The Problem with feminism is that it does not distinguish between "sameness" and "Equality" ... who would agree that women can be equal in importance, etc. with men, but are actually quite different and play reciprocal roles to better perform as a team?
by 
denidowi
ANSWERS: 21
-
I do agree with that. Men and Women, (or Men and Men / Women and Women) should be unique individuals, and have the ability of fill different roles instead of trying to be clones.
-
Yeah, you can be equal and different... Women's and Men's minds work differently and they do different things to achieve them same outcome... that doesn't mean that the different ways are better/worse than the other, just different.
-
Actually there are different strands of feminism that recognize difference. Some are called exactly that "difference feminism". A good classic author on this is Carol Gilligan, the book is called "In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development". Other books and article from "difference feminism" discuss "the ethic of care" a lot. If you search the term you'll find lot's of sources. They take the differences between men and women as basis for their argument for equality
-
Reciprocal roles in what? The family? The workplace? The community? The political sphere? There is a problem with your hypothesis. It assumes as fact that men and women are quite different and there is little if any overlap in qualities and abilities. This is not the case. Human abilities and functioning cover a wide range and men and women fill the entire range. Much of what we think of as inherent in each gender can actually be explained by cultural conditioning. For example, if men and women each function differently in the family, complementing each other, how do you explain how a homosexual couple (either 2 men or 2 women) can raise a family without dysfunction? Or how a widow and her widowed mother can raise a family perfectly well without a 'real' man in the house. Basically,I disagree with your premise so I do not agree with you.
-
I agree with the point I assume you're trying to make. That females cannot be treated equally as males because the two genders are different, but that doesn't make women any less important or any more disposable. I disagree with the word "reciprocal" in your question, however. It implies that the tradtional male roles are the foundation of the relationship, and the traditional females roles just complement them, which is not the case. I would prefer "cooperative". I personally do not believe that there should be gender roles. Every person should be able to choose what they want to do in a relationship.
-
I think a large mistake some people make is thinking that women need to be like men in order to be equal with men. Women and men are both equally valuable, and should be equally respected. But to deny the differences in between them is to restrict one or the other. In fact, I think one of the biggest hurdles to true gender equality is to insist on sameness. If women can only gain equality by acting like men, then they cannot be said to be equally respected for who they are. We must be able to appreciate the gender differences while being able to see that they don't seperate the genders but bind them together.
-
I think men have been playing catch up to women since the dawn of civilization. But I do think the best "fit" is complimentary roles - not identical ones. Biology makes that pretty much necessary.
-
The Equal Rights Amendment was about equal pay for equal work, and when serious feminists discuss equality it is this that referring to: Education levels and occupation aside, women in the American workforce still face a persistent earnings gap between men and women. According to a 2004 GAO report, the weekly earnings of full-time working women were about three-fourths of men's. Even accounting for factors such as occupation, education, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts.
-
The problem with feminism is that it uses the term "equality" differently, when they want a different outcome. When they want "identical" they use it to mean I identical; when they want "equivalence", they use it to mean that. They abuse the term equality because of it's political value. In many regards, they really do not want equality, they want equal outcomes, to be given advantages when they need/want it. Based on their inconsistency, hypocrisy, and (worst of all) penchant for hating men, I disregard whatever they say.
-
The problem with "feminism" is that everyone has a different idea of what the word means and every single definition is going to piss someone off. Personally, I just want to have the freedom to pursue the things I am good at and love doing. None of those things involve cleaning or children. The health and safety of the world is much improved by the simple fact that I am working towards other goals.
-
I agree 100%. We should all enjoy equal rights and opportunities. I think whomever is better at a certain job (whatever) should be the one doing it. Every role and each player is important to the team. :D
-
as soon as you say there is a problem means you are the macho problem . there is no rules we be what we want women please take over this stupid macho dominated world . women am with you all the way
-
I think that each person should be able to chose their own way in life and if that means non-traditional roles then so be it. Having said that, I do think there is some sense to traditional family roles where the man is a primary earner and the woman is the primary child/home manager. A man doesn't (usually) take extended parental leave and so his career and income growth can be uninterrupted while running a household and family is a complex management job in itself that also benefits from someone with experience and expertise. Outside family, I don't see much NEED for gender based roles but I do see them time and time again. I used to bartend and kept a running tally of my friends and regulars. Though all the women were progressive and feminist - and they all said they didn't expect a man to pay for the dates; I saw that when the man did not pay for the 1st date - there was almost never a 2nd one and not once was there a 3rd. :-) +5
-
FINALLY! SOMEONE GETS IT!
