Apparently this is an unpopular opinion among feminists. If feminism is about equality for everyone, it needs to address that. As an example, LGBTQ+ was extended many times to cover everyone in the community, and that’s the right thing to do. There isn’t just L and everyone repeats “Oh! Lesbians are for rights for everyone, no need to update that”
I don’t know what the new name should be, but it should cover gender equality for everyone.
I think most people aren’t just concerned with how legislation is worded and if there’s theoretical legal differences. In practice, women are still disadvantaged. I mean we can start talking once there was an equal amount of female CEOs and female US presidents… on how society turns out in practice. Or once women can walk home from the pub/club alone at 2am like I do.
But what else can the state do? Also, at some point, “equality” is just laughable and impossible. Is there something particularly good about having female CEOs and US presidents? I mean, in those particular cases, it would just mean women have become/are equally amoral and sociopathic, lol, which is not something we should aspire to as a society.
And women are targeted by men because 1)they’re sexually attractive (because they’re women and most men are straight); and 2) because they’re not as physically competent/imposing. The only way to just stop that from ever happening is to make women men!
Sure, we could be more compassionate and less coercive/abusive towards women but that would require an entire social zeitgeist, with men self-policing for prosocial, moral reasons. But, especially if you live in the West, there is no ideological motivation to do so: the people believe in nothing besides following their own interests, and have the moral understandings of teenagers at best, so the slope is extremely slippery. If you check my username, you can imagine what I would say an intelligence and thorough self-examination agnostic solution is (“God hates the troublemakers and rapists and overall pests to women fit squarely in that category… I’m going to Hell if I’m this way”).
I’m telling you, the only way to say “feminism should make it possible for women to walk alone at night safely” is to only think about that with your heart (which is already more than what many people do!), but not your mind.
It’s not necessarily something particularly good. That was more a response to your question whether there are still any differences. And my take is there are a lot of differences in practice. The lack of representation is more an indicator that there is still something wrong. I’d expect to see at least some females there because we know they’re capable of leadership and there are some intelligent woman out there. So a share of 0% is just an indicator that this can’t be right. It’s a bit better with CEOs, I think we have roughly 10% female CEOs these days and we’ve come a long way with that.
And saying we as a society just disadvantage weak people and they’re going to get targeted by crime due to that, isn’t very just, either. That might be true. But it shows it’s not equal opportunities. And society is laid out so people don’t get the same standard of living, due to their attributes. Which is not optimal. Of course that’s not easy to change, but I bet there are some possibilities to make things better without turning everyone into a strong man who fights people in physical altercations. With crime, I think it’s usually the role of the state to crack down on it effectively (and not just in theory) and provide everyone with education, opportunities… so they don’t become criminals in the first place. And concerning crime at night, we have a few urban design measures and other multifaceted ideas to help with that. That’s also within the responsibility of the government to achieve that. I think the main issue though is that we aren’t really predators within a society and people need to learn not to act like that.
To become a CEO you kinda have to put the shareholders (men who don’t sow but love to reap) first competently above the workers who create value, and IIRC in some countries it’s also their legal obligation? Maybe men are just more sociopathic in nature, hence the difference. But again, why is the difference in other careers a necessary display of injustice? Maybe, just maybe, men and women are fundamentally different in some areas to a degree that’s large enough for them to prefer different careers? Why does everything need to be 50/50, when it doesn’t necessarily come from any negative angle? Only if you think “men and women differ only in superficial, physical ways” would this make sense, which is a popular take in some societies (especially in the West), but something being popular doesn’t make it true, right?
And the cultural change does not require nor depend on “feminism” but simple empathy for our fellow human beings. Also, education can only go so far. Henry Kissinger and Bibi knew/know exactly the consequences of their actions and were/are clever people, they just didn’t/don’t give any fs about it. It’s an attitude problem, molded by ideology certainly, but any person with any degree of humanity should understand “raping is wrong”, regardless of their level of education. It just leaves the realm of/does not require “feminist ideology”, is what I mean. Regardless, thank you for your reply, and you seem to be a reasonable and kind lemming. 👍
You’re right. And I’m not even advocating for a (mandated) 50/50 share. We have science available and we can do studies whether something is due to systematic and man-made unfairness, or due to differences in population groups. I have a hunch that the former still plays a big role in society. But ultimately all simple truths are wrong and we’d need to resort to science and have a very long conversation to tell whether a ratio of X is indicative of something, and it depends on the domain.
I’m kind of not okay with how sociopathic (big) business is. So I’d welcome whoever brought more reason and overall societal gain into economy. If that’s a side-effect, I’d be okay with that. As is, it’s a bit too exploitative, and not what we should strive for. Maybe we should have >50% women CEOs to facilitate that, I don’t really know (And it’s kind of a stereotype to attribute caring for fairness and collective good to women).
And sure, we’ve circled back to the original question. I think we all mostly agree here on what culture should be like. I’d call things feminism if it’s focused on eradicating the remaining unfairness women face in specific. But that’s just part of a bigger picture (for me). And I’d say education is one of the mightiest tools humans have available. But that’s mostly because I believe in the things the Age of Enlightenment brought us and I’d say that has brought us prosperity and freedom. And fighting for individual freedom and equality is an everlasting struggle none the less, for women and for whatever stereotypes apply to me, or anyone.