Comments on: Defining Gender Equality http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/ Gender Liberation Beyond Feminism Thu, 17 May 2012 21:34:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: krishna http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-8600 krishna Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:53:23 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-8600 these will help the economy to develop but more publicity is to be done these will help the economy to develop but more publicity is to be done

]]> By: Genevie Digeorgio http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-3748 Genevie Digeorgio Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:30:19 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-3748 The difficulty with Plr items is the fact that most people don't use it in the right way. They need to either make use of it to generate suggestions for topics to write about or maybe fully re-write it or spin and rewrite it and then put his or her own brand on it. The difficulty with Plr items is the fact that most people don’t use it in the right way. They need to either make use of it to generate suggestions for topics to write about or maybe fully re-write it or spin and rewrite it and then put his or her own brand on it.

]]> By: Pelle Billing http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-808 Pelle Billing Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:58:31 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-808 Jim, I agree. The funny thing is that I've consciously explored how feminists have tried to hijack the (honorable) rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement (for example <a href="http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/02/women’s-liberation-vs-black-slavery/" rel="nofollow">here</a>), but I've never consciously made the connection to Marxism. Jim,

I agree. The funny thing is that I’ve consciously explored how feminists have tried to hijack the (honorable) rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement (for example here), but I’ve never consciously made the connection to Marxism.

]]> By: Jim http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-804 Jim Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:40:41 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-804 Pelle, "I had never put that label on feminist rhetoric" Feminst rhetoric has always appropriated both the terminlogy and moral self-righteousness of Marxism and the methods and rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It has been tis way since the mid-60's with the very beginnings of the Women's Liberation movement. Pelle,

“I had never put that label on feminist rhetoric”

Feminst rhetoric has always appropriated both the terminlogy and moral self-righteousness of Marxism and the methods and rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It has been tis way since the mid-60’s with the very beginnings of the Women’s Liberation movement.

]]> By: Pelle Billing http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-792 Pelle Billing Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:50:40 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-792 metalhead: <i>I think one of the problem is that they are applying a kind of marxist class analysis to gender, something that, to my mind, makes no sense.</i> Very well put, I had never put that label on feminist rhetoric, but you are spot on. metalhead:
I think one of the problem is that they are applying a kind of marxist class analysis to gender, something that, to my mind, makes no sense.

Very well put, I had never put that label on feminist rhetoric, but you are spot on.

]]> By: Just a metalhead http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-790 Just a metalhead Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:51:59 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-790 Agree again here, equality is not parity and parity is not equality. On a left-wing forum (under a different pseudonym) I had once said that it wasn't reasonable, when you saw a statistical unbalance in an occupation, to directly conclude from that element alone that this was a result of discrimination and sexism. I said that it could be a hint, but that only an in-depth analysis of the situation could reveal if this was so. I also added that if you impose parity, you are then denying people their individuality and telling them that they have a duty to their sex/gender to do X or Y instead of what they may have preferred to do, which was both sexist and a form of discrimination. Oh, how it pissed them off, if I hadn't been an established member of the forum, I'm not sure if they would have resisted the urge to ban me. I think one of the problem is that they are applying a kind of marxist class analysis to gender, something that, to my mind, makes no sense. Gender and social class are two different things, one is rooted in biology (both cisgender and transgender will tell you that they didn't choose to be male or female) the other is merely a social hierarchy. Agree again here, equality is not parity and parity is not equality. On a left-wing forum (under a different pseudonym) I had once said that it wasn’t reasonable, when you saw a statistical unbalance in an occupation, to directly conclude from that element alone that this was a result of discrimination and sexism. I said that it could be a hint, but that only an in-depth analysis of the situation could reveal if this was so. I also added that if you impose parity, you are then denying people their individuality and telling them that they have a duty to their sex/gender to do X or Y instead of what they may have preferred to do, which was both sexist and a form of discrimination.

Oh, how it pissed them off, if I hadn’t been an established member of the forum, I’m not sure if they would have resisted the urge to ban me.

