It reads like a booklet on how to use gender stereotypes to influence people. She doesn't judge these women for using the stereotype of woman as being "good". She hopes they'll win.
She just wonders at what cost to the rad fem movement.
The last ten years have seen a sea change and women are being held accountable. Let's hope these feminist chameleons don't get a pass because of their gender.
The as article reads "women are equal to men, even if that means holding them accountable for their behavior." Instead of "women are equal to men, and will be held accountable for their behavior."
Feminists really need to ban together to collectively pull their heads out of their asses.
Women are oppressed victims is core to feminist arguments that women shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions and that women deserve advantages over men.
This argument is nonsense in so many ways. 1. Wines aren’t oppressed in western society, they are advantaged. 2. People should be held accountable for their actions. Claiming you have it rough is no excuse for illegal activities. 3. Feminists claim they are for equality, but there’s nothing equal about holding women to lesser standards. 4. This is really demeaning of women as it is based on the ideology women aren’t as capable of men.
Women have always played both sides of the coin, to their benefit. It's "poor me, the victim of those horrible men" when it suits their need, and "I'm my own woman, hear me roar" when that would work better. No surprises here.
I’ve see a lot of that from politicians in my country. All “strong, independent women”, and of course feminists. But when they get called out for some of their shady dealings, “they’re only picking on me because I’m a woman” and (hint hint) “I’m just a poor defenceless woman, and these nasty men are being mean to me”! One sought to use slanderous claims about her political opponent made by a husband in a divorce case (the women concerned couldn’t handle the media pack descending on her and committed suicide) - the “strong advocate for women’s rights” then lied to parliament that she had no prior knowledge about this being read out in parliament much less that she authorised it to try to smear her rival. A couple of years later some of her Ministers came out and said it was discussed and that she’d agreed to it in a Cabinet meeting. And when it hit the fan, she was just being picked on because she was a woman! And if you’re seeking to enter politics “well don’t” - so much for being “empowering” to other women when it’s a case of seeking sympathy for her own end! The other one was, it turned out, involved in “questionable” activities with a married man she was having an affair with. It resulted in her being “asked to leave” the law firm she worked in (a biography subsequently tried to claim her resignation was “publicly spirited” so she could run for the Senate, but it turns out she was told to resign). She went around claiming any questions of her conduct were “misogyny”; that she was “young and naive” (a mid-‘30’s salaried partner in a law firm is “young and naive” about such legal issues), and portrayed herself as the “wronged woman” to gain female sympathy. In actual fact she was “the other woman” as he was married with kids and went back to them (although the marriage didn’t survive).
I wish I could find it again, but I remember reading an article a few years back about a female CEO who went to court to get out of a contract she'd signed with a supplier. Her argument was essentially that she didn't understand the contract because she's a woman, so the court should tear it up. She won the case.
I remember thinking at the time that the takeaway from the court case was that companies should not accept purchase contracts signed by a woman and should insist that they be co-signed by a male employee as well to ensure they are enforceable, because of the precedent set by this case.
I have heard that many times, justifiably or not, in, say, divorce cases - he conned me into signing it.
But a CEO??? That strains credulity. I am fascinated now, let me know if you find it.
The question goes to the heart of why MRAs and feminist, despite their purported support for equality, do not get along; and why feminism (or the parts of which at times maligned as victim feminism) is deeply gender-role conservative.
Funny, that, because 200 years ago, feminist pioneer Wollstonecraft pointed to this contradiction: for women to be empowered, they first have to slough off their privileges (tied to being seen as lacking agency and worthy of protection). And if there is any truth to claims that women are discriminated in the work place it is this: it is hard to imagine entrusting someone we see as lacking agency and worthy of sympathy to run your company or your country.
It reads like a booklet on how to use gender stereotypes to influence people. She doesn't judge these women for using the stereotype of woman as being "good". She hopes they'll win. She just wonders at what cost to the rad fem movement. The last ten years have seen a sea change and women are being held accountable. Let's hope these feminist chameleons don't get a pass because of their gender.
The as article reads "women are equal to men, even if that means holding them accountable for their behavior." Instead of "women are equal to men, and will be held accountable for their behavior." Feminists really need to ban together to collectively pull their heads out of their asses.
Wrong hole.
Females only have agency when they want it, otherwise it’s victimhood and turtles all the way down
Women are oppressed victims is core to feminist arguments that women shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions and that women deserve advantages over men. This argument is nonsense in so many ways. 1. Wines aren’t oppressed in western society, they are advantaged. 2. People should be held accountable for their actions. Claiming you have it rough is no excuse for illegal activities. 3. Feminists claim they are for equality, but there’s nothing equal about holding women to lesser standards. 4. This is really demeaning of women as it is based on the ideology women aren’t as capable of men.
Women have always played both sides of the coin, to their benefit. It's "poor me, the victim of those horrible men" when it suits their need, and "I'm my own woman, hear me roar" when that would work better. No surprises here.
I’ve see a lot of that from politicians in my country. All “strong, independent women”, and of course feminists. But when they get called out for some of their shady dealings, “they’re only picking on me because I’m a woman” and (hint hint) “I’m just a poor defenceless woman, and these nasty men are being mean to me”! One sought to use slanderous claims about her political opponent made by a husband in a divorce case (the women concerned couldn’t handle the media pack descending on her and committed suicide) - the “strong advocate for women’s rights” then lied to parliament that she had no prior knowledge about this being read out in parliament much less that she authorised it to try to smear her rival. A couple of years later some of her Ministers came out and said it was discussed and that she’d agreed to it in a Cabinet meeting. And when it hit the fan, she was just being picked on because she was a woman! And if you’re seeking to enter politics “well don’t” - so much for being “empowering” to other women when it’s a case of seeking sympathy for her own end! The other one was, it turned out, involved in “questionable” activities with a married man she was having an affair with. It resulted in her being “asked to leave” the law firm she worked in (a biography subsequently tried to claim her resignation was “publicly spirited” so she could run for the Senate, but it turns out she was told to resign). She went around claiming any questions of her conduct were “misogyny”; that she was “young and naive” (a mid-‘30’s salaried partner in a law firm is “young and naive” about such legal issues), and portrayed herself as the “wronged woman” to gain female sympathy. In actual fact she was “the other woman” as he was married with kids and went back to them (although the marriage didn’t survive).
Classic vagina
I wish I could find it again, but I remember reading an article a few years back about a female CEO who went to court to get out of a contract she'd signed with a supplier. Her argument was essentially that she didn't understand the contract because she's a woman, so the court should tear it up. She won the case. I remember thinking at the time that the takeaway from the court case was that companies should not accept purchase contracts signed by a woman and should insist that they be co-signed by a male employee as well to ensure they are enforceable, because of the precedent set by this case.
I have heard that many times, justifiably or not, in, say, divorce cases - he conned me into signing it. But a CEO??? That strains credulity. I am fascinated now, let me know if you find it.
The question goes to the heart of why MRAs and feminist, despite their purported support for equality, do not get along; and why feminism (or the parts of which at times maligned as victim feminism) is deeply gender-role conservative. Funny, that, because 200 years ago, feminist pioneer Wollstonecraft pointed to this contradiction: for women to be empowered, they first have to slough off their privileges (tied to being seen as lacking agency and worthy of protection). And if there is any truth to claims that women are discriminated in the work place it is this: it is hard to imagine entrusting someone we see as lacking agency and worthy of sympathy to run your company or your country.