# On Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801 "2015-11-06T14:04:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/61 "2015-11-08T12:24:32Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > A couple things: > > 1. It kinda is a zero sum game. Colleges can only take a finite number of students; every position that’s taken is one less that’s available to everyone else. > > 2. When women were underrepresented in colleges, was the attitude that they should just “have at it”? My recollection is that there was talk of different learning styles between girls and boys, and that primary and secondary schools should make more of an effort to cater to girls with more collaborative and peer group learning. Now that boys might be being left behind, it doesn’t seem to get as much attention. > > 3. Wikipedia lists three men’s-only colleges in the U.S., none of which I’d heard of before, and more than forty that only accept women. All of the Ivy League seems to have admitted women by the mid-'70s, but where are the calls to open Wellesley and Smith to men? > > None of which is to say that men are victims, but they don’t seem to have many people championing their access to higher education, either. One of the pillars of feminism is that women are oppressed. Without it, you have to ask, what is feminism for? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/62 "2015-11-08T12:55:59Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > One of the pillars of feminism is that women are oppressed. No, the point is that women _have historically_ been oppressed throughout much of human history by declaring them unworthy of (or incapable of) legal and social equality with men. And that remnants of these oppressive legal and social structures persist in varying degrees even today, even in developed societies where women have achieved formal legal equality. The “pillar” or fundamental principle of feminism is that this traditional legal and social inequality should be rejected as oppressive (to women and men both, in different ways) because women _are_ inherently worthy and capable of legal and social equality with men. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/63 "2015-11-08T13:39:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think what you mean is _"as discrimination against women in developed societies_ gradually becomes less drastic and pervasive".\* > > There is still plenty of discrimination against women in developed societies, and still plenty of evidence of it. It’s just a somewhat more mild and less ubiquitous form of discrimination nowadays than it used to be, say, fifty years ago when there were literally separate Help Wanted sections in the paper for “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs”. > > A few examples of stubbornly non-disappearing evidence of persistent discrimination against women: > > [The same essays are graded more harshly when the writer is believed to be female](https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-34889222/the-effects-of-gender-bias-and-errors-in-essay-grading) > > [The same _math tests_ are graded more harshly when the test-taker is believed to be female](http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/02/10/teacher_bias_in_math_new_study_finds_teachers_grade_boys_more_generously.html) > > [The same resumes are evaluated more harshly when the applicant is believed to be female](http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer) > > [The same work achievements and workplace behavior are evaluated more critically when the employee is believed to be female](https://medium.com/@racheltho/if-you-think-women-in-tech-is-just-a-pipeline-problem-you-haven-t-been-paying-attention-cb7a2073b996) > > Emphasis added. > > - Of course, discrimination against women in many developing societies is still at horrific levels; cites provided on request for anyone who’s been living under a rock on Mars for the past forty years and hasn’t noticed what life’s been like for many third-world women. I have good news for you: [Study finds, surprisingly, that women are favored for jobs in STEM:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/) > [@](#): > > Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men. Boys are more likely to be labeled as “problems,” and to [drop out of school](https://coe.lehigh.edu/content/reverse-gender-gap): > [@](#): > > According to U.S. Department of Education data, boys receive 71 percent of school suspensions. Boys make up 67 percent of special education classrooms. Boys are five times more likely than girls to be labeled hyperactive and 30 percent more likely to flunk or drop out of school. Teachers give better grades to girls in elementary school, [in every subject](http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212/): > [@](#): > > Why do girls get better grades in elementary school than boys-even when they perform worse on standardized tests? > > * * * > > The study, co-authored by Cornwell and David Mustard at UGA and Jessica Van Parys at Columbia, analyzed data on more than 5,800 students from kindergarten through fifth grade. It examined students’ performance on standardized tests in three categories¬¬-reading, math and science-linking test scores to teachers’ assessments of their students’ progress, both academically and more broadly. > > The data show, for the first time, that gender disparities in teacher grades start early and uniformly favor girls. In every subject area, boys are represented in grade distributions below where their test scores would predict. [Women are wonderful](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14792779543000002): > [@](#): > > In contemporary research, attitudes toward women appear to be more positive than those toward men in samples of US and Canadian university students, and the evaluative content of the female stereotype is more favorable than the evaluative content of the male stereotype. I’ll also note the first study you cited was based on “Twenty-two undergraduate education majors.” The second one, though widely distributed, [doesn’t actually say what you think it says](https://mikesmathpage.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/looking-at-the-girls-do-better-when-their-math-exams-are-graded-anonymously-paper/): > [@](#): > > With just over 4,000 boys and 4,000 girls tested, here were the results: > > The “School” exam that was graded by teachers, with the overall exam average set to 0: > > Boys: Mean score of 0.052 with a standard deviation of 0.985 > Girls: Mean score of 0.003 with a standard deviation of 0.971 > > The “National” exam that was graded anonymously, with the overall exam average set to 0: > > Boys: Mean score of -0.014 with a standard deviation of 1.034 > Girls: Mean score of 0.014 with a standard deviation of 0.963 > > * * * > > So, indeed the girls performed worse than the boys in the “school” exam and better than the boys in the “national” exam. But, the difference is miniscule – both groups essentially performed identically in both exams. > > Maybe a little context helps understand the numbers, so I thought of the numbers this way: > > Imagine that the 4,000 boys and 4,000 girls were flipping coins 100 times each in both exams. So, we’d expect to see “heads” 200,000 times from the boys and the girls in both exams. > > In the first exam, the boys averaged (0.052) / (0.985) = 5.27% of a standard deviation higher. The standard deviation here is \sqrt{400,000}/2 = 316, so the boys got about 17 more “heads” than they were expecting to get. Similarly, the girls got 316\*(0.003)/(0.971), or about 1 extra head. > > So, in the “school” exam, instead of the 200,000 expected heads the boys got 200,017 heads and the girls got 200,001. > > In the national exam the analogous numbers are: boys – 199,996 heads and girls – 200,005 heads. > > * * * > > What we saw here was that the difference was next to nothing. Also, the difference in performance between the “anonymous” grading and “non-anonymous” grading for both the boys and for the girls seems to be, well, practically 0. Basically, they took a statistically insignificant difference, and claimed it meant something. The third one was based on a made-up resume sent to “over one hundred” potential employers. The fourth link was about the percentage of women who leave tech fields, vs men. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/64 "2015-11-08T13:40:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No So ‘rape culture’ doesn’t oppress women? Or are you saying it doesn’t exist? > [@Kimstu](#): > > the point is that women _have historically_ been oppressed throughout much of human history And _that’s_ why men who seek equality before the law must be silenced by chanting, shaming language, false fire alarms and hoax bomb threats. Because it’s a _feud_ and you aren’t done with it yet. > [@Kimstu](#): > > by declaring them unworthy of (or incapable of) legal and social equality with men. I do have a cutting on display, from my local paper’s ‘100 years ago today’ column, in which the opinion is expressed that women are not suited to government. People have always held strange opinions. 70 years ago, Germans considered Jews unworthy…but 70 years later, I have no interest in defending a feud against germans. > [@Kimstu](#): > > And that remnants of these oppressive legal and social structures persist in varying degrees even today, even in developed societies where women have achieved formal legal equality. It would be helpful if you flagged up your alternative meaning of ‘equality’ when you use it (or choose a more appropriate word). There are no rights that men have that women don’t (and there haven’t been for a long time). But that’s not equality, because women have rights that men don’t. But are you oppressed or aren’t you? Just now it was ‘history’, suddenly it’s still here. Are you able to state clearly what would constitute ‘equality for women’, so us chaps know when we can stop paying for the sins of our great-grandfathers and start asking politely for some equality of our own? I imagine even anti-feminists would get behind your campaigns if we thought there was a determined end-point. As it is, I see heavily invested feminists, with a financial interest in maintaining the ‘feud’, inventing ‘the male gaze’ and ‘manspreading’ and rape hoaxes and twitter traumas, in order to keep their lucrative war going (not so different from men after all…) > [@Kimstu](#): > > The “pillar” or fundamental principle of feminism is that this traditional legal and social inequality should