No, just kidding.
My friend and newcomer to the blogosphere, Todd Seavey, has posted his views on feminism.
I've made an initial response, but I plan on addressing each of his points. Perhaps I'll do it here!
Anyway, he's new around here, so let's get his comment numbers up, shall we?
(Todd is actually a really entertaining, sweet guy whose behaviors don't exhibit the kind of patriarchal bullshit he has just espoused. He likes his women intelligent, accomplished, and child free, and supports their abilities to remain so.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Your friend doesn't seem like he's willing to listen, as his arguments are pretty much recycled crap. Why is he your friend exactly?
Gin:
Because while he talks a big craptastic game, as I said in my post, the kinds of women he prefers to be around wouldn't exist without feminism, which he does recognize.
He's a Libertarian who believes in a meritocracy, regardless of the gender of the merit holder.
Ah, the meritocracy excuse. Watch that one go down like the Titanic. They all say that. They just don't believe that women have merit.
You'll excuse my skepticism; seen it all, heard it all.
"They"? Wow. I'll stop believing in a meritocracy, too, then, being one of "them", if it's something to be dismissed simply because it's an ideal held by one of "them".
Good luck with that equality thing.
"the meritocracy excuse"? um....
seems to me feminists should be big proponants of the idea that society should be organized on merit, rather than other stupid characteristics like gender (or race). I find it very easy to be a libertarian and a feminist--those things go together like peanut butter and jelly IMO.
[reposted for typos]
You know, maybe us men wouldn't mind your whining and nagging so much if you cooked us steak more often and were better in the sack.
I take that back. We would still hate the whining and nagging.
I'm getting a little cranky over thataway...we shall see if further discussion proves even slightly useful.
I've asked the commentors on the repost of my "in a perfect world, women and men would be treated the same in x, y, and z ways" comment in my own journal if they'd mind me making it public so I can link you -- just in case anybody made comments assuming that they'd never make it out to the entirety of the big bad internets. If no-one has expressed objection by tomorrow I'll make it public in some way or another and drop you a link. I had some very good additions to the list, as well as great concrit, it makes me happy to engender such good discussion.
That meritocracy thing got my daughter a job that pays 25% more than the one her husband got. Plus hers has health insurance and other goodies his doesn't.
They went to equivalent undergrad schools, the same grad school, got the same degree, are working in the same profession in the same city. The big difference was grades, hers were excellent, his were merely good. The difference in grades is probably due to study habits. She worked harder and she's getting compensated for it.
This is the way it ought to work, IMHO. It would be demoralizing for both of them if he worked harder, got better grades and she got the better job because she was female? Why exchange the old way (getting the better job because of maleness) for an equally bad new way?
Meritocracy is the only fair way.
Post a Comment