I can try to help you out with feminism, and I take issue with the word myself at times, so I see where he is coming from.

The way I see it, both men and women are oppressed by gender roles, however men are still dominant, still 'on top,' if you will. In order for us to be equal, women have to make a climb to be equal with them, as nobody wants to say that men should just drop down from their high chair and be down below the glass ceiling with us women-folk. Feminism is uplifting. Which do you think your friend would prefer: feminism or demasculization? It's either one or the other, because when there is a gender/sex hierarchy like so much of the world has, in order for equality to happen, either one goes up, the other goes down, or my preference: both meeting in the middle. And in order for that to happen, women still need to rise in the order of power.

I hope that helps with that one... If it's confusing I'm sorry. And I hope that your friends come to understand feminism isn't a bad word!

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

This is a fantastic resource, valuable to both the new and the seasoned feminist. It takes a while to explore, but you might be able to find ways to articulate your feelings.

Specifically for your first question, this link stands out:

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-feminism-and-not-just-humanism-or-equalism-isnt-saying-youre-a-feminist-exclusionary/

The first point has been excellently addressed by other posters here, so I'll defer to them on that one.

The second issue, when people take time away from their career, it can and does suffer. The way feminism looks at it, though, is why are women expected to be the ones taking off? Yes, giving birth could take a while, but everyone is allowed sick days, no? Why are women the ones expected to take time from their careers? Why isn't there more paternity leave? And because most men are in situations that they're being paid more than women, so they're the ones not taking leave after having children, why should women be punished for doing the right thing and taking time to sort out their lives to fit both work and child rearing? If they're coming back, what does it matter the reason they took some time off? Ultimately, the time and expense to train a person to take their place is outweighed by just waiting out women's maternity leave. There is not some dividing line between work life and home life. They affect one another and businesses should reflect that and allow people (of both sexes for a variety of reasons) to sort out their private home lives in order to be the best workers possible. It ultimately creates more loyal workers and a stronger, more stable business with less turnover.

As for scholarships, those are mostly private or merit-based. They are earned with test scores or GPA or other merits, or given by individuals. If they want to create a white male scholarship, nothing is stopping them. However, traditionally, scholarships are created by those who have experienced obstacles to higher education because of their race and/or gender. Therefore, they are trying to level the playing field so that not only rich white men are the ones benefiting from legacies or the accomplishments of their fathers and they are offering assistance to those they feel may be good candidates for higher education even if they have a background that can't afford it. There are plenty of different kinds of scholarships. Why aren't your friends decrying athletic scholarships that only advantage those with sports talent? Maybe it's because it's something they value. Others value lifting up members of certain races or genders. And it's their scholarship to do with as they please.

Hi, I just read your post :D

Your friends in my opinion did raise valid points and maybe just maybe the reason you couldn't defend your position is because they were right?

Feminism does tend to ignore the problems of the male gender, and while yes that can be seen as a bit odd considering alot of feminists claim to champion gender rights but look at it this way, they're pretty damned focus on helping women and that can be very reassuring to know there are people so dedicated to helping

There are so many factors to consider when looking at pay gaps im not going to go near it right now

On the scholarships and affirmative action i'll pose 2 question for you

1)When women are now increasing in the majority of universities/colleges why should there be women only scholarships?

2)Do you believe that because I am a White British Male I should be overlooked completely for someone of a different colour or gender just to meet a quota?

Their ability to silence your argument is not because they are white or because they are male, which is frankly a sexist and racist view, it is because as you say these a well educated people who can articulate their argument.

my advice...accept that they may have a point, do more research and hope to find an argument against them, if you can't find one, maybe it doesn't exist and maybe you should accept that they are right in this case.

In response to your so-called friend who thinks feminism ignores the equality concerns of half the population, I would say that he is confusing feminism with patriarchy.

Aside from that, I would say time to find some new friends.

Thanks for your help, everyone.

On the wage gap, the number from the Census Buereu don't include women who took time off work to have and raise children. They only include full-time employees.

In general, a good resource for people to at least understand white privilege is to poke around at:

http://www.cwsworkshop.org/resources/WhiteSupremacy.html

These people are white anti-racists that have a lot of good articles and material to help people recognize white privilege.

In regards to male privilege, I'd check out this link:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

The site is also a good primer for new feminists to get a solid ground on some good information to wrap your head around. I hope this helps!

one more thing about women taking time off for family matters - they are actually doing work that benefits the economy. pregnancy and childbirth is reproductive labor, child rearing involves education/healthcare, etc, and taking care of sick family members is also labor. all of these are unpaid though, and many feminist economists argue that they should get compensation from the government. also, the wage gap is not about women earning less than men over time because they take time off, but women of equal qualification being paid less than men at any given point.

regarding affirmative action, your friends aren't different from the rest of the members of a privileged group, like white males. affirmative action actually does value achievement and not physicality. it values how much an individual has done under oppressive conditions. it also values the contribution that person will make in the classroom/office because of their background. today's white kids might think they've gotten to where they are by hard work only, but it's also because of years of slavery, segregation, the GI Bill, housing distribution, and inequal wealth distribution. the same argument goes for scholarships for women. and yes, there are already scholarships for white males, they're called legacy scholarships. it's funny how men or white people are always worried about a few "underqualified" minorities getting admission or scholarships, but they never consider the many, many mediocre men/white who also get college admissions or scholarships.

i don't think that you not being able to answer your "friends" quickly means that they were right. i think intuitively you knew what you believed, but needed time to gather the logic and stats. that's what women's studies classes are for!

i'm not sure through that your logic would convince your friends, because they view the world through their privileged eyes. i'd try to find better friends!

P.S. you should youtube or google video Tim Wise. he's a very eloquent while male feminist, who talks about how privilege works.

You seem to have gotten good answers to the first two arguments, so I'll tackle the third. I know another commenter from the UK mentioned quotas. Forgive me for assuming, but if you're in the US, quotas are illegal here and have been for some time now. I work in the affirmative action office at a research lab in California, and I've learned a lot working here that I never knew before. Whenever I've had debates about affirmative action in classes, it's always about the quota system, but no one seems to know that this isn't how affirmative action works. Employers are prohibited from hiring based on race or gender. Where I work, the different departments set hiring goals for minorities and women, and then we help to fill them via outreach to different communities, through things like the scholarships that you mention, or sending representatives to historically black universities to promote our internship programs. I would argue that this is a completely acceptable way to go about things- we're just getting the word out there that there are opportunities for minorities and women, but when it comes down to the actual hiring decision, it's entirely based on merit. It's just about making sure that there are more than just white men in the pool of applicants.

That said, there's still the question of why we have to do such outreach in the first place (why not equally, to all groups?). I'm part white and was raised in an extremely privileged environment, so I resisted seeing my own privilege for a long time, but there are two things that really helped me understand why affirmative action is so critical. One was this simple explanation (and I wish I could remember where I first heard it put this way so I could give credit): in the U.S., black people experienced three hundred years of slavery, followed by a hundred years of state-sanctioned violence, discrimination, and political disenfranchisement, and only about 40 years, now, of anything else. It's easy to say "bluhh, I never owned a slave," but the history of oppression runs far past 1864 and definitely still affects us in the present day. The other thing that helped was understanding that race- and gender-based privilege operates within different social classes, not outside of them. So when they ask what about the poor white people (as they always do)- well, that poor white person leads a harder life than President Obama, but they're sure as hell going to have an easier time getting welfare than a black person of the same social class. (And I don't know how universal this is, but at my workplace we do take that into consideration, and offer programs specially for low-income students as well.)

Sorry for the long answers, but I hope what I said helps give the smackdown to that particular line of thinking :) Feel free to ask me any questions, as obviously this is one of my personal soapbox issues, hehe.

...he says it's unfair for a movement to claim to be champions of equality...

I think alot of feminist are equal rights in belief, but focused on women's issues in action.

An archetype example would be a woman that gives to PPAA, Women for Women, micro loans to women, and gives financial contributions to pro-women women candidates.

Someone that was more humanist would give to Heifer International, International Red Cross, NOW, NAACP, and others.

I'm a vet, I am active with some veterans groups. I am not going to be embarrassed about helping out veterans in need, and feminist should not be embarrassed about focusing on women in need.

I want to thank everyone again for your help. I'm looking forward to trying again. I'm also enrolled in a women's studies class, we have class twice a week, and that's also been helping.

God, feministing is a really wonderful blog.

"Another claims that the imbalance of pay is due to maternity leave and women taking time off from their careers to be with children. "When someone takes large portions of time away from their career, they will happen to get paid less," he says."

I live in Canada, were both men and women can take paternity leave and I don't think we are paid less once we sprout a child, nor should we. Also, it is good that we (husband and wife) can take paternity leave because workers are not robots. We need time to take care of our families and our ourselves. Paternity leave gives us this chance.

