Quoted for truth, because that saves me typing the same post as Mia here already did.

I myself am more the kind of feminist who knows very well, and is perfectly able to get the dirty, full garbage bag out of the can, throw it away at the other side of the street, come back in, clean the can and then put in a new bag... but I'll still wear a short skirt and bat my lashes so my male slave... ehm.. boyfriend will do it.

Saying that nowadays women and men have equal rights is absolutely false. Even in most developed countries, there are many differences. Unemployment (non-voluntary) is always higher on women, women tend to earn less money than men doing the same job, there are less women in high level jobs, there are still double standarts when it comes to sexual freedom.
I think there is still a big need of feminism in the world, because, unless you're blind, you can see that there isn't any real rights equality.
And I'm not talking about underdeveloped countries..

We're not penalizing women for something they can't change. If anything, they're having to accept the consequences of choosing to have a baby. And I don't see 35 weeks of partially paid leave as much of a "penalization".

As a single woman with no children, I find it unfair that women can take time off -- and get paid -- for choosing to do something that they want to do (i.e., have kids). If I decide to take a 4-month sabbatical and flit off to Bora Bora, I wouldn't get paid and I wouldn't have a job to go back to. But my friend who wants to have a whole slew of kids? She gets to have 35 weeks off whenever she has a baby, she gets paid for it, and she gets her job back when she's finished.

Taking leave because you've had a baby isn't the same thing as taking leave because you want to travel: maternity leave isn't a holiday and it's not just about the woman - their child needs a lot of care in those first few months. It's not just reagarding maternity leave where women are penalised - it's everything about having children. I don't plan on having kids either but I don't see paid maternity leave as unfair to those women and men who don't want kids.

I think here (UK) women can take 6 months maternity leave at full pay but men can only take something like 2 weeks paternity leave at full pay and the rules for it are much more restrictive. IMO couples should be given the choice as to whether the mother or father takes the 6 months.

I think maternity leave should stay as it is. Paid maternity leave enables women to be able to raise children AND have a career - without being on benefits - which ultimately makes women who have children and those who don't equal. If they didn't get paid maternity leave either the husband/other wife will have to work more, or they'd have to claim benefits, and the woman may have to give up her career.

My point was that having a family is a choice. If that choice that takes you away from the workplace is acceptable, then why isn't my choice to take a break from my job and de-stress acceptable? It could be argued that I'd be an even better worker when I came back... unlike a new mother who might be sleep-deprived and cranky from postpartum hormones.

Because choosing between having a baby and having a holiday aren't the same. It doesn't matter that it's a choice. Humans need to reproduce and it's something you can't put a provision on.

To some extent, sure. With a world population reaching seven billion, it's fairly obvious that we don't need a greater number of births beyond 1.7 per couple (I love .7 children, since they're so much quieter than whole kids). The logic goes that if one couple has two or more kids, another couple is let off of the hook. It's not an exact science, but it's perfectly alright to not have kids or, better yet, to adopt.

But the option should still be there. Also, a lot of European countries are having a problem with population decline due to low birthrate.
The only reason the US still has such a high birthrate is because of the massive numbers of Catholic Mexican-Americans that rarely use birth control.
There are two ways to go about reducing the population, stop reproducing (not a viable solution in the long run) or increase the death rate (not a palatable solution to any sane person).

As for feminism, yes it is still needed. In fact, I see and hear so many instances of a clear double standard and misogynistic views in my day to day life I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to go back in time and at least be put on a pedestal for being some rich man's wife. (Victorian/Regency clothes are so beautiful too!) Alas, now we have to both work a full time job to keep up with the Jones' and do everything at home and pop out 2.5 kids. This is the mindset of the average American. If a woman wants to work outside the home her duties at home aren't mitigated or shared between both parents. I also see a ton of guys who insist they'd love to be a SAHD, saying it's "easier". What a load of tripe!

NPR ran a story on the one demographic range in which women out-earn men, and I thought of this thread. ("Single, childless, and between the ages of 22 and 30," by the way.)



People also need to maintain their mental health by getting away from the stress of work sometimes. I figure that's an even more universal need than reproduction-- everybody needs relaxation, but not everyone feels the drive to make babies equally. (i.e. Reproduction is a collective need but not an individual one.)

Yeah I know, which is why people get paid sick leave and paid holiday. But saying that taking 6 months paid leave to go on holiday is the same as 6 months paid maternity leave is a bit silly IMO.

I completely agree. Women NEED 6 months maternity leave. A non-parent does not need a 6 month holiday. Imagine how that conversation would go with your boss.

