(Also, asking women why they aren't staying home instead of having a family is the example HR uses when they talk about sexual discrimination. If you're working in a major corporation in America in the 21st Century, you should know that that question is not ok.)
This is like a kind of thought policing, and it's sick.
One of my problems with feminism is that it elevates women to a priviliged status while leaving males with low status behind, which just makes them worse off overall.
We have to stop this groupism and treat everyone properly, period. The only rights there are are human rights.
I disagree. You're confusing Misandry and Feminism.
That is my bigger problem with feminism: people with more reasonable views are providing cover for people with less reasonable views, since they all just call it "feminism."
For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men---including all those men that are already at the bottom of the pyramid (like, say, the ones who serve as cannon fodder in wars). That is reprehensible. Those men need our help, not to be treated like crap even more.
The only kind of intellectual position that is a respectable one is an intellectual position that is well defined. "Big tent" terms and movements should be rejected. They always consist of better people providing cover for worse people. "Islam" is another example.
That applies to pretty much everything -- from agile development to democracy -- not just feminism.
> For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men
The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.
No it doesn't. It doesn't apply to most concepts. If it did, concepts would not work.
Democracy is rule by the majority. There is no ambiguity there. That there are many implementations doesn't make the term ambiguous.
> The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.
It is not non-obvious. You just have to listen to feminists.
Patriarchy is defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." Overthrowing such a system =/= 'taking retribution against all men'
I think it can be just as oppressive when a stronger man treats a weaker man like shit as it is when a man treats a woman like shit. (By 'weak' in this context I am talking about power differential and not some inherent quality of the individual).
Yes. If you can't take the heat, don't jump in the oven.
Respect is something that have to be earned. I will treat anyone with disrespect (bosses, presidents and pope included) until you earn it and show you have worth as a human being.
People should be treated with respect until they have shown they don't deserve it.
Your comment here betrays a nasty perspective on the human race.
Is this an axiom (in which case further discussion is pointless, since your world view is incompatible with mine) or something you could prove.
because asking a female coworker this question has a subtext behind it that is, "I find it peculiar or odd that you chose to have a career". In what other ways do you think it's normal for someone to justify why they want to work? You would never ask this question to a male coworker who recently had a child.
Considering most Indian families in the bay area are dual income, I find it weird that they'd be surprised to see a woman working instead of taking care of her child.