ONTD

There has been no point in the history of the United States where women have held majority structural power over men, so to argue that a structural inequity that has been in place since The Beginning is unrelated to sex is absurd. Whether women are denied those positions based on sex is beside the point - practices do not have to be overtly sexist to be of feminist concern. The mere fact that these fields are disproportionately male is questionable in a supposedly merit-based society where female educational achievements have outpaced those of men.

And really, if you think that it's just a matter of ~lol don't get pregnant~, ie ~just don't have sex haha~ ie ~here's a double standard that has been a source of oppression for women for centuries that I'm upholding lololol~ I don't see why you're defending feminist victories of any period outside the 19th century. You don't like the feminism of now or yesterday. You think it is okay for people to be structurally unequal because of biological characteristics. Good for you.

Any thoughts on binding nondisclosure? It's a damn big business, and it refutes plenty of myths about how anyone who touches a woman wrong gets their ass hauled to court.

Edited at 2013-01-31 04:32 am (UTC)

Setting pregnancy up as the exception to every form of aid is sexist. Pregnancy is the result of a choice, sometimes, but so are other illnesses stemming from lifestyle, and those are not set aside as special exceptions. Further, complications arising from pregnancy are most certainly not a choice. When a health issue that overwhelmingly impacts one gender is singled out, it is sexism. You can sit there and justify it all you want, but it is, in the most basic and literal sense, sexist.

And no, pregnancy termination is not so easy in many states, unless the woman has money or wants to go back alley.

No it isn't. If the reason why women are not in those positions is not due to their sex (but instead due to women not pursuing them or pursuing a dif career) it is not sexist and, ergo, is irrelevant in a convo about women's rights.

As I've already laid out for you, the issue is not as black and white as that. What's on paper and what's going on in practice are often two different things. I can provide examples of this if you want, as history and the modern era have given women and other minorities many from which to choose, but you also might say that that's just common sense, naive one.

A reason (not every reason; this is an example) for why women were not in formal power is b/c formal power holds more risks while informal power as the supporter of the man and not the supported provides a safety that many women (and men) would prefer.

Is this more common sense? I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote that women lack political rights because they're just too smart to want to get involved. That was some nice common sense. As soon as big business stops doing everything in their considerable legal power to obfuscate their workplace practices and policies I might find such an argument persuasive. Until then, I'm content to err on the side of power hungry boys club mentality didn't just fizzle out over night.

Indeed. In areas where men are oppressed (racially, for one), and the system has taken legal steps to address that, they would be affected by such policies. That fact does little to invalidate such policies' impacts on women. Something being sucky for more than one group does not invalidate harm.