This article is wrong. Humanism is not feminism. Humanism is not related at all to tackling sexist discrimination (although many humanists may be feminists). Using the same word for two different movements would just be confusing.
How is humanism, the very idea that all humans should be treated equal and are of equal worth regardless of their sex, race, sexual orientation etc. not tackling sexist discrimination?
I, as a self-proclaimed humanist, find any[0] differentiation based on such a criterion not worthy of a modern society. I do however have a problem with a word/movement that I have trouble defining without resorting to sexism.
[0] Okay, there are obviously areas where sexism/racism is perfectly fine: A MD’s office, for example, or your bedroom. But those are really the only two I can think of at the moment.
Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at child care?
And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the person one day taking care of my child.
However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them to apply to every profession and every position from childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to school/university classes?).
>Why exactly do you think that men are worse than women at >child care?
Me? I don't think so. Women do. My uncle owns a few child care centers in the North-East. He never hires male employees. Why? Because the one he did a few years back was very soon accused of pheadophilia by one of the mothers. She didn't like the way he changed diapers on her daughter. Then my uncle learned it happens all the time with the child care centers. The mothers will sue as soon as they realize a male is hired. They accuse of peadophilia hoping to get good ROI on their action. That's why you'll never see a male in a child care center in the US, my friend. Because the mothers apparently are sexist. Or the courts. Or you tell me.
>And no, ideally, I would want the law to be gender-blind and >personally I couldn’t care less about the gender of the >person one day taking care of my child.
The problem is that the most people are not you. Most people will sue. Rightfully or not.
>However, if we want to introduce gender quota, I expect them >to apply to every profession and every position from >childcare to firefighter (and ideally to membership in >private associations/clubs as well…hell, why not also to >school/university classes?).
Why to stop with gender quota there? Why not to have a gender quota in divorce rulings? 50% cases kids go to the mother, 50% cases kids go to the father? Or maybe you praise gender equality only in the workforce and not in the social life in general?
