[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
There is this idea that we won’t achieve equality until there’s parity between men and women. Like this is the goal.
Equal numbers of females in math-heavy technical fields like engineering.
Equal numbers of women at the top of the ladder. Upper management, CEOs.
Women making the same money as men.
UCLA’s Anderson School of Business just got called on the carpet for not having enough women in tenure track positions. No endowed chairs are held by women. Gender Bias Alleged at UCLA's Anderson Business School - WSJ They neglect to recognize that many women would choose more flexible part-time positions, and maybe that’s what makes them fulfilled.
There are biological and reproductive realities that mean we will NEVER reach parity. In fact, I don’t want to live in a world that would look like that. More women are drawn to people oriented/ helping professions. Even women who have the math chops to be engineers. More women want to work part-time or step back from the workplace to raise young children. More women will trade more money for flexibility, less stress and responsibility, and fewer hours because they see family as a priority. I could go on. I’m not being retrograde in terms of encouraging women, and paying them what they are worth, or teaching them how to negotiate and compete. Just saying, do we really want a world where HALF of the CEOs are women. Half of the tenured professors are women? That’s a world where nobody’s having kids, or nobody’s raising kids. Everybody working full-time and as stressed out as possible. I don’t think most women, or men really want that. [/quote]
I’m sure you’ve heard the quote about the person that shouts the loudest gets their way (or something like that). Well in feminism or just about any topic, the most extreme are shouting the loudest and somehow get their way, regardless of how fucked up a position that may be.
In this case, they’re shouting that men are trying to hold women down by not having everything be 50/50, and you’re right that position makes no sense, and you don’t see perfect splits in any field.
Don’t know where I’m going with this, but I thought you brought up some good points.
I suppose something that ought to happen is for women that hold the positions that you brought up, and don’t see raising a family as some sort of primitive lesser role for a woman to play should be more vocal that there actually isn’t anything wrong with that position. I remember reading years ago, and I have no idea about the truth of it, but I find it somewhat relevant to this discussion, is that one of the more subtle or lesser known purposes of the women’s movement was to break up the household so that children could be indoctrinated. I think that might have been when I was reading a lot of conspiracy theory stuff, so take that as you will.