We have a low birth rate in Canada. If as a woman I think I am going to be penalized for having children I wouldn't have them. That means no workers for the future. That means we have to keep bringing more immigrants each year to work here, which means getting workers becomes more and more expensive. As other industrialized nations face the same problem (aging population) we are also fighting for a diminishing pool of immigrants. Are all those engineers in China going to want to move here in 10 years?

So, in short, giving paternity leave and telling your workers that if they have babies it is not the end of the world is a good thing. It is also a good thing if those babies can grow to become educated, well-rounded, competitive workers because they had the support of their families or their communities.

What happens to the work force when women are penalized for having children?

1) People will not want to have children = Diminished work force.
2) Mother's stay at home = half your work force is gone.

Your friend may live in the United States where your birth ratio is so high that you don't have to grapple about these issues right now, but in Europe and Canada we are in a different position. We want people to take their leaves and come back to work. Hell, we even eliminated mandatory retirement ages.

Also, ask your friend how he would feel if he was told he could loose he job if he married or had children. Ask him how he would feel if, because he has children, he was not promoted or given a raise.

Because those are some of the issues women around the world face.

1. "Although he agrees that gender equality is a great thing, something to strive for, he says it's unfair for a movement to claim to be champions of equality while refusing to even pay lip service to half of the world's population."

Ask him in what way he's disadvantaged. Likely he'll say something that isn't much of an issue compared to things women face (unfair scholarships seem to get mentioned a lot) or something that a lot of feminists DO care about (like paternity leave).

2. Men SHOULD get parental leave. We should fight for both parents to be home for three months and at least one for a year. Then he couldn't say that excuse. Of course even in Sweden where men are so encouraged to take time off, the woman takes more time off. But they have 18 months to split so I can understand if they want one parent (usually the mom) to be home for over a year.

3. Well, I don't know how many women only scholarships are actually out there. Maybe it's different in U.S. but I'd say most financial aid out there is based on financial need. Scholarships are often based on marks or something even more specific to gender. Ask him to look at your school's scholarships and tell you how many are simply based on being a woman. Sometimes people hear things that make sense to them but they never look them up for themselves. I'd be interested to know what he finds.

I find a lot of arguing involves identifying where the other person is making assumptions that don't hold up to reality.
I'll give my simple answers to these arguments from the males you encounter.

A long time ago, before I really got into feminism, my brother questioned feminism to me. I asked what he didn't like about it and he said he didn't like the word feminism...saying that only calling it feminism was sexist in itself and that maybe it should be called "humanism" or something. I ended up telling him that bickering about the name was irrelevant...basically in a gentle way, saying that if his biggest problem with feminism was the name of it, maybe it wasn't worth arguing about. My brother, unlike many people I encounter, has a flexible mind which is open to new perspectives and to having his beliefs changed. Many people will argue with you but not truly be open to being convinced of anything. They are not looking for an exchange of ideas but rather to "beat" their own ideas into your head. You should not waste your time/energy with these people. You will be able to tell if your conversation partner is one of them soon enough as time goes on.

If I could have that conversation with him again, I'd say that feminism is a movement which benefits all people, but that it is called FEMinism because it *most directly* affects women. It helps men too, but secondarily. For instance, the existence of a domestic violence shelter (a feminist service) helps a domestic violence survivor, and it also helps her brother. It helps her because she is no longer within reach of her abuser, and it helps her brother because he would presumably prefer for his sister NOT to be abused. But the help is probably *most appreciated* by the woman, since she no longer has to feel the physical blows. Feminism helps both men and women but it tends to target problems which disproportionately and directly affect women more so than men.

I would have asked maternity leave guy what he thinks about the situation of a woman who has never taken maternity leave but still makes less than her equally-qualified male coworkers, for the same work. Does his theory apply only to women who have children or does it also apply to childless women - and if so, how is it that these women also experience pay discrimination?

To affirmative action guy, I'd say that the reason AA started is because of the fact that there's no guarantee for women or POC that their achievements and qualifications WILL be the primary consideration in the hiring process. It would be nice if that was the case without AA, but it's not how the world currently works. I would also say that AA does not equal discrimination against men or whites, because these groups are the least likely to be discriminated against in hiring practices. Also, the number of female bosses refusing to hire men, or, say, black bosses refusing to hire whites, should not be a concern because this would likely be a miniscule proportion of all management...considering how the higher you get in most companies, the whiter and maler it gets. Many times you don't have to go very high at all before suddenly everyone is white and male.
I know how difficult it is when you first start out. But believe me, the more you learn, the more confident you will be to fight these battles. You may even win some.
Good luck!

