1. Quite the opposite, the woman may feel included, but it's a farce, she isn't one of the guys as long as the guys can't be themselves while she is around. Res

1. Quite the opposite, the woman may feel included, but it's a farce, she isn't one of the guys as long as the guys can't be themselves while she is around. Resentment can form this way That's the point. The guys aren't supposed to be 'themselves' whatever that means, they are supposed to be working — as part of a team. There is already resentment: that is why there is a need for equality at work. 2. Objectification it is, but I don't agree that that is wrong. You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less it's 'you should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the sexual ones'. That is a bizarre rewiring of male sexual psychology pushed by non-males, I don't buy it. 'You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process' The objectification of women by men is societal, not natural: not all cultures do it & not all men do. Nature is far more complicated than you suggest: there aren't just two genders there is a sliding scale of gender. Does you idea of 'male sexual psychology' include gay men? transgender men? At work you should have interest in me because of my skills no matter my gender or sexual orientation. 3. keyword 'ironic' if a group of men 'ironically' made anything then it isn't automatically sexist. Not true. Some things a group of men 'ironically' make won't be automatically sexist. But many things meant to be ironically sexist and/or peurile just end up being demeaning. While to a degree irony is in the eye of the beholder a joke made by the more powerful that is percieved by the target as offensive is usually just bullying. 4. No feminism WAS a civil rights movement. As long as people make arguments like these Feminism very much IS a civil rights movement. You see what I did there? Very clever. 'we have a sexist epidemic in nursing' Really? 2nd. Half of whom we hire must be substandard? No that isn't the case at all, probably the majority of whom you hire is standard (assuming a typical skill distribution) .. More women in the field certainly would help, there would be more of the best, and more standard, and more substandard. You increased the supply of workers, which is a good thing from certain view points. If we are currently not using near-half the population then we must be missing half of the best people. Was it my use of the word standard that you object to? How about we go with 'average'. Take 100%. That's 50% above average, 50% below average. If you add another 100% you can put the two 50%s together to make a group 100% above the old average. Your rhetoric is pretty awful though. Nice. 7. Positive discrimination is one way to change the numbers, but as with affirmative action, the same arguments for and against apply. The same arguments for and against what apply? Feminism is needed because society still awards the most powerful, highest paid jobs and most of the best opportunities to advance their careers to men. Equality is needed because society gives these things to straight, white men. While the days of blatant to-the-face discrimination may be over in much of the western world there is still plenty of silent discrimination occuring. I beleive most young men don't realise they are doing it — they are just behaving like their peers and would be appaled if it was pointed out to them. I am hoping that if we start calling it out they will realise and gladly change their behaviour. Arguments like yours are badly disguised sexism portrayed as 'the real' equality that fail to take in the level of the field we are playing apon.