Feminism means gender equality people.
Feminism means gender goes into the shredder. No gender. FUCK gender, punk ass bitch ass social construct. Burn it at the stake!
Note: many feminists may or may not disagree
Lmao what?
You want a new word for your thing.
Side note: Violence and extremism isn’t helpful - attitudes like yours are far more effective at promoting reactive forces like trump than any number of maga hats. It’s sad to see the left obliviously acting as a driving force for the far right. Perhaps look up how people change opinions if you’re serious?
Respectfully, you’re delusional. Idk how your mind immediately went from feminist gender abolitionism jest to violence and extremism, and what seems to be a rant about how social progress for disprivileged peoples akstchually make our enemies hate us more so we should stop advocating for them, but it’s a bit concerning
Of course, as a cisgender white guy you’re not gonna be able to relate to targets of constant discrimination and you’re going to be prone to be blind to gender-based (and race-based among other forms of) discrimination in our society. It shouldn’t be too surprising that you see any advocacy for shift to equality in the social hierarchy as “extremist” and discrimination against your own group. But your comment is bordering on nega-empathy…
If you really care about inequality and you’re not a conservative or ““libertarian”” then it would do you a lot of good to watch The Alt-Right Playbook to get a perspective on the regressive talking points you’re repeating.
I’d like to pretend I were amused by a pampered white guy doing pampered white guy things and posting “everyone you criticize is hitler!1!!” memes, but it’s hard to do so when I realize I’m talking to someone who actually thinks sexism against women and racism against minorities isn’t a real issue, much less homophobia and transphobia, and thinks that straight white dudes are the “real victims” of discrimination.
You are the problem. You’re a tool. You’re outsmarted by the far-right. They played you for a fool. Get professional psychiatric help before you can’t reverse course.
So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
I agree. The Daily Mail no doubt uses this as a way to say “legally changing your gender should be harder”, but that’s fixing the wrong problem. Gender fluidity isn’t the problem, gender inequality is.
Gender should be as unimportant as eye color in most things in life. If your system breaks from someone changing their gender, you need to fix your system.
Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.
Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.
And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.
[…], there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men.
For management its actually a quite complex problem. First of all, women themselves seem to underestimate themself more than men and so don’t apply for higher jobs(e.g. Manager) since they underestimate their skills and potential thinking, they aren’t able to suit such a role, even tho they could. At the same time the manager(etc.) Are mostly males, so the stereotypical view of a manager iis a guy, which may also lead to women not believing in themselves. When women do apply for a higher role they often get overlooked. They get judged much more critical in terms of skills, while their potential often gets overlooked. This causes female applicants to often not get accepted for said positions. This is also one of the reasons, why women are less likely(around 14%) to get a promotion. Last but not least the typical Charakter traits that a manager needs, are often associated with masculinity(e.g. Strength, endurance, rationality,…).
Source: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220222-proof-verus-potential-problem
I can only suggest that article. Its very good.
Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.
Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.
that almost sounds like something form the 50s
It does but it still is something people associate with managers.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is.
Gender-based public sector affirmative action exists to counterbalance discrimination in the private sector. I would argue that becoming trans to undermine gender-AA is penny wise and pound foolish, unless you were already tending towards that inclination.
But what I’m seeing here is “I’m changing my gender but only for the purposes of gaming the system, then I expect you to recognize me as my original gender again”. And that’s on par with carrying a pair of crutches in your trunk so you can park in handicapped spaces.
You don’t really want to take on the burden of being recognized as a woman. You just want to pocket a benefit in the public sector and then go back to your privileged position in the private sector.
I had a nephew that found out he could get a $500 bursary for trade school as a male, or $5000 as a female. A trip down to the DMV netted him (her) $4500.
Can’t say I wasn’t amused.
People gonna make this a trans thing and not a gender equality one… in most things women get the shitty treatment but with retirement and mental health its men
And office clothing in summer
You could always follow in the footsteps of these bus drivers:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/22/french-bus-drivers-skirts-dress-code-nantes
i’m going to make it both. we really do need to advance women’s equality before we let men take their identities in order to dilute the few offsets women have had legislated for them.
just like how many affirmative action band-aids are being ripped off before poc have actually gotten equal footing in society, we are pushing women’s advances backwards by pretending that we live in an equal society and allowing men to take advantage of the mechanisms meant to promote equality.
Republicans: They’re degenerates coming for our children!
This guy: To hell with that, I’m coming for your retirement benefits.
Yeah I’ll say I’m a goddamn elf if it means I get 5 extra years of not having to work
Nope you get to work in a toy factory 364 days a year GG
ggs
The face of a man with no regerts
“man”?