be rejected as oppressive (to women and men both, in different ways) Ah, oppressive to both women _and_ men…I see. So _everyone_ was oppressed and that’s why feminism seeks equality for women. You should have said earlier (like the beginning of your post). Your ‘rejection’ is a stock call for revolution (with the stock revolutionists’ rallying cry of “It’s not fair!”). I find it odd, given the interest in inequality, that middle-class able-bodied feminists spend so little time protesting the punishing inequalities that have always oppressed the working classes and disabled people (inequalities wholeheartedly supported and enacted in the UK by female feminist politicians and peers …oh no, hang on, not ‘odd’, what’s the word? Predictable. > [@Kimstu](#): > > because women _are_ inherently worthy Are they? I don’t hold with the concept of original sin, but I don’t think anyone is inherently worthy, least of all because of the shape of their genitalia. History is full of distinctly unworthy women (and I can’t help feeling there’d be more if only we hadn’t been oppressing you). > [@Kimstu](#): > > and capable of legal and social equality with men. Being treated equally by the law is not a matter of ability. I’m not sure what ‘social equality’ is, but I imagine it relates to how society treats women (careful, as previously noted there are always at least two ways to reach equality and most people would prefer one over the other by a considerable margin). Nevertheless, both relate to how women are treated, and their ‘capability’ is an irrelevance. Perhaps you’d like another try? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/65 "2015-11-08T14:00:53Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > [Study finds, surprisingly, that women are favored for jobs in STEM:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/) Doesn’t surprise me at all. Most STEM departments are still very disproportionately male due to heavily skewed gender ratios among older faculty, and many of them are actively working on achieving better gender balance. So when hiring new junior faculty, a female candidate is often perceived as more desirable than an equally qualified male one. The same holds true for candidates from ethnic minority groups underrepresented in STEM fields. Similarly, male candidates are considered much more desirable than female ones for most elementary school teaching positions, since the existing teacher population skews so heavily female. [QUOTE=LinusK;Teachers give better grades to girls in elementary school, [in every subject] ([New UGA research helps explain why girls do better in school - UGA Today](http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212/)): [/quote] But not just because they’re girls, but because they tend to have higher levels of the qualities that have traditionally been associated with being a “good student”: > [@](#): > > “The skill that matters the most in regards to how teachers graded their students is what we refer to as ‘approaches toward learning,'” said Christopher Cornwell, head of economics in the UGA Terry College of Business and one of the study’s authors. […] “It includes six items that rate the child’s attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization. I think that anybody who’s a parent of boys and girls can tell you that girls are more of all of that.” […] > > They even report evidence of a grade bonus for boys with test scores and behavior like their girl counterparts. In other words, girls tend to get better grades than boys because their behavior tends to conform better to how students are “supposed” to behave. Boys who also display that kind of conforming behavior actually get graded _better_ than girls with equally good behavior and test scores. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/66 "2015-11-08T14:10:13Z")
> [@Jack of Words](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > No > > So ‘rape culture’ doesn’t oppress women? Or are you saying it doesn’t exist? :dubious: It’s a bit difficult to be sure what previous post of mine your rather minimalist quoted excerpt is referring to, but I think you were talking about this exchange with **LinusK** : > [@Kimstu](#): > > > [@LinusK](#): > > > > Do you agree that: “[Men who are falsely accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. […]” > > No. I should have stated more clearly that yes, I agree that men who are falsely accused of rape (like any innocent person falsely accused of any crime, for that matter) have a lot of pain. And no, I disagree that it should be considered acceptable not to spare somebody the pain of a false accusation merely because it might provide a beneficial learning experience for them in some other respects. Innocent people who are falsely accused of crimes should not be made to suffer that experience “for their own good” or for any other reason. Finally, “rape culture”, or the popular trivialization and normalization of rape as something that’s “no big deal” or is somehow the victim’s fault, does indeed exist, and oppresses both women and men. (So does the popular trivialization and normalization of violence committed by women against men, by the way.) ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/67 "2015-11-08T14:29:10Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > None of which is to say that men are victims, but they don’t seem to have many people championing their access to higher education, either. Are you unaware that men benefit from Affirmative Active now in college admissions? [Yes, that’s right](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-far-more-likely-to-benefit-from-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/). So they have their champions, despite historically benefiting from centuries of advantage. I shouldn’t be surprised that no one has yet pointed this out. This board has a massive blind spot when it comes to AA. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/68 "2015-11-08T14:54:56Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > As actual evidence of discrimination against women disappears, feminists become more creative about finding excuses to maintain their victimhood status. Wow, full irony straight out of the gate. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/69 "2015-11-08T14:57:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Are you unaware that men benefit from Affirmative Active now in college admissions? [Yes, that’s right](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-far-more-likely-to-benefit-from-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/). So they have their champions, despite historically benefiting from centuries of advantage. > > I shouldn’t be surprised that no one has yet pointed this out. This board has a massive blind spot when it comes to AA. If an AA policy is designed to help the previously disadvantaged, this would not make sense. If, as most colleges say, AA policies are for diversity and balance, to the benefit of all students, it does make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/70 "2015-11-08T15:08:24Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > 70 years ago, Germans considered Jews unworthy…but 70 years later, I have no interest in defending a feud against germans. But presumably you would defend [opposition to persistent antisemitic bigotry and violence from rightwing groups in Germany nowadays](http://www.vocativ.com/world/germany-world/neo-nazis-anti-semitic-attack-german-jews/)? > [@](#): > > More than 70 years after the Holocaust, the biggest threat to Germany’s Jews are still German Neo-Nazis. the majority of anti-semitic attacks in Germany are committed by neo-Nazis […] 95 percent of all anti-semitic attacks in Germany were perpetrated by right-wing extremists. > > Neo-Nazis were responsible for 1,218 of 1,275 attacks against German Jews in 2013, according to the government figures. Just because German antisemitism still hasn’t disappeared, and opponents of antisemitism continue to denounce German antisemitism, doesn’t mean that anybody’s engaged in “a feud against [G]ermans”. Likewise, just because sexism still hasn’t disappeared and feminists continue to denounce sexism doesn’t mean that they’re engaged in any kind of “feud” against men. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > Being treated equally by the law is not a matter of ability. But ability to sustain equality has to be recognized before legal equality will happen. For example, children are not treated equally with adults by the law because they are (rightly) not considered capable of being equally responsible citizens. Previously, women were not treated equally with men by the law because they were (wrongly) not considered capable of being equally responsible citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/71 "2015-11-08T15:15:46Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I don’t hold with the concept of original sin, but I don’t think anyone is inherently worthy, least of all because of the shape of their genitalia. What I said was “women are inherently worthy and capable of legal and social equality with men”. I.e., on average and as a group, women are deserving of and able to sustain legal and social equality with men, on average and as a group. If you genuinely don’t understand that in the context of the history of women’s rights in general, such a statement doesn’t mean the same thing as asserting the personal worth and capability of **every** individual woman everywhere, I’m afraid I’m not likely to have the time to provide you with the full amount of detailed literal exegesis that you’re evidently going to need in this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/72 "2015-11-08T15:56:47Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If an AA policy is designed to help the previously disadvantaged, this would not make sense. > > If, as most colleges say, AA policies are for diversity and balance, to the benefit of all students, it does make sense. AA serves all of these purposes. And in case it’s not clear, I have no problems with this practice. If half the pop is male, we should want college campuses to reflect this. Even if standards for “merit” (gasp!) have to be adjusted for them. Who wants a society that has a huge undereducated, economically marginalized underclass? Not me. The question, though, is why do so many young white males persist in thinking they–and they alone–do not benefit from diversity hiring/admissions? Does seeing the value in admitting less academically-competitive males make it harder for white men to condemn AA for blacks and others? I would think so. That could be uncomfortable. Might it even force them to reassess their assumptions of inferiority and the standards we use to measure merit? Yup, this too. No one really believes women are smarter than men, and yet we do see women kicking more ass in school. How do we explain this? Is it possible grades and test scores aren’t the end-all be-all they have been cracked up to be? Can white males continue to push for a “return to” meritocracy, when doing so might result in them being relegated to the bottom of the economic hierarchy? No doubt this is an interesting question. The court cases we saw decades ago challenging AA on race, we very well might see directed at men. What will be the response then I wonder? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/73 "2015-11-08T18:22:05Z")
Still waiting to hear why we are defunding having sex with people so incapacitated that they don’t understand what is going on. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/74 "2015-11-08T18:25:52Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Still waiting to hear why we are **defunding** having sex with people so incapacitated that they don’t understand what is going on. Because we decided it would be wrong to go on paying for it? (emphasis added) (snerk) 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/75 "2015-11-08T19:58:44Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > OP, we’ve had several of these threads now. I think we have established that you do not approve of Feminism. Further, I think we have established that you outright dislike Feminism (post 37): > > I’m not sure what the point is of another thread in the same vein. In an effort to shift things in a more fruitful direction, may I ask you - what in your opinion, would be the best path forward for women in today’s Western society? Feminism, I assume, is a closed path. Let’s assume that the women in question would like to continue to have equal access to a political voice, medicine, education, and the right to work. How would you craft a political and social movement that worked for these things in today’s world? > > Although I started by asking how you would advise women, don’t contain your answer to women only. This new movement should address women and men alike. Can you envision a movement that accomplished a more equal society? If so, how? The most pressing problem facing the US - as far as equality goes - is the maldistribution of wealth and income. Over the last several years, the US has gone from about 10% unemployment to 5%. It’s not a mystery how it happened: it’s the result of simple policy choices on the part of government. The wealth of a country is determined by the number of people working times the average productivity per worker. The US is pretty good about increasing productivity. We’re not so good at maximizing employment. The policies that got us to 5% unemployment should be continued. Not only to increase the wealth of the nation as a whole, but to force companies to begin to compete for workers: in other words, to force them to pay more to get and keep good employees. Once that happens, we’ll finally begin to see an increase in real wages, and a narrowing of the gap between the very rich, and the rest of us. On a side note, the tribalization of politics is counterproductive in the long run. It’s safe to assume that women will “continue to have equal access to a political voice, medicine, education, and the right to work.” They have it now, and there’s no reason to think it’s going to change. What’s more problematic is the effects of feminism on the coming generations. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/76 "2015-11-08T21:29:14Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The most pressing problem facing the US - as far as equality goes - is the maldistribution of wealth and income. > > Over the last several years, the US has gone from about 10% unemployment to 5%. It’s not a mystery how it happened: it’s the result of simple policy choices on the part of government. > > The wealth of a country is determined by the number of people working times the average productivity per worker. The US is pretty good about increasing productivity. We’re not so good at maximizing employment. > > The policies that got us to 5% unemployment should be continued. Not only to increase the wealth of the nation as a whole, but to force companies to begin to compete for workers: in other words, to force them to pay more to get and keep good employees. Once that happens, we’ll finally begin to see an increase in real wages, and a narrowing of the gap between the very rich, and the rest of us. To be sure that I’ve understood you correctly, the best path forward to ensure equality for men and women is for there to be an increase in real wages. I suppose in general terms society as a whole does benefit when this happens. I am not certain how this addresses the creation of a different social movement to replace “feminism”, which you consider unhealthy. > [@LinusK](#): > > On a side note, the tribalization of politics is counterproductive in the long run. Somewhere the apocalypse has started, because we agree on this. > [@LinusK](#): > > It’s safe to assume that women will “continue to have equal access to a political voice, medicine, education, and the right to work.” They have it now, and there’s no reason to think it’s going to change. And, back to disagreement. As with other less privileged groups, there is every reason to believe that recently gathered privileges will disappear. Many are under attack even now (women’s health care for example). Many are still incomplete. As another example, in my lifetime, women finally became senators. We are not represented in Congress in anything close to actual, population-based numbers. I would argue our political voice is incomplete. > [@LinusK](#): > > What’s more problematic is the effects of feminism on the coming generations. Remarks like this are what have driven me to ask you what a better movement would look like. What replaces “Feminism” in a way that works for true gender equality without “harming” anyone? I, myself, see only positive results coming from the last several generations of work from Feminists. You clearly feel differently. Your answer was an economic one, which I find interesting, but incomplete. I also fail to see the harm that has been perpetrated by Feminists. Any more than I see the harm that has been perpetrated by Civil Rights activists. A more complete society doesn’t “hurt” you or your children. It benefits you. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/77 "2015-11-08T22:41:57Z")
So does Linus believe the tribalization of politics are bad for everyone when buying the idea that the womens are to blame for all his problems and not ignorant white men persistently voting against their own interests for thirty-plus years? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/78 "2015-11-09T02:01:32Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Debatable, of course, but on the available evidence the most active, vocal feminists here have got nothing more important to do than hang around in the Pit (where they don’t even have to pretend to be deploying facts and reliable figures) insulting LK and myself for the thought-crime of questioning their perverted definition of ‘equality’. See post #52. Is that based on a perverted definition of “equality”? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/79 "2015-11-09T02:16:14Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > . . . or the mythical wage gap) . . . [Oh, it’s real enough.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States) Or, perhaps you meant that [this way](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap). > [@](#): > > What is important is that all ways of measuring or expressing the gender pay gap show that in every country men outearn women, leaving women more at risk of poverty for no reason other than their gender.[1] > > The gender pay gap is often divided into the ‘unadjusted’ and ‘adjusted’ pay gaps. The ‘unadjusted pay gap’ does not take into account all of the factors that impact on the gap’s existence such as differences in education, number of hours worked, job sector, position etc.[2] When adjusted for these factors, leaving only what is unexplained or is a result of workplace discrimination, the pay gap does diminish considerably. This has led many conservatives and libertarians to denounce the gap as a myth — because when you correct for the discrimination, the discrimination _vanishes!_ > > However, this ignores that the origins of the adjusted factors are usually discriminatory in themselves, being almost entirely the result of society’s expectations of men and women.[3] As one commentator puts it: > > > [@](#): > > > > “If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn’t we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity?”[4] ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/80 "2015-11-09T05:20:30Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The most pressing problem facing the US - as far as equality goes - is the maldistribution of wealth and income. > > Over the last several years, the US has gone from about 10% unemployment to 5%. It’s not a mystery how it happened: it’s the result of simple policy choices on the part of government. > > The wealth of a country is determined by the number of people working times the average productivity per worker. The US is pretty good about increasing productivity. We’re not so good at maximizing employment. > > The policies that got us to 5% unemployment should be continued. Not only to increase the wealth of the nation as a whole, but to force companies to begin to compete for workers: in other words, to force them to pay more to get and keep good employees. Once that happens, we’ll finally begin to see an increase in real wages, and a narrowing of the gap between the very rich, and the rest of us. > > On a side note, the tribalization of politics is counterproductive in the long run. > > It’s safe to assume that women will “continue to have equal access to a political voice, medicine, education, and the right to work.” They have it now, and there’s no reason to think it’s going to change. > > What’s more problematic is the effects of feminism on the coming generations. When you stop counting 10s of millions of unemployed as unemployed the rate magically drops. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=5)