Last Updated on June 11, 2013
Although I'm online pretty much 24/7, it wasn't until the afternoon, when I picked up a copy of the Evening Standard (a free daily newspaper distributed across London), that I learned Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts has been announced as the highest-paid executive in Britain. She earned a whopping £16.9 million last year.
Angela Ahrendts; photo from the Huffington Post
This is incredible and encouraging news because Ahrendts is the first woman ever to top the list. Also, while the media portrays fashion as a female-dominated industry, the truth is that on the executive level, women are still in the minority. This makes Angela Ahrendts a great rolemodel and her story even more important.
Somewhat ironically, three pages before the Angela Ahrendts article, the Evening Standard ran a snippet about Russian supermodel Natalia Vodianova, who says she's "not really a feminist" and that "feminism is kind of a new F word."
I wish that before making statements about feminism, people would take five seconds out of their lives to google it and discover that feminism is about women having equal rights as men, not female superiority, hating men or any such nonsense.
Don't forget feminism has had a whole lot to do with why Angela Ahrendts can be Britain's highest-paid executive today.
"I wish that before making statements about feminism, people would take five seconds out of their lives to google it and discover that feminism is about women having equal rights as men, not female superiority, hating men or any such nonsense."
podpišem.
... and communism is about equality of social classes and common goods, meaning that the people in former communist countries must have had a really good time being imprisoned, tortured, impoverished and starved to death.
My dear, the sooner you realize that London doesn't make you smarter the better.
I don't understand your comment. My post has nothing to do with communism.
Oh, I do apologize. Will try to be put it in the plainest English possible.
Your googled definition or five seconds of your life as you put it is ignorant at best. What something stands for, manifests quite different in reality. Today, feminism can indeed be seen as a degenerate form of bullying by underprivileged, disappointed or otherwise compromised female members of society. Try to compare it to the African American movements in the United States for starters and it might take you to another level of understanding.
Until then, I would suggest you taking your keyboard on lighter subjects unless you wanna make a complete fool out of yourself.
Thanks for your explanation, but as it lacks argumentation, I'm not convinced. If we are to continue this discussion, please give examples, stats or other unbiased evidence to support your claim that feminism "can indeed be seen" (by whom?) as a form of bullying by compromised women of our society. "Can be seen as" doesn't equal "is". Your claim is entirely subjective, yet you display the same ignorance you accuse me of - reducing entire feminism to only one aspect of it (if that aspect even exists). Do you really believe the feminism that fights for equal pay, against violence etc. is bullying?
Do you realise that without feminism you wouldn't be allowed to go to university, get a job, vote, own property, make decisions about your body and many other things?
Your comparison of feminism and communism is odd at best - as you mention, millions of people in the former communist countries were imprisoned, tortured, impoverished and starved to death. I highly doubt feminism is guilty of these crimes, let alone on a mass scale.
Taking into account your last sentence as well as your previous comments on this blog, I should say that while I'm happy to publish constructive criticism, condescending tone and personal attacks devoid of argumentation have no place here (not to mention they severely undermine whatever valid point you might make otherwise) and will no longer be published.
And you gave hard facts by merely citing the definition from Wikipedia? And yet you feel like you know the subject?
My comparison to communism served only to picture a gap between the definition and reality, which you somehow failed to notice.
Since your decently long reply of nothing (but a sophomore impression), I kindly accept your withdrawal from this discussion.
Ah, but you cited no argumentation or other evidence to support your previous statement. That's all that needs to be said really.