-
In the hunter gatherer times women did the hunting and men stayed at home, it was only when people begann to farm the land that women stayed at home and men begann to do the work!! Why you feel that women are inferior is beyond me!! The cahnges in society made it so that women did particular jobs and men did others! I am in shock that you said i was baddly schooled!! when you clearly dont have a clue!
-
The problem with feminism is feminism itself. It's waste of time anymore.
-
i AGREE wholeheartedly...and so does the ALMIGHTY..women are very important to HIM , always has been, but they are different but very USEFUL in ROLES and were always better at PERFORMING and FULLFILLING certain ROLES....thank God for wo/man , Mary....Deborah, Sarah, Abigail, Hannah,Miriam,Elisabeth,etc....:)but their ROLES as wife and mothers ,on EARTH , are their most SPIRITUALLY and EARTHLY important ROLES....most don't have a clue but the ROLE TO THEMSELVES anymore....Feminism is no worse than machoism,womanizing....they are both WRONG!!!
-
I disagree with you on this deni. In my neck of the woods at least, feminists aren't in any way trying to be considered the same. They know full well that they aren't men.The problem still exists however, where women aren't paid the same as men for the same work. In this day and age, being a team player doesn't mean only the wife cooks, cleans, raises the kids etc. These responsibilities need to be shared.The idea that the women stay at home and raise the kids etc., isn't practical for families anymore unless the husband is a CEO. And many men are still caught up in the notion that even though their wifes have a full time job, they are expected to cook when home from work, cook and clean whilst the husband reads the paper. No wonder these woman bitch. So in knowing this, it would make sense that there should be more of a team spirit with both sides and not an impractical notion that things can go back the way they were in the 19th century.
-
I agree. I do not want to be treated as the same as a man. I want acknowledgement that my inherent intellectual abilities are as great as a man, but the reality is that I am more interested in the home, the family and having children. I like to make the house nice. I love to cook. I'd rather be taken care of by a man and take care of him in other ways. I would like my needs - the fact that I get painfully broody, that I desire children and family above all else, and that I put those way before any career - to be acknowledged and accepted. I want this to be understood, because I don't wish to be treated like a man. Why, since feminism, is it so taboo to say that a lot of women crave these things by instinct because they are different from men?
-
Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Here is the thing, men and women are like the ying and the yang. Or hardware and software. If you have 2 hardwares all you have is very heavy interesting electric paperwights that don't do anything but sit there. What does it do, or what good is it without software to give it usefulness? If you have all software an no hardware what good is that? You have a bunch of plastic disc you might as well use for drink coasters. With out a hardware device to read the info on them, they are useless. Women are, lets say software and men are hardware. They think hardware is better so they want to stop being software and be the same as hardware BUT they don't want to lose the benefit of being software. They have not got the concept that you can't be both. The software and hardware are vastly different in appearance and fuction but used TOGETHER you can be on the Web answering questions of this nature instead of looking at a blank screen. Feminist ought to wise up and get with the program.
-
Feminism has several fundamental problems one of which is the step beyond equality to what feels allot like payback. It is a classic struggle for those that have been oppressed for so long. The blacks in America, the natives in Canada, etc all share the payback attitude. There are no laws specifying that a certain number of white males should be hired into each company, but there are laws for both women and visible minorities. Is this fair? No even close. Is it necessary? Not so much any more but 10-20 years ago probably. It does allow for unfair hiring practices, labour laws, and essentially legal discrimination against any that don't fit the 'special' categories. Since this is essentially what feminism was founded to prevent against women, isn't it odd that it would be allowed, and mandated, in the opposite direction?
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC