I think labels being unnecessary is BECAUSE we're all so different, not the same. No one really is the same, considering the perceived masculinity/femininity of all behaviors or sexual activity topped with non-binary sexual identities, gender roles, and gender, all stretched out over the longevity of one's life at whatever frequency they manage. I mean, the results are literally exponential, and definitions at that point are only for comfort, not actual accuracy.
True, we are all different in many ways. However somethings are the same, and when looking for a sexual partner, or sexual material, we seek things that suit our needs, like if you're bi, you're not gonna be out looking for a horse to jerk off.. or maybe you are..
I do not believe labels are necessary for ALL thing's, but for me, they help for many thing's.
Like if I want to buy hot sauce, there's tons of different hot sauce, if you remove the labels they are still hot sauce, but if I wanted the taste of Crystal hot sauce, and there are no labels, I'm gonna have a harder time finding it.
Silly example I know, but I hope you understand. If not I fallback on the old adage "To each their own", but without labels or taste, it might be "to each all".
Sometimes people forget that laws advocated by feminists that improve the lives of women can also improve the lives of men too. In fact, one of the most prominent issues for feminists these days is lowering the pay gay between men and women. This means ending pay discrimination and facilitating suits against it. The first law Barack Obama signed in his presidency was a law that made it possible to challenge pay discrimination at any time, instead of only within 6 months of the first paycheck. That helps women because they are most likely to be affected by pay discrimination, but it also helps anyone who might be affected.
It also includes advocating for a higher minimum wage. The US currently has one of the lowest minimum wages in the advanced industrialized world.
You must be registered to see the links
2/3 of the people making minimum wage in the US are women. Raising the minimum wage, then, would make a drastic impact on improving the wage gap between genders, but it was would also benefit all men that make the minimum wage too. It's not like women's rights groups want special laws that only benefit women. Some issues are like that, but the big fights are on these issues like promoting a higher minimum wage to lower the pay gap and providing better health insurance. These are issues that achieve the goals of women's rights groups by improving the lives of women and making things more equal, but they also improve the lives of everyone. They are issues that anyone can get behind, not just feminists. Feminists also join in on other causes too like LGBT rights and racial equality because women are effected in various ways in pretty much any issue imaginable. In my opinion, that makes feminists one of the most important groups because improving the lives of women will almost always improve the lives of everyone.
Now, you might say, if you support a higher minimum wage, why not just advocate for that on economic groups? Why all the stuff about the gender gap? Because laws aren't supported by just one group for just one reason. Some people might support increasing the minimum wage on economic grounds. Other people might not care about those arguments, some even might not be swayed at all. Gender inequality adds another element to the equation, another compelling story that people can get behind. It adds more people that support the cause, and when enough people get behind a movement for various reasons, that's when change actually starts to happen. Not because feminists supported it. Not because poor laborers supported it. Not because LGBT or black supported it. Because they ALL supported it.
Sometimes people forget that laws advocated by feminists that improve the lives of women can also improve the lives of men too. In fact, one of the most prominent issues for feminists these days is lowering the pay gay between men and women. This means ending pay discrimination and facilitating suits against it. The first law Barack Obama signed in his presidency was a law that made it possible to challenge pay discrimination at any time, instead of only within 6 months of the first paycheck. That helps women because they are most likely to be affected by pay discrimination, but it also helps anyone who might be affected.
(Other stuff on min wage, etc)
That's nice and all, but the pay gap has been destroyed already. The only pay gaps that still remain are the ones who measure all wages equally. So that's the female teacher/public sector worker(Usually underpaid) being counted for the exact same as a male mining/oil worker(Rough job and paid better since nobody wants to do it)
So yes, there is a pay gap, but it only exists on paper. There already exist laws to sue any time you are discriminated against based on gender, and further advocating to 'reduce the pay gap' will result in the opposite happening. Namely, men getting paid less as companies are forced to compensate for a gap that doesn't exist
The 'pay gap', as it is seen by those who cling to the flawed polling methods that produce this result will never be solved, not until automatisation completely removes all jobs that aren't high paying
Edit: Did some more looking for this stuff. Turns out men are also more aggressive overall when it comes to salary negotiations, which may contribute even if everyone is treated equally.
Actually, pretty much all research done into this says that isn't true. Higher minimum wage at worst hurts a few small businesses, but the overall price of goods remains the same. This is mainly because the products that are sold/made are either made by people already being paid more than the min wage(For high quality electronics and similar goods), or made somewhere else entirely where this minimum wage doesn't apply(Mainly China and other developing countries).
The one exception is when companies decide they want to make more profit and see the rising min wage as a good excuse to raise their prices.
Which is very likely.
I would also like to point out, happening to coincidentally benefit men when you are primarily out to benefit women is not actually means to say that feminism is also about men's rights. Even a little. Unless they specifically tackle a matter of inequity in favour of men specifically because they recognize the blatant problem, then there is no basis for making the claim that it is about equal rights in general, as opposed to equal rights were it happens to benefit women.
Claiming otherwise is like me saying that I'm an advocate for pest control in my whole neighborhood because I recently tented my house out of self-interest in not having a house full of cockroaches, ants, and borer and it happened to lower the rate of cockroaches for my immediate neighbors. Which is of course completely wrong.
That's nice and all, but the pay gap has been destroyed already. The only pay gaps that still remain are the ones who measure all wages equally. So that's the female teacher/public sector worker(Usually underpaid) being counted for the exact same as a male mining/oil worker(Rough job and paid better since nobody wants to do it)
So yes, there is a pay gap, but it only exists on paper. There already exist laws to sue any time you are discriminated against based on gender, and further advocating to 'reduce the pay gap' will result in the opposite happening. Namely, men getting paid less as companies are forced to compensate for a gap that doesn't exist
The 'pay gap', as it is seen by those who cling to the flawed polling methods that produce this result will never be solved, not until automatisation completely removes all jobs that aren't high paying
The pay gap is a contentious issue, however there is actually a lot of statistics to show that it does exist. It's true that women tend to be in more low paying jobs, but according to the US Bureau of Labor, pretty much every comparable occupation has pay dominated by men. Even in low paying jobs like teaching and nursing, men make more. Even in higher paying jobs like mining, women make less. Women also tend to make less straight out of college, with virtually nothing to differentiate between the sexes.
I think you are missing the point though. Even if I accepted that the pay gap doesn't really exist, what does it matter? Feminists that believe in the pay gap will still advocate for policies like raising the minimum wage. Even if their reasoning were flawed, the outcome is still a positive for both women and men.
I would also like to point out, happening to coincidentally benefit men when you are primarily out to benefit women is not actually means to say that feminism is also about men's rights. Even a little. Unless they specifically tackle a matter of inequity in favour of men specifically because they recognize the blatant problem, then there is no basis for making the claim that it is about equal rights in general, as opposed to equal rights were it happens to benefit women.
Claiming otherwise is like me saying that I'm an advocate for pest control in my whole neighborhood because I recently tented my house out of self-interest in not having a house full of cockroaches, ants, and borer and it happened to lower the rate of cockroaches for my immediate neighbors. Which is of course completely wrong.
Just because feminism isn't necessarily about men's rights, doesn't mean that it can't benefit men. Like I said, if a feminist lobbies for a law like minimum wage increase, it helps everyone, not just women. It's not about men's rights, but it is about human rights. Politics is full of lobbies that try to get new laws passed or repealed based on their own self interest. Like I mentioned, change happens when enough of them start to agree on an issue and it gains momentum. Not enjoying the benefits just because feminists happened to support it is kind of like refusing to eat a cake because you don't like the baker. If you didn't know who the baker was, it would taste just as good.
Oh yeah, I do not believe anyone is truly against equality here. The few that are tend to be really loud but in the minority. On both sides there. People wanting women back in the kitchen, and people wanting to put all males in jail. And they don't seem to understand their own insanity.
Seems to me like things are mainly a semantics thing, where people are avoiding being labeled a feminist because there are really insane people using that term to describe themselves.
That's not what feminists are, that's just their own delusions they are masking by claiming to be for a good cause
I mainly just responded with that since well, debates in debate thread
Even so, there are many variables in the paygap thing, too many to really get things distilled down to a simple yes/no question, but most of the things I've found on this say that the pay gap is not due to discrimination as much as just tertiary gender attributes(Behavioural like the men being more aggressive negotiating, etc). The only real solution is to make sure everyone is aware of their rights and has the ability to sue in the case of discrimination
So I don't disagree with a law making it easier to sue for that, so long as the burden of proof remains on the accuser and it doesn't turn into a witchhunt
There is something to be said for the aggregate view of the pay gap - ie. the idea that the pay gap is a gap between the total revenue made by women versus the total revenue made by men - and that is that can teach us a bit about a) who controls most of the monetary capital in a country and thus who can most easily mobilize to control key sectors, and b) look into how we set wages for different professions based on notions of importance.
Just as an example, in my country, a nurse and an engineer have the same length of education. However, engineers earn a significant deal more. Engineers are more commonly in the private sector, nurses are more commonly in the public sector. Engineers are more commonly men, nurses more commonly women - today as well as historically.
So, the wages of engineers are based more around mechanics of market profitability, whereas nurse wages generally tend to be set by somewhat different mechanics.
I'm not saying that one should set the wages of these equally, or indeed advacting any particular course of action - but there's evidence to show that professions that become "feminized" (meaning having more women in them, like teachers, doctors, etc. all relatively speakin) experience slower growth in pay over time, compared to masculine jobs of similar educational level.
One can attribute this to sexual characteristics like aggresiveness in negotiation, of course, but female jobs in the public sector tends to be strongly organized, so there are also arguments for that it has to do with cultural notions that "women's work" is less valuable or prestigious. I don't mean that people are raging sexists, but that there's a kind of cultural subconscious about it that people don't really think about.
But anyways, I'm mostly coming at it from an academic angle.
Well one of the main advantages of raising minimum wage, is that it gets the money out of the banks and back into motion. If you give someone on $60 an hour an extra dollar, it's not going to change their spending habits much. If you give someone on $7.25 an hour an extra dollar, that person isn't going to dump it in his Swiss bank account or invest it in new factories in China. They're going to start spending it right away, are more likely to spend it locally, and are less likely to be importing BMWs or buying property abroad. They're going to start treating themselves to the 55 pence loaf of bread rather than the 45 pence bread. (I tried it recently. It's much nicer bread...)
Small businesses can sometimes struggle with the sudden change in labour costs, but can also easily benefit from the (effectively) huge influx of extra money in their daily customers hands.
Regarding the pay gap topic, from what I understand it's for the most part a myth that's been popularised through classically misrepresented statistics. There are potential aspects that remain, but the subject is being simplified down into an imaginary direct pay difference because that draws more public interest. Things such as that weakness in the ability to enforce the existing anti discrimination laws that Obama plugged, are what needs to be identified and campaigned for if any such areas remain. A legion of women picketing at the government demanding equal pay will only return a confused and dismissive, "But it already is...".
The most genuine aspect of anything that might be described as a "pay gap" comes in terms of gender balance in certain roles, and things such as maternity/paternity leave. Hospitals being a good example, where nursing is a massively female dominated role, but where female doctors are overall still less common than male doctors. People love to suggest/demand things like enforcing artificial 50/50 splits, but it shouldn't need explaining why putting employee skill/expertise second to race or gender in a role involved in saving lives is a terrible idea. Not to mention the wider reason, that focusing on the high end jobs alone isn't going to fix or make anything more fair. I highly doubt it would be well received if virtually all women applying to become a nurse started getting turned away with "Sorry, we can't hire you because you're female". No one has been too interested in campaigning for employment parity in the waste collection industry either.
A lot of it's simply going to take more time, as society adapts and new generations take over.
[Edit]
Crawdaddy gives really good examples there. Although I think you summed a lot of it up there describing how Engineering is a private sector job. More than that, it's a role tied incredibly closely to the potential profits (or losses) of large companies. I don't think it's anything to do with valuing "womens work" less, as it is simply valuing less profit oriented work less. Which is the obvious natural order in a capitalist society really. Keep in mind that teachers and doctors were also still male roles not long ago anyway. Whether it's possible to revalue what these roles should be paid kind of opens a bigger can of worms than matters of gender alone.
I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy the benefits of it simply because it came as a result of feminism, but what you failed to see in my statement, the very reason I made the statement, is that you're trying to use it as an argument that feminism is beneficial to men and women. Coincidentally benefiting somebody else doesn't mean you can claim to have done them a favour, which is pretty much what you're trying to do in favour of feminism. I might have even given the benefit of the doubt if it was supposedly something that would benefit both genders equally, or even be intended as something to do that, (As XSI aptly pointed out, the economy has a way of simply shifting prices to maintain profit margins in spite of efforts to change it in one simple step. In fact, it might just end up causing damage to the already dwindling middle-class and upper-middle-class without having helped anyone.) but it's clearly meant to benefit mostly women, so saying that it helps men too is really just a kind of addendum plastered on to try make it look good. There's no genuine sentiment behind it at all, and unless there is, trying to make it out like a favour is just that subtle unconscious perhaps even unintentional dishonesty that would be better left in the hands of scumbags like lawyers and politicians, NOT rights activists.
I repeatedly hear claims of feminism being in favour of the rights of both men and women, but never has there been an exerted effort made towards an issue that men faced inequality in that wasn't being blatantly censored by progressivists as misogyny(granted, men who have lost contact with their children in it's entirety, men who get no recourse or help in treatment for sexual abuse(Sometimes perpetrated by women) have personal stakes in a fair amount of men's rights movements, so there ARE incidents of misogyny in the movements for obvious reasons just as there would be incidents of misandry in the flipside of that situation, but they claim that the ENTIRE movement is misogynist, which is just as fallacious and vicious a statement as me claiming that ALL feminists are misandrist) much less than actually being of any help. A large amount of the time the mudslinging and shame factor overshadow the actual rights issue and nothing gets solved, even public meetings get illegally interfered with in instances such as
You must be registered to see the links
. On a more lightsided note however, there are rights activists who identify as feminist who have advocated for men's rights as well, such as Christina Hoff Summers and more. It's a shame that even she gets heavily slandered as a supposed misogynist by the very same progressivists despite having done things for both sides of the equation and fighting for an objective truth rather than an emotional breakthrough.
I am glad I got this rep however, because it allows me to post other points I completely forgot previously and the other threads made me think about.
Logistics in relation to feminine hygiene, and these are questions I find myself wondering about now: How is this taken care of, does the military just give you what they've got and send you on your way? do you have a choice between brands? What priority do these items carry in relation to other supplies (I suppose pads could be used as make-shift bandages when needed)? What about birth control pills (I know that discontinuing use can have side-effects when a woman has been on them long enough, and that they aren't JUST taken as a contraceptive but also as a hormone regulator)?
And that last question segways into another concern, I realize not all women suffer the same symptoms, or to the same severity but how does a commander deal with troops that become varying degrees of emotionally unstable at certain times? I mean, obviously if you're in direct combat you just stow it and keep shooting, but if you're say occupying an area that's not on the front lines, how do they make exceptions for their soldiers that have to deal with this (In high-school, girls were just allowed to leave class)? Do you just write down your cycle on a schedule so they can make sure you're off at that time? Or do they just say, too bad you're a soldier go do your job?
These are issues that I believe were relevant to making the decision in question. And to having women in the military in general. They also happen to be questions I'd really like to know the answers to.
Valid questions. Pulled this from the Rep thread, cause apparently people are upset with going off topic again. So figure I'll answer as I can here.
Disclaimer: All my answers are from a Canadian Infantier's perspective. Other militaries may do it differently. Hell different branches in different nations may do it differently. If I say something that someone knows as fact that the American's don't do, or the Portuguese, or the Brits, Australians, Finland, etc. etc. it's because I have no inside experience with those military establishments.
Feminine Hygiene Products: I packed my own when I went to Afghanistan. I also stopped by the PX or Canex whenever I was in KAF to get my own brand. But, there were plenty of medics around in the FOBs and in the field that carried these items for female soldiers. Hell, I once got one off a fellow TCCC guy, cause he carried them for gunshots and nosebleeds. For priority on how much I carried... they ain't that heavy, and I had plenty of room in my own TCCC bag and my rig. Also stashed some in the LAV cause we had one guy in the section that got all weirded out by em and everyone else thought it was funny.
Birth Control: I got my prescription filled before I went overseas. Canadian Infantiers typically had 6 month tours, I had a 7 month one. I just made sure I had enough. Again though, there were medics about that would be able to get hold of that for the soldiers, and I believe the PX in KAF had a pharmacy (Any American vets from Afghanistan able to confirm this for me?).
Periods: I know this is what yer trying to get at without directly bringing up the fact that we bleed out of our cunts for a few days every month.
Basically, I was told to suck it up. It was my job, and I got no special treatment over there because my vagina decided it was the bleeding time. I'd have to find the time to switch out pads/tampons when it was feasible. Like anyone else would have to find time to piss/shit/shower/shave when it was feasible. Usually it was pretty easy, especially with the hard timings for patrols/security shifts/operations.
I will admit to soiling a pair of boxers cause I pulled a tampon out right before a firefight and not having time to replace it. Shit happens, get made fun of, carry on.
As to the emotional imbalances... as you said, every woman is different. Sure I sometimes got a little crankier, but never had an impact on my combat effectiveness. If someone's emotional state would compromise the section, the platoon... they don't belong in a warzone. Get 'em home, or 'em to an inside the wire position.
Lack of Penis: They gave me a fake one for pissing. Fucking, useful. Before deployment though I just dropped my drawers and pissed in the woods. Welcome to the infantry.
I remember, when I was in the army, girls on their periods had a right to x minutes (can't remember the exact number) alone in the tent before breaking camp, to deal with hygiene issues.
In practice, it was dealt with on an ad hoc basis, but that kind of thing seems fair to me.
Just as another random "special privileges" thing (I'm putting it in quotation marks because many of these are just common sense to make soldiers as battle-ready as they can be) is that, as far as I know, in the US some soldiers might get
You must be registered to see the links
, if they have very curly beard hair, as this can cause a particular kind of skin condition that hurts a lot. It occurs predominantly among African-Americans.
Yeah, there's permanent shave chits in the Navy for medical reasons (skin irritation) and then there's temporary shave chits that you can purchase (often as part of a fundraiser) for part or all of a deployment.
Lack of Penis: They gave me a fake one for pissing. Fucking, useful. Before deployment though I just dropped my drawers and pissed in the woods. Welcome to the infantry.
Am I the only one that doesn't see how this is supposed to be useful? It's...Wouldn't that just be a funnel?
Aside from that, seems to me like everything else like that is just pretty much working as intended.
If you're a good soldier, you're a good soldier. Might need different kinds of supplies at times, but it's not like those are hard to get
Thanks for the response, once I thought about this I really did want some answers! I realize these are pretty personal questions and I do appreciate your willingness to share.
Also, holy crap, I always just thought I was shaving wrong or something because my facial hair pulls that shit. I can shave every couple of days but if I do it two days in a row it's like I've been stung by bees.
Am I the only one that doesn't see how this is supposed to be useful? It's...Wouldn't that just be a funnel?
Aside from that, seems to me like everything else like that is just pretty much working as intended.
If you're a good soldier, you're a good soldier. Might need different kinds of supplies at times, but it's not like those are hard to get
Pretty much just a funnel. But certainly makes it easier to piss on patrol if you just have to whip it out instead of yanking down the pants and taking a squat. Or if you happen to be in an armoured vehicle with little room to move, lot easier to piss into a bottle when you have that funnel. Drivers, who spent a lot more time cooped up in the LAVs than I ever did found them super handy.
Thanks for the response, once I thought about this I really did want some answers! I realize these are pretty personal questions and I do appreciate your willingness to share.
Christ, I remember being cooped up, ten people in an IFV and desperately needing to piss. And I was so tired that I was afraid I'd piss myself if I took a nap. XD
This was in the Arctic, though, so not an actual combat zone.
Also, holy crap, I always just thought I was shaving wrong or something because my facial hair pulls that shit. I can shave every couple of days but if I do it two days in a row it's like I've been stung by bees.
It's actually a rather large percentage of people who can't shave without chaffing happening. Around 30-40% even. As Crawdaddy said, it actually isn't a uniform percentage across ethnicity, and was actually the focus of a major discrimination suit a few years ago. The issue cropped up in the military, but what finally went all the way up was a case from fast food about a dress code that required all employees to be clean shaven. There had been rumblings for awhile from a few places that it might work its way up the court system, but that's the case that actually went through. Obviously though various concerns can override and still requiring shaving though, such as food safety or various military concerns, but it forced all areas to become more lax about shaving.