"Boss, can I take 6 months off?"
"Why on earth do you need to? Are you pregnant like Mary?"
"No, I just need a break for my mental wellbeing. As to why it's that long, Mary got that long and I demand to be treated equally!"
"But she's going to have a screaming baby and be up all night... while you have a long holiday? How is that fair!? No chance of you having it by the way."
"But boss, its for my mental wellbeing and it is fair!"

Are you serious? You haven't noticed the mormons and christians aiming for being 'quiverful' to repopulate the world with their god-loving seed?

Exactly! Thank you! Maternity leave is necessary for a variety of reasons and isn't a holiday. If someone's mental wellbeing is that bad that they are going to need 6 months off work then they get signed off by their GP and claim Statutory Sick Pay. Your point a few posts up about how if women aren't paid maternity leave then they'll have to rely on welfare is completely true, how else are most people going to be able to afford to live?

I hate how people think that feminisim is taking over the world, and those who join the feminist movement because they wrongly believe that that's true. Even as a dude I always hate it when women, are not payed the same, especially when they do a better job then a guy could do. I remember we had to get this guy out of a construction accident and the only person that could acsess and treat this guy was a woman, we're all people, we should all be treated the same.

I do hope that feminism is taking over the world. Don't let the name fool you, though: Modern feminism is synonymous with humanism.

No self-respecting feminist would want equal rights for women, but not equal rights for people of different races or creed. If you're an actual feminist (none of this overblown "women are better than men" BS, because that's simple bigotry), you're also a humanist. Feminism is just a term one can use when discussing women's rights in particular.

I believe in equal rights for all humans, so I am equally a feminist and a humanist.

I ment the whole woman are better then men thing cause then it just became the opposite.

I don't think that it is sexist to use "he" or "men" to refer to a mixed-sex group. In that usage, the terms are gender neutral. There are plenty of other English words with multiple definitions and nuances, so I don't see why those words can't have it.

I think it's somewhat poetic to refer to humans as "man".

I think the way people speak influences the way people think. This is a theory known as linguistic relativity. I'm not willing to run the risk of raising yet another generation who thinks the word "person" means "man". That, and I find it important to say what you mean, and if you don't *mean* "man" or "he", saying it for the sake of pretty prose is silly.
"They" as a third person singular pronoun is simple and easy, and you avoid the clumsiness of "he or she" or the exclusiveness of "he" or "she".
A lot of women claim that they do not feel excluded when referred to as "he", which is good for them. The thing is, studies have shown (I do not have a link at hand, as I read this in a meatspace book. If anyone is interested, I can probably find something online to support this, though) that people, even while knowing that "he" refers to a group of mixed gender, perceive it as predominately if not completely male.
That, and men apparently feel slightly excluded when dealing with a text that uses "she" as default. Is this because men have an overinflated sense of ego in general? I don't think so, but I do think we as a society are very used to male-centric and male-default points of view.

EDIT: upon posting this, I realise it looks like I was taking a stab at Oaktree. This was not my intention. Oaktree, what I wrote in my post was sparked by yours, but please do not take it as directed to you personally.

I, being the information hungry jerk I am, would love to see some studies of this. Would you happen to have any information regarding languages that aren't primarily gender neutral?

Perhaps the Spanish really find offices girly; their office supplies are predominantly feminine.

However, I am going to disagree with you about removing the exclusive "he" or "she" from general prose and conversation. If these words carry as much influence as you imply, it is important to keep them in everyone's vocabulary.

The one-syllable words can often be the most powerful, and these two should be no different. Proper education about these two words could give one the power to sway emotions and the imagination. Isn't that what language is all about?

I might not have made myself clear. I meant that purely as applied in a context where you actually mean "people in general", e.g. "The reader might be asking himself[...]". I do think precision is important in language, and having one nuance too many is certainly better than having one too few. Although we might be moving way from a strictly binary gender perception in our culture, "he" and "she" still have their place. But that place is not, IMO, in texts supposedly concerning everyone, as opposed to just the gender mentioned.


No jerkishness perceived; I can't just waltz in and make absurd claims without expecting people to ask me to cite sources.
The study I read was performed on native English speakers to see if they were influenced by the use of general masculine terms when speaking about groups of people. I tried Google, but I cannot seem to find it. I'll look it up when I get home and report back.


You might be interested in this study. Sadly, one needs a subscription to the publication to read the whole thing.

I can only tell you of my personal experience: In Russian, I'd perceive the Moon as feminine: it's glowing and pretty and you know, the whole Moon Goddess thing.
In German, I'd say it held male properties. Man in the Moon and all. This is all anecdotal, obviously, and I can't claim it to support my point.

