Everything Kel said.
Also, considering the gender inequality thing - I would like to quickly point out that while a great deal of progress has been made in the last few decades in these fields (at least in some places in the world), to present the situation as it is now whilst ignoring historical context tends to provide a rather skewed image of reality.
It's easy to dismiss the wage gap and the 'glass ceiling' as relics, especially considering the welcome trend of narrowing down in recent years. Nevertheless, the gap does still exist - and some of the reasons it does are historical holdovers. Yes, some of the barriers and the gaps have been bridged. Traditional 'human capital' reasons for the gap (education, experience, what have you) have largely narrowed down in recent years - but this is just one piece of the greater puzzle. People who deny the wage gap's existence (and often smugly tell people to 'educate themselves' while providing no evidence) often make the same tired arguments about how statistics about the wage gap are derived from 'comparing apples and oranges' - claiming women tend to work in professions that pay less than men do and that accounts for most of the disparity. While a body of work does exist that demonstrates that there is a gender-based wage parity even -within- specific professions (a particular Harvard professor of Economy,
Claudia Goldin, has a good number of articles on some of the potential causes for this) - one cannot deny that there is certainly a disproportionate over-representation of women in, for example, "caretaker" roles - which tend to be lower-paying work, even though it can be very emotionally demanding.
But step away from that 'truism' and consider for a moment what may be the reason for this.
The disproportionate over-representation is nothing new - caretaking jobs tend to be fairly female-coded for many years now - and there is certainly a great deal of pressure directed at women to choose such professions as their career paths. The truth is that western society is hardly egalitarian. It's getting there, but it still has
quite a few eagles to eat before it manages to get across the institutionalized patriarchy that can be traced back to certain foundations a lot of western society has been built on and have become fairly ingrained in which - many of which led to rather sexist views of women being far more adapted to caretaking roles because of elements in their 'nature', or because this type of jobs tends to be less demanding in terms of work hours which allows them more time for 'additional responsibilities at home'. And while one may think that in the year 20-fucking-18 the species would have cast such stone-age thinking aside - there are still pretty fucked up pressure points in the way both women AND men are socialized that lead to the perpetuation of these thought patterns, to men thinking that doing their part in the household is 'helping' their female partners (as opposed to actually doing their share of the workload), to women still expected to be more diplomatic and compromising while men are expected to be more assertive and forceful (and deviations from such being perceived as off-putting) - and that's to say nothing about the societal echo-chambers that bring out the worst in people and make things more complicated for the rest of us.
So yes, women are certainly pushed to "lower paying", "female coded" jobs while being pushed away in various ways from jobs that are considered more "male coded" or male dominated. But even if you attempt to remedy that by directing more women to STEM professions and more men to caretaking positions - there is another, far more insidious problem - the work of women is, generally speaking, devalued compared to the work of men. When women move into a field and begin to dominate it, compensation in that field drops (
Levanon, England and Allison, 2009) . The field of design is a dramatic example - but if you think that's just because it's an artistic field (and let's face it, those are fairly wonky on the best of days), then another good example is Biology - a STEM discipline that has taken somewhat of a reputation hit and became considered a "softer" science, less highly regarded, in a manner that just happened to 'coincide' with women beginning to dominate this particular discipline. Alarmingly, the opposite is also true - and the best example for which is the field of computer programming (
Oldenziel, 2001) - a field that used to be female-dominated and was considered a trivial, menial task - until men moved in, and suddenly the entire profession became more prestigious, paid more - and women started being pushed and harassed out of it as the dudebro quotient (and particularly the smug dudebros who fancy themselves of higher intellect than most and consider themselves some deity's gift to mankind) in comp-sci kind of has a tendency to become pretty toxic.
So yes, while progress is being attained and gaps are being closed - the gaps are very much still out there, as are the underlying causes that create them - it only takes a brief review of
recent statistical data to see that there is still quite a bit of work to be done on the field of finally setting that particular issue to rest.
And lastly. Contrary to what some Fedora-snorting Redditors would have you believe, no, 'Feminism' does not mean 'a host of man-hating zealots who wish to cast down society and culture and set in its place The Great Distaff Hegemony, a cautionary tale to be mocked and ridiculed and whispered of by campfires with a scary neon pink flashlight aimed directly at your face.' Well, there
are some who are like that, for sure - but every group has its insane radicals who cast the rest of the movement in a terrible light. (Admittedly, anything would look terrible with a neon pink flashlight aimed at its face, but that's a story for another time).
The reality of the situation is that feminism as a movement did, indeed, arise out of an even deeper, historical inequality between men and women, and strove to promote the position of women (which was heavily disadvantaged at the time the movement started - far more than it is today) in order to bring about equality - not to set women above men, but to improve the situation
for both women and men. The are all sort of claims that feminism served its purpose with women now being able to vote, drive, attend higher education and kick First Order ass, and the movement is no longer necessary. This is
strictly untrue - Even if you put aside the fact that there are quite a few societies out there where the position of women is still pretty dire, even in current 'modern' western society there's a great deal of fucked-uppedness in society today that arises from the historical perception of women (and in turn, femininity and things associated with it) as being inferior/weak/submissive/to-be-considered-a-possession having become insidiously weaseled its way into the system and became internalized in society - which is incredibly messing up the way that men, women and everything in between are being socialized and stigmatized
. These include issues ranging from rape culture to toxic masculinity, and I suppose one could write entire goddamn novels on this subject, but it's midnight-forty-one in the AM and THIS particular biomechanical abomination needs to recharge. So I will definitely say that yes,
systemic patriarchy is still a problem, feminism is still absolutely necessary, and is still worthy of its name. Frankly, personally find that people awkwardly dancing around defining themselves as feminists because they might be lumped with radicals to be far more harmful to taking the feminist movement seriously, because "fandom drama" makes everything a little more difficult to take seriously. But a good rule of thumb to follow is.
Do you believe that men and women should be equal, have equal rights, and be treated with equal respect?
If your answer to that is Yes, then congratulations, you're a god damn feminist, and no amount of people who seek to shoot themselves in the foot will change that.
As an afterword - A lot of rhetoric I've seen here suggests that you should avoid using certain terms or certain perceptions to avoid being 'ridiculed' or 'tuned out'. Fact is - people often tune out what they don't want to hear. There will always be those who will listen to you and nod enthusiastically because
preaching to the choir and conversely, those who will tune you out immediately because immediately upon hearing anything about serious issues they will dismiss you as an 'SJW'.
It's the spectrum of people in between that you're really giving that speech to - and in the average audience, they will be a majority. Do your research - but think critically about what you read, the sources of your information and what their agendas and biases may be. Check your own biases. Don't fall into the populist trap of dismissing the media, science, etc. Just Because. Remember that numbers don't lie - but people
will use them to lie - and if you manage to build enough of a compelling case backed by enough evidence... Well, you may not convince
everyone - but you'll make people
think. And in this day and age, where certain people want other people to
think as less as they possibly can? That's one hell of a contribution for making a better world.