I'm becoming very cynical about people who say they're interested in eqaulity

steddyeddy wrote: »

I worked on a few projects in Tanzania such as a prison, an AIDS clinic and a refuge for women. Only 5% of women in Tanzania go on to secondary education and believe me it's one of the more progressive African countries. I asked what they thought about feminism in the west and they said "it stands for white middle class women and hasn't ventured into the savannah".

TBH they're right. I think a lot of people claiming to support equality only support the equality of the group they're a part of. On another thread the findings of a report detailed that bright students from working class backgrounds were discriminated against based on where they were born. One recruiter said this:



Now this is discrimination. Yet the same people who complain about sexism supported this stance. If they were really concerned about women they'd open their eyes to the fact that working class women are discriminated too.

It's not just feminism but a lot of people who claim to support equality seem to be only supporting their particular brand of equality because it's the flavor of the month.

Look at the hatred directed at Tim Hunt and then look at what these same people are doing to support other forms of inequality.

In essence people support one type of equality but might support another type of inequality.

But you see, without campaigning for one thing or another there wouldn’t be any change at all. Look back at history – and beyond the tip of your nose – and you might see that only the commitment to one cause or another, as silly as it looks at the time, did change society.

Think about the living conditions of the working class about 150 years ago, or the peasants, remember the rights of women, it’s not that long ago they had’nt any and they are still seen as inferior to men, generally speaking. Without often ridiculed campaigning in the past you wouldn’t have i. e. minimum wage or social welfare.

Of course everyone speaks for their own brand of equality. Equality, or the aim for it, is embedded in a specific society with all the history and development behind it.

You can’t compare an African country with, say, Ireland. What is an achievement in Ireland might be unheard of in, say, Germany. And vice versa. Not to speak of other countries outside Europe.
And what an African woman sees as normal for herself an puzzling in other countries might be a puzzle for an Irish man – or more so for a Western woman. There are different societies with different values.

Let’s just everyone fight and campaign for every progressive right they deem worthwhile. In the end it benefits society, even if there is a lot of failure on the way - and the odd collateral damage as your poor old Tim Hunt (had to google him, he is so negligible).

Or do you think that we just stand put and do nothing? Discrimination is still everywhere. Best thing and probably most successful is to start fighting it where it’s closer to home.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't hate them I worked with them. I think some who claim to be feminists haven't a clue about what equality is and are joining it because it's the in thing to do.

I think the word you're looking for is people. Some people do things because it's the thing to do.

In saying that, I'm sure the people who benefit from the good that others do, just because its the thing to do or to be seen, don't really give a **** what the motivation for doing it is.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful the way female Hollywood stars were only getting paid 4 or 5 mill for films, when their male counterparts were getting 30 mil. Fair play to Patricia Arquette and Meryl Streep. Sure, Angelina Jolie got $33m for Maleficent and Jennifer Lawrence got $26 for Hunger Games, but they only paid them those large sums because, well, that's not all that important, and anyway the prize money for ladies championship at Wimbledon is now the same as it is for the men's championship winner. They play the same amount of sets and there is same level of demand for tickets (ie: centre court action) and women's tennis generates as much as men's, so it's only fair.

I think its disgraceful the way people in Ireland look for pay rises, when they make far more money than women in Tanzania. Bunch of hypocrites.

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I agree. They are all side stepping the major issues in place of some fashionable issues like man wearing an unfashionable t-shirt.

Ah here. Loads of feminists disagreed with that shirt controversy. The way you're going on every single Western feminist was campaigning against it.

It's not like those middle class feminists are preventing working class Irish or Tanzanians from organising groups to promote feminism or education.

Maybe people can only do so much so they do what they can to help. People are imperfect and make racist decisions. Except for Steddyeddy?





Ah but to satisfy your egalitarian standards people would need to act equally for all causes involving inequality.

I find people who work with aids patients in places like Tanzania are self interested hypocrites because they do nothing for people with health concerns in South America. Sure some people in South America don't even have water to drink. Aids aiding hypocrites, the lot of them. (Check the above statement for ridiculousness)

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why would that be hypocritical? It would be hypocritical if certain groups in Ireland considered themselves less privileged than certain groups in Tanzania. Say if some female in Ireland thought there was a "patriarchy" and thus she was oppressed compared to all males, including Tanzanian males, or even men in Ireland of a lower class to her. Or if American millionaire stars used the same rhethotic of patriarchy to ignore their privileges of class, nation and empire to declare themselves oppressed.

Like Emma Watson talking about being oppressed because of her gender.

Sure, she was a millionaire before starting secondary school and is one of the most famous people in the world, and even if she never became an actress she was still born into a life of upper class English privilege, but sometimes she's called bossy! :eek: