Examples of How Feminism Helps Men.
Can I wade in and give an example, even though I haven't read the preceeding pages to see if it's already been given?
In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.
In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all
How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.
In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all
How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.
Hello, I am back. No money is being snatched out of anyone's pocketbooks. Families are granted thirteen months of paid leave by the government with a new baby - thirteen months that people without babies do not get, and two of these are reserved exclusively for fathers. If they do not use them, no money is taken out of their pocketbooks, but they do not receive this benefit that is granted by the government to those families who choose to have babies. Nothing is being taken away from them; rather, limitations are being placed on a "perk." As the article says,
Sweden, he said, faced a vicious circle. Women continued to take parental leave not just for tradition’s sake but because their pay was often lower, thus perpetuating pay differences. Companies, meanwhile, made clear to men that staying home with baby was not compatible with a career.
In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all
How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.
Hello, I am back. No money is being snatched out of anyone's pocketbooks. Families are granted thirteen months of paid leave by the government with a new baby - thirteen months that people without babies do not get, and two of these are reserved exclusively for fathers. If they do not use them, no money is taken out of their pocketbooks, but they do not receive this benefit that is granted by the government to those families who choose to have babies. Nothing is being taken away from them; rather, limitations are being placed on a "perk." As the article says,
Extra time off work with pay that are not transferable and that you lose if you do not use them how the government orders you to, is taking things away from people.
How many of those who do not use it would like it to be transferable to their partner? After all, its paid time off that is being taken away. You can phrase it how you like, but:
38 work weeks with 100% pay - 40 work weeks per year at 100% pay = - 2 work weeks with pay.
In Sweden, feminist capital of the world, feminists campaigned for, and acheived, paternity leave for new dads equal to maternity leave for women. Both parents now get 6 months each.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... wanted=all
How can I put this, when you force someone to take parental leave or lose the economic benefits, you will get equality. Personally I'm for the "each couple has to decide what they want" model, rather than the "do as we politicians think or we snatch more money out of your pocketbook". This is not anti-feminist, it's anti-nanny-governments and authoritarian legislation.
Hello, I am back. No money is being snatched out of anyone's pocketbooks. Families are granted thirteen months of paid leave by the government with a new baby - thirteen months that people without babies do not get, and two of these are reserved exclusively for fathers. If they do not use them, no money is taken out of their pocketbooks, but they do not receive this benefit that is granted by the government to those families who choose to have babies. Nothing is being taken away from them; rather, limitations are being placed on a "perk." As the article says,
Extra time off work with pay that are not transferable and that you lose if you do not use them how the government orders you to, is taking things away from people.
How many of those who do not use it would like it to be transferable to their partner? After all, its paid time off that is being taken away. You can phrase it how you like, but:
38 work weeks with 100% pay - 40 work weeks per year at 100% pay = - 2 work weeks with pay.
By the way the law actually reserves the two months for the "minority parent," which can be either male or female.
What is the 38 in this example though, and what is the 40?
1. Hyphenated last names. Those will become intriguing when the next generation has four last names to hyphenate together.
2. Most brides' wedding vows no longer oblige them to "obey" their husbands. Men are no longer, by default, expected to lead and provide for a family. Now, the wife can have a career, and the husband can lead a more relaxed life, and play with his x-box all day.
50% representation of both genders leaves the possibility of an all-male or all-female board where half of them have a complementary gender identity. (50% men, 50% "women trapped in men's bodies")
Equal outcome advocates would not hire members of any group that met their assigned quota. Picture being told that you are not allowed to work somewhere because "we have enough of your kind". Oooh! Here's some drama: Imagine that you could not get a position because a tomboy got the last spot.
I might not worry much about disproportionate representation of people if there is a fair representation of diverse ideas. In other words, I would not be too bothered by non-diverse authority if they empathized with all socially viable ideas that were not their own.
Thing is, you would have to rotate power often, because that level of rationality does not tend to last too long.
On the other hand, there is a problem with equal representation based on sex, too. It would be harder for people who actually are of another sex or culture to conform to the ideologies of the ingroup since they were raised with unlike interests. That is, women should be included in the men's network because they identify things that men consistently do not. This helps the integrity of the whole, but it also assumes that looking different means thinking different.
_________________
"Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Cleared because the mods removed the post it was in response to and thus it seems irrelevant now.
Last edited by TM on 30 Apr 2012, 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,209
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
And how many women would beat the heck out of these other women if they so much as tried because they like a world with available pole? I'm thinking close to 100% minus 'them'.
(comment related to the existential question of the male apparatus)
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 30 Apr 2012, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i removed the post about castration as it was violent and sexist, but i left the responses in place as they didn't quote it. just wanted to let you know why the thread makes less sense.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Fairly close I'm sure. Net discussions have a tendency to bring out the extremist in people.
wrt the 'Amazing Atheist' referenced above (nsfw language):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... immolates/
Thank you, Mother WP
By the way, your joke about eliminating 99 percent of men was BRILLIANT!! !
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm |
Neem and how it helps the stomach |
10 Feb 2024, 11:46 pm |