If not why not ?

pretty*monster

I'm a feminist.
I don't believe men and women are equal, I don't think equality of oppertunity will neceserily lead to equality of outcome, but I don't think that that's contradictory to my being a feminist.

Beruthiel

Thaedydal wrote: »

A feminist is a person believes in feminism.

If you think you should have the right to determine what you want to do with your life and that all people should have the same rights and opportunities to do and that gender should not be a factor in that,
then you are a feminist.

Yup. I am that feminist.

can't see the boys having a Cosmo & SATC night in.. or me getting hammered and singing rugby songs while arguing the forward pass decision of the 54th minute..

None of that has anything to do with feminism though.

TC wrote:

Feminism as a movement is essentially the gender equivalent of a trade union so being a man it makes as much sense in my being a Feminist as it does a commuter to be a member of the bus drivers union

Feminism, to a great extent, for many of us, has done it's job thanks to those women from back in the day.
Many countries could still do with a strong movement.
I'm guessing that Thaed started this thread because women of a certain age don't even know how or why the movement started in the first place and what a lot of very strong women had to do in order to get it, let alone what the term actually means.
In fact, from a lot of responses in this thread so far, may women don't understand what feminism actually is.

TheB

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why must you associate certain activities with gender? Everyone has things they like and dislike doing. It's not because they fit into a certain stereotype based on gender, it's because individuals are different.

I just don't like doing some things I consider "boy" stuff..
[/QUOTE]

TheB wrote: »

I'm not one for the "boy" jobs in life.. he can chop wood, get all manky fixing the car, hit things with hammers etc etc..

But thats just me..

Didn't say it was definitively how it is .. its how I perceive it.. I suppose I'm old fashioned there.. I think men (and it comes down to biology here) are designed to do different jobs (I don't mean anything to do with child rearing/parenting btw) than women.. they have less body fat, heavier musculature and a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibre than most women.. so in my book they are designed to do certain jobs better than women .. this doesn't mean women can't do those things but physically men *might* be better than women at them..

You only have to look at the figures.. (again stereotyping - cos it's easier )How many female lumberjacks are there ? How many female crab fishermen (sorry- been watching Deadliest Catch too much again) are out there ? There are male dominated jobs out there for a reason.. and apart from the odd special woman who has got what it takes women would (I think) probably not succeed in these jobs..

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Nice stereotyping.

Might be stereotyping but in my life it's true - my OH would rather cut off his own hand than watch a series of SATC all in one night - whereas now & again I get together with my friends and do just that - sad.. but we like it..

Anyway.. I'm happy with my lot.. I ride horses and cook stuff..he says Ug a lot and does stuff with concrete while drinking Guinness from a Vat.. we get on great

Beruthiel

TheB wrote: »

I think men (and it comes down to biology here) are designed to do different jobs (I don't mean anything to do with child rearing/parenting btw) than women.. they have less body fat, heavier musculature and a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibre than most women.. so in my book they are designed to do certain jobs better than women

You are missing the point.

Do you believe that if a woman wanted to do those 'certain jobs' that she has every right to do so?

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why ?
and what would you consider to be being active ?.

I would consider feminism to have a global perspective on the equal rights and dignity for women. Now, what do I do about a woman who gets acid thrown on her face as a punishment for getting raped? Nothing. What do I do about female genital muitilation? Nothing. What do I do about baby girls being killed in China? Nothing.

I celebrate the upcoming patriarchal holiday of Christmas, I buy makeup, etc etc.

Moreso, I may have alot more in common with a middle class white boy than I would with a wife and mother of 6 in India, so I dont necessarily follow the rule of thumb about gender being the main locus if identity.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I agree, but I think that education has a part to play in this and modren histroy covering the shift in gender roles has not been taught in school./QUOTE]

Pre 911 noone cared about the taliban's misogyny. I think its about more roles, but deep seated fear.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Wow just wow, you acknowledge that there are problems and challeneges to the extent you don't want a daughter because you think her lot in this world is worse then a sons would be but you say you would not do anything about it. .

I didnt say "I didnt want a daughter" I just pointed out the relief in having a boy. Nor did I say I wouldnt do anything about it, at least not for her. There would be a limit to what I could do for her. I could push her toward science as my mother tried to do with me or distract her away from Barbies, and get her into martial arts, but I wouldnt call these feminist strategies, just half decent mothering.

TheB

Beruthiel wrote: »

None of that has anything to do with feminism though.

I think it might.. because as long as any stereotyping exists about the Man/Woman divide it affects how we live & feminist issues - it's not fair but it does.. like the one "women can't be tough enough in the business world as they are too affected by hormones" - utter rubbish. But it exists, I've heard people say it and seen people not get promoted to positions they deserve because of it..

