If that was what you meant, you would have said “Those two things aren’t **necessarily **in conflict,” which I would have no objection to, because some feminists do seek to privilege women over men. But your intent was to clearly tar all feminists with the same man-hating brush.
Uh huh, and you just did it again. All (or most) feminists want to privilege women over men, and all liberals agree that this isn’t sexist.
Sounds like it’s not even universal in Europe.
Saw it in a multi-level parking ramp in downtown Chicago once in the late 1980s – it was a level with brighter lighting than other levels – but that’s it. I don’t know how they would have enforced it. I’ve never seen another parking lot with spaces specifically reserved for women in general. In the US, women-only parking spaces would be illegal.
In the US, I’ve seen reserved spaces for:
Aside from handicapped parking spaces, the other types of reserved spaces are unenforceable; a police officer can’t give a man a ticket for parking in a stork space. Businesses can tow such misparked vehicles, though.
Preg women yes, but I think the strollers/small children spots can be used by men or women with the little kids.
While I have seen parking for pregnant women and new mothers (outside my wife’s obgyn), these don’t have the force of law like handicapped parking does.
Actually, it does have somewhat of a force of law - you’re technically trespassing on that parking spot if you don’t meet the criteria.
I still park in them though.
That’s really not an accurate characterization of the statement. It isn’t saying that feminists want to privilege women over men. It’s just saying that in cases when this occurs, they aren’t going to see it as sexist, because they define themselves as anti-sexist.
You could essentially substitute any group that advocates its own interests under the blanket of an ideology. If a Republican president runs up the biggest deficit in history, it must have been the most fiscally responsible choice at the time, because Republicans are the party of of fiscal responsibility.
Of course in this example, Republicans can take deniability in the fallacy “Well, he wasn’t a **true **Republican”, but it’s not so easy for feminists to say “Well, she’s not a true woman”.
No, but they can say “she (or he) isn’t a true feminist.” I do this all the time, and the other non-psycho feminists I know do it, too.
There presumably aren’t any in Saudi Arabia, since women aren’t allowed to drive anyway.
Some malls had those in Venezuela (which is not an industrialized country as the OP asks, but still). Men made a point of parking in them even if there were better spots to be had elsewhere. Nobody could enforce them.
Do you have a cite that this would be illegal?
This cite I found on federal public accommodation law does not include sex/gender on the list of protected classes.
“Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
I was in my grocery store’s parking lot today, their signs say “Customer with Children.”
If you want to insist that feminists also can hide behind the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, I’m not going to try to stop you, but I must point out that I proposed that it is the final flawed element of a flawed system of reasoning. No feminist ever seeks privilege for women, because to do so would be sexist, and feminists are not sexist, therefore anyone who seeks privilege for women must be something other than feminist. One cannot but admire the symmetry in such a circular argument.
I did not do that because they mean exactly the same thing. Saying that two things are not in conflict does not mean that they are the same thing, it just means that they are not in conflict. Feminism is not in conflict with sexism, just like being a plumber is not in conflict with liking dogs.
Sure, and I’m a cocker spaniel. You started screaming merely because I posted a neutral statement about feminism.
And now you’re freaking out over a statement that wasn’t even about feminism.
Look, something on topic:
I’ll go one step further and say it appears to be peculiar to Germany. This thread is the first I’ve heard about any such thing, anywhere.
Question: Why are you characterizing Shot from Guns responses as “screaming” and “freaking out”?
No, most feminists only wanted to be treated as the equal of men.
I know for a fact that I was being paid about 25% less than a male machinist was paid back in the day, and there is a long history of women being paid anywhere from one half down to one third what a man doing the same job was getting - based on the grounds that the man had a family to pay for … and this pissed off the women that were only trying to make a living for themselves. Try reading on the history of NOW sometime …
Because of her ridiculous, over the top reactions. I posted a completely neutral statement whose only “flaw” was that it did not express the worship that she feels is due feminism. She responds by accusing me of being a racist, of all things. That’s a pretty major insult by my standards, maybe it’s no big deal to her (but I doubt it).
You posted a possibly neutral statement which mischaracterized feminism. I think the issue here may simply be German-to-American translation - it seems tschild understands feminism as “stuff done for women” while American feminism is essentially about “stuff done for women because men already have it”.
Hence, equal pay for equal work = feminist. Since men don’t have our own parking spots, “front-of-lot parking for chicks” = not feminist, and arguably chauvinist.
Frankly, I think you both deserve a good sound smacking. Of equal intensity, of course.
There actually are (at least) two very different schools of thought on this, among people who spend a lot of time thinking about equal opportunity.
Speaking in generalities, Europe has taken a policy approach that supports women in their traditional role as mothers. For example, generous paid maternity leave. The premise behind this is accepting the difference between women and men and considering that it’s in the interest of society to have women take care of their young children.
The US has generally focused on eliminating differences in the legal treatment of women and men, on the premise that they are equal (although obviously we didn’t go 100% on this, with the Equal Rights Amendment not being passed). But most US liberals, IME, believe the ERA should have been passed. Since I am contrasting two liberal positions, I’m choose not to address the position of US conservatives here.
It’s one of life’s great ironies to hear diversity advocates going to the mat over how their approach to equal rights is right and another country’s civil rights philospophy is wrong. I’ve probably done it myself, but usually I think each side can learn something from the other.
No I didn’t. “<blank> is not in conflict with sexism.” is a true statement for any blank that isn’t “anti-sexism” or something that necessarily includes anti-sexism. You may think that feminism does require anti-sexism, but I don’t nor does even Shot From Guns as far as I can tell.
I’ll certainly agree that any concept as fuzzy as a political orientation is going to be heavily culturally dependent.
Well it seems this is drifting to GD territory but I’ll have to clarify this: in the context of advocacy, “stuff done for $group” and “stuff done for $group because others already have it” is a distinction without a difference IMO. (also, I usually refer to activism as feminist/womens’ rights when it self-identifies as such, the same as with other advocacy.)
No activist arguing for a policy in favour of a class of people is going to say “We are already treated fairly but we want this policy anyway.” He/She will rather argue “We want this policy because because it will serve to redress an unfair state of affairs.” As was the case in this instance - the argument was that women were under a disadvantage to begin with, walking in fear from a parking space in the dark interior of a car park at night to the entrance, light and people, and that spaces near the entrance were to compensate that unfair disadvantage, making for a greater degree of equality. For example, this blog comment (German language) is from the POV of a woman who frequently uses Autobahn rest areas at night - she says she’s uncomfortable parking in the dark and having to walk past the unwelcome attentions of men to the restaurant.