The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

A Day Without a Woman Options
TheParser
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 5:25:15 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 3,774
Neurons: 17,875
Here in the United States, March 8 is "A Day Without a Woman."

Organizers are asking women to strike today, i.e., not go to work.


*****

1. Some people support this strike. They say that it will show everyone how important women are to the nation.

2. Some people oppose this strike:

a. They say that women in vital jobs (such as nursing) would be irresponsible to walk out.
b. They say that this call for a strike will cause acrimony between those women who want to strike and those women who do not want to.
c. They say that the idea of having a "Day Without" for one group means that it is only fair that every group have such a day. For example: Should there be "A Day Without a Man" next week?

*****

About two weeks ago, the United States had "A Day Without an Immigrant."

Some people feel that political correctness in this country is getting out of hand.
Priscilla86
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:17:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/28/2014
Posts: 772
Neurons: 3,349
TheParser wrote:

c. They say that the idea of having a "Day Without" for one group means that it is only fair that every group have such a day. For example: Should there be "A Day Without a Man" next week?


Hello, Parser!

If you are only basing the 'fairness' on each group taking turns then yeah, it is true. It is only fair that every group have such a day.

However, that's not the point, is it? In reality, some groups are more marginalized than others, they don't normally have a voice that they have to resort to such peaceful protest in order to be heard.

Women's contributions in the workplace are valued less than men even though we do just as much (or even more) work, so we need to enlighten people and bring awareness to the issue, hence the "Day Without."

Sure, men can have their own "Day Without" but is it because they really have something to say or is it because 'they-get-to-do-it-so-we-get-to-do-it-too' mentality? Seems petty, don't you think?

Think of it this way: a mother with three children - a baby, a 10-year old, and a college student. She buys her eldest kid a car to ease his commute. If you're basing what's fair on what she buys for her kids, then by that logic the baby and the 10-year old must also each gets a car. But they don't need a car, they can't even drive yet!

If the 10-year old cries to the mother, begging her to buy him a car and even accusing her for not being fair, you'd think he's being ridiculous, wouldn't you?
Donthailand
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:45:56 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2014
Posts: 69
Neurons: 176,306
Location: Detroit, Michigan, United States
Boy, that's a stretch!
TheParser
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:47:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 3,774
Neurons: 17,875


Hello, Priscilla:

Thank you for your civil and rational comments.

I personally disagree that women are "marginalized" or that they are "valued less" in 2017 America. (Of course, I cannot comment on the situation in other countries.)

Today, in fact, being an American woman is an advantage in many respects.

Women are often given priority in being hired.
When it comes to family law, women often have the advantage (e.g., alimony).
Even the language has changed ("his" is no longer the gender-neutral pronoun).
At work, men walk on eggshells, lest they say something that offends a female colleague.


For certain reasons, there are organizations that want to keep pushing the idea that women are not treated equally.

Anyone who comes to the United States will be astonished as to how many rights (and privileges) women enjoy.


*****

By the way, I have just heard that the organizers of today's strike are asking that women NOT shop today, lest they add money to the economy. (One exception has been allowed: Women may shop at smaller stores owned by people of color.)



monamagda
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:54:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 4,792
Neurons: 3,011,557
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
monamagda
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:56:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 4,792
Neurons: 3,011,557
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 7:44:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 709
Neurons: 316,467
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
TheParser wrote:
I personally disagree that women are "marginalized" or that they are "valued less" in 2017 America. (Of course, I cannot comment on the situation in other countries.)


It's always nice to see a man tell a woman how she should view her life.

TheParser wrote:
Women are often given priority in being hired.

Women are still asked whether they intend to have children anytime soon, and then dismissed from the interviewing process for answering in the affirmative.

TheParser wrote:
When it comes to family law, women often have the advantage (e.g., alimony).

When it comes to rape cases, women are still blamed for provoking the rape.

TheParser wrote:
Even the language has changed ("his" is no longer the gender-neutral pronoun).

That's hardly an advantage. That's removing a disadvantage.

TheParser wrote:
At work, men walk on eggshells, lest they say something that offends a female colleague.

