Tangential Spin-Off from Kitchen Pass thread: " I'm not a feminist"

[Anonymous]

To me, feminist = man hater. I think of people like Mary Daly, recently profiled in the NYT Sunday Magazine, who wouldn't let men enroll in the classes she taught because she wanted them to feel excluded, too. If you believe in equality and all of that, why not just call yourself a "peopleist" or a "humanist"? Identifying yourself as being "pro" one group is like saying "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Maybe it was necessary to redress an imbalance 50 years ago, but it is hardly necessary now.

And BTW, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that somebody mentioned above DID NOT usher in an equal pay requirement for the first time. That's been federal law for DECADES, folks. All the recent legislation does is let women sit on their pay discrimination claims for years instead of suing promptly when they recognize discrimination, which is what every victim of discrimination should do.

[Anonymous]

Feminism for a misogynistic world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, feminist = man hater. I think of people like Mary Daly, recently profiled in the NYT Sunday Magazine, who wouldn't let men enroll in the classes she taught because she wanted them to feel excluded, too. If you believe in equality and all of that, why not just call yourself a "peopleist" or a "humanist"? Identifying yourself as being "pro" one group is like saying "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Maybe it was necessary to redress an imbalance 50 years ago, but it is hardly necessary now.

And BTW, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that somebody mentioned above DID NOT usher in an equal pay requirement for the first time. That's been federal law for DECADES, folks. All the recent legislation does is let women sit on their pay discrimination claims for years instead of suing promptly when they recognize discrimination, which is what every victim of discrimination should do.

Why not call yourself a "peopleist or a humanist?" First of all, no one would know what you are talking about. The reason people use the term "feminist" is that is the accepted term for someone who supports and values equal rights for women. Is there something wrong with supporting equal rights for women? Also, do you really think that women have acheived equal rights and that any efforts in that area "are hardly necessary?" Are you aware that women make 70% of what men make? (70 cents on the dollar) for the same work. This is a fact and reported by neutral, unbiased sources. Just because something is federal law, doesn't mean that it is adhered to. Women in the military experience serious sexual harrasment and rape occurs at an alarming rate. More women then men graduate from law school, business school and medical school but guess how many women are partners in law firms (compared to men) or head physicians or CEO of big companies? Discrimination and sexism are alive and well. How many moms post on DCUM that their husbands aren't 50-50 partners when it comes to child care and taking care of the home and they are sick of working full time and doing most of the domestic work. Why should women work a 40+ work week and still be responsible for most of the domestic work. Why do many husbands and fathers not feel responsible for all the home related responsibilities like laundry, cooking, cleaning, dr appts, clothes shopping, etc etc. Clearly, there is work to be done. When you walk into a car dealership are you treated the same as your husband? Do you really think "it is hardly necessary" to continue to work for equal rights for women? We have come a long way, but more needs to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, feminist = man hater. I think of people like Mary Daly, recently profiled in the NYT Sunday Magazine, who wouldn't let men enroll in the classes she taught because she wanted them to feel excluded, too. If you believe in equality and all of that, why not just call yourself a "peopleist" or a "humanist"? Identifying yourself as being "pro" one group is like saying "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Maybe it was necessary to redress an imbalance 50 years ago, but it is hardly necessary now.

And BTW, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that somebody mentioned above DID NOT usher in an equal pay requirement for the first time. That's been federal law for DECADES, folks. All the recent legislation does is let women sit on their pay discrimination claims for years instead of suing promptly when they recognize discrimination, which is what every victim of discrimination should do.

Why not call yourself a "peopleist or a humanist?" First of all, no one would know what you are talking about. The reason people use the term "feminist" is that is the accepted term for someone who supports and values equal rights for women. Is there something wrong with supporting equal rights for women? Also, do you really think that women have acheived equal rights and that any efforts in that area "are hardly necessary?" Are you aware that women make 70% of what men make? (70 cents on the dollar) for the same work. This is a fact and reported by neutral, unbiased sources. Just because something is federal law, doesn't mean that it is adhered to. Women in the military experience serious sexual harrasment and rape occurs at an alarming rate. More women then men graduate from law school, business school and medical school but guess how many women are partners in law firms (compared to men) or head physicians or CEO of big companies? Discrimination and sexism are alive and well. How many moms post on DCUM that their husbands aren't 50-50 partners when it comes to child care and taking care of the home and they are sick of working full time and doing most of the domestic work. Why should women work a 40+ work week and still be responsible for most of the domestic work. Why do many husbands and fathers not feel responsible for all the home related responsibilities like laundry, cooking, cleaning, dr appts, clothes shopping, etc etc. Clearly, there is work to be done. When you walk into a car dealership are you treated the same as your husband? Do you really think "it is hardly necessary" to continue to work for equal rights for women? We have come a long way, but more needs to be done.

