Are women naturally less ambitious than men?

Gaillimhtaibhse

Sleepy wrote:

Obviously it's difficult to analyse this without access to the methodoloy used by the survey and the data it returned...

This says it all.:rolleyes:

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Well, then you have either never worked at home or you have never worked in an office.

Well you go on ignoring what I've written. I'm not bothered to post my previous comments about working in an office. ffs.

I know of no man with a family who works consitently long over time. .

Strange. My Dad doesn't retire till he's 65. Interesting that. I know a number of family men that own their own businesses and are still working into their sixties.

I know of very few men without a family who work consistently long over time

I'm beginning to wonder do you know any men at all, considering this and your previous comment.

This idea that there is millions of men out there working 7am to 7pm each day, put in vast amounts of overtime just to stay in the game, is a complete myth as far as I can see.

Even if most men didn't, considering the population of the world, and work practices in places like china or india, your myth would be true.

But even looking at western europe, There are thousands of men who own their own businesses that put in those hours. Theres thousands of men who work in construction or craftsmen that put in hours like those. Or men that work on oil rigs, or doctors who are rarely not on call.

The idea that to survive in the business world, or to even be successful, you have to work long over time is nonsense. My manger in work is in 9am on the dot and the first to leave at 5.30pm

I NEVER said it was needed to survive in business. This is you seeing what you want to see. I've admitted that I don't work crazy hours. I don't work even long hours. I'm not that ambitious.

From the start I've spoken about people that want to be highly successful in business. Frankly I'm amazed at how little you've actually read my posts, considering you feel like commenting on them. Go read them, and maybe then comment on what I say.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

sigh

Its not the same social pressure, because one of the social pressures hardly exists anymore while the other does. Your statement doesn't even make sense.

You have not in any way shown that the cases you presented are born from distinct influences, at best you have shown that one or more influences lead to the same ultimate role model being followed under two separate circumstances.

You can continue to add dismissive sighs and smileys into the discussion for effect, all you like, but until you can actually do the above you’re simply contradicting me for the sake of it.

You might also try to attempt to debunk what you earlier referred to as my silly statement as promised. Or is dismissing things as silly your only argument?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

You have not in any way shown that the cases you presented are born from distinct influences, at best you have shown that one or more influences lead to the same ultimate role model being followed under two separate circumstances.

This is ridiculous. I've explained the same position about 7 times now, and you just keep saying "no your wrong" ... and I'm being dismissive :rolleyes:

I swear if I said the sky is blue, you can clearly see the sky is blue, if you looked up right now you would see the sky is blue" you were go "Ummm, it looks kinda green to me"

Sleepy

Wicknight, if anyone's being dismissive without backing up their arguments between yourself and TC, it's you.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Well you go on ignoring what I've written. I'm not bothered to post my previous comments about working in an office. ffs.

I'm not ignoring what you have written, I'm saying you are wrong

The majority of house wife work long hard days. Traditionall the majory of house wifes got (get) very little help in house hold duties from their partners.

Klaz you are basically saying you don't accept this happens because it doesn't happen in your family. Thats ridiculous. You are dismissing everyone else here who says it does happen, it happens quite a lot, because it doesn't fit into supporting your argument.

Deleted User wrote:

Strange. My Dad doesn't retire till he's 65. Interesting that. I know a number of family men that own their own businesses and are still working into their sixties.

What has working into their sixties got to do with over time? What has self employed people got to do with working habits of the general male population, the vast vast majority of which are not self employed.

Seriously, you are doing it again. It doesn't happen in our unique set of family circumstances, so you don't accept it happens else where.

Deleted User wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder do you know any men at all, considering this and your previous comment.

You know a lot of men with families who consistently work over time in their jobs? What industry do you work in?

Deleted User wrote:

But even looking at western europe, There are thousands of men who own their own businesses that put in those hours.

Yes and there are millions that don't.

Deleted User wrote:

I NEVER said it was needed to survive in business. This is you seeing what you want to see. I've admitted that I don't work crazy hours. I don't work even long hours. I'm not that ambitious.

