By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Attitudes 100 years since women's suffrage

Feminism and in general the  status of women as a whole in society is still a work in progress - and I'd expect it to stay that way for my entire lifetime at least. Social structures change over time so you never reach a point were you can say "this is how it should be and how it should stay" cause society is ever changing and ever evolving. Just look at the history of racism in USA and its state as of today - Still a work in progress, and at times it seems to take one step forward and two steps backwards.

I consider myself ignorant in the aspects of gender/social studies so I dont know if the progress made the last 100years can be valued as "sufficient" or "appropiate" for that time lapse, but I dont get the impression that it is the case at least speaking from my very specific small niche. Having basic rights was something to celebrate maybe some 100 years ago but as of today much more is needed and expected. Most of my female friends have said at one point or another they've been the victims of sexual harrassment in social settings and in the workplace and as you mentioned they are expected to behave in a certain way. Whenever they show to have a "strong" character they are perceived as troublesome, "opinionated", complicated or difficult to work with wereas their male counterparts are assertive and have initiative. I mean, just look at women in congress and how they are perceived and criticized, particularly from right wing supporters. So many times have I heard AOC is "crazy" or something in those lines. None of that helps. Equity in the smaller scale of everyday life is very much lacking. 



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
Stereotypically assuming, because this site is dominated by men, that we would be sexist is, itself, sexist against men. Not the best start. May want to change the language of the OP.

Secondly, based on my years of experience, this site is significantly left leaning politically, or at least the ones generally commenting are, and lefties are more 3rd wave feminism supporters.

Which brings me to my third point. Feminism, stages 1/2, are basically supported by the mass (rights for women to vote and rights for women to get paid equally), but third wave (women should be able to murder babies in their womb), and fourth wave (all white women are evil, only minorities should gain more) are the two that many disagree with. I don't know any conservatives that don't agree with 1st and 2nd wave feminism, but plenty that disagree with 3rd and 4th. I'd recommend expanding on what you mean by feminism in the OP to avoid confusion.

It is literally impossible for Jaicee to expand what she meant by feminism because she never invoked the concept in her op. She literally did not use the word. The only thing she did was cite a study claiming 61% of people identify as feminist, and obviously she cannot expand on what feminist means in that context, because those people are self identifying.

Jaicee clearly identified the issues she was discussing in the OP. The one who invoked feminism was you, and IMO in a very reductive way to discredit any gender inequality issues beyond equal pay. :-/ 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 31 August 2020

I don't live in the US so my experience might be quite different, but a fear years ago I thought equality was doing quite well. Well, for the most part it probably is, but there certainly seems to be a lot more to do than I thought.

Dulfite said:
Stereotypically assuming, because this site is dominated by men, that we would be sexist is, itself, sexist against men. Not the best start. May want to change the language of the OP.
Dulfite said:
third wave (women should be able to murder babies in their womb)

You're not exactly advocating good discussion here either...



Zkuq said:

I don't live in the US so my experience might be quite different, but a fear years ago I thought equality was doing quite well. Well, for the most part it probably is, but there certainly seems to be a lot more to do than I thought.

Dulfite said:
Stereotypically assuming, because this site is dominated by men, that we would be sexist is, itself, sexist against men. Not the best start. May want to change the language of the OP.
Dulfite said:
third wave (women should be able to murder babies in their womb)

You're not exactly advocating good discussion here either...

A woman should ofc have free choice over her own body.
If she doesnt want to carry through haveing a baby, she ofc should be free to get rid of it.

Do you use the word babies when its not born yet?
The wording seems.... yeah.. but yes, before its come to terms.
Abortion is something civalised societies should have.

It seems crazy to me, people are against this.



Dulfite said:
women should be able to murder babies in their womb

The framing is about as genuine as saying men want to sentence rape victims to death in child labor complications.
Or that male masturbation is genocide.

There is a whole debate surrounding the distinction between an embryo, fetus, and a sentient baby, and the effects of unwanted pregnancies that go beyond just an inconvenience.
Not sure if Jaicee wants it to start in her thread about women's suffrage. But please don't go out of your way to provoke it.

Last edited by Hiku - on 31 August 2020

Around the Network
Hiku said:
Dulfite said:
women should be able to murder babies in their womb

The framing is about as genuine as saying men want to sentence rape victims to death in child labor complications.
Or that male masturbation is genocide.

There is a whole debate surrounding the distinction between an embryo, fetus, and sentient baby, etc.
Not sure if Jaicee wants it to start in her thread about women's suffrage.

Lmao, everytime you shoot off, that coulda potentially been a baby (if you had a partner to impregnate).
So 1 outta those millions of cells, coulda been a new life.
On the other hand, if you didn't, it would just age/die, and be re-absorbed by your body.
Its not quite the same, but I get your point.

Its a silly way to argue against abortion.
What next? you cant just let eggs go, get washed out as menstrual cycles! its wasted life potential!
Women only have so many eggs, gotta impregnate them all! You'll have to bear me 100 children woman!

Its silly.

Not to mention the earth is over populated.
Nothing good would come of it, or thinking like that.



JRPGfan said:

Lmao, everytime you shoot off, that coulda potentially been a baby (if you had a partner to impregnate).
So 1 outta those millions of cells, coulda been a new life.
On the other hand, if you didn't, it would just age/die, and be re-absorbed by your body.
Its not quite the same, but I get your point.

Was referring to how they can be frozen and then be used to inseminate millions of eggs over time, but yeah.



There's always some work to do.

While here in Luxembourg, the difference between how men and women are treated legally is null ( which also cuts both ways in this case. For instance, they don't have any legal advantage anymore when it comes to who gets the kids in a divorce or who has to provide financially for their ex-partner) and socially it's very slim, but the same is sadly still not true for their wages where men gain around 5% more than their female counterparts for the exact same work done. And interestingly enough, most companies who have the biggest gap in gender pay are American or Asian corporations, the gap is much smaller in European corporations or smaller companies.

Thankfully, more and more women are ascending to leadership positions, so the gap should wither away over time, at least partially.

As a side note, I think that having an openly gay prime minister who married to another guy certainly also had a good effect on the acceptance and image of LGBTQ+ people in Luxembourg. Their legal protection is now almost the same as for men and women (there are some legal questions on childcare that need to be ironed out) and employers can't refuse you for your sexual orientation/identity, though more elder and/or religious people still tend to have problems accepting this reality.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
There's always some work to do.

While here in Luxembourg, the difference between how men and women are treated legally is null ( which also cuts both ways in this case. For instance, they don't have any legal advantage anymore when it comes to who gets the kids in a divorce or who has to provide financially for their ex-partner) and socially it's very slim, but the same is sadly still not true for their wages where men gain around 5% more than their female counterparts for the exact same work done. And interestingly enough, most companies who have the biggest gap in gender pay are American or Asian corporations, the gap is much smaller in European corporations or smaller companies.

Thankfully, more and more women are ascending to leadership positions, so the gap should wither away over time, at least partially.

As a side note, I think that having an openly gay prime minister who married to another guy certainly also had a good effect on the acceptance and image of LGBTQ+ people in Luxembourg. Their legal protection is now almost the same as for men and women (there are some legal questions on childcare that need to be ironed out) and employers can't refuse you for your sexual orientation/identity, though more elder and/or religious people still tend to have problems accepting this reality.

I didn't even know, that luxenbourg had a gay prime minister.
In denmark, Im pretty sure we have a gay and lesbian minister or two, but so far not a prime minister (i'm not sure, we might have had one).
We have plenty of women as prime minsters though.

On the other hand, it shouldn't even matter.
I think denmark is accepting enough, that if we had a candiated that was pointed at to be the next prime minster, him/her being gay/lesbian or whatnot, wouldnt matter either here.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 31 August 2020

Hiku said:
JRPGfan said:

Lmao, everytime you shoot off, that coulda potentially been a baby (if you had a partner to impregnate).
So 1 outta those millions of cells, coulda been a new life.
On the other hand, if you didn't, it would just age/die, and be re-absorbed by your body.
Its not quite the same, but I get your point.

Was referring to how they can be frozen and then be used to inseminate millions of eggs over time, but yeah.

What would be the point though? you could have 1 man, fertilies all women on the earth.
What do all the other men do with their sperm then? :p

Too much sperm, not enough eggs.... and a earth thats already over populated.
plus genetically I think its best that we mix and match alot, rather than have like 1 donar get all the offspring of the world.