> I hate being silenced because I don't know how else to defend my position. All these men are articulate, well-educated, and it's frustrating to know their privilege is showing but not to know how to make them see it.

OK, here are some clues:

1) You are almost certainly, to re-use old vernacular, "A female chauvinist pig". You have been trained to see only the downsides of being a female, and never to see the upsides. You have learned to see what men gain from being men, but not what women gain from being women, to fail to see what men pay for being men, while focusing entirely on what women pay for being women. The reason you have such a hard time defending your position in discussions with men is almost certainly, utterly, due to this failure to be taught both sides of the problem.

2) If you actually are open-minded about the issue (your diatribe suggests that, more likely, you are determined to see the world in terms of "eeeevil men" and not sex roles and the limitations they place on both sexes), then I suggest strongly that you check out the writings of Warren Farrell, a Ph.D Psychologist who, as a former chairman of (I believe) the NY state chapter of NOW, is hardly a shill for male arrogance. In particular, I suggest you start with two books -- "The Myth of Male Power" and "Why Women Earn Less". Both detail the problems inherent in the modern Feminist position.

-----
A few quotes:

"[Feminism has] focused on the fact that women as a group earned less -- without focusing on any of the reasons why women earned less, [such as:] full-time working men work an average of 9 hours per week more than full-time working women; men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations, to work the less desirable hours, and to work the more hazardous jobs."
- Warren Farrell -

"Sexism, we have been told, made men powerful and women powerless. The reality is somewhat different. For centuries, neither sex had power. Both sexes had roles: She raised the children, He raised the crops/money. Neither sex had options, both sexes had obligations. If both sexes had traditional obligations, it is more accurate to call it sex roles than sexism.
Men's roles didn't serve their interests any more than women's roles served women's interests. Instead, both roles served the interests of survival."
- Warren Farrell -

"The political genius of the feminist movement was its sense that it could appeal to all women only by emphasizing expansion of rights and opportunities and avoiding expansion of responsibilities. Had the National Organization for Women fought to register 18 year old girls for the draft, it might have lost members. Had feminism emphasized women's responsibilities for taking sexual initiatives, or paying for men's dinners, or choosing careers they liked less in order to support adult men better, its impact owuld have been more egalitarian but less politically successful."
- Warren Farrell -

"Essentially, women's liberation and men's mid-life crises were the same search for personal fulfillment, common values, mutual respect, and love. But while women's liberation was thought of as promoting identity, men's mid-life crises were thought of as identity crises.
Women's liberation was called insight, self-discovery, and self-improvement, akin to maturity. Men's mid-life crises were discounted as irresponsibility, self-gratification, and selfishness, akin to immaturity. Women's crises got sympathy, men's crises got a bad rap."
- Warren Farrell -

"The U.S. Census Bureau found that as early as 1960, never-married women over 45 earned more in the workplace than never-married men over 45."
- Warren Farrell -

"What Feminism has contributed to women's options must be supported. But when Feminists suggest that God might be a She without [ever considering] that the Devil might also be female, they must be opposed."
- Warren Farrell -

"While we acknowledged that glass ceilings that kept women out of the top, we [have] ignored the glass floors that kept [them out of the bottom]. Thus the 'Jobs Rated Almanac' reveals that the majority of the 25 worst jobs 'happen to be' male dominated."
- Warren Farrell -

==================
In short, until you can reject his arguments with reason and fact, your position is wrong. And, since the facts and thee reasoning bears Farrell out, your position is, in fact, categorically wrong.

> Also, I'm not sure what kind of feminists you hang out with, but most of the ones I know realize that part of feminism is gender equality for all. I would say that perhaps feminism doesn't focus on male issues is that us men experience an overwhelming sense of privilege already. Since men are privileged, why should we expect feminists (which are mostly women) to fight for our rights that we already have?

Shall we discuss the sexism inherent in this comment in the first place?

1) It presumes privilege inherently, without grasping that it might work both ways: "us men experience an overwhelming sense of privilege already"

2) It then, having made an absolute, yet unfounded, statement, argues from that position: "Since men are privileged..."

