Fair play. In politics we study the many strands of feminist thought which are not so radical in basis and only advocate equality- if you haven't studied them then thats not your fault.
In the US, we theoretically have opportunistic equality. I only say theoretically because "affirmative action" and it's ilk has destroyed such things. I don't think it would be too far fetched to say it exists in Europe as well. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see some examples. If equality is achieved, the movement would have no reason for existing. Therefore, it is quite evident that what these groups are pushing for is not equality.
I think that the concept of a 'struggle' is just characteristic bound to emerge from any remotely oppressed section of society in their fight for more rights.
I argue, as would many others, that such oppression no longer exists.
The general impression given by the mainstream media (which i think i probably define more broadly than you) is of bra burners and women with pick axes going after men.
Such characterizations are only seen in the mainstream media as indictive as sexism. Bzzt.
While it is not commented on in the newspapers or on the news in specific stories the general concept of feminism is portrayed as very radical.
I read the San Francisco Chronicle and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat daily. The only mention of feminism is in editorials. These editorials are almost exclusively written by feminists. Bzzt.
I have access to every mainstream American news network on my tv.
Ok. So start citing recent stories that you felt characterized feminism as man-hating.
On the BBC i constantly hear american reporters. So i think i have a vague idea.
About as vague an idea as I get from listening to BBC on shortwave.
The glass ceiling still exists- i see these quotas as simply rectifying a problem in society which is still rampant. In fact, i heard a programme just the other day which reported that women in high powered business jobs today was nearly exactly the same as it was in the 80s.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. The oppurtunity is there for all women. Why aren't they taking it?
Clearly women are not worse at such jobs than men- they just have not been given the chance to rise above a certain position in the company due to a) prejudice, b) a paternalistic atmosphere and c) child rearing duties and pregnancy.
Or maybe there are other reasons. Most good buisness leaders are bold, cocky, and arrogant. Those characteristics are found disproportionally in men. That could be a possible explanation. It isn't the only one. As for childrearing, if a woman cannot put in the time, she shouldn't expect a free ride.