Got’em
Equality, aint it great?
Well why not I guess
because laws like this were made to offset the patriarchal dominance of a society shaped by men for centuries. it’s unfair to women to let men just take those offsets away from them and it’s the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address as they cheer for trans-women’s rights.
Coul be easier to just have an equal society
could it? i mean, women have been fighting for equality since at least the turn of the 20th century and we’re still not there.
I mean with the different rules based on sex/gender can cause this sort of issues, having just one retirement age for everyone for example could be easier
so then you don’t support affirmative actions laws?
What are those?
Why tf does Argentina let women retire earlier???
Britain did until quite recently. Then a group of men went to court, I think hoping to get the men’s age lowered to that of women. But of course the government raised the women’s age to that of men.
You say that as if it was the men’s fault for trying to get equal treatment. Clearly you have no idea how the legal system works.
I don’t see how you got that from what I said.
The “of course” makes it clear you dislike the outcome. The long mention of the men who in your eyes “caused” this also makes it pretty obvious what your stance is about this and who you want the scapegoat to be in the discussion.
The “of course” makes it clear you dislike the outcome
Only inasmuch as a desirable outcome would have been the lowering of the age of retirement for men to either that of women or meeting both on the middle. The issue is that the government being the government took it as an excuse to effectively cut welfare.
The long mention of the men who in your eyes “caused” this
To be honest it probably just brought it on sooner. The government would have found it as excuse to raise the retirement age without it being highlighted to them.
also makes it pretty obvious what your stance is about this and who you want the scapegoat to be in the discussion.
No, still don’t see it.
Wow that’s some projection. You are reading deeply between the lines to find your take on that one.
I immediately got it as “why would the people in power ever make it easier for those not” but hey why bother with nuanced takes when the Internet will allow you to be angry at your specific beliefs as if they are the only truth, right?
Patriarchy oppresses us all.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Women: get to retire five years earlier than men
Lemmy: Sounds like patriarchal oppression to me!
it is though. same with women getting more lenient sentences for the same crimes, custody inequality, etc.
I think a better word might be needed, to be honest.
Kyriarchical oppression.
Kyriarchy refers to the overlap of various inequalities caused by gender, race, sexuallity and disability describing overlaps of cross sectionality. It also refers to the practice of problems created by assumed superiority.
It already exists and is called misandry.
why? this is all the results of men being in power, including the odd thing that favors women sometimes, like custody battles being usually easier for women. it comes from the patriarchal view that looking after children is the mother’s job and the father barely needs to have anything to do with it.
same here: men are stronger and women are weaker, not to mention women shouldn’t be working to begin with but since they do they might as well retire early.
To me as a layman it immediately brings up a connection to feminism. I don’t think that anybody who will want to get men to think different will get very far using the word “patriarchy”, given men being more right leaning.
There isn’t much substance to my argument than “nuh uh I don’t like that word” but it is what it is. There must be some better approach “marketing wise”, despite patriarchy being technically correct.
it’s the same in many European countries
Yeah, this seems backwards… Women tend to live longer than men.
Because women on average live longer. Strange isn’t it.
Why would that mean they get to retire earlier then?
Yeah, this person’s logic makes no sense. This is a solid argument for men retiring earlier.
Personally, I’d say it’s probably best if it’s just the same for everyone.
Maybe opposite? Maybe women live lomger because they retire earlier?
No because women also live longer in countries that do not do this.
Edit: lol at whoever downvoted me for pointing out a statistical fact
X for doubt as this comes from the daily Hail
This one is real.
Source: am argentine
It may be real, but I’m finding a Russian nesting doll’s worth of references to other sites when I try to find more info. The closest I can get is a blurb on this website, which claims to get its info from an AFP article it doesn’t link to.
https://nation.africa/kenya/news/world/argentine-legally-changes-gender-to-retire-early-24574
Source in spanish but its a local newspaper https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/cambio-genero-ano-jubiliacion-anses-otorgo_0_rylAEwYGQ.html
Daily Heil*
identify as tomboy lesbian woman who was born biologically a male so you get to keep your lifestyle, your wife, and your cock.
can i get two cocks
One cook is too expensive, wages for two require exceptional qualifications
Based.
Dumb idea: it feels bad being second class in things like retirement, empathy, and mental health, etc., right guys?
Well, that’s how our sisters on the other side feel about literally everything else. If we want to fight so hard for the few things us men lack, let’s use that same energy to fight for women too.
Can’t wait to see that happen in Poland as well.
Why from that side of beaver curve?
Men retire 5 years later than women there as well.