I think one of the problem is that they are applying a kind of marxist class analysis to gender, something that, to my mind, makes no sense. Gender and social class are two different things, one is rooted in biology (both cisgender and transgender will tell you that they didn’t choose to be male or female) the other is merely a social hierarchy.

]]> By: Pelle Billing http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-784 Pelle Billing Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:04:26 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-784 Danny: <i>Just saying that there isn’t a 50/50 gender split in politicians alone is not proof of sexism (if it it is then lack of 50/50 gender split in teachers is proof of sexism). One has to actually show some proof or evidence as to why that lack of 50/50 split is due to sexism.</i> Excellent point. I wonder when people will start requiring some sort of evidence for feminists to be allowed to claim various things? Danny:
Just saying that there isn’t a 50/50 gender split in politicians alone is not proof of sexism (if it it is then lack of 50/50 gender split in teachers is proof of sexism). One has to actually show some proof or evidence as to why that lack of 50/50 split is due to sexism.

Excellent point.

I wonder when people will start requiring some sort of evidence for feminists to be allowed to claim various things?

]]> By: Jim http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-780 Jim Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:26:05 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-780 “When 50% of politicians are women then we’ll have equality.” Then other big problem with claiming that this is some kind of evidence of Patriarchy at work is that in the US at least in most voting juridictions, women are the majority of voters, so in this case this is a Patriarchy run by women. That doesn't mean that there isn't sexism at play. I think women can be horribly sexist towards other women, just as it is ususally men who establish the sexist lwas and policies that harm men. As for the wage gap, it has been very heartening to see that President Obama has brought this up, and framed it as "women EARN only [whatver percentage] less than men. It is indeed the difference in EARNINGS that needs to be addressed. “When 50% of politicians are women then we’ll have equality.”

Then other big problem with claiming that this is some kind of evidence of Patriarchy at work is that in the US at least in most voting juridictions, women are the majority of voters, so in this case this is a Patriarchy run by women.

That doesn’t mean that there isn’t sexism at play. I think women can be horribly sexist towards other women, just as it is ususally men who establish the sexist lwas and policies that harm men.

As for the wage gap, it has been very heartening to see that President Obama has brought this up, and framed it as “women EARN only [whatver percentage] less than men. It is indeed the difference in EARNINGS that needs to be addressed.

]]> By: Danny http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-778 Danny Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:19:49 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-778 <I>5. Realizing that equality need not mean sameness</i> This is a big one. Every once in a while I see a feminist chime off something like, "When 50% of politicians are women then we'll have equality." and then turn their nose up as if they are above reproach. What they either don't realize or refuse to acknowledge is that equal opportunity does not mean the same thing as equal results. Just saying that there isn't a 50/50 gender split in politicians alone is not proof of sexism (if it it is then lack of 50/50 gender split in teachers is proof of sexism). One has to actually show some proof or evidence as to why that lack of 50/50 split is due to sexism. This also relates to the wage gap. Shouting that women only make 77 cents to men's dollar doesn't mean anything until there is something to show that the 23 cent difference is a result of sexism. 5. Realizing that equality need not mean sameness
This is a big one. Every once in a while I see a feminist chime off something like, “When 50% of politicians are women then we’ll have equality.” and then turn their nose up as if they are above reproach. What they either don’t realize or refuse to acknowledge is that equal opportunity does not mean the same thing as equal results.

Just saying that there isn’t a 50/50 gender split in politicians alone is not proof of sexism (if it it is then lack of 50/50 gender split in teachers is proof of sexism). One has to actually show some proof or evidence as to why that lack of 50/50 split is due to sexism.

This also relates to the wage gap. Shouting that women only make 77 cents to men’s dollar doesn’t mean anything until there is something to show that the 23 cent difference is a result of sexism.

]]> By: Bj0rnborg http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/04/defining-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-777 Bj0rnborg Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:04:20 +0000 http://www.pellebilling.com/?p=787#comment-777 Once again, very well put. Unfortunately I have nothing meaningful to add. :) At least at the moment. Once again, very well put. Unfortunately I have nothing meaningful to add. :)
At least at the moment.

]]>