Apparently this is an unpopular opinion among feminists. If feminism is about equality for everyone, it needs to address that. As an example, LGBTQ+ was extended many times to cover everyone in the community, and that’s the right thing to do. There isn’t just L and everyone repeats “Oh! Lesbians are for rights for everyone, no need to update that”
I don’t know what the new name should be, but it should cover gender equality for everyone.
To become a CEO you kinda have to put the shareholders (men who don’t sow but love to reap) first competently above the workers who create value, and IIRC in some countries it’s also their legal obligation? Maybe men are just more sociopathic in nature, hence the difference. But again, why is the difference in other careers a necessary display of injustice? Maybe, just maybe, men and women are fundamentally different in some areas to a degree that’s large enough for them to prefer different careers? Why does everything need to be 50/50, when it doesn’t necessarily come from any negative angle? Only if you think “men and women differ only in superficial, physical ways” would this make sense, which is a popular take in some societies (especially in the West), but something being popular doesn’t make it true, right?
And the cultural change does not require nor depend on “feminism” but simple empathy for our fellow human beings. Also, education can only go so far. Henry Kissinger and Bibi knew/know exactly the consequences of their actions and were/are clever people, they just didn’t/don’t give any fs about it. It’s an attitude problem, molded by ideology certainly, but any person with any degree of humanity should understand “raping is wrong”, regardless of their level of education. It just leaves the realm of/does not require “feminist ideology”, is what I mean. Regardless, thank you for your reply, and you seem to be a reasonable and kind lemming. 👍
You’re right. And I’m not even advocating for a (mandated) 50/50 share. We have science available and we can do studies whether something is due to systematic and man-made unfairness, or due to differences in population groups. I have a hunch that the former still plays a big role in society. But ultimately all simple truths are wrong and we’d need to resort to science and have a very long conversation to tell whether a ratio of X is indicative of something, and it depends on the domain.
I’m kind of not okay with how sociopathic (big) business is. So I’d welcome whoever brought more reason and overall societal gain into economy. If that’s a side-effect, I’d be okay with that. As is, it’s a bit too exploitative, and not what we should strive for. Maybe we should have >50% women CEOs to facilitate that, I don’t really know (And it’s kind of a stereotype to attribute caring for fairness and collective good to women).
And sure, we’ve circled back to the original question. I think we all mostly agree here on what culture should be like. I’d call things feminism if it’s focused on eradicating the remaining unfairness women face in specific. But that’s just part of a bigger picture (for me). And I’d say education is one of the mightiest tools humans have available. But that’s mostly because I believe in the things the Age of Enlightenment brought us and I’d say that has brought us prosperity and freedom. And fighting for individual freedom and equality is an everlasting struggle none the less, for women and for whatever stereotypes apply to me, or anyone.