Going back a bit, but I did say I would reply!
Of all the emergencies I've been in, which admittedly haven't been many, "women and children" were privileged on zero occasions. Although when a bus I was on crashed, the pregnant lady was given a lot of attention by medics which I really think is quite fair. As soon as I read your claim, I thought "wow, that sounds like a 100 years ago" and then you referenced the Titanic. Being a huge fan of the Titanic, I have often wondered about why it was in a society where women were still fighting to vote, they were given privilege to getting off the Titanic? I put it down to the chivalrous idea that the men would go down with the ship. But, woman couldn't vote in a lot of democracies at that time, so I hardly think it's the case that 100 years ago, women were thought to be more important than men.
Actually, this is still true today. I only gave the Titanic example because it was quite easy to see - however even today, if a plane is crashing or a ship is sinking and lifeboats are brought out or people need to evacuate, they do indeed say 'women and children first'. Pretty much 99% of the time.
I also completely disagree that when a man hits a woman, it's abuse, when a woman hits a man, it's self defence? I'm not sure if this is something people in your life are perpetuating, and if they are, I encourage you to speak out against it. It's an awful notion and definitely not one that the broader feminist movement perpetuates.
This is not something that happened to me personally or anything, it's society's way of thinking. It's well known that if a man hits a woman it bears more weight than a woman hitting a man. You can see that in many social experiments that have been conducted, plus the jail time that women receive compared to men for the same crime.
But I mean, girls and women are far more likely to be victims of sexual or physical violence by someone they know, far more likely to have their genitals mutilated in a way that causes long-term physical and mental effects, sometimes occasioning death, far more likely to not report abuse crimes, and I could talk about every-day sexism forever.
I agree, that's a big problem that we need to solve; however, how is changing traffic lights going to help?
My intention is not to compare who has it worse, the argument doesn't look fruitful - my intention is to highlight the gender disparity as an issue and International Women's Day as being a fair time to celebrate successes and focus on ways to continue to bridge gender gaps. I talked about my thoughts on the issue of the traffic lights 
Yes, you talked about traffic lights - but then asked me how women are more privileged than men, so I answered.
I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate IWD. In fact that's great. But IMD is an important day too. Men are important too. Just because men have been more dominant that does NOT mean that we should celebrate only women now.
I too consider myself a feminist, in the original sense of the word, but won't succumb to people who place feelings over facts, notoriously those arguing for the gender-pay gap and glorifying the pro-choice movement as a right and not a privilege.
This is me, too. I consider myself a feminist if you look at the definition of the word in a dictionary - but not a third-wave feminist. I consider myself a second-wave or first-wave feminist.
Just wondering
Why does anyone assume the traffic light represents a man? Kinda confused 
Exactly - why is this even such a big deal? Why do we need to do this anyway? Why can't we just move on with our lives? That's what I'm saying - this isn't even a big issue so why are these feminists wasting so much time trying to fix this non-existent problem when they could be putting their efforts to actually DOING something important, like volunteering at women's shelters or something like that?
Of course there are more pressing issues, but it's also important to pay attention to the little things. The issue with male traffic lights is that it presents an unconscious bias towards men and I think this is something worth questioning rather than simply dismissing it for it's 'insignificance'.
There are always going to be these 'unconscious biases'. For example, there's an unconscious bias that boys generally like football more than women. Is that important? No. Are women stopped from playing football due to this? No. What is the problem? Nothing. Could it be perhaps that more men just like playing football and that less women like playing football, and that there is no 'unconscious bias' at all? Of course!
These unconscious biases are just the results of people being too sensitive. I played football throughout primary school. Although I was the only girl on the team, I didn't experience any sort of discrimination due to this, and played pretty well. Although I've lost the passion for it now, back then it might well just have been that more boys were more interested in football than girls, and that accounted for the male:female ratio. Why does there have to be this 'unconscious bias' thing?
But it does raise bigger issues - that stick figure is ambiguous about gender. Why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask yourself that. Why do you assume it's a man? Are you then being sexist because you are assuming it's gender, god forbid?
I never assumed it was a man - and even if I did, I'm not going to be offended by it. I'll be offended if a man hits me or a woman hits me or if a man assumes I can't do something because I'm a woman, or if a female assumes a man can't do something because he's a man.
That's the sort of things we should be getting offended about, not that some traffic light shows an androgynous figure and some people assume it's a man.
You're asking why we assume it's a man. A lot of us don't. You were told to 'wait for the green man' to cross the road. I was not. Perhaps you should be asking "why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?" to the people who told you that the green person was a man, and not to us, because in reality we can hardly assume its gender. And it's all a matter of opinion anyway; if you think it's a man, that's great. If you think it's a female, that's great too. If you just think of it as a person, that's also okay. But is this even a big issue? Why do feminists need to change these traffic lights? As I said before, why don't they focus on actually HELPING women, rather than focusing on an 'unconscious bias' which isn't even there - it's made up in the minds of people who are offended all too easily.
Home
Help
Search
Login
