Earlier this month, on the eve of International Women's Day, a survey conducted by Reuters newswire posed the question "Is a woman's place in the home?" Responses showed that one in four people believed a woman's place was in the home. Well, this information could be seen as good news, as it reveals that the majority of adults in the world believe women may not only be at home and can participate in many activities outside the household.
Nowadays, women run companies, become professors and even head governments. Many people now believe women should not be marginalized.
Thanks to those who during the last century supported the idea of women's emancipation women can now freely express their talents and interests in many areas.
Indeed, women should have equal rights. In fact, biologically, women make a larger contribution to the offspring than men.
Normally, in the process of making new humans, two gametes are needed. A woman will provide an egg cell (ovum) and the man gives sperm. It is important to note that the egg cell provides more material than the sperm. (By Dyna Rochmyaningsih, Jakarta)
This writer is pathetic. His argument is extremely shallow. Look outside your box, dummy. Women in places such as Europe and North America are free to do whatever they want as long as it is within the law. Look at their countries: they are the richest and most powerful countries in the world. Now look at yours.
The United States
Rohn Felds, the article itself is a personal view and to comment "now, look at yours" is a bit of off topic and an overgeneralization, if I may add.
Indeed, I agree with most of the comment posted earlier that the article is biased, unsupported by in-depth arguments (for it is not the case that a career woman would necessarily neglect her children).
Look at a housewife who is at home and spends most of the time watching soap operas and letting her children do whatever they want to do, etc.
I can say that most of us in Indonesia tolerate and accept whatever women might choose to be (that's why it is no surprise that we're the third largest democratic country after the US and India) and by upholding our "eastern" and/or religious values doesn't mean that we're a backward country.
The so-called woman's liberation movement is facing a bit of a backlash. The divorce rate is close to 50 percent. Many Western men are getting sick of the attitude of their emancipated women.
The internet is full of Asian dating and marriage sites that cater to the Western man's desire for a wife who is more feminine and family-oriented.
After all, does a man really want to live with a woman who wants to be treated like a man? The Western economy is such that, in order to live the normally accepted lifestyle, both parents need to work.
Thus the children are left with carers or in pre-school. No wonder there are so many juvenile delinquents there.
Probolinggo, East Java
I think you are biased, unless you ask men to bear the same responsibility of balancing personal and career life.
Although it is not mentioned in the title, from the article we could easily conclude that the irony stems from a biological perspective.
It's not about humanity or morals. The writer only said that there were negative effects as well as positive ones. She clearly said that in this sentence: "Every medicine has side effects. The achievement of positioning women as equal to men has not only had positive impacts on the freedom of women, but also negative impacts on their biological contribution to the species."
Are you implying that there are no negative effects from women's emancipation?
What's wrong with balancing family life and career? Women need more "balancing family life and career" because men cannot get pregnant, and men cannot breastfeed.
But remember this statement is based on the biological perspective. If you're considering another perspective, such as the psychological or sociological for example, this statement of course becomes invalid.
That's why it's not biased, considering the article is based on the biological perspective. There is a bigger issue here: "Later, a woman makes another significant contribution to the offspring by providing it with a place to develop (in the uterus), and shares her nutrients with it. After birth, she also gives the child important immunity through her breast milk.
"In addition, through a new technology called cloning, we can even question the existence of men. As mentioned before, women provide egg cells which consist of cytoplasm and materials."
Are men not needed anymore from a biological perspective and through technology? Are men threatened with extinction?
These are the questions the writer should be asked, but nobody seems to care or disagree with these statements. It seems to me that "men's extinction" is less important than the "threat to women's careers".