Stereotypes "started" for a reason though.. because people display stereotypical behaviour that originates in millions of years of human instinct IMO..

I display stereotypical behaviours about certain things whether I like it or not .. 99% of other people do too...

In fact, from a lot of responses in this thread so far, may women don't understand what feminism actually is

TheB wrote: »

I've read the definition.. still not sure if I'm a feminist or not.

I can own up to this..in fact I did.. my basic understanding of feminism (as I said in my original post) is that men and women should have equal rights..

I think that women should have no less and no more rights than men..and vice versa.. but..

and I agree with this.. but I am confused by it as although I do agree with equal rights (pay issues.. the Legend Vs Ho arguement etc etc) I personally don't want to do what I think are boy jobs.. so am I not a feminist ? :dunno: ... However I'm quite clear on the fact I'm fairly intellectually challenged about this subject so don't mind having it explained to me..


ThickoBx

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

We are different but equal and I believe for some very good reasons and that you have to let a woman be a woman and a man be a man.

Agreed and also let women and men be whatever they want to be along that curve.

I think also there is a global crisis in masculinity which is given rise to more misogyny.

Agreed again. There is definitely a crisis among a certain group of males. I see it myself with some of the younger ones I know. They seem confused how to act as men and either over egg the macho BS or become emotionally wet EMO metrosexuals. Either is fine if that what you decide to be after some experience and thought, but balance is everything. Maybe it's down to the lack of male role models in their personal life. Hard to say. I remember my dad making the point that in his day in the 30's and 40's(he was older when he got hitched:)) many men went through apprenticeships(or joined the military), that while teaching them their chosen career also thought them how to be men. At it's best it taught them emotional consistency, balance and respect. It also made them feel part of an established group. Interaction with more experienced males that weren't their fathers seems to make a difference(most tribal societies operate the same way). You see that in gang culture and how popular it is among males. It makes them feel like they belong, even at the cost of their lives. They're actively looking for that.

While women obviously can and do make great parents, they alone can't expect to be able to know or show how it is to be a man. In much the same way as a man can't know or show his daughter how it is to be a women. They can only guide in a vague way. If the parents(men and women) don't then it's left to society and nowadays thats the media. While thankfully we have come far in throwing out much of the misogyny in society, a disenfranchised group of males loose on deck does no one any favours.

You just have to take a look at human resource departments to see its women who screw over other women.

I really agree on this one. Women can be often each others worst enemies. As I was saying on the woman boss thread, I generally prefer dealing with women, but I do see how many of the same women treat other women in the workplace. The difference to how they may interact with me is often surprising. These are very capable intelligent people too. They give and receive far more crap from other women then they do from men. Most when asked agree with that too.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Moreso, I may have alot more in common with a middle class white boy than I would with a wife and mother of 6 in India, so I dont necessarily follow the rule of thumb about gender being the main locus if identity.

Very good point.

TheB

Beruthiel wrote: »

Do you believe that if a woman wanted to do those 'certain jobs' that she has every right to do so?

Yes.. If you are ABLE to do those jobs then go.. do them..good luck to you... but if you can't then you shouldn't there ... whether you want to or not..

metrovelvet

Beruthiel wrote: »

Feminism, to a great extent, for many of us, has done it's job thanks to those women from back in the day.
.

Until you see equal pay for equal work, feminism has not done it's job.

Until American feminism borrows from European feminism and includes motherhood in its agendas, it has not done it's job. And this includes what happens to mothers in human resource departments.

Until ads like the recent Boots ad "here come the girls" are not seen anymore, feminism has not done it's job. [It's all women leaving their cublicles -indicating a low status position like a secretary or low level administrator-to to the tune of "here come the girls, girls, girls,]go put on makeup and presumably go to a Christmas party. There are no doctors taking off their stethoscopes, or CEOs leaving big skyscraper offices].

I could go on and on....

Procasinator

metrovelvet wrote: »

Until ads like the recent Boots ad "here come the girls" are not seen anymore, feminism has not done it's job. [It's all women leaving their cublicles -indicating a low status position like a secretary or low level administrator-to to the tune of "here come the girls, girls, girls,]go put on makeup and presumably go to a Christmas party. There are no doctors taking off their stethoscopes, or CEOs leaving big skyscraper offices].

You have to be joking. Most people watching that ad wouldn't even notice what jobs the women are working, and I am quite surprised you did.

Do you actually believe Boot's intentionally neglected people in these roles?

Christ, a lot of ads these days show man to be lazy and messy - should I be offended?

And considering Boot's sell products that suit men too, maybe I should be offended that they haven't got an ad for men?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Until you see equal pay for equal work, feminism has not done it's job.