Men do, indeed, have some advantages in our society for being male. We also have strong countering forces, too. Let's notice a couple:

1) Recently a feminist voiced complaints that there were no "extra expenditures" in the economic stimulus package for women who wound up unemployed as a result of the downturn. The problem with this is simple -- a casual examination of the unemployment stats makes it clear that males comprise well over 2/3rds of the recently unemployed. So, in fact, the egalitarian argument would be that MEN should get greater compensation.

2) In that same light -- take any 27yo woman, and tell potential suitors that she still lived with her parents (or had moved back in after the downturn started). Any downcheck on her as a suitable female in that regard? No, not the least. Now reverse gender -- a 27yo male, still living at home, or recently moved back in. How many women will be interested in dating him? If you aren't lying to yourself, you will ack that this is a clear, blatant, and undeniable downcheck for most women.

3) Males are far, far more likely to successfully commit suicide, across the board. While more women of a young age attempt suicide, they are less serious about it. They generally do so as a cry for help. Males, again, of any age are far more likely to do so with serious intention to quit living so they do it using a more "assured of success" means. Why? Because the pressures on the male sex role are higher, far less forgiving, and grant far fewer support options than that for the female sex role. Women have struggled, and successfully gained, a lot of flexibility in their sex roles, and this is a good thing. But women have done so almost entirely by arguing in favor of shedding the downside of female sex roles, and adding the upsides of the male sex roles to female rolls, while utterly ignoring the egalitarian aspect of it -- of relinquishing the upside of female roles and/or taking on the mantle of male sex role downsides.

Women fight for "equal rights" in the military, but don't fight for being treated the same way as males should there be conscription.

Women fight for the elimination of the "Glass Ceiling", but not for the elimination of the countering "Glass Floor".

Women fight for a 5-year Maternity leave, but then attempt to compare the salaries of 39yo women to 39yo men, when, if a man took off 5 years, it would be assumed that his salary would, quite rightly, be compared at best to those of 34yo men.

In short, the resistance to "feminist equality" comes in large part from the fact that feminists don't want equality. They want all the advantages of both sexes, and none of the disadvantages. And that is, plain and simple, "bovine excrement".

Now, let me relate a story.

Back in the mid-80s, I was visiting a friend in NYC. His GF, call her "J", at the time was an ardent feminist, and wrote regularly for various tri-state women's journals.

In the course of the visit, they told a tale of being at some party, where some guy was being an (inarguably) boorish lout. J took offense to some of his (undoubtedly) sexist comments.

She picked up a bowl of spaghetti and dumped it over his head.

Now, before proceeding: What was wrong with her action?

.
.
.
.
.

Simply put, she was hiding behind her femininity.

Put two men in that situation... One possible, even likely response, to an act of physical aggression such as that is that a fight would start. Both would be frowned upon, for sure, but the one who did the spaghetti would be considered the instigator of the fight.

And guys know this. And it actually holds us in check. We think TWICE about taking a disagreement from a verbal to a physical level.

And no, size doesn't matter. The fact that most women are smaller than men isn't relevant to this issue. If Guy A @5'9",150 lbs, dumps a bowl of spaghetti on the head of Guy B @6'4",240lbs, he's just considered a damnfool idiot for provoking a fight with someone bigger than him, if he gets hurt substantially.

J wasn't worried in the least. We both know, had the guy turned around and struck her, treating her exactly as a male would be treated, that everyone would have considered him as being in the wrong. And J used that to her advantage to deal with her annoyance at the guy for being a boorish lout.

J was, and probably still is, a complete and utter hypocrite. She wanted all the benefits of being female, but none of the downsides to being male, which includes, among other things, learning to deal with interpersonal anger without physical aggression.

======

Do NOT get me wrong here -- I'm not arguing in favor of men striking women. I'm arguing against women striking men.

I would be perfectly happy if the rule was that only a woman can choose to take it to a physical level, as long as she didn't expect some special protections beyond that. That strikes me as a reasonable balance to deal with the fact that women are generally physically weaker than men.

And most women will keep it on a verbal level, which is a place where they generally tend to have an advantage, anyway, as I believe that females tend to be much more practiced at verbal sniping than men are, as a matter of social custom.

===

It's time women started grasping that you DO have advantages in your female sex roles over males, and to start talking about giving some of those up, to make the situation actually "egalitarian".

If not, you need to stop claiming that "equality" is what you're really after. Because it's NOT.

BTW, so you know I'm relating the truth:

According to today's BLS labor report, the gap between the male jobless rate (8.3%) and female jobless rate (6.7%) widened to 1.6%, which is the largest male-female jobless rate gap in BLS history (back to 1948).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm