Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Fox]

[trogdor]

The majority of feminists are. Radicals want more.

I've just read a lot of the previous posts. I'm going to exit now, instead of arguing with you. It would only make me angry and get us nowhere. You seem to have a biased view towards women. This isn't the good old days where you could beat your wife (Honeymooners? Bang zoom?)

Adieu.

[Fox]

[Unposter]

Fox,
Sorry, I have been away so long. I was suddenly really busy at work and then I caught the flu�anyway I am back. Actually, I had written something earlier but I had taken so long to write it, the Caf� seemed to eat it. So, now I am writing on Word and I plan to copy and paste this into my post.

I was actually impressed with your last post to me because you seemed more reasonable and more open to the fact that you might be wrong though you have not admitted to being wrong about anything. I think at least being open to criticism is an important thing. It is something you want the person you are discussing something with to be but unfortunately few people are willing to admit it. I think this was the point of John Stewart�s recent Rally to Reinstate Sanity or whatever it was called. People need to listen more to each other and understand where they are coming from.

I think you misunderstood one of my last points. Maybe, it was because I did not write it clearly. If so, I am sorry; I will try to do a better job now.

I tried to argue that there was a double standard for women. If women try to compete for positions in businesses and government, they are somehow considered unwomanly. On top of that, if they are excluded from top positions, they seem exclusive by founding women�s association to help them network, socialize and mentor each other. Either way, they are criticized.

If businesses and political parties did more to give women real opportunities (not quotas), there would be probably be less need for such women�s associations. That was my point about more inclusivity. But, if women are already being excluded from the top positions, it should not be surprised that they form associations to help them improve their chances to get into the top positions.

Now, you have complained that men would not be allowed to do that. In some ways, you are right, though it is certainly self-enforced. In some ways, men prevent themselves from doing it. But, there are plenty of male associations or predominantly male associations � such as Masons, Shriners and Fraternities to name a few � which act as male ways to network, socialize and mentor each other. There are probably other organizations as well.

Personally, and I think similarly to you, I wish there was more inclusivity. That men and women wouldn�t need places and organizations without the other but I don�t think that is a current reality. And, I don�t think focusing only on women and feminism is going to change that.

And, I don�t think feminism is strictly about women gaining power over men. I think it has been and continues to be about ways to bring more equality between men and women. If it seems to you that feminism is about giving more opportunities and more chances to women, it is only because women are underrepresented and need more chances.
But, this is not a zero-sum game. It isn�t that for every women who networks with other women, receives mentoring and encouragement to be ambitious and make some success in their life that some man does not.
First of all, we need an economy where there is opportunity for all. Second of all, women also support families, husbands and even brothers.
If you want to blame someone, blame the politicians and business leaders that are responsible for our current economic situation. Don�t blame feminists.

Now, there has been a lot of discussion about women are genetically predisposed to not want to be business and political leaders and this may have something to do with the women being disproportionately represented in leadership positions. Yet, we all know that women do hold these positions, not only in the U.S. but all over the world. From culture to culture, we see differing number of women in leadership positions. I don�t know how anyone could call all of these women �outliers.� It obviously has to do with something other than genetics.
It very well could do with socialization and education. Women who are raised and educated to be leaders sometimes succeed despite some obvious obstacles including some men who will just not accept women in such positions. I think this is a better explanation for the under-representation of women in leadership positions.

I think that legitimate criticism of feminism is fair. And, I do think there are some extreme voices in the movement. I think it is legitimate to criticize them for their extremism. But, I think calling into account for the whole movement is problematic. It still does many good things including giving women a better understanding of who they are as women, all the different roles they may lead in society and some strategies for their own personal success as women as it may differ than that of men.

If you think of the world as a zero-sum game where when one group succeeds, it means less chance for you; then the world is going to drive you crazy. There should be plenty of opportunity for everyone and women�s groups should not seem a threat. If there really isn�t enough opportunity, don�t blame other groups, blame the people responsible. We need business leaders and politicians who can find opportunity for everyone. We all need to be more inclusive and less exclusive.

I have other things to say but I guess I will stop here until later.

[Kepler]

"So why are only 11% of Fortune-500 senior executives women?...

"The primary reason for the 11% figure is that men, on average, are willing to devote more time to their career. And time it takes. A study conducted by The Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, found that the average CEO works 58 hours per week. Fortune 500 CEOs likely work even more....

"Far fewer women than men are willing to work 58+ hours a week and to take work home or do extensive after-work professional development activities during evenings and weekends....

"Having been career coach to 2,000 professional clients, 2/3 female, I know that more women than men prioritize work/life balance, wanting more time for family, home, friends, and recreation....

"You can�t have it both ways: either plan on working long and smart or accept a lower-level job in exchange for work/life balance."
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/real-reason-so-few-women-are-in-boardroom_id1225

What's really funny about this thread is people trying to separate themselves from the "radicals" or "extremists" in feminism and then going on to make arguments that sound suspiciously similar to the arguments of the "radicals" or "extremists".

[Nuggets]

[Tundra_Creature]

[NovaKart]

Feminism, what a loaded topic. It means many things to many people.

Personally I think feminism has done a lot of good for men. Because women are no longer confined to the old gender roles it's also freed up things for men in some ways.

Sometimes the narrow focus of feminism can be dissapointing. Why don't feminists speak out about the abuse of Russian conscripts, something which is virtually ignored in international human rights dialog. Another issue, it seems like there's practically an exclusive focus on breast cancer with very little attention paid to other forms of cancer in comparison. The fact that in many European countries men are required to do military service and women are not is a major discrepancy in our ideas about equality.

I think some women do have a warped idea about men. They try to boost the confidence of women and encourage women to ask for things. As a male, I often feel relucant to bother people and ask for things and I don't think I'm any more confident than the average woman. Do women really thing that men are always incredibly confident and assertive?

There are problems that men face but generally this is ignored. I think it's for 2 reasons. First, that those in power are usually men. People conclude that by default this power extends to all men, which it doesn't. Another reason is that those who call themselves masculinist are generally men who are anti-feminist. This leads to conflict and has done nothing for men.

The idea that women want to keep all their priviledges and have equal rights is not true for all women. The National Organization of Women was in favor of women registering for the draft in the USA and they also took the side of a man who sued to join a female-only gym.

Could someone find a reliable source for the Swedish urinal thing? I have a hard time believing anyone could be so stupid. It's like complaining that there are no male tampons and therefore they should be banned.

To sum all this up, I think feminism has done a lot of good for both sexes but I wish we could focus on equality for both genders.

[mises]

Our sick society:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330860/Should-abortion--decide-U-S-couple-set-website-unborn-child.html

http://www.birthornot.com/

[BaldTeacher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAZdyMa9OvE

LOLOLOLOL

[rezdog69]

I am an extremely erudite and enlightened person so please allow me to resolve this kerfuffle.

1. BIOLOGY is primarily responsible for gender differences in physiology and behavioral predisposition. CULTURE and SOCIAL CONDITIONING also affect gender roles and behavior, but biology still trumps as evidenced by the relative constancy of gender roles across history and across most cultures. However, predisposition alone is no argument for the necessity of, say, men becoming hunters or women rearing children.

2. But, as far as I can tell, none of the anti-fems (worth taking seriously) have argued that women are predisposed towards inferiority or should be considered anything less than equal to men under the law.

3. Modern feminism, constituted as a POLITICAL agenda , seems to blanch at the notion of any kind of biological predisposition, while advocating for special status based mainly on a dialectically-narrated "culture/history of oppression." The strident appeal for "payback" as opposed to "humanity."

4. In my opinion, misguided feminism has mistakenly sought "equivalence" over "equality," cynically denying the role of biology and the positive aspects of gender differentiation.

5. To elaborate: some theoretical feminism imagines an alternative matriarchal world order as a response or universal salve to the aggressive, logocentric bureaucracies that constitute our social and cultural institutions and which are perceived as the root of the world's suffering. A world where the words "wife" and "women" would no doubt be stricken from the language for their oppressive sting. Yet, this seems to ignore the privileged history of the arts throughout all of human history. And, while proposing an alternate world of diversity, fluidity and endless nurture, this Feminine Utopia again betrays the Western political bias of feminist thought by simply reversing the power structure of the patriarchy. Rather than seeking to advocate or celebrate a Yin/Yang-like interplay of opposing forces, modern feminism seems more intent on occupying the territory of its oppressor than claiming new ground or learning to live in harmony. (ex. alimony, paternity) Reversing the power structure is not revolutionary; only invalidating or reinventing it is.

6. Gender, when considered broadly, is too complex a scale to be considered in mere binary juxtaposition. Males are males and women are women, but "masculinity" and "femininity" are sliding scales, just as identities are neither stable nor complete.

7. Rather than considering merely the theoretical, legal and political aspects of gender--spheres we would typically attribute to masculine thinking/organization--we should strive to include happiness/fulfillment and the nature of our lived experience as equally trenchant to the discussion. In other words, we should also consider questions about whether modern feminism has not, itself, oppressed men and the very women it claims to empower by sacrificing quality of life for an ideology of victimization.

8. No one is advocating a return to primitive times and unenlightened gender politics; however, does the bedroom have a place in the discussion of gender? Is there a link between lesbianism and modern feminism? If heterosexual women want to be happy and fulfilled, can they can accomplish this without losing the qualities that men are attracted to (attractiveness, pleasantness)? Does Sex and the City--a show written by gay men for frustrated straight women--accurately capture the zeitgeist of our time? Do all women secretly prefer Mr. Big to Aidin?

The answer to all the above questions, and the resolution to this dispute is only this: be more attractive and harmonious, not divisive and fat.

[ESL Milk "Everyday]

I think that people should stop using the word 'feminism' completely... if you're into promoting equality, why not call yourself an 'equalist'? Calling yourself a 'feminist' sort of implies that you're only interested in one half of the equation.

I don't have any problems with women being equal but it has gotten to the point where men and women don't really need each other anymore... and the whole idea of being a 'housewife' or 'househusband' (I guess) is kind of looked down upon as degrading. I'm not sure if it will ever be socially acceptable for men to not work and look after the kids... it's just not something that a lot of guys would feel comfortable doing.

I suppose the positives of post-feminist society probably outweigh the negatives... watching 'Mad Men' has made me realize that... but I also think it has served to make relationships more complicated, women more demanding, and men more bitter/gay.

[Poltergeist]

[MollyBloom]

A teal deer more appropriate for this thread:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.deviantart.com/download/117417121/Jena__Teal_Deer_by_jenasu.png&imgrefurl=http://jenasu.deviantart.com/art/Jena-Teal-Deer-117417121&h=700&w=700&sz=534&tbnid=-9mKa11UmNK1NM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dteal%2Bdeer&zoom=1&q=teal+deer&usg=__6L865fg-hCT2DraMQXJMxzGWss4=&sa=X&ei=jdMGTfWNOsKblgesnaSRCQ&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAg

[Kepler]

Maybe it's not so bad in Sweden.

"The American concept of dating originates in high school � complete with prom and making out in the backseat of a car. In Sweden, in comparison, kids can�t get their driving licenses until age 18 but parents sanction co-ed sleepovers.

"The American rules of the dating game are quite straightforward: Guy asks girl on date, girl says yes if she doesn�t find guy�s shoes objectionable, guy takes girl out to dinner, girl interviews guy about his occupation and future earnings prospects, guy pays for dinner, guy walks girl to front door, girl invites guy in if he successfully passed the test.

"All of the above goes out the window when it�s time to start dating in Sweden. It�s not entirely clear who is supposed to take the initiative, who is supposed to pay and what is supposed to happen at the end. Usually, you give up trying to figure out the answers to these questions and just let the alcohol make all of the decisions."
http://www.thelocal.se/8903/20080614/