Well it has actually, it's just how you define work and who should be paying is the question. Where things stand, men and women are paid the same level for the same job per hour. Where differences arise is in that women work fewer days and/or shorter hours and thus their total salaries will be lower - on average. Additionally this in turn affects career prospects and will result in lower pay because they have not progressed up the pay scale. Typically childcare and pregnancy are the reason for these.

Is that fair? No, but neither is it fair to expect a company to subsidize your wish to breed. So the only response to this is that you share childcare between the parents - assuming this is even possible.

And this includes what happens to mothers in human resource departments.

Human resource departments are ruthless where it comes to 'human resource' because they've done the math. Women in their late twenties, early thirties will be discriminated against because they are a high risk for pregnancy and this can be a serious issue for especially small companies.

Again is this fair? No, because it is judging you based on gender/age. Then again, nobody seems to have a problem making other judgments based on gender/age - such as in the case of car insurance - where other than taking place, such filtering is actually legal. Then again men don't have the Feminist movement fighting their corner, so it's to be expected.

There are no doctors taking off their stethoscopes, or CEOs leaving big skyscraper offices

Which oddly enough is not their primary market. In the same way that they are targeting women rather than both genders they are targeting women in certain demographics because, ultimately, that's who shops at Boots.

Piste

I tihnk the feminist movement has done a good bit of damage to good old-fashioned Gentlemanliness.


JC2K3 will slate me for this, I can tell but I think men are scared to do things like hold doors open for women etc. For fear of a FemiNazi thinking they're implying they're weak. Now I'm not saing guys should be EXPECTED to do this, but things like holding a door open for a lady or giving her your coat on a cold evening are just sweet gestures that unfortunately I think are dying out because guys are scared of the aforementoned FemiNazis.


Or perhaps the guys think it's about time the lazy bitches opened a door for them for a change

Beruthiel

Piste wrote: »

I tihnk the feminist movement has done a good bit of damage to good old-fashioned Gentlemanliness.

Considering what women have gained because of it, having to open your own door is a very small price to pay.

rainbow kirby

Thaedydal wrote: »

A feminist is a person believes in feminism.

If you think you should have the right to determine what you want to do with your life and that all people should have the same rights and opportunities to do and that gender should not be a factor in that,
then you are a feminist.

By this definition (and by virtually every other definition of the word) - I am a feminist. And I hate the way quite a lot of people react so negatively to the word.

metrovelvet

Procasinator wrote: »

You have to be joking. Most people watching that ad wouldn't even notice what jobs the women are working, and I am quite surprised you did.?

Are you for real? Ad agencies know exactly what they are doing. How could you not notice it?

Procasinator wrote: »

Do you actually believe Boot's intentionally neglected people in these roles?.?

No. Not Boots - the ad agency they hired.

Procasinator wrote: »

Christ, a lot of ads these days show man to be lazy and messy - should I be offended??.?

WEll, maybe you should be. And also afraid. I dont like those ads either because it reinforces or even advocates their messyness and ineptness, and as a slob myself tells me as a woman I should be a lot tidier. Bah.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well it has actually, it's just how you define work and who should be paying is the question. Where things stand, men and women are paid the same level for the same job per hour. Where differences arise is in that women work fewer days and/or shorter hours and thus their total salaries will be lower - on average. Additionally this in turn affects career prospects and will result in lower pay because they have not progressed up the pay scale. Typically childcare and pregnancy are the reason for these.

How do you explain the pay discrepencies among the professions [law and accounting for example] where there are women with no kids working longer hours and getting lower salaries than their male counterparts or have to work that much harder [sans baby] to reach a higher ranking position.

The Corinthian

rainbow kirby wrote: »

By this definition (and by virtually every other definition of the word) - I am a feminist. And I hate the way quite a lot of people react so negatively to the word.

Of that definition were correct I'd agree, but it's not. Feminism represents only one gender and seeks to redress inequalities that negatively affect that gender, it does not attempt to redress inequalities that positively affect it. You don't really see Feminists arguing in favour of most fathers rights, or that male drivers should not be discriminated against when getting car insurance, for example.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you're such a bitch Corinthian

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you explain the pay discrepencies among the professions [law and accounting for example] where there are women with no kids working longer hours and getting lower salaries than their male counterparts or have to work that much harder [sans baby] to reach a higher ranking position.

If they are forced to work longer hours or are being paid less than their male counterparts then that is illegal. Personally I have never seen it and would not tolerate it if I did.

As for having to work much harder [sans baby] to reach a higher ranking position, that is a subjective valuation. I've heard people (of both genders) suggest this in the past about their situation, but more objectively it was simply because they weren't as good.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

If they are forced to work longer hours or are being paid less than their male counterparts then that is illegal. Personally I have never seen it and would not tolerate it if I did.

As for having to work much harder [sans