Back up for a minute. The link between working overtime and being successful at you job is tenuous at best. For a start most companies don't let people work for long periods of overtime. The vast majority of companies and industries rate experience and length in a position as the reason for promotion, not a count of hours worked. Possibily in certain industries such as law or medicine then long working hours are expected. But how many doctors or lawyers do you know. Out of the hundreds of working people I know I know 2.

Secondly, even if you inital premiss was true, most people don't do it.

So I am totally failing to see what your point is at all with any of this.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Wicknight, if anyone's being dismissive without backing up their arguments between yourself and TC, it's you.

How can I explain this any more? I've explained it like 7 times already, each time expanding more and more. TC just doesn't except it, and probably never will accept it, because it doesn't fit his inital argument. When I don't accept his initial argument he says I'm being dismissive. :rolleyes:

Not much I can do about that.

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

Women do not have the same social conditioning and are in fact given (perhaps encouraged) to go the other route and stay at home making babies.

It’s simply a question of incentive and conditioning.

I did take exception to this point and can't see where I "viciously attacked" this poster anywhere. There is a distinction between being encouraged to stay at home making babies (rubbish nowadays imo), and feeling under considerable pressure career wise and family wise once you have children. If you cannot understand this, The Corinthian, just leave it - but for pity's sake stop rabbiting on about semantics. And before anyone starts, this is simply a reality, and not mens fault, not the result of feminists demanding too much, not even society demanding that women must halt career and stay home minding kids. The original topic was "are women naturally less ambitious". I don't think so, but to compare womens and mens natural ambition, there would have to be a level playing field, which is not there (again this is not "mens fault" or a feminist criticism, it is simply a reality).

Nevyn

Are you two STILL arguing over the percieved differences between encouragement and pressure ?

hepcat

Thaedydal wrote:

Are you two STILL arguing over the percieved differences between encouragement and pressure ?

No, that is what TC introduced, and any argument about the difference between encouragement and pressure would indeed be idiotic. Read the posts in question:rolleyes:

Nevyn

The majority of house wife work long hard days. Traditionall the majory of house wifes got (get) very little help in house hold duties from their partners.

They did get help from other house wives.
There were communities of women at home thato worked and pulled together supporting each other.
They weren't likely to be the only person at home with a small child on thier own on thier road while the rest of the sprawling estate was comuting to work.
The isolation of mothers who are in the home be it for matenity leave or those who choose to take some time out to be a stay at home parent ( for what ever reason ) is a factor in women not wanting to have children.

There isn't a level playing feild for all women at least not until we develope a
gestational device and kids can be reared by robots.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not ignoring what you have written, I'm saying you are wrong

Interesting. So you've got amnesia, and don't remember writing this?

Well, then you have either never worked at home or you have never worked in an office

Look back one or two pages and you'll see my own references to working in an office. As I said before if you're not bothered to read what I've said, I'm not bothered to repost them.

The majority of house wife work long hard days. Traditionall the majory of house wifes got (get) very little help in house hold duties from their partners.
>
Klaz you are basically saying you don't accept this happens because it doesn't happen in your family. Thats ridiculous. You are dismissing everyone else here who says it does happen, it happens quite a lot, because it doesn't fit into supporting your argument.

And you're not? Get real. You've thrown away any points thats don't agree with your narrow views that house-wives work long hours, and that their work is AS hard as any mens jobs.

And I've said that some house-wives do indeed have heavy labour as part of their lives. But you haven't really tried to read what I've said at any stage of this thread, have you?

I've covered these points already.... whats the point in repeating myself if you didn't read it the first time.

What has working into their sixties got to do with over time? What has self employed people got to do with working habits of the general male population, the vast vast majority of which are not self employed.

Omg. I give up. You really don't want to consider anything beyond your own viewpoint. Maybe you're right, and I AM focused entirely on my own opinion. Sleepy, The Corinthian, am I really being that difficult to understand?

Maybe I am....

Seriously, you are doing it again. It doesn't happen in our unique set of family circumstances, so you don't accept it happens else where.

Lol. And that devalidates my own experience of living for 29 years? Of my own experiences with my own family, my relations, and my friends familes? Because if i was to listen to you, thats what you're suggesting.

You know a lot of men with families who consistently work over time in their jobs? What industry do you work in?