At work, women walk on eggshells, lest they say/do something that provokes sexual harrassment or that is interpreted as bossy/hysterical.

At work, women still earn less than men for doing the same job equally well.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 7:54:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 709
Neurons: 316,467
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Priscilla86 wrote:
In reality, some groups are more marginalized than others, they don't normally have a voice that they have to resort to such peaceful protest in order to be heard.


Exactly. Days like these and peaceful protests are held to give people a voice. It's amazing how quickly you see counter protest flaring up to either distract from the point or to turn it all into a misery competition. (See responses like "All lives matter", "International Man's Day" or terms like "manhaters".) Responses like that only demonstrate how little those people actually understand the issue at hand and would prefer to go back to a time when they weren't inconvenienced by other people's "political correctness".
will
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 8:57:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 952
Neurons: 3,723
Lotje1000 wrote:
It's always nice to see a man tell a woman how she should view her life.

Whoa! That’s a bit shrill... Angel


.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 10:29:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
will wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It's always nice to see a man tell a woman how she should view her life.

Whoa! That’s a bit shrill... Angel


How so?


Also, if it had been a man who 'said' what Lotje did, would you have used the word "shrill", Will? I am assuming you know she is female by the tone of all her posts? If not, that answers my question about the word.


::::::

It is so sad that the fight for equality of women is now reduced to poitical correctness - and by a representative of what particular demographic, I might add. It is 2017 and still the battle has to be fought, although the younger demographic are getting it.

Women earn cents on the dollar as compared to men, the numbers of women CEOs and members of government are a fraction of the numbers of men, and women journalists and members of parliament are routinely inundated with vicious anti-female comments. Edited - Elizabeth Warren was silenced completely on the issue of confirming Jeff Sessions and from reading a letter in Congress on a technicality when at least one man was allowed to read similar parts of the same letter later. Women by far are the gender who are raped, abused, and stalked by men.

Male Judges ask why a woman couldn't keep her knees together while being raped and aquit a male taxi driver caught in the act of rape by saying although she was drunk three times over the limit she could have given consent. And acquit a policeman who was guilty of raping a woman he was driving home. Taxi drivers and policeman are supposed to be the safe way for women to get home.

Women are as a group valued less everywhere, although in some countries and monetary systems they do or have had women leaders. Women's rights to their own body are being attacked right now by that same demographic in the United States. Women in some countries cannot do many things without male supervision, still have female mutilation....

Some men still find it hard to have a woman boss. Some men still cannot handle it if their wife makes more or has a bigger celebrity persona.

Why is that? I would need that explained to me.

::::

Monamagda, I enjoyed your two posts. Especially Golding's comments.

:::

When asked why he made half of his new cabinet women, Trudeau, the feminist Canadian Prime Minister, said because it is 2015.

::::

Women should go to work for a practical reason - they will likely be fired by their male bosses if they don't - the same as some immigrants were fired when they did their "day without" strike.



Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Priscilla86
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 11:01:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/28/2014
Posts: 772
Neurons: 3,349
TheParser wrote:


I personally disagree that women are "marginalized" or that they are "valued less" in 2017 America. (Of course, I cannot comment on the situation in other countries.)



Many articles and reports that I've read seem to point otherwise, TheParser. Here are some links on gender pay gap I could find on the internet:

Forbes

Morgan Mckinley

The Atlantic

TheParser wrote:
Today, in fact, being an American woman is an advantage in many respects.

Women are often given priority in being hired.


I'm not sure if this is the point of the protest. I certainly don't want priority, I want equality. Equal opportunity, equal compensation.

TheParser wrote:

Even the language has changed ("his" is no longer the gender-neutral pronoun).


But 'his' is masculine, isn't it? that had somehow been chosen as 'neutral' when referring to someone or something with unknown gender. So the way I see it, people moving away from it is simply an act of restoring the neutrality to what was previously a one-sided patriarchy.

TheParser wrote:

At work, men walk on eggshells, lest they say something that offends a female colleague.

If a man has a good heart and his conscience is clear, he will never have to worry about that. Most women are reasonable. Most men are reasonable. Those dreadful men and women crying foul at the slightest disagreements we read in trashy tabloids are just that: dreadful.

