Is her complaint that progress isn't fast enough or far enough?

By citing so many examples of women's achievements, it's obvious that there've been many great strides forward.

If her argument is that we shouldn't get complacent, that's fine, but it sounds like she's arguing that equality should have been achieved by now.

When the movement begins in earnest in the 20th century, you can't expect tens of thousands of years of attitude shaping to be turned around overnight.

I'm not really sure what her point it. It kinda feels like she is just going off on a tangent.

I think this is a BS article.

She mentions plenty of strides women have made and then b***hes about them.

What's the problem? I think equal isn't enough, is it Ms. Lipman?

First step, changing your name to Lipperson?

It sounds like she has PMS.

One of her complaints is about the fact that we judge women too much on their looks.

Yes, we probably do.

However, take away the cosmetic industry, and you lose a lot of the women's workforce. I think she'd be complaining about the fact that even less women have jobs compared to men.

Fact is, women and men are different. That's never going to change. Men and women are not equal. Men have strengths in some areas that women do not. And women have many strengths in areas that men do not.

Without sounding chauvinistic, women are better suited for child rearing than men. Women have a natural compassion and nurturing spirit that men do not.

I think it's about priorities. There are still a lot of women who feel that their priority is the home. If this is all about empowerment, then she shouldn't complain about women feeling empowered to stay home with the kids. When you think about it, that's possibly the hardest job on the planet.

If women choose to stay home instead of entering the workforce, I think they should be commended for their dedication to the family instead of being admonished for not working hard enough for the "woman race." Not that they're mutually exclusive, either.

Let me give you a very simple analogy.

7+3
2+8

Are they equal?

But they are different! They can't be equal! This starts with 7, and the other starts with 2! One is obviously greater than the other!

Or:
Two people. One in a wheelchair, one not. Is the one in a wheelchair less equal because he cannot walk?
No, they have different abilities.


I don't see how different automatically means not equal. Particularly when those differences have a combination of genetic, cultural and personality bases.

There are nurturing men. There are construction-worker women. Is the nurturing man less of a man, or the woman less a woman, for playing differently than the cultural script?

I'd say they're both more, because they refuse to follow an arbitrary category.

I actually agree with the author. It's surprising to realize that progress for gender equality at the workplace is still an issue.

I didn't see this article as the author b***hing, rather, I see a brilliant insight into the author's perception of gender equality and feminism in the workplace over time. She gives suggestions and ideas on how to change things for the better - how is this b***hing?

I absolutely agree with this. So many people associate feminism with negative things, and perhaps respect , respect as equals in the workplace, will help ensure we have equal pay and opportunities.

Seriously, you think that women are incapable of finding employment in other markets? Are you oblivious to the fact that many cosmetic companies are run by men?
Did you even read the article? Maybe take the time to read the last 4 paragraphs.
That doesn't sound chauvinistic, it just sounds ignorant.

To quote the writer: "And attitudes have taken a giant leap backward."

Well, I don't agree at all.

The problem here is it's not simply "equal" and "not equal" as a sweeping judgement. We cannot simplify a person (or even a group of people) down to a simple label like that.

8+2 and 100^(1/2) are equal. That is true, if you are talking about the final result. They are not equal in that they aren't the same operation. They aren't equal in the amount of difficulty it is to do the mathematical operation. Similarly, men and women are equal, in dignity, intellectual capability, in humanity, in capability of doing good or evil. They are not equal in ability to give birth. A woman is much better at that than a man. They are not equal in ability to build physical strength or form. A woman has physiological reasons for being, in general, less "muscly" than a man generally will be given the same effort and conditions.

So yes, they are equal in the important things that govern their dignity and humanity. They are not equal in the individual parts that are contained in them. Men and women are different functionally and structurally. But they are equal as human beings in general.

It depends on how you look at it. You have to acknowledge where the sexes differ, but that does not give justification, nor does it intend to give justification, for treating any as "better" or "worse". Different does not mean better or worse. It just means different.

That is exactly my point to Josh. Glad to see you agree.

My comment was tailored explicitly to address his comment, not my feelings as a whole. He said men and women are "not equal." Saying so automatically indicates an inequality...and traditionally, men were the more "worthy."

There is no legitimate reason for men and women to be considered "unequal." Different, I'll accept...but even those differences are, as I said, subject NOT ONLY to genes/hormones, etc, but also to strong social norms and individual experiences.

We, as a society, can only change one of those factors: the social norms.

The idea that women's affairs are the affairs of the heart has been very detrimental in my opinion. Women do not have a natural compassion, they have just been subjugated for such a long period of history that they haven't had the chance to commit as many atrocities.
Most mothers struggle with wanting to hurt their child more than people would ever know, you're not supposed to talk about it. This puts more stress on the mother, as she doesn't usually know that all women feel this way at some point. You couldn't care for a person 24/7 and not want to kill them sometimes, even (and some times especially) your own child. As a man it's not as much of a problem to let off steam of joke about it. As it's supposed to be the mother's job to protect the child during these times, she doesn't have that luxury.

Because his statement implicitly suggests that women should be mommies? I'm not sure what the purpose of that statement was, but I can venture to guess that's not what he was going for. I disagree with what he said, both this statement and others, because they seem (to me) implicitly sexist. But I also don't believe that he intended to come across that way. Sexual slights are by nature subtle; I don't think we should be quick to conclude them as such.

The author makes some excellent points. Women may have equal rights and are working toward getting the same pay as men, but outside of this, women's issues are largely ignored. This article tries to turn the public's eye toward these less tangible, yet equally important, aspects of life. The author mentions how no woman has asked her for a raise, while dozens of men have. I think this is telling because women may just accept disrespectful treatment without asking for anything better.

But to say that those women are furthering sexual discrimination is not true. People should work to live their lives in happiness. If a person isn't happy, then they should work to change the situation. Regardless, they should have the option to break stereotypes, if they so choose.

As a guy, I am sick to death of all these fat, dim guys on TV with their smart, sassy, sexy wives. By all accounts, the guys are on the losing end of the deal. But guess whose name is on the show? King of Queens, According to Jim, Seinfeld, The Cosby Show, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. etc. Men are indeed stereotyped, but we also still hold the power in many regards.

PAVAROTI And JAMES BROWN

I just don't think its a very well written article. Why does she keep bringing up good things as examples of how womens' situations have deteriorated? Like this:
77 cents is more than 64 cents. If she brings it up, then she ought to put something between the other measures and this one to indicate contrast.

But one can only measure attitude anecdotally- otherwise it becomes one of those despised numbers.

Just sayin...


The fact that these were the only ones i could find is irrelevant.

on the wage difference i think her point was that all this time later (1983 was 26 years ago) we (women) are still not making the same dollar for the same job as men. it took us 26 years to gain 13 cents and ideally we would be getting paid equally by now.