I'm primarily a financial controller. I'm in charge of Invoicing and Credit control for a company. I chase people for money most of the time. :P

I know many men & a number of women that don't receive overtime and work beyond the "normal" working day because they own their own businesses. But then, they don't count by your views.

So I am totally failing to see what your point is at all with any of this

Probably because you're so convinced you're right, you only pick out what you want to hear. You've managed to ignore most of what I've said over the last few pages, and just nit pick.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Interesting. So you've got amnesia, and don't remember writing this?

I vividly remember writing that. In fact, that was my basis when I say "Klaz, you are wrong"

Deleted User wrote:

And you're not? Get real. You've thrown away any points thats don't agree with your narrow views that house-wives work long hours, and that their work is AS hard as any mens jobs.

But I'm not trying to show it doesn't happen. I know it happens, I know it happens a lot.

You are trying to say you don't accept that, and all you have to go on is your own personal experience, and your ability to selectively ignore people saying it does happen.

Deleted User wrote:

And I've said that some house-wives do indeed have heavy labour as part of their lives. But you haven't really tried to read what I've said at any stage of this thread, have you?

I have and it has hurt my head because you keep changing your points.

What was your inital point anyway? We are now talking about self employed men and house wifes with no kids and nothing to do all day (who dont work, seemingly).

So we have got from talking about women and men in general, to a small small subset of this group, that couldn't possibly have much bearing on the general working and living habits of men and women.

Why are we talking about self employed men and "kept" women? I've no idea Klaz, you will have to answer that one since you steered the discussion towards this.

Deleted User wrote:

Omg. I give up. You really don't want to consider anything beyond your own viewpoint.

What do you want me to consider??

I perfectly accept that a small number of men, possibly in certain professions or self employed men, work long hours. What does that have to do with anything? We were supposed to be talking about working men and women in a general sense.

The inital point that most men, or even most successful men, work long hours and need to work long hours to be successful, has been pretty much blown out of the water as far as I can see.

The inital point that this long working week balances out the hard work of the majority of house wifes has been pretty much blown out of the water.

So what points do you have left that you want me to consider?

Deleted User wrote:

I'm primarily a financial controller. I'm in charge of Invoicing and Credit control for a company. I chase people for money most of the time. :P

Does that bank you work in have rules about over time, because the one I did did and very few people worked overtime, and no one worked over time based on their own initative, they were not allowed.

Deleted User wrote:

I know many men & a number of women that don't receive overtime and work beyond the "normal" working day because they own their own businesses. But then, they don't count by your views.

They don't count if you are trying to prove a general point about the modern working male, considering the vast majority of working males are not self employed. Which you initally were.

But know you seem to but just trying to prove any point, no matter how irrelivent to your inital points.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

How can I explain this any more? I've explained it like 7 times already, each time expanding more and more. TC just doesn't except it, and probably never will accept it, because it doesn't fit his inital argument. When I don't accept his initial argument he says I'm being dismissive. :rolleyes:

And I’ve repeatedly and logically explained it to you also. It’s not a difficult concept TBH. However it does not appear to fit into your definition of reality so I doubt you will accept it.

As for your being dismissive - you are. You have repeatedly used everything from smileys to ‘sighs’, yet have not actually addressed my principle argument as you claimed you were going to (I’ve asked you to at least three times to do so). So you’ll forgive me if I doubt your intellectual honesty.

hepcat wrote:

I did take exception to this point and can't see where I "viciously attacked" this poster anywhere.

Most of your initial response to be consisted of phrases such as “Good Lord, what century are you living in?” and “If this is an example of the male attitude, then no wonder women's careers suffer”, that were irrelevant to the discussion and served only to let you blow of steam, I’d imagine.

There is a distinction between being encouraged to stay at home making babies (rubbish nowadays imo), and feeling under considerable pressure career wise and family wise once you have children.

Both are based upon an idea that istaught to women from an early age that women are stay at home mothers. That the effect of this influence has decreased substantially for women in general, I’d certainly agree with (it’s not completely gone though, even in Ireland), but it’s still the same role in both cases that is used to influence women.

