If Feminism Is For Equality....

Your blog preys on generalisations and is therefore void. The feminist summation "The personal is political" completely destroys your views that are fuelled by collective, sweeping, biased, and inaccurate statements. You're merely asking the questions that are the basis for well-balanced and personal research. Instead of posting these online, thinking that your single handedly destroying feminism, why not ask yourself these questions and then research into them to find out that you are wrong?

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 07:30:06 -0500

That’s actually the point, though. We asked ourselves. We did the research. We found no satisfactory answers, and indeed the more research we do the worse the picture looks. We’re giving feminists a chance to offer their own on the off chance that ours was inadequate and at the same time posing these questions to others so they can do a bit of internal examination themselves. We would like nothing more that to be proven utterly wrong, because then we wouldn’t have to sit and do this when there are hundreds of other things we’d enjoy much more. However, nobody has yet even come even close to proving us wrong.

The questions we’re asking are based on what we see as fundamental contradictions within the feminist movement, things that are inherently contradictory to the stated goal of equality. As you might have noticed there are many. You can claim that these are “generalizations,” but between us we have decades of experience with the feminist movement, and have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of feminists. Our views on feminism are based not only on hundreds of individual, personal encounters but also on a knowledge of the political movements of feminism as a unit. You yourself might have no clue what “the personal is political” actually means, but we have examined feminism in both personal and political contexts and found it wanting and that particular slogan is just as problematic as the rest.

A large issue is that people misunderstand the common phrase “If feminism is for equality, why do feminists….” This isn’t intended to imply that all feminists engage in this behavior. What it means is it’s either a behavior we’ve seen from a large percentage of the feminist population, or one that’s being perpetrated at the movement and organization level. It’s not a generalization at all, because it’s never intended to speak to an individual feminist. It doesn’t matter if not all feminists, or not even a majority of feminists behave a certain way so long as some (in significant number) do.

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists spend more time telling non-feminists that "misandry is not feminism" than they spend telling feminist misandrists?

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 07:30:06 -0500

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists spend more time telling non-feminists that "misandry is not feminism" than they spend telling feminist misandrists?

stfufauxminists: iffeminismisforequality: Well hey, the person who wrote that is either a feminist...

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:25:15 -0500

stfufauxminists:

iffeminismisforequality:

Well hey, the person who wrote that is either a feminist or an ex-feminist, talking about it from that perspective. Even if she no longer considers her a feminist, she’s certainly not “co-opting” feminist language simply because she’s using it in a way that makes you uncomfortable by highlighting your own prejudices. You can take it up with her whether or not she understands what slut-shaming is or not, we just provided the link. However we think you’ll be in for a nasty surprise if you decide to have a go at her that way. Have fun. :)

That woman posted that in October. It was you that felt the need to post it now. You were the one who thought you had the “gotcha”, but you don’t, and now you can’t argue the point so you’re telling me to bring up an issue that you had to a woman who (clearly says she no longer IDs as feminist, so yes, it is co-opting the language, and even if she did ID as feminist, if she’s clearly using the language wrong, she’s still co-opting it) wrote a post about said issue months ago.

Just wanted to reblog to highlight the fact that you don’t actually know what the fuck you’re talking about. Is it anti-feminist? Ooh, must be good, right? Post it months after it’s relevant! Misuse terminology to try to prove some backwards ass point! Perfect formula!

It was posted to IFIFE because I either randomly came across it, or someone linked me to it. October wasn’t that long ago, and even if it was, the point is not the time period. There’s no expiry date on bigotry. All we need to do is prove that this happens, and it clearly has.

Regardless of the particular issue, the point being made is a relevant one regarding double-standards. If the genders had been reversed, Watson would have been vilified and described as an asshole. The man was polite, non-threatening and took “no” for an answer. The reaction from a wide variety of feminists was to attack him for….politely displaying interest in someone. What do we call it when women are attacked for displaying sexual interest? Oh, wait, we call it “slut-shaming.” Certainly there are many other components to slut-shaming, but shaming the display of sexual interest is definitely on the list. You can drone on all you like about it, but you can’t change the facts.

It’s not a “gotcha,” it’s just one more example in a long string of feminist hypocrisies. Same as always, I post something, people like you whine, and a few more followers show up who aren’t buying your bullshit. :)

stfufauxminists: iffeminismisforequality: If feminism is for equality, why do many hate slut...

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:56:16 -0500

stfufauxminists:

iffeminismisforequality:

If feminism is for equality, why do many hate slut shaming….except when it’s ElevatorGuy?

I don’t think you know what slut-shaming is, or you’re being deliberately obtuse. However, congratulations on finally including a link with one of your accusations (albeit not a link to any actual slut-shaming or even any examples of things that Rebecca Watson and other feminists have said about “Elevator Guy”).

Elevator Guy wasn’t “slut-shamed”, and if you knew what slut-shaming was you would know that.

This is what was said by Rebecca Watson herself, and what started the entire shitstorm (copied from Manboobz, a site you could really benefit from):

“So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’

Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and–don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.”

Would you look at that? Not once did she mention the word slut! Not once did she say “It’s bad when men have sex!”. There was no mention of how disgusting the guy was, or how he deserved to get sexually assaulted because of how he was dressed! You know, the things that actually are slut-shaming.

She said he made her uncomfortable, because she was in a very vulnerable position and she had already said how much that kind of behavior makes her uncomfortable. So elevator guy didn’t respect her wishes as far as sexuality is concerned, which makes him a creep and an asshole, not a slut. So when the blogger you linked said that “she (meaning he) didn’t push [himself] on [her]”, that is not true - he had already disregarded her feelings about being propositioned for sex once, she had no guarantee that he wouldn’t do it again in a more aggressive way, which leads to being creeped out. No one even called him a slut for that (not that anyone seriously calls men sluts anyway, or that it has any social power even if they try). They did call him a creep, though, and rightfully so. That’s what happens when you disregard people’s feelings about sexuality in an elevator alone at 4 am.

So, TL:DR, you can stop using words you don’t understand to try to discredit feminists.

Also, totally on the side, it’s incredibly telling that the only people who are still all hurty feelings about this are mostly men’s rights dudes who think it is their absolute right to be a creep in an elevator without a woman being able to complain about it on the internet. I’m so over elevator gate, and I’m sure you, my followers, are too. But god damn it it gets all over me when people try to co-opt feminist language just to make themselves think they’re more well-informed than they are or as some sort of “gotcha, feminists” when in actuality they’re not using the terms correctly at all (and they usually know it).

Well hey, the person who wrote that is either a feminist or an ex-feminist, talking about it from that perspective. Even if she no longer considers her a feminist, she’s certainly not “co-opting” feminist language simply because she’s using it in a way that makes you uncomfortable by highlighting your own prejudices. You can take it up with her whether or not she understands what slut-shaming is or not, we just provided the link. However we think you’ll be in for a nasty surprise if you decide to have a go at her that way. Have fun. :)

If feminism is for equality, why do many hate slut shaming....except when it's ElevatorGuy?

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:30:05 -0500

If feminism is for equality, why do many hate slut shaming....except when it's ElevatorGuy?

Yggdrasil: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists discount evidence of male oppression because "only women are oppressed,"...

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:20:39 -0500

Yggdrasil: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists discount evidence of male oppression because "only women are oppressed,"...:

neodiogenean:

iffeminismisforequality:

neodiogenean:

cuntycuntycunty:

thisgingersnapsback:

sexxxisbeautiful:

because some men are oppressed but never for being men.

some men are oppressed for being a person of color, for being trans*, for being poor, for being queer.

but never for being a man.

is

is this blog

is OP for…

I agree for the most part with yggdrasil’s response to cuntycuntycunty, but I think there is a lot of confusion between the sociological and popular definitions of terms like “racism”, “misogyny”, and “misandry.” Arguing against a person using the popular definition of these terms by using the sociological definition doesn’t create a compelling argument, because you are both talking about different things. In some sense, the sociological definition is more useful and represents a more nuanced understanding of racism and mis***y, but they were not the subject that cuntycuntycunty was breaching.

Neo, the problem is that the “sociological” definition you’re talking about isn’t actually accepted by the sociological community. PoN discusses the definition and its formation in general here. In fact, the “popular” definition nowadays seems to be the “power + prejudice” one, while the scientific community and those of us that take the time to look it up use what you’re thinking of when you say the “popular one.”

In the popular sense, misandrists and misogynists can exist in any culture, patriarchal or matriarchal. Does the fact that these people are individuals acting without the force of an entire culture behind them limit the amount of damage the can do to a person or group of people’s lives? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that the potential damage to a person or group of people is zero. Even in a misogynist culture in the sociological sense, a lone misandrist in the popular sense couldn’t destroy a man’s life if she wanted. If there is one thing that people do well it’s find new, creative, and ingenious ways of ruining other people’s lives.

This is a problem. Even if we do use your “sociological” (or more correctly “made-up”) definition, you seem to be assuming that misandry is something that can only be perpetrated by women, and since “women aren’t in power” there can be no societal misandry. Anyone can perpetrate misandry, and as is mentioned here there is evidence of men being discriminated against wholesale in law and institution. Even by that “sociological” definition, misandry exists in the U.S. today.

Also, it turns out that if we limit sexism to actual institutional power we find that virtually all sexism against women….doesn’t qualify.

Thank you for your response. It was illuminating. You’re correct that I betrayed an assumption that misandrists would be female, and I will be more careful in the future to not pattern my thinking like that. As to the “sociological” vs “popular”, thank you for pointing out my error. My basic point still stands, namely, Yggdrasil failed to make a compelling response to cuntycuntycunty due to both of them using different definitions of the words under discussion.

I actually disagree with your assessment that “prejudice + power” has become the popular definition. At least in my anecdotal experience the definitions seem to be divided this way: people in meat-space use just “prejudice”, parts of the social justice community online use “prejudice and power”, and based on your assessment sociologists use just “prejudice” as well.

I still stand by what I said to a degree. When I said that the internet social justice (what I previously called the “sociological”) definitions of racism, etc. were more nuanced than the sociological/popular definition (what I previously called “popular”), I meant it. Whether that nuance is useful to discussion, or helpful when it’s being read into words with traditionally broader meanings is another topic entirely, and outside of the scope of what I was and am trying to say in my response to Yggdrasil.

True, when I was talking about it being “popular” I was referring to within tumblr and other internet activist communities. The general public’s still using what I consider to be the correct one. I personally find the SJ definition to be much less nuanced, because it totally ignores individual circumstances in favor of lumping people into classes of “privileged” and “disprivileged” without really considering the individual cases that make all the difference. As I’ve seen, this definition as it is is almost never used to actually highlight discrimination or -ist behavior, but rather is used to excuse -ist behavior from “acceptable” people towards “acceptable” targets.

That’s my problem with it.

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists not oppose different physical standards for male and female soldiers, firefighters and police officers?

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:30:05 -0500

dancing-painted-bears:

Because I do??

Yes, but many feminists do not. Accepting those differing standards is something inherently opposed to equality, and thus should be inherently opposed to the basic principles of feminism. The fact that some, let alone many feminists do not oppose these and many were instrumental in putting them in place is the problem.

One of the issues with IFIFE is that people tend to take these things personally. When we say “why do feminists…?” what we mean is “why are there feminists that…?” not “why does every single feminist…?” When we speak about feminism as a whole, we’re speaking about the actions of the movement as an aggregate. Even if only fifty-one percent, barely more than half are engaging in a problematic behavior then it completely justifies the statement even though almost every second feminist will claim to disagree. You agreeing that this is wrong is great support, but it does nothing to counter the point: you’re just the one in ten, one in five, one in three that isn’t a bigot on this particular issue.

This also has to do with power. Feminism as a movement does have leaders even though it’s very fractured. What this means is that a comparative handful of people hold an awful lot of power. If they’re bigots, the actions of feminism will be bigoted even if all other feminists are well-meaning and the “bad feminists” are a substantial minority. Why? Well, feminists tend to stick together, even when they should be calling each other out. They’re happy to attack ideological differences between groups, but rarely do so when the issue is the group’s effect on the outside world.

You oppose this. Great. Now where were you and all the other feminists who oppose it when feminist lobbyists were pushing for it in the first place?

Brainfood

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:08:50 -0500

thesis-womanimation:

“If feminism is for equality, why didn’t they see any problem with “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” being marketed to preteen girls?”

Yep, that’s the one.

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists not oppose different physical standards for male and female soldiers, firefighters and police officers?

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:30:05 -0500

If feminism is for equality, why did the founder of the first ever women's shelter in the U.K. receive death threats for suggesting that much domestic violence is reciprocal?

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:42:05 -0500

STFU Fauxminists!: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists object to co-opting a woman's body for 9 months to have a child but not to...

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:41:05 -0500

STFU Fauxminists!: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists object to co-opting a woman's body for 9 months to have a child but not to...:

stfufauxminists:

Worst analogy ever.

First of all: Not everyone who can get pregnant is a woman. Not everyone who pays for the well-being of children are men.

Secondly: Pregnant people don’t just pop babies out and then hand them over to men to take care of them. Those same people often do a whole lot of work…

Not again….*facepalm*

If feminism is for equality, why didn't they see any problem with "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" being marketed to preteen girls?

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:33:15 -0500

frothydragon:

I’m a feminist and I see a great big problem with it.

Stop peddling the “feminists hate men” claptrap. We don’t.

And yet I can’t remember a single feminist organization standing up and opposing it when it was first an issue.

If feminism is for equality, why didn't they see any problem with "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" being marketed to preteen girls?

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:30:06 -0500

STFU Fauxminists!: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists object to co-opting a woman's body for 9 months to have a child but not to...

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:35:15 -0500

STFU Fauxminists!: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists object to co-opting a woman's body for 9 months to have a child but not to...:

stfufauxminists:

Worst analogy ever.

First of all: Not everyone who can get pregnant is a woman. Not everyone who pays for the well-being of children are men.

Secondly: Pregnant people don’t just pop babies out and then hand them over to men to take care of them. Those same people often do a whole lot of work…

Can we hear it one more time?

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists support biased policies which lead to men being arrested for reporting that their wife is abusing them?

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:30:05 -0500

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists discount evidence of male oppression because "only women are oppressed," then conclude that only women are oppressed, because there is no evidence to the contrary?

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:53:47 -0500

sexxxisbeautiful:

because some men are oppressed but never for being men.

some men are oppressed for being a person of color, for being trans*, for being poor, for being queer.

but never for being a man.

To unfortunately repeat myself:

So what do you say to the large amount of evidence demonstrating systemic legal discrimination against men in the courts, health care spending, reproductive rights, government issue representation, support for male victims of domestic violence and rape…?

STFU Fauxminists!: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists object to co-opting a woman's body for 9 months to have a child but not to...

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:12:19 -0500

STFU Fauxminists!: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists object to co-opting a woman's body for 9 months to have a child but not to...:

maddlington:

stfufauxminists:

Worst analogy ever.

First of all: Not everyone who can get pregnant is a woman. Not everyone who pays for the well-being of children are men.

Secondly: Pregnant people don’t just pop babies out and then hand them over to men to take care of them. Those same people often do a whole lot of work when it comes to the actual care of said child - most of it is unpaid, too! If that person has breasts, they might breastfeed, too, which is also a use of their body! Huh.

Third: Comparing a man having to work - something he would have to do to support himself anyway - to a woman (to use the binary language used in the original post) being forced to carry a pregnancy - go through a medical condition - is ridiculously offensive. Everyone has to work to support themselves. That is pretty much a given destiny for all people on the planet unless someone is either very lucky for very unlucky. Pregnancy is not necessarily a given destiny for all women. So essentially what this implies is that women are meant to be pregnant just as all people are meant to work to support themselves and their families, if they happen to have them. Also, that a man’s state of existing, i.e. being a person who works for their money, is comparable to a woman going through numerous body changes that are inevitable and permanent that come with pregnancy, risking their life and health, etc.

Fourth: Hey guess what? Men can sign away their rights to fatherhood! No child support in many cases - but also no visitation rights - no problem, right?

Fifth: Child support has little to do with the pregnant people involved and lot to do with, and I know this will seem overwhelming, the child involved. A born child, a child who is definitely a child, a child who is an independent being who needs to be supported and cared for. Courts, generally, hold the support of children in very high regard. That’s the point.

Sixth: You have a right to not have your body infringed upon by the government - and hey, cis men really don’t have to deal with government trying to do that on a large scale level, you lucky dogs! - you don’t necessarily have the right to not have you money go to places you don’t want it to go. That’s why the government can use our tax dollars to pay for wars. That’s why if I get into a car accident and it’s my fault, I have to pay to fix that person’s car - even if they were also driving recklessly! And a car isn’t even as important or expensive as a child!

Last but now least: If you’re really worried about this sort of thing, you know, the feminist conspiracy to milk money out of poor unsuspecting men by having their children…really, if anti-feminist, paranoid, reactionary, disingenuous douchebags are for equality, why don’t they push for greater birth control options for men? Why don’t they push for a hormonal option for men? Why not get all of the options that women supposedly have (that are constantly under attack and also expensive)? Maybe because it’s easier to saddle women with the burden of preventing the pregnancy, but then when a woman wants to make a decision about that pregnancy and hold a man accountable for his part in it, that’s “oppression” and “inequality”?

Bullshit. Take this nonsense somewhere else. Feminism is not the reason for your ills

Fucking epic response.

We’re just going to redirect you to where this “epic response” was basically shredded wholesale in a way that was never even remotely responded to or rebutted.

Otherwise, see the most recent post made today? This is exactly what we’re talking about.

This blog exists to pose questions about how the world works, in an attempt to make people challenge...

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:30:00 -0500

This blog exists to pose questions about how the world works, in an attempt to make people challenge their beliefs about the ways in which feminism does, and more importantly, should operate. Admittedly it is done in a rather….confrontational manner, but all the same.

It’s rather disheartening when we see sixty or seventy reblogs all just repeating a single badly-formed and inaccurate criticism of something that’s been said, but only ten or so of the response to that criticism….especially when not a single one of those presents any rebuttal to that response even by the author of that criticism. When we are proven wrong we’re entirely willing to admit it, but rarely if ever do we see a response that comes even close to doing so.

The point of debate and discussion is not to attack and overpower, but to reach the truth. Simply latching onto the first statement that supports your own ideology and screaming it loud and long for all the world to see in no way advances that goal. We present questions, and offer a chance for people to answer them. We like answers, because sometimes we can learn from them, and even if we can’t perhaps others can. However, when those answers are inadequate, poorly-formed or just out-and-out wrong (and being honest that’s the majority, plain and simple) we provide a response and rebuttal to those answers. Overwhelmingly, those responses are ignored.

We offer a chance for debate, and rarely if ever do we fail to answer a criticism or comment on a matter whether privately or publicly. Considering the number of responses we get that’s often not a small task, though made easier by the fact that often the first response, no matter how bad, is parroted endlessly by people too lazy or incompetent to use some critical judgment or creative thought. We stand behind the words that we write, even when doing so involves writing five or ten responses to similar and equally mistaken criticisms. It’s somewhat depressing that people are unwilling to stand behind theirs enough to write even one response, let alone more.

It’s a sad state of affairs when adults cannot carry on rational and sensible debate in an open forum. It’s a worse state when people claiming to be adults are incapable of understanding how debate and discussion work and that one must either defend one’s position or concede it, rather than simply placing one’s fingers in one’s ears and screaming buzzwords until the nasty mean logical person goes away. It’s beyond worrisome when people are incapable of functioning when actually expected to defend what they say, or to present evidence backing up their claims and buzzwords. It’s outright scary when the reaction to claims made using logical argument, with citations and scientific proof to back them up, are simply ignored because they contradict ideology, left unaddressed because facts and statistics cannot be invalidated simply by yelling at them. It’s no less than terrifying when ideology becomes so accepted that the very idea of questioning it and applying some form of rational thought to the theories and practices is considered subversive and offensive.

There is a reason we question whether feminism can possibly be saved….and you are it.

If feminism is for equality, why do feminists call out people promoting oppression against virtually all minorities....except when it's them promoting oppression against men?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:16:30 -0500

deathbydowney:

Feminism isn’t about oppressing men, dumbass.

Tell that to the feminists.

Sgt. Kirby: If feminism is for equality, why do many feminists still support affirmative action in universities when men make up...

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:55:06 -0500

Sgt. Kirby: If feminism is for equality, why do many feminists still support affirmative action in universities when men make up...:

angeliccacophony:

iffeminismisforequality:

I’m sorry, there’re just so many different kinds of logic fail in those three paragraphs.

In the first paragraph you’re trying to argue that women aren’t given a fair chance despite pressing and obvious evidence that they are because if they weren’t, the sure as hell wouldn’t make up almost 3/5ths of all college students. You’ve got to be willfully ignorant to make an argument like that. Let’s also note here that you’ve presented absolutely no evidence of current or extant discrimination against women in university admissions, possibly because you (probably) only have a vague idea of how it actually works.

More importantly, affirmative action isn’t a “fair chance,” it’s a “free pass.” It’s allowing underqualified people in over better-qualified applicants who are more deserving, more prepared and more fit. I have no objection to making sure women get a fair chance, and I’ll shout down anyone who says differently, but that’s not what affirmative action is. Laws saying you can’t discriminate against ~~women~~ anyone based on race/sex/…? Great. Policies which eliminate knowledge of the person’s gender (for example, in Canada admission is purely marks-based with a handful of exceptions, they don’t even know what your name is when they admit you to my knowledge), race, etc? Great.

Those are equality, this is not. I don’t understand why you have so much trouble with the idea.