TheParser wrote:


Anyone who comes to the United States will be astonished as to how many rights (and privileges) women enjoy.



I don't disagree with this, especially compared to countries where blatant sexism is still rampant.


TheParser wrote:


By the way, I have just heard that the organizers of today's strike are asking that women NOT shop today, lest they add money to the economy. (One exception has been allowed: Women may shop at smaller stores owned by people of color.)


It is true that they have asked women not to shop on March 8th, you can see the outline of the protest on www.womensmarch.com. But you added 'lest they add money to the economy' which is your own interpretation of the action and I'm afraid that's where you're missing the point. We don't do it thinking: "Ha! Take that Big Store!" We do it to show that we make up a significant chunk of the economic pie and people need to realize that.

Also, their exact words for the exception are: "with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses." I personally don't agree with this part. I say let the small businesses feel the pinch along with big businesses to illustrate just how significant women's contribution to the economy is, but I'm not the organizer.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 12:01:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Golding suggests women are superior. They are superior in some ways. Men are superior to women in others.

But I couldn't help but post this one as a good laugh for anyone of either gender who can laugh at themselves.

"Can you imagine a world without men? There’d be no crime, and lots of fat happy women."
—Nicole Hollander

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 12:05:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I actually like Emma Watson's take on it -

“It is time that we all see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals.” Emma Watson


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:54:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 11,609
Neurons: 35,013
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
There are always at least two ways of looking at things.

It's true that women coming from repressive regimes find first world countries wonderfully free.

However, women from other first world countries are horrified that American women are being targeted once more in America. Which is, by the way, the only country in the entire world where women sit doing up to 20years jail time for having a miscarriage. Or where handcuffs are put on a woman as she is still on the delivery table after a still-birth.

And women everywhere are appalled that a person who has boasted about how he gets to walk in on young girls (one's own daughter/niece/friend?) who are in a state of undress, and abused women in public for the way they look; who has accused a female journalist of 'bleeding everywhere, bleeding out of her eyes..'; and 'grabbed' women's genitals, has punished women everywhere.

He has condemned countless numbers of both women and children to death by withdrawing humanitarian aid all over the world; has stated that women should be punished if they have an abortion; is President. Though he hasn't built a wall, or kept his promise to make medical care affordable to everyone; he hasn't put Hilary in jail and he hasn't 'bombed the shit out of' Iraq as he promised his followers at his last "rally". But he has stepped in to make laws which take away what is a basic human right: the right of a woman to make personal decisions about herself and her life.

THAT'S why women are marching, yet again.

This is, after all, the Knowledge & Culture thread: so if we're going to talk about modern Culture lets bring all aspects in. And if we're going to talk about women's issues, then we women surely have a lot of Knowledge on that subject!
will
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:18:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 952
Neurons: 3,723
Oh, Hope, you know me better than that. I was joking, having a poke at a certain male members, past and present, who have a habit translating their inability to understand the personal experience of others into warped caricatures; in this case shrill, man hating lesbians.

It’s always safe to assume I’m joking. Whistle


.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 7:35:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Will,

Sugar! I missed the angel face. Reflex reaction. (But I did wonder knowing you.)

And I had "taken my meds" Applause "had my coffee", Applause had a good night's sleep, had an excellent breakfast, hadn't had a "discussion" with my husband, and and - can't even find an excuse for being so clueless. d'oh!

(Edited - the "feminine wiles" kitten is tongue-in-cheek too. )





Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 11:08:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Dreamy
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:57:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,499
Neurons: 7,681
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
TheParser wrote:
Here in the United States, March 8 is "A Day Without a Woman."

When I saw the topic heading I thought you meant on TFD, Parser. Anxious

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
TheParser
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 6:59:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 3,774
Neurons: 17,875
Thanks, Priscilla, for your calm, rational reply.

As every TFD reader knows, no one ever changes his/her mind.

These forums are just a way for people to blow off steam.

You know that you are right.

I know that I am right.

It's a tie.

*****

Here in the United States, we have been indoctrinated into believing that if a man earns $1 an hour at a particular job, then a woman at the same job will earn only 77 cents.

This "statistic" has been proven to be totally false, but some activists still continue to propagate it.

Maybe if the activists would stop "fibbing," more people would take them more seriously when it comes to other issues.


Have a nice day!

TheParser
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:11:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 3,774
Neurons: 17,875
Dreamy wrote:

When I saw the topic heading I thought you meant on TFD, Parser. Anxious


Actually, your humorous comment raises a serious issue.

Maybe TFD forums should be set aside one day/week for only women.
Maybe TFD forums should be set aside one day/week for only men.

(Of course, we would have to depend on a member's word that she is a she, and that he is a he.)

And becoming even more serious, here in the States, there is a movement (among only a few people so far) that girls should go to all-girls school, and boys should go to all-boys schools.



Have a nice day!
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:39:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 709
Neurons: 316,467
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
TheParser wrote:
This "statistic" has been proven to be totally false, but some activists still continue to propagate it.


I'll briefly steal Tunaafi's job and say "do you have any evidence to support that claim"? Do you even have evidence to support that people are "fibbing"? Because there's enough studies out there that point out the wage gap but I've yet to see one of those proofs you talk about.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 12:55:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Lotje has a point, Parser.

You throw out accusations and opinion claims as if they are facts with absolutely no proof at all, leaving us to do for you YOUR work if you wish to be in an educational discussion. But I see you view the Forum as just a means to vent. Well, we have a higher goal - to discuss, with proof, and to learn, and to have fun.

Well, I fell for that again, and am wasting my time researching and proving an already accepted point when I could be posting something more educational.

You are absolutely incorrect in your old-fashioned statements about the only country you've ever been in, The Ununited States. The disparity is different in each state, and California where you live, considered to be one of the more forward-looking states, is a little better than some of the rural states.

This is a 2015 report. Women of color are even worse off. This is a good article with the statistics broken down by other categories too if anyone still needs proof in this day and age.


http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Edited - aauw is a university women's group. American Assoc of University Women. I belong to a similar one in Canada. CFUW - Canadian Federation of University Women.




You are welcome, Parser.

P.S. If we were to have a day separated by gender, perhaps we should have a day separated by age. And a day separated by old age AND gender. We could do a married/single/divorced day, a country of birth day, a country of residence day, the amount of your net worth day, an LGBT Day, an indigenous people's day, a Romany day, a religion day, a color day, a culture day, your birhdate is an odd number day, a month day... Seven days in a week. And what if you don't fit into any category because there are too many descriptions?

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
tunaafi
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:13:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,803
Neurons: 50,561
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Lotje1000 wrote:

I'll briefly steal Tunaafi's job and say "do you have any evidence to support that claim"? Do you even have evidence to support that people are "fibbing"?


Feel free. I never get any response. I doubt if you will.


Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:15:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I have always said equal pay for equal work, but I also add that the woman should have the same qualifications as well. Teachers' pay has always been on a grid according to your education and to the number of years experience. Gender has nothing to do with it. But for other women in Ontario, they have to work 14 more years to earn the same lifetime amount.

Men need to support more equality according to this article from a Canadian viewpoint. It has other excellent points besides the ones I quoted.


https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/to-close-the-gender-wage-gap-men-must-vocally-support-more-equality/article34232606/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Quote - "A first step to engaging the private sector would be to drop the accusatory tone as it discourages any productive synergy to achieve a common goal. A second step would be a sharp shift in mentality and elimination of the misconception that wage gap and gender inequality is a purely social matter. This misconception is dangerously erroneous, since wage equality not only benefits corporate growth, but also promotes global economic prosperity. A McKinsey Global Institute report indicates that if women played an identical role in labour markets to that of men, as much as $12-trillion could be added to the global economy.

Finally, to move the needle on the wage gap, we need to stop undermining the role men play in this conversation. For the male readers: gender inequality is as much of a "male" problem as it is a "female" one. Women are your sisters, your mothers, your wives and your daughters. How can they ever win the fight without the support of their most important ally? We still haven't shaken off the preconceived notion that gender equality is solely a woman's issue fought by women for women, which in turn keeps breeding the problem. If men are not actively engaged in overcoming gender inequality, how can we ever achieve wage parity?" End quote.


Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:21:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
tunaafi wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:

I'll briefly steal Tunaafi's job and say "do you have any evidence to support that claim"? Do you even have evidence to support that people are "fibbing"?


Feel free. I never get any response. I doubt if you will.


He admitted above that he is just here to vent his own opinions with no proof. Quote Parser - "These forums are just a way for people to blow off steam."

The problem is we have loftier goals not driven by negativity, fear, and anger - discuss, give evidence to support opinions, learn, and have fun.

(Did you get across the border with no problem?)

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Romany
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:36:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 11,609
Neurons: 35,013
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hope - you wrote:

"We still haven't shaken off the preconceived notion that gender equality is solely a woman's issue fought by women for women..." Were you using the royal 'we', or did you actually mean Canada?

Because I've had three Canadian (male) colleagues who all identify as Feminists - and a couple of male posters here have done so too.

However, through this whole ghastly few months I've watched a lot of American programmes and I do see that there men are not so keen to identify as Feminists.

HOWEVER: - there is a whole strange new breed of young women calling themselves 'Feminists' in the USA right now - mainly @ universities. They call themselves the Third Wave feminists - but then again, any woman who thinks there's only be two 'waves' of feminism obviously has no idea of the history of feminism, so I never take them seriously, anyway.

These young women are absolutely rabid! We sit watching them with our jaws agape - until we start shrieking with laughter. They are also completely ignorant of what feminism actually is. But thery are all over the internet.

So, if some American men think THAT might be what Feminism is, I don't blame 'em for not aligning with it! I'm a woman - and I certainly wouldn't. It embarrasses me that they even use the word - simply to excuse typical undergraduate histrionics!!

Hope123
Posted: Thursday, March 09, 2017 11:53:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hi Romany,

I didn't write it. It was a quote. The whole article was from a Canadian viewpoint, but in that paragraph they were discussing the global economy being substantially better if women were included, so I expect it was a general statement for everybody.

And the statement does not read as being all inclusive of all males or even all females. It was a generalization - and you can never apply generalizations to individuals.

I would guess that most men are feminists - but they show it by example and not by going to protests. They may not even realize they are feminists or label themselves as such! They just treat ALL people decently and believe in fairness in all areas. I think the article was just asking that men become more vocal about their POV. And they certainly have been - even accompanying women in their marches everywhere, including in the US.

Unfortunately it may be the few that are the ones in power who are not feminists (such as the two judges being investigated in Canada right now) who are older men dealing with the old ideas they were indoctrinated with. (Although my husband is older than they are and he was taught to respect everyone by his father and mother.) But there has been very welcome backlash against them and their cases are being appealed. Breaking news tonight - the "keep-your-knees-together" judge Robin Camp who called the victim the accused, and said sex often had pain, just resigned after it was proposed to remove him, although there was not unanimous consent. But a new bill to ensure that new judges know all the nuances of sexual assault law was proposed.

And today it came to light that there have been two other rape and attempted rape victims whose cases did not go forward against the same taxi driver that the judge acquitted - even though he was caught in the act by police - because he said she could have given consent even if she was three times over the legal limit with alcohol.

(And then there are the males who are sick and stalk females as my niece's ex husband has done for 15 years. Or abuse them. Or rape them. But those are the minority who unfortunately get all the news.)

I never even labeled myself as a feminist until I got on this Forum and realized that has always been my viewpoint.

As for the Third Wave, I never heard of it till you mentioned it here. I don't know what you've seen, but the movement sounds good to me in this write-up. They were trying to include all minorities, not just women. Perhaps what you saw was a hijacked and changed perspective? If that is the case and there is a wrong impression out there, then sure, both men and women would hesitate to identify with them.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-third-wave-of-feminism

QUOTE - "The third wave was much more inclusive of women and girls of colour than the first or second waves had been. In reaction and opposition to stereotypical images of women as passive, weak, virginal, and faithful, or alternatively as domineering, demanding, slutty, and emasculating, the third wave redefined women and girls as assertive, powerful, and in control of their own sexuality..."

See my next post about what happened in Canada yesterday re young girls invited to sit in the Parliament of Canada.




Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 12:04:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/08/trudeau-announces-650m-for-sexual-reproductive-health-on-international-womens-day.html

I did not realize till this morning how strongly I feel about this topic. I choked up a bit when I saw a photo on the hard copy of the newspaper "The Toronto Star" of a group of young women from "Daughters of the Vote" from across Canada who had symbolically been given control of the House of Commons for a day. They represented their community from every riding in the country. It was an initiative to show young women some tools they need to become political leaders. I think I heard that only 24 % of the Commons is women. Other figures in the article from the link are pretty devastating.

They asked the Prime Minister some very hard questions. He announced money for women's health, including for abortion, some of it to counteract Trump's withdrawal of funds.

QUOTE - "The display in the House followed a morning announcement from Trudeau and International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau to spend $650 million in the next three years to promote reproductive rights and help women around the world access safe abortions, contraception and sexual education.

The money is being added to address “gaps” in Ottawa’s $3.5-billion initiative on maternal, newborn and child health, which was created in 2015. The funds are meant for projects that work to reduce unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions through sexual education, family planning and contraception services. The money is also meant to help prevent forced marriages and female genital mutilation.

“The right of women to choose when, how (and) with whom to start a family is one that we all must fight for and defend,” Trudeau said." END QUOTE

A Conservative woman MP called the funds "divisive". Women are often their own worst enemy in this fight.

:::

Also, I was a little ticked when I went online to get the pic to post here and found the pic above the story online is not of the young women but of Trudeau. And I had a hard time in the first place even finding the story online even though it was on the front page of the hard copy!

I pointed those facts out to the editor of the Star and asked them "What happened"? And laughed to myself "How typical". Post the man's picture instead. (Just as all the major papers in the US posted Bill Clinton's photo the night Hillary won the nomination.)

:::::

I have started watching an evening news show called "The National", and they did a good job of reporting the day's events. As well, they had a clip/story about a famous Canadian women's basketball team from 1915 to 1940 who won 95% of their games. The 95-year-old last surviving member recalls how she had to stop throwing the ball with one hand because it was considered "unladylike"!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton-grads-canadian-heritage-minute-1.4012248

:::

Here's what Sophie Gregoire was criticized - by women - for tweeting yesterday. It was along with a pic of her and her husband holding hands. Some of the backlash, if not all, was partisan. It was easy to spot that when it was claimed it was just a photo op for her husband - as if he has trouble getting his photo into the news. lol.

Here's her tweet which basically asked for what the same as the article I posted earlier about men had done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/07/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-men-international-womens-day_n_15213718.html


No wonder women can't get anywhere when they fight a call for men and women to work together. Duh!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39187848

Her answer - Ms Gregoire Trudeau added: "Our goal is gender equality, and fighting for it is going to require men and women working together - raising our boys and girls to make a difference, hand-in-hand. This is about recognising that we should be allies on this journey."

::

On the same day the wannabe Trump in Canada who is running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada gave a speech where he said that Trudeau's cabinet is incompetent because Trudeau put diversity over competence when he made half his cabinet women. In other words, those women are incompetent.

::

Iceland is the first in world to require companies to prove they offer equal pay to everyone - no discrimination for any reason. Applause Applause Applause

https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/03/08/iceland-first-in-world-to-require-companies-to-prove-they-offer-equal-pay.html

::

Jimmy Kimmel's Siri on a "Day without Women" at first wouldn't answer, and then on his second try told him she wasn't working and to go bleep himself.

And Kimmel made the joke that at the White House "A Day without Women" was a cabinet meeting. 😀




Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 2:56:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 709
Neurons: 316,467
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Hope123 wrote:
On the same day the wannabe Trump in Canada who is running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada gave a speech where he said that Trudeau's cabinet is incompetent because Trudeau put diversity over competence when he made half his cabinet women. In other words, those women are incompetent.


It always puzzles me why people assume that just because you decide to hire a diverse group of employees, that automatically means you haven't looked at their resume. Do they honestly think people grab the first minority they see and say "you're hired because we need to fill a quota"?
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:40:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 37,094
Neurons: 226,976
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Hope123 wrote:
I would guess that most men are feminists - but they show it by example and not by going to protests. They may not even realize they are feminists or label themselves as such! They just treat ALL people decently and believe in fairness in all areas. I think the article was just asking that men become more vocal about their POV. And they certainly have been - even accompanying women in their marches everywhere, including in the US.


I guess I'm feminist then, too ;-)


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:30:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 427
Neurons: 100,352
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
It always puzzles me why people assume that just because you decide to hire a diverse group of employees, that automatically means you haven't looked at their resume. Do they honestly think people grab the first minority they see and say "you're hired because we need to fill a quota"?

Probably he has looked at their resume but the fact is that he has employed them because they are women. :) And that means the cabinet must be less competent than it could have been if Justin Trudeau had used different criteria.
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:37:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 709
Neurons: 316,467
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It always puzzles me why people assume that just because you decide to hire a diverse group of employees, that automatically means you haven't looked at their resume. Do they honestly think people grab the first minority they see and say "you're hired because we need to fill a quota"?

Probably he has looked at their resume but the fact is that he has employed them because they are women. :) And that means the cabinet must be less competent than it could have been if Justin Trudeau had used different criteria.


So because they are women they are less qualified? Even the most qualified women he could find must automatically be worse than whatever man he could have hired?
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:01:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 427
Neurons: 100,352
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Probably he has looked at their resume but the fact is that he has employed them because they are women. :) And that means the cabinet must be less competent than it could have been if Justin Trudeau had used different criteria.


So because they are women they are less qualified? Even the most qualified women he could find must automatically be worse than whatever man he could have hired?

It's simple. :)

If you hire a woman then she is 100% a woman but as of the qualification it's rolling the dice. Considering the fact that there are fewer qualified than unqualified people you guess what the odds are.

If you hire a qualified person then he (excuse me) is 100% a qualified person but as of the gender it's rolling the dice. :)
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:07:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 709
Neurons: 316,467
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
It's hardly rolling the dice if you check their resume, employment history and references.

ETA: I should add that I am not arguing that people shouldn't prioritize skill over gender (In an ideal world, that should definitely be the case). I'm arguing that when gender is prioritized, that doesn't mean you don't get qualified employees.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:17:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 5,380
Neurons: 33,113
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Lotje1000 wrote:
It's hardly rolling the dice if you check their resume, employment history and references.

ETA: I should add that I am not arguing that people shouldn't prioritize skill over gender (In an ideal world, that should definitely be the case). I'm arguing that when gender is prioritized, that doesn't mean you don't get qualified employees.


Agree whole heartedly!

::::::::


Got the photos of the young women invited for a day in parliament asking hard questions of Trudeau.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-photos-young-women-take-over-the-house-of-commons-in-ottawa/article34239429/

::::

There were twelve more women elected to seats in the election in 2015 in Canada than in the previous government. There are 88 women elected of 338 seats. He chose 15 men and 15 women to be in his cabinet. He said he had plenty of good talent to choose from. And it is not as if he can't change things up if he thinks they are not doing a good job.

As for using the argument in any business or government that gender makes a difference in competency, that is a non starter. It is a no brainer that he is going to choose the people with the best backgrounds to suit them to the job he needs done. Men are better in certain areas and women are better in others.

If you were to incorrectly use the argument that gender makes a difference as to competency and looked at statistics, you might postulate that over 90% of companies are being run less competently than they might have been if more than 4-5 % of CEOs were women!

Because - "Women make better leaders". (One of these days Canada will get a woman Prime Minister for more than five minutes.)


On the website of the link following, they describe what was a huge study that is statistically significant and would not occur by chance, and that proves indeed, that women do make better leaders. Charts show the whole picture.


http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-are-better-leaders-2014-1


QUOTE from above link - "When we ask them (my brackets - the women themselves) to explain why women were perceived as more effective, what we frequently heard was,

“In order to get the same recognition and rewards, I need to do twice as much, never make a mistake and constantly demonstrate my competence.” (The shorter version of what we regularly heard from women was that “we must perform twice as well to be thought half as good.”) END QUOTE.

And Charlotte Whitton famously quipped an addition - "and luckily this is not difficult". 😀

Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home. Anon
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.