And before anyone starts, this is simply a reality, and not mens fault, not the result of feminists demanding too much, not even society demanding that women must halt career and stay home minding kids. The original topic was "are women naturally less ambitious". I don't think so, but to compare womens and mens natural ambition, there would have to be a level playing field, which is not there (again this is not "mens fault" or a feminist criticism, it is simply a reality).

“Simply a reality”, “level playing field, which is not there” - care to back up any of these sweeping statements or do you simply want to stick to sweeping statements?

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

And I’ve repeatedly and logically explained it to you also. It’s not a difficult concept TBH. However it does not appear to fit into your definition of reality so I doubt you will accept it.

As for your being dismissive - you are. You have repeatedly used everything from smileys to ‘sighs’, yet have not actually addressed my principle argument as you claimed you were going to (I’ve asked you to at least three times to do so). So you’ll forgive me if I doubt your intellectual honesty.

Most of your initial response to be consisted of phrases such as “Good Lord, what century are you living in?” and “If this is an example of the male attitude, then no wonder women's careers suffer”, that were irrelevant to the discussion and served only to let you blow of steam, I’d imagine.

Both are based upon an idea that istaught to women from an early age that women are stay at home mothers. That the effect of this influence has decreased substantially for women in general, I’d certainly agree with (it’s not completely gone though, even in Ireland), but it’s still the same role in both cases that is used to influence women.

“Simply a reality”, “level playing field, which is not there” - care to back up any of these sweeping statements or do you simply want to stick to sweeping statements?

I'm abusive by using smileys whereas you can say my points are rubbish semantic bull etc. If you can't take the heat, tbh.....

So what is this principal argument of yours? I never claimed I would address it btw, but since you seem to want this I'd be grateful if you could summarise it for me.

I have no statistics to back up my statements that women feel under pressure when they try to juggle work and childcare - I'm sure they are there, but I really dont have time to produce them and I don't think its reasonable.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

I'm abusive by using smileys whereas you can say my points are rubbish semantic bull etc. If you can't take the heat, tbh.....

I never accused you of using smileys - the first half of that post was directed at Wicknight. Actually, I never accused you of being abusive, AFAIK, only of ranting. So I wouldn’t mind so much if you attacked me with a point in mind. As long as there is a point in mind.

So what is this principal argument of yours? I never claimed I would address it btw, but since you seem to want this I'd be grateful if you could summarise it for me.

I’m not going to repeat it again. Go to my first post in this thread.

I have no statistics to back up my statements that women feel under pressure when they try to juggle work and childcare - I'm sure they are there, but I really dont have time to produce them and I don't think its reasonable.

No, I’m asking you to back you your statements that we don’t have a “level playing field” in the workplace, especially in the light of the first post in this thread that highlighted a survey that would actually point to a “level playing field”.

If women are under pressure when they try to juggle work and childcare, that’s not because they’re discriminated against in the workplace, that’s because there is unfair pressure placed upon them outside the workplace.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

And I’ve repeatedly and logically explained it to you also.

The Corinthian wrote:

Both are based upon an idea that istaught to women from an early age that women are stay at home mothers.

"Based upon" ...

You are just generalising two things to the extreme and then saying they are the same thing. Thats not an argument or logical. All cars have wheels, does that mean all cars are the same car?

You cannot take something as complex as social pressures and the role of genders in certain circumstances and generalise it down to such a wide statement as "women are supposed to stay at home and be mothers", and then from that conclude that all the different pressures women face with reguard to work and parenthood are actually the same pressure. That is nonsense.

The social pressure on women to give up a career and settle down and have children is not the same pressure women face to give up working once they have had children. For a start one doesn't exist much anymore, the other certainly does. Secondly, the second one can come from the mother herself, due to guilt at leaving her child, as hepcat explained to you in on of her posts, as much as it can come from society.

These are two distince pressures, they are not the same thing. There are only so many ways to say the same thing TC.

metrovelvet

Imo, both men and women work crazy hours.

The women who have the choice to stay at home can do so only if they marry rich. Otherwise forget it. We dont have that option. [And before you jump in here - men are now marrying rich. There are many cases of women having to dole out alimony in divorce settlements].

The women I know, in finance or law, have taken great risks and made sacrifices for their careers, they work longer hours, dont get paid as much as the men and don't get the recognition. The promotions are more likely to be given to the men too. If you look at who is "partner" at these firms probably 80% of them are men.