In the second paragraph….so we’re helping women to help black people? Your logic….well, it isn’t. Once again, I’m not objecting to targeting and stopping discrimination. If there’s evidence that black people and disabled people are being discriminated against, you deal with that. This is about women, and affirmative action targeting women. Stop trying to bring race and ability into it, because that’s not what we’re talking about. Most importantly, you still don’t seem to get the difference between “preventing discrimination” and “affirmative action.” One prevents discrimination, the other is discrimination. (Just against the targets you deem acceptable.)

Should a woman be turned away just because she’s a woman, or a black person because they’re black, or a person who is disabled in a way that leaves them capable of fulfilling academic obligations simply because they’re disabled?

No.

So why should a man be turned away just because he’s a man, or a white person just because they’re a white person, or a person who is not disabled simply because they’re not disabled?

Equality is for everyone.

In response to your first point, I am not “willfully ignorant”. I’m simply pointing out that women are going to college in higher numbers because they’re assured of fairness in a chance to be educated.

You provide no proof to support this assertion. I’m not claiming their higher numbers constitute discrimination or an unacceptable problem, I’m claiming that you can’t honestly say that group which makes up a three to two majority needs more help getting in.

And affirmative action is discrimination according to you? Um, I think you may want to go and take a look at what it actually is. I refuse to argue this point further with you, because you have to take into account ethnicity and ability in this argument. It does directly affect the argument, as there’s intersectionality involved.

Affirmative action by its very definition covers programs which allow employers or in this case universities to legally discriminate in favor of people who are deemed to be “disadvantaged” or to discriminate against people who are deemed not to be regardless of actual ability or merit. I know exactly what it is.

You can’t talk about this issue as JUST men vs. women. It’s impossible. Because you’re failing to take into account that affirmative action takes into account whether someone is a white woman or a WoC or woman with a disability,etc. THIS DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE NUMBER OF WOMEN ENTERING A COLLEGE. As I’ve said THREE TIMES NOW, you have to take these factors into account.

How can you possibly be not getting this? Seriously, can I borrow you and use you as an anchor because you give lead a run for its money. You can implement affirmative action for disabled people or for black people without doing so for women. It’s not a package deal. Why should a woman with a disability be favored over a man with a disability, or a black woman be favored over a black man when as we’ve pointed out women are making up the majority of enrollment meaning the idea of them being discriminated against is just plain silly?

Also, you’re whining about men not being given a chance to get ahead in life? Really? Umm, no. This is about the biggest pile of crap I’ve ever seen. Look at every freaking priviliege that being a man affords you. Women do need the chance to get ahead, simply because we get fucked over in every aspect of life. Take a think about this:

12 fortune 500 companies are run by women.

Largely because most women aren’t willing to completely sacrifice their family life for their career. This is playing into the “wage gap” issue, which has been debunked so many times I’ve lost count.

Women are are a minority among leaders of the world.

Same reasons.

Women are STILL discriminated against in hiring, simply because we may become pregnant at some point.

Not to be blunt, but the fact that someone’s likely going to up and walk off the job for a few months at some point and the company’s going to have to foot the bill would seem like a pretty big part of a hiring decision. Plus, citation needed.

Childcare isn’t offered at most companies, meaning if a woman decides to become pregnant, she has to drop out of the workforce and start over again once the child is in school, which often means going to college again to update her skill set.

….or she could, I don’t know, ask her husband to stay home? It’s the exact same dilemma men face, the difference being that our society is accepting of women in the workplace (and hearing you talk about workplace childcare as though it should be some kind of right only hammers that home) but utterly unaccepting of men who stay home to take care of kids. A huge percentage of men would be happy to take on that role if they wouldn’t be attacked for it, who is it that’s stopping them?

Most women can be back on the job in under a week after giving birth, and depending on the job most can work almost up to the very end of pregnancy. It’s their choice to then stay home instead of their spouse doing so, and if they do so instead of their spouse they’re benefiting from their spouse’s wage. One person’s going to take a pay cut, and it’s a family decision who that is.

I could go on, but honestly, I don’t have the energy.

And seriously, I’m done. I refuse to argue points with someone who honestly thinks affirmative action is discrimination. Step out of the 60’s, and then we’ll talk. Until then, I’m just going to ignore YOUR willful ignorance, because honestly, you’ve given me a migraine.

I refuse to argue points with someone who thinks that programs whose sole purpose is to give preferential treatment to people based on their race, sex, gender or other similar status don’t constitute discrimination. There’s only so much stupid I can handle at once.