It is a daunting challenge to try to address women’s equality rights, because both sides of the argument are remarkably incensed and almost disturbingly easy to anger. There’s also the two-sides of the coin argument—you can’t support social change if you don’t support most female advocacy groups. To that argument, I respond with a slippery slope fallacy accusation, and perhaps a couple of Advil. I find myself in great disagreement with a disturbing amount of feminist organizations, and much to my dismay, I’ve grouped many of Eagly and Carli’s posits in with them. I just now read “Zach Poss’s” entry, and his second paragraph was almost exactly what I wanted to cover on this issue; essentially, there are times it feels Eagly and Carli want to have their cake and eat it too—embrace equality without giving up some traits that should probably be put at the door if women are to pursue those occupations. Childbirth is an incredibly challenging issue since there is nothing comparable that men can endure; however, it is important to note that it is entirely optional.
While I hate to admit it, I feel Browne presents a much stronger argument than Eagly and Carli, despite the fact I firmly believe that women are just as capable as their male counterparts in the workplace. His article reads much more level-headedly, and his ideas feature better organization. What I’d like to see is a compromise, of sorts. An article which discusses how women feature different—but equivalent—abilities in positions typically dominated by males without bringing out a grocery list of how women need to be (almost paradoxically????) accommodated. Then I’d happily throw away my Advil.
Question: Do you think women’s percentage in the workforce will continue to rise? When do you think there will be a brickwall?
No comments:
Post a Comment