You simply cannot commit to both a child and having one of these jobs which demands every drop of blood you have.

But TC also has made several good points here. For example I have a friend who makes 100 grand a year as a project manager for a huge email firm. She has often picked up huge tabs taking her friends out, takes me out to dinner, is very generous, etc etc but likes the guy to pay for dinner if they go out. Because if he doesnt its emasculating. I guess that ties into our courtship rituals about providership and receiving??

Housewifery and motherhood are the biggest swindle of unpaid labour imo.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

The women I know, in finance or law, have taken great risks and made sacrifices for their careers,

And the men haven't?

they work longer hours,

Than who? The women and men you don't know? Or just the men?

dont get paid as much as the men and don't get the recognition.

Call me a sexist whatever you like but if they're not getting the money or the recognition it's probably because others in the firm are better than them.

The promotions are more likely to be given to the men too. If you look at who is "partner" at these firms probably 80% of them are men.

Law was once a heavily male-dominated career. Look at Blackhall Place or the Kings Inns and you'll see this has changed pretty rapidly into a female dominated profession (demographically speaking). In fifty years time the majority of partners at big law firms will almost certainly be women. Will this be sexist then?

You simply cannot commit to both a child and having one of these jobs which demands every drop of blood you have.

Of course you can't. Welcome to the world men inhabited for centuries. My own father barely got to see my younger brother when he was a baby because he was at the point in his career where he had to start making sacrifices if he wanted to provide a good future for our family

But TC also has made several good points here. For example I have a friend who makes 100 grand a year as a project manager for a huge email firm. She has often picked up huge tabs taking her friends out, takes me out to dinner, is very generous, etc etc but likes the guy to pay for dinner if they go out. Because if he doesnt its emasculating. I guess that ties into our courtship rituals about providership and receiving??

Lets be honest about this, us guys do expect to pay for dinner for the first few dates at least. However, we also like the woman to offer to pay her way. We've no intention of letting her, but it's nice to know that she's prepared to.

Housewifery and motherhood are the biggest swindle of unpaid labour imo.

So a housewife/husband is just left to starve, naked, in the street because (s)he doesn't have his/her own income? :rolleyes:

Parenthood is a choice. Most (good) parents I know regard their children as a blessing and source of joy rather than the source of 'unpaid labour'. If you don't want kids, don't have them. That's your choice and right, whining about society not being prepared to give you a leg up in your career because you chose to have children is not.

Nevyn

There are concerns in reguards to those who do stay at home and thier lack of
prsi contribuations and personal pension contribuations, esp if they are not married.

Zulu

Hear, hear. Bravo Sleepy.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

The inital point that most men, or even most successful men, work long hours and need to work long hours to be successful, has been pretty much blown out of the water as far as I can see.

You need to see a little further.

The Irish as a people work the longest hours in Europe. Most successful people I know work long hours (men and women). I personally work an average of 50 hours a week (unpaid for my overtime) in order to keep my career advancing and as anyone who know me can tell you, I'm far from the most driven of people. I am neither self-employed nor even in a particularly high-pressure industry (I'm a technical consultant for a firm consulting in ERP and Business Systems).

From my experience, five to ten hours of overtime is typical of any single professional I know. It would also be typical of any man I'd know who is the sole/main breadwinner for his family. It is also typical of the few women I know who are the sole/main breadwinners for their family. I'm sure if a survey of the workforce was done, you'd find most people do some form of overtime and that those that do a lot of it progress faster in their careers than those who clock out and go home at half five every evening (it certainly works that way in my company and rightly so imho).

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

I never accused you of using smileys - the first half of that post was directed at Wicknight. Actually, I never accused you of being abusive, AFAIK, only of ranting. So I wouldn’t mind so much if you attacked me with a point in mind. As long as there is a point in mind.

I’m not going to repeat it again. Go to my first post in this thread.

No, I’m asking you to back you your statements that we don’t have a “level playing field” in the workplace, especially in the light of the first post in this thread that highlighted a survey that would actually point to a “level playing field”.

