On feminism and being fair to men

I just had a passionate conversation with my family about feminism. It started with me telling them how the guy I know said that, as a man, he wouldn't want to read about a list of inspirational women. And that really bothered me.

Then we got into it about how focusing solely on one gender is unfair and goes against what feminism stands for...or is it?

My mum's argument:

1. Making the list just for women is not promoting equality because it basically disregards men. Instead, make a list of inspirational people and be blind to gender and choose the people based on merits alone. Do away with lists of just women or just men.
    
2. If we want to be equal, then it has to start with women, more so than men. That women have to accept themselves as equal to men, and only then will they be equal in society's eyes.
    
3. That women are not at the forefront as much before because sexism kept women from doing great things and being competitive in various fields. Therefore it's reasonable that there were previously barely any women featured or highlighted in society. 

My counter:

1. Making a list just for women does not mean I'm disregarding men. If it was a list of inspirational people that was composed of only women, that would be unfair and dismissive of men. But a list of inspirational women is just highlighting the many women that I find inspirational, and it's okay.
   
   Women are who I relate to. It's representational. And we all know representation is important. Seeing a male astronaut is inspirational but seeing a female astronaut makes me feel like I can do it too.
   
   Men don't have to worry much about representations of gender, they're represented everywhere. What I'm trying to do with a list of women is to showcase women who have inspired me, women to women.
   
   I think that great not just for me, but other women and girls out there who don't get to see their gender represented as people who are capable and incredible, who aren't told that they too can be inspiring.
   
   And sure, do away with separating genders in terms of award categories (best male lead and best female lead, like why? maybe just to have more awards to give out kot). But highlighting women who inspire me or highlighting women who are historically important, I think that's perfectly fine.
   
   In fact, I think that's entirely necessary seeing as women have only just recently been in the spotlight for that. We need more if we want to level the playing field.
    
2. Starting with women. Well, sure. I want women to know that they are equal to men, that they deserve equal pay for equal work, that they deserve respect just as much as men and that they are worth just as much as men. I do agree that women need to believe in the fight for the fight to have an impact.
   
   But I disagree that just by believing in this that equality will be attained. Just believing in equal rights is not enough, we need make sure we work for it. I can't just believe I'll have dinner and then magically a plate of food appears at my table. I have to believe and then act on it to get what I want. I think it works the same with feminism or any social justice cause. Actions are what changes the world.
   
   I also think the 'women more so than men' is untrue as well. It should be 'women, as much as men'.
    
3. This I disagree with as well. Yes, men were leading in many fields because women weren't competitive in it (because they weren't allowed to study or work in fields dominated by men), but even where women were leading, even in fields where they made an impact, women were tossed to the wayside, not mentioned; the spotlights shone on men instead.
   
   For example, Rosalind Franklin, a chemist whose research was critical in the discovering the double helix DNA structure. We know that Watson discovered DNA but there's no mention of Rosalind Franklin.
   
   Or Nettie Stevens who discovered the X and Y chromosomes. Yet her co-worker Thomas Morgan was credited with the discovery and he received a Nobel Prize for it, and he even dismissed her involvement by saying she was more of a technician than a scientist (seriously bro? WHAT THE HELL)
   
   That was back in the early 1900s. We're getting better at recognising women now, but there is much room for improvement. And that's why I think we need to make and effort, fight to have women be recognised for their work. Not to overshadow their male counterparts but to receive fair credit for their work.

I had  a bit of trouble articulating my point during the argument. I'm sure I got most of it out but my mum stuck to her points and I stuck to mine. And really. she totally agrees with me but she still also believes that women need to start being blind to gender and be inclusive. 

I just had to learn something about this so I talked to someone on a feminism blog that I follow. She's is great at articulating her points and I've learnt a lot about feminism from this blog. Her answer to this is hits the nail on the head, in my opinion. 

Fandomsandfeminism: Equality is a GOAL, not a method. You don't invite billionaires into soup kitchens in the name of equality. You have to raise up undermined groups to level the playing field.

That's what I failed to articulate: Equality is a goal, not a method. 

Feminist, I am.

For those of you who don't know me, I consider myself a feminist. Not an overly fanatical one but definitely a passionate one. I want to draw your attention to the fact that sometimes, when writing articles, people tend to specify women who are involved in crimes. Here's what I mean;

1. an article about and international drug syndicate which was busted:
"The man then led the police to three others, including a foreigner and a woman, who are believed to be his accomplices"
A foreigner and a woman. Now, what about the third accomplice (who is most probably a man)? Why only mention the woman and foreigner?

2. an article about a begging syndicate:
"The syndicate involving 14 Chinese nationals, including four women, was busted ....."
Here we see that the fact that four women were involved was stressed.

3. an article about a betting syndicate:
"In the raid, police arrested 17 people including, 5 women, who were receiving bets on various sports, including football, tennis and basketball."
Again, it's the women that were mentioned, not men, even though there were men involved.

4. an article about a gambling:
"The police arrested 20 people, including two women, for gambling at a four start hotel"
Only two women, but still, the men aren't worth mentioning.

Do you, like me, see a pattern here? The women are always the ones being brought forward even though men are equally involved and guilty. Why is it so impossible that women could be involved in such things? I'm not saying it's a good thing but isn't it sexism when you make it a point to mention women and only the women and not men? Why can't it be just '20 people' or '15 men and 5 women'?

If you're argument is; "It's just so unbelievable that women, the fairer sex, could be involved in such crimes"
Then my argument is; "It's unbelievable for any one, regardless of gender to be involved in any kind of crime. By constantly stressing the women who are involved, you're saying "Women shouldn't do this, but it's normal for men to do it". Well, I think that's wrong. Also, I feel that women should have equal rights as men do, and that includes being treated equally when it comes to criminal cases. The women who are involved are just as guilty as the men are and shouldn't be brought forward just because they're women.

*****

Alright, moving on to school. It's been fun learning BM, something I never thought was possible. Economics, on the other hand, isn't as easy. I've missed 5 chapters and that's a lot to catch up on. I've continuously found myself lost in a maze in every Economics class. I'm slowly getting it but more often then not, I feel teary when it comes the the exercises.

My classmates are quite fun. They're very different than my old school friends and I think that's because of the different area's we grew up in. I'll adapt, as I've mentioned before, and things will be OK. I'm sure. I just need a little more time.