Totally agree. I was an earlier poster who said we need a new word, but I do think that for me, I am interested in pursuing policies/advocating for women and men (working families) but also policies that are unique to women. And I want to see women suceeed in finding balance (of course men too but I do think women and moms have unique issues...look at this board, you don't often see WOHD being discussed). And certainly outside of America, there is a ton of work to be done for women - in many countries they don't have the basic rights or opportunities we have.

[Anonymous]

To the "equal pay" advocate, I think the current mantra is "seventy-seven cents." What is equal work, anyway, and who decides? If you are, say, a fifth year associate at a law firm, you may THINK you do "equal" work to that of the fifth year in the office next door, and maybe you both even put in the same hours, but maybe, just maybe, his or her work is better than yours. I rather doubt your unbiased statistics control for that.

Do they also control for the rather obvious reason for women's supposedly lower pay -- that more women take time off to raise children? That is good for women, and good for society.

That is also an obvious explanation for why you find fewer women CEOs and law firm partners. Fewer women WANT those jobs, because they are not compatible with good parenting unless you have a spouse who wants to be the primary parent, and not too many men want to do that. My own husband's career prospects were far inferior to mine, but we still decided that I would be the primary parent (ie work part time and be available at all times kids need me), because he would have been lousy at it, and I actually enjoy it.

Finally, your gripe about men not doing their share at home is not "discrimination." -- each couple needs to work those things out before they get married and have kids. If women didn't marry jerks (and nobody makes them), there wouldn't be a problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the "equal pay" advocate, I think the current mantra is "seventy-seven cents." What is equal work, anyway, and who decides? If you are, say, a fifth year associate at a law firm, you may THINK you do "equal" work to that of the fifth year in the office next door, and maybe you both even put in the same hours, but maybe, just maybe, his or her work is better than yours. I rather doubt your unbiased statistics control for that.

Do they also control for the rather obvious reason for women's supposedly lower pay -- that more women take time off to raise children? That is good for women, and good for society.

That is also an obvious explanation for why you find fewer women CEOs and law firm partners. Fewer women WANT those jobs, because they are not compatible with good parenting unless you have a spouse who wants to be the primary parent, and not too many men want to do that. My own husband's career prospects were far inferior to mine, but we still decided that I would be the primary parent (ie work part time and be available at all times kids need me), because he would have been lousy at it, and I actually enjoy it.

Finally, your gripe about men not doing their share at home is not "discrimination." -- each couple needs to work those things out before they get married and have kids. If women didn't marry jerks (and nobody makes them), there wouldn't be a problem!

I'm not the poster you responded to, but for many women, they feel pushed out of the workforce to raise kids. If we had more supportive policies, this wouldn't be the case. I have a ton of friends of who feel this way, and the research states this as well. Not all women, certainly some choose to leave, but some feel pushed out. And in some cases, leaving work to raise kids is good for society, but for the women and children who end up in poverty, it's not good. Check the stats - what is the #1 risk for poverty in this country? Motherhood. And that's really sad and definitely NOT good for society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, feminist = man hater. I think of people like Mary Daly, recently profiled in the NYT Sunday Magazine, who wouldn't let men enroll in the classes she taught because she wanted them to feel excluded, too. If you believe in equality and all of that, why not just call yourself a "peopleist" or a "humanist"? Identifying yourself as being "pro" one group is like saying "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Maybe it was necessary to redress an imbalance 50 years ago, but it is hardly necessary now.

And BTW, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that somebody mentioned above DID NOT usher in an equal pay requirement for the first time. That's been federal law for DECADES, folks. All the recent legislation does is let women sit on their pay discrimination claims for years instead of suing promptly when they recognize discrimination, which is what every victim of discrimination should do.

You're unfamiliar with Lilly Ledbetter's story. She was paid unfairly for many years before being made aware of it - and then, only because someone slipped a note into her locker at work. As is the case at many workplaces, she and her coworkers were not permitted to discuss their pay, and did not know she was making less and receiving smaller raises than her male counterparts. The Supreme Court ruled, going against decades of equal pay standards, that the employer's initial decision to pay her less than her male counterparts was the violation and that she had only 180 days from THEN to file her claim. An employer who was able to hide its discriminatory pay practices for six months was in the clear. Previous to this, the standard had been that each unequal paycheck was a new violation and thus reset the 180 day clock.

There is zero incentive for women to "sit on their pay discrimination claims for years." This was never the case previous to the Lilly Ledbetter bill, and is not now. Not only would women lose out on the money they should be earning, but they lose a percentage of their Social Security and other retirement benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the "equal pay" advocate, I think the current mantra is "seventy-seven cents." What is equal work, anyway, and who decides? If you are, say, a fifth year associate at a law firm, you may THINK you do "equal" work to that of the fifth year in the office next door, and maybe you both even put in the same hours, but maybe, just maybe, his or her work is better than yours. I rather doubt your unbiased statistics control for that.

Do they also control for the rather obvious reason for women's supposedly lower pay -- that more women take time off to raise children? That is good for women, and good for society.

That is also an obvious explanation for why you find fewer women CEOs and law firm partners. Fewer women WANT those jobs, because they are not compatible with good parenting unless you have a spouse who wants to be the primary parent, and not too many men want to do that. My own husband's career prospects were far inferior to mine, but we still decided that I would be the primary parent (ie work part time and be available at all times kids need me), because he would have been lousy at it, and I actually enjoy it.

Finally, your gripe about men not doing their share at home is not "discrimination." -- each couple needs to work those things out before they get married and have kids. If women didn't marry jerks (and nobody makes them), there wouldn't be a problem!

Ok, whatever June Clever.

[Anonymous]

What would this discussion be like if it were men who were on the shitty end of the receiving end on EVERY SINGLE SITUATION?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, feminist = man hater. I think of people like Mary Daly, recently profiled in the NYT Sunday Magazine, who wouldn't let men enroll in the classes she taught because she wanted them to feel excluded, too. If you believe in equality and all of that, why not just call yourself a "peopleist" or a "humanist"? Identifying yourself as being "pro" one group is like saying "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Maybe it was necessary to redress an imbalance 50 years ago, but it is hardly necessary now.

And BTW, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that somebody mentioned above DID NOT usher in an equal pay requirement for the first time. That's been federal law for DECADES, folks. All the recent legislation does is let women sit on their pay discrimination claims for years instead of suing promptly when they recognize discrimination, which is what every victim of discrimination should do.

You're unfamiliar with Lilly Ledbetter's story. She was paid unfairly for many years before being made aware of it - and then, only because someone slipped a note into her locker at work. As is the case at many workplaces, she and her coworkers were not permitted to discuss their pay, and did not know she was making less and receiving smaller raises than her male counterparts. The Supreme Court ruled, going against decades of equal pay standards, that the employer's initial decision to pay her less than her male counterparts was the violation and that she had only 180 days from THEN to file her claim. An employer who was able to hide its discriminatory pay practices for six months was in the clear. Previous to this, the standard had been that each unequal paycheck was a new violation and thus reset the 180 day clock.

There is zero incentive for women to "sit on their pay discrimination claims for years." This was never the case previous to the Lilly Ledbetter bill, and is not now. Not only would women lose out on the money they should be earning, but they lose a percentage of their Social Security and other retirement benefits.

If that were true, why didn't she argue that the discovery rule applied (ie, that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff becomes aware of her injury)? She didn't, you know, and the Supreme Court said that was an open question. Fair point that there is no incentive to sit on your rights. What I should have said was that the Act provides an incentive for disgruntled employees to look back over their employment histories and decide in retrospect that performance evaluations from 5 or 10 years ago that led to their lower pay were in fact discriminatory, when they didn't think so at the time, and when witnesses are gone and memories have faded, so it's much harder for the employer to defend against the claim. That's the reason for the 180 day limitation period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the "equal pay" advocate, I think the current mantra is "seventy-seven cents." What is equal work, anyway, and who decides? If you are, say, a fifth year associate at a law firm, you may THINK you do "equal" work to that of the fifth year in the office next door, and maybe you both even put in the same hours, but maybe, just maybe, his or her work is better than yours. I rather doubt your unbiased statistics control for that.

Do they also control for the rather obvious reason for women's supposedly lower pay -- that more women take time off to raise children? That is good for women, and good for society.

That is also an obvious explanation for why you find fewer women CEOs and law firm partners. Fewer women WANT those jobs, because they are not compatible with good parenting unless you have a spouse who wants to be the primary parent, and not too many men want to do that. My own husband's career prospects were far inferior to mine, but we still decided that I would be the primary parent (ie work part time and be available at all times kids need me), because he would have been lousy at it, and I actually enjoy it.

Finally, your gripe about men not doing their share at home is not "discrimination." -- each couple needs to work those things out before they get married and have kids. If women didn't marry jerks (and nobody makes them), there wouldn't be a problem!

Ok, whatever June Clever.

Not the PP, but its nasty dismissive comments like this that make women not want to be associated with the feminist movement. Nothing she said was "June Cleaver-esque", and is not even remotely anti-feminist to choose to be the primary caregiver to one's children. I think it is incredibly demeaning to women to imply that we are "forced" by our husbands to do more than 50% of the housework. Unless he is beating you, any "feminist" worth her salt should be perfectly capable of standing up to her husband and telling him to step up. And questioning the party line that the pay gap is purely a result of discrimination does not make one "June Cleaver".

[Anonymous]

"What I should have said was that the Act provides an incentive for disgruntled employees to look back over their employment histories and decide in retrospect that performance evaluations from 5 or 10 years ago that led to their lower pay were in fact discriminatory, when they didn't think so at the time, and when witnesses are gone and memories have faded, so it's much harder for the employer to defend against the claim."

IF this was true, it would have been a pervasive problem before the new law was passed - as you say, it only codified what had been the practice for decades previous - but that's not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the "equal pay" advocate, I think the current mantra is "seventy-seven cents." What is equal work, anyway, and who decides? If you are, say, a fifth year associate at a law firm, you may THINK you do "equal" work to that of the fifth year in the office next door, and maybe you both even put in the same hours, but maybe, just maybe, his or her work is better than yours. I rather doubt your unbiased statistics control for that.

Do they also control for the rather obvious reason for women's supposedly lower pay -- that more women take time off to raise children? That is good for women, and good for society. That is also an obvious explanation for why you find fewer women CEOs and law firm partners. Fewer women WANT those jobs, because they are not compatible with good parenting unless you have a spouse who wants to be the primary parent, and not too many men want to do that. My own husband's career prospects were far inferior to mine, but we still decided that I would be the primary parent (ie work part time and be available at all times kids need me), because he would have been lousy at it, and I actually enjoy it.

Finally, your gripe about men not doing their share at home is not "discrimination." -- each couple needs to work those things out before they get married and have kids. If women didn't marry jerks (and nobody makes them), there wouldn't be a problem!

If taking off to raise children is good for society, it is equally good that some women stay in the workforce after having children. What feminism is to me is opportunities for women. Many of my SAHM friends are able to stay home and raise children because they know if need be they could support their family if they had to. They can do this because they have taken advantage of the opportunities in higher education for women, and the fact that they have years of work experience to fall back on, and the fact that being a working woman or working mom is not the exception any more, but the norm. If it were a given that every woman would drop out of the workforce once they got married, we would be back to the time when companies and universities did not see the point in investing in women. We have gone past that point and now there are a lot more opportunities for women whether they work or stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the "equal pay" advocate, I think the current mantra is "seventy-seven cents." What is equal work, anyway, and who decides? If you are, say, a fifth year associate at a law firm, you may THINK you do "equal" work to that of the fifth year in the office next door, and maybe you both even put in the same hours, but maybe, just maybe, his or her work is better than yours. I rather doubt your unbiased statistics control for that.

Do they also control for the rather obvious reason for women's supposedly lower pay -- that more women take time off to raise children? That is good for women, and good for society.

That is also an obvious explanation for why you find fewer women CEOs and law firm partners. Fewer women WANT those jobs, because they are not compatible with good parenting unless you have a spouse who wants to be the primary parent, and not too many men want to do that. My own husband's career prospects were far inferior to mine, but we still decided that I would be the primary parent (ie work part time and be available at all times kids need me), because he would have been lousy at it, and I actually enjoy it.

Finally, your gripe about men not doing their share at home is not "discrimination." -- each couple needs to work those things out before they get married and have kids. If women didn't marry jerks (and nobody makes them), there wouldn't be a problem!

Thank you to all the previous posters who backed me up and agree with me.
I never said that men not doing their share of domestic work is discrimination. However, it is a critical component of feminism/equal rights for women/respect for women in the workforce. If it was so easy just to "work those things out" then all the hundreds of posts by women on this website should be easy to fix. All men who don't do 50-50 of their share are not neceasarily "jerks," they have just been taught from an early age and see every day on tv commercials and other media that women cook, clean, do laundry etc. Do you ever see a man in a toilet bowl commercial? Even great guys, like my husband, doesn't really do 50-50. It may also be the woman's fault, in part, because she is conditioned to feel that it is her responsibility and she isn't a successful wife and mother if she can't keep the house running smoothly. I know when people come into my messy house, they don't subconsciously think "that husband, why can't he manage this house better," they probably wonder about me.
In this thread one poster said all feminism has given her is more work. Now she works outside the home, but she still has to do everything at home. It's not respectful of women who work outside the home to expect them to do most of the domestic work. The man thinks, I worked hard all day, I want to go home and relax. Well guess what, so did the woman. One of the the next steps in the women's movement is to get men to take on more domestic responsibililty. I'm glad you worked all this out with your husband before hand, but it is complicated and many men don't want to dust, polish silver etc etc. even if they wouldn't admit it. They didn't grow up seeing their dad do this and it's not what they imagine men do. Maybe mow the lawn, fix the car but not the more "female" jobs. A lot of people on this sit are able to avoid the fights and just hire a maid, but not all. I was inspired to read about a woman who said she is raising her son to do these things. That is one answer. Work on the next generation.

[Anonymous]

Definitely a feminist, and loving this thread. Have to quote one of my favorite Family Guy episodes. Peter is the husband and Lois is his wife:

Peter: "Listen Lois, I know you're a feminist and I think that's adorable, but this is grown-up time and I'm the man."