If women are under pressure when they try to juggle work and childcare, that’s not because they’re discriminated against in the workplace, that’s because there is unfair pressure placed upon them outside the workplace.

You did in fact say I "vicously attacked" you.

You won't or can't repeat it?

Never said there was not a level playing field in the workplace - read my post. IN the context it is plain I meant a level playing field in society where these pressures on women arise. I never once mentioned disrimination in the workplace - that is pure fabrication on your part. And if you're so caught up on backing up stuff why don't you back up some "sweeping generalisations" of your own - such as the girls being encouraged to stay home and have babies scenario?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

You are just generalising two things to the extreme and then saying they are the same thing. Thats not an argument or logical. All cars have wheels, does that mean all cars are the same car?

That’s not a valid analogy.

You cannot take something as complex as social pressures and the role of genders in certain circumstances and generalise it down to such a wide statement as "women are supposed to stay at home and be mothers", and then from that conclude that all the different pressures women face with reguard to work and parenthood are actually the same pressure. That is nonsense.

I never said that all the different pressures women face with regard to work and parenthood are actually the same pressure - don’t misquote me.

I said that the pressure to become housewives & mothers stems from the same social conditioning.

The social pressure on women to give up a career and settle down and have children is not the same pressure women face to give up working once they have had children.

I said it comes from the same influence; that they are expected to follow a certain role within Society. In both cases it does.

For a start one doesn't exist much anymore, the other certainly does.

For a start what is that supposed to prove? Doesn't exist much anymore means simply that it still exists and existed to a greater degree in the past. It has no bearing on where it comes from or what has lessened its influence in a particular case.

Secondly, the second one can come from the mother herself, due to guilt at leaving her child, as hepcat explained to you in on of her posts, as much as it can come from society.

You’re not really getting how people are influenced in Society. The whole point to social conditioning is that people, for positive or negative reasons, feel obliged or desire to a particular behaviour. I’ve already pointed this out to you.

These are two distince pressures, they are not the same thing. There are only so many ways to say the same thing TC.

Look, why don’t you give it a rest. It’s evident that the penny is not going to drop for you, so you really should quit and save us both some time.

The fact that you’ve not addressed my principle argument as you claimed you were going to (fourth time asking) is indicative of your rather duplicit approach in this discussion.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

You did in fact say I "vicously attacked" you.

Just found it. Fair cop. Still, my position from my previous post stands.

You won't or can't repeat it?

Because it's already in this thread, you can actually go back to read it. Here, I'll spoon feed it to you:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50840324&postcount=56

Here's your response to it:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50841013&postcount=69

In this you began ranting that I was suggesting that women were less ambitious because they “always go and have a baby” when I was talking about what motivates men, not women.

Never said there was not a level playing field in the workplace - read my post.

Again, fair enough. I read the workplace into it.

such as the girls being encouraged to stay home and have babies scenario?

Did you have a toy doll as a kid?

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote:

And the men haven't?

Than who? The women and men you don't know? Or just the men? .

No. I see both working crazy hours. [Im in NYC by the way so my context is different.] By crazy I mean 70-80 hours a week. On average I see woman in these fields [like finance and law] having to work longer.

Sleepy wrote:

Call me a sexist whatever you like but if they're not getting the money or the recognition it's probably because others in the firm are better than them..

That is simply not true. We all know promotions have to do with popularity, access to the right people, and the politics of the firm. And often playing the game.

Sleepy wrote:

Law was once a heavily male-dominated career. Look at Blackhall Place or the Kings Inns and you'll see this has changed pretty rapidly into a female dominated profession (demographically speaking). In fifty years time the majority of partners at big law firms will almost certainly be women. Will this be sexist then?..

I can't answer that. I am only familiar with legal careers in the US. But I do know that to be a woman in law here and be successful you need brass balls. And believe me some of the women have them because they've had to develop them.

Sleepy wrote:

Of course you can't. Welcome to the world men inhabited for centuries. My own father barely got to see my younger brother when he was a baby because he was at the point in his career where he had to start making sacrifices if he wanted to provide a good future for our family?..

Right. And that's ****ed up I think for both the kids and the father. In a book called "I Don't Want to Talk About It" which investigates male depression, fathers on average spend 11 minutes a day with their children. And Im sure the pressure on your dad also affected the marriage with your mother too.

But your dad could still have a family because he had a woman around to do the domestics and the mothering. Whereas women dont have that choice. Many of them who want to forge ahead in the careers make the sacrifice of not having kids at all. Come on, seriously what guy is going to want to stay home and change dirty nappies and what woman would find eroticism in that?

Sleepy wrote:

Lets be honest about this, us guys do expect to pay for dinner for the first few dates at least. However, we also like the woman to offer to pay her way. We've no intention of letting her, but it's nice to know that she's prepared to.?..

Well most guys I know would be like this. And insistent about it. I usually try to show my appreciation by paying for something else.

I do know women who will absultely no way in hell let you pay for her dinner.

I think this dinner thing has become so complicated. How can one meal mean so much?

Sleepy wrote:

So a housewife/husband is just left to starve, naked, in the street because (s)he doesn't have his/her own income? :rolleyes:.?..

Well, its a bit like indentured servitude.

Sleepy wrote:

Parenthood is a choice. Most (good) parents I know regard their children as a blessing and source of joy rather than the source of 'unpaid labour'. If you don't want kids, don't have them. That's your choice and right, whining about society not being prepared to give you a leg up in your career because you chose to have children is not.

I think thats a little harsh. It has been really hard for women to get a foothold in the public space. Raising a kid is hard ****ing work. Sure they have their moments of joy, as you do in any job, but its still work and it doesnt stop at 6pm. Its all the time. And IT IS NOT ALWAYS A CHOICE!!

And who is whining? Women are constantly proving themselves. You think they got this far by whining?

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

Just found it. Fair cop. Still, my position from my previous post stands.

Because it's already in this thread, you can actually go back to read it. Here, I'll spoon feed it to you:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50840324&postcount=56

Here's your response to it:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50841013&postcount=69

In this you began ranting that I was suggesting that women were less ambitious because they “always go and have a baby” when I was talking about what motivates men, not women.

Again, fair enough. I read the workplace into it.

Did you have a toy doll as a kid?

"if a woman has a crap career she can always go and become a mother and/or housewife." - These are your words, and given the title of the thread, they imply that women are less ambitious then men because if their career is crap they choose to have kids instead. I don't know of any woman who had kids because her career was not progessing as well as she wanted it to. Couples have kids, often in spite of the womans career success or ambition, not because of lack of same.

As a small kid, I was not into dolls, but then around the age of 11/12 I begged for and got a doll with "growing" hair! It never affected my natural ambition.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I never said that all the different pressures women face with regard to work and parenthood are actually the same pressure - don’t misquote me.
...
I said it comes from the same influence; that they are expected to follow a certain role within Society. In both cases it does.

No, actually you didn't. Hepcat said this, nearly 4 pages ago

I said that while girls are generally not encouraged to stay home and make babies anymore, women may certainly be made feel guilty, and naturally feel guilty, for not being a full time mum.

And you said that is nonsense because the two different pressure are actually the same thing, with only sementics seperating them (ie the same thing said two different ways)

Now you are back tracking. They might be different pressures, but they come from the same place.

Really I have better things to do than watch you back track out of something when you obviously did not read the original post properly in the first place.

wicknight out of here

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Now you are back tracking. They might be different pressures, but they come from the same place.

Really I have better things to do than watch you back track out of something when you obviously did not read the original post properly in the first place.

Show where I did so or retract that.

While you’re at it you might address my principle argument as you claimed you were going to. This is the fifth time I’ve had to ask.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

"if a woman has a crap career she can always go and become a mother and/or housewife." - These are your words, and given the title of the thread, they imply that women are less ambitious then men because if their career is crap they choose to have kids instead.

My point is not that she can do that, but that men cannot. I was discussing men’s motivations, not women’s. If you feel there was an implied insult towards women, ignore it, as it does not affect the argument for men.

As a small kid, I was not into dolls, but then around the age of 11/12 I begged for and got a doll with "growing" hair! It never affected my natural ambition.

Yet girls are given dolls and boys are not. Actually boys are more often encouraged into competitive play, such as sport (girls are to, but not to the same extent).

No social conditioning there, obviously...