh, lucky guy” or “you know he was enjoying it” or “wish that were me; where do I find a teacher like that?”
I can’t recall ever reading a comment to the same effect about the underage victim when it’s a male teacher having sex with an underage female student.
Yeah, I have to agree. At my old job, we had one female principal (consulting…not school) who was demanding, but I wouldn’t call her a “bitch”. Another was a just bitch. She also sucked at her job.
Granted, there are some men who simply don’t want to have a woman boss.
Northern Piper - I believe you are correct. IIRC, the scenes with Forest Gump, Sally Field was aged with makeup and Tom Hanks was supposed to be college-aged.
Jolie as Alexander the Great’s Mom was just weird though.
This is you observing a continuously changing system at a particular point in time and declaring it an eternal truth.
Human society has been in a state of change since it began. Even looking back though a historically tiny period of decades we can identify significant changes in societies all over the world.
These things aren’t “immovable.” You’re just observing one particular collision. There is a lot more to come.
You should be. As old white men are as much of a part of society as any other group, you don’t get to exclude their opinions from the public discourse.
The assumption in that analogy is that all old white males want to slap women on the ass in the workplace and send them off to fetch coffee. The majority of old white males do not share that view.
I think it is frightening to say that we should not listen to a viewpoint because it comes from an age group and a racial category. Has the left really come full circle and advocating for a silencing of views based upon race and age?
Unless my sarcasm meter is broken and you really are “fascinated” to hear about the opinions of old white men, then I believe that a fair summary of that statement is that you don’t care about the opinions of old white men and will ignore them in the context of this debate.
Further, I think that it is implicit in that statement that old white men should not be part of the body politic whose opinions should be considered when forming policy regarding feminism or the perception of women in the workplace.
Apparently you are unable to see the difference between “maybe old white men have relatively far more voice and influence in our society than is warranted and fair based on the numbers” and “old white men should have zero voice and influence in our society”. There is indeed a very large difference, and I’m pretty sure that his statement was much closer to the former than the latter.
I’m continually aghast at the casual anti-white racism gaining popularity these days. I’m trying to be more comfortable with it, but it’s a struggle.
“They’re white, so their opinions on feminism are like the fox giving opinions about guarding the chicken coop” is quintessentially racist. That because they’re white (and old), they have devious intentions for women. I could think of a dozen analogies off hand to compare this to, but they would be so wildly offensive even in an analogy that I’m not going to bother.