Ah, you simply don't know me well enough. Now, stop! Not another step! If you get any closer to my collection of research papers, I'll sic my paleontologists on you! They're bad to the bone.

*cough*

Anyway, as an essentially monolingual English speaker, it is hard for me to wrap my head around nouns with gender. After all, with a passive grasp of a language, the words are simply words, and don't invoke the same connotations to me as they would a native speaker. What does "el" and "la" mean to me, except more work? This is one of my favourite short articles that statistically observes the phenomenon.

An interesting stumble of nouns with gender was pointed out to me in Danish. The standard word for nurse is inherently female (sygeplejerske). While the logical term for a male nurse would be sygeplejer, this word means something else entirely. This limitation means there's no way to imply that a nurse is a man without awkwardly pointing it out.

This is akin to having "waitress", but not having "waiter" to compliment it. It's an interesting reverse to the often male-first nouns of -man (businessman, fireman), though we can at least affix -woman to solve most of these inconsistencies.

One of the most irritating uses of the exclusive third-person singular pronouns has to be "she" to denote prized possessions like boats and cars. While a term like "mankind" has deeper meaning than what may appear to be the case, using "she" in this way is just plain silly. That archaic usage was for historic sea vessels that were admiringly named after women, not your stupid-ass matte black Hummer. Unless you have some sort of special setup (check the tailpipe?), it's an "it".

*groan*

Okay, so I went home, and I looked it up. The passage I had in mind was from linguist Suzette Haden Elgin's The Language Imperative , and it goes as follows:
"[...] and third, that the correct way to express their meaning is 'Every member of the congregation had his own hymnal' -- because 'everybody knows the word his in that sort of sentence means his or her.' [...] The third [justification for this], however, is simply false. Research has more than amply demonstrated that people today interpret as exclusively male the so-called generic masculine items of English like the masculine pronouns[...]
When research subjects are given sets of sentences such as 'Every doctor dreads his Board exams' and 'The composer who doesn't play the piano is hampered in his work' and are asked to draw pictures to illustrate them, by overwhelming majorities they draw pictures of a male doctor, a male composer and so on."

While I believe Elgin to be a credible source, I realise I'm not actually citing anything of scientific importance and as such, I'm essentially talking out of my ass.
Nevertheless, I stand by my original opinion: I consider gender-inclusive, or at least mindful language to be an important part of creating true equality.
And to re-rail things a bit: yeah, I think we still need feminism. We may already have equal rights de jure, which is what I think a lot of the people in this thread have mentioned as equality, but I think all countries in the world have yet to accomplish equality de facto. Because that's a question of attitudes, and those are arguably as difficult to change as laws are.

I realize you weren't attacking me. Your post wasn't particularly abrasive, anyway. You were posting information, not flaming me.

Linguistic relativity strikes me as something strongly related to post-modern philosophy, in which the world is supposed to be a construct of perceptions, rather than something that is real and our perceptions should line up with. I disagree, and I don't trust the book source you posted enough to be convinced, as there is little requirement of scientific rigidity in publishing a book. I'm not trying to take a cheap tactic to knock your argument down, I'd just like to point out that I have read plenty of books that espouse quite the opposite philosophy, so without substantial reference to scientific studies, neither category can be fully trusted. The journal article you posted likely has more merit, but it seems to be examining Spanish more than it examines English, as English seems to be used as the control. I can't access the article, though, so I don't know if there is more detail on English in the body of the text.

I think you are saying what you mean when you say "man" to refer to, say, the human race in general. As I said in my post, that is a particular nuance of the word. It may not be entirely clear, but it is a proper definition of the word.

I don't like using "they" that way. I do it sometimes because it just gets tiring to type out "he/she" and it isn't particularly socially acceptable at current times to shorten it to "he", but the grammar nazi in me gets annoyed when I have to use it because it simply isn't grammatically correct to use "they" in place of a singular.

I would guess that people view "he" as referring specifically to men because they have been trained to view it that way. Ever since the feminist movement gained power, it hasn't been socially acceptable to use "he" to refer to both genders. People now, in particular, young people who have grown up immersed in this environment and without the benefit of old books, would probably view "he" as a specifically male word. The reason men object to "she" is because it isn't a gender-inclusive term. It does not have that meaning, and it would probably take years of struggle and constant media barrage to give it that definition. When you use "she", though your intent may be to use a gender-neutral pronoun, you are at best using it in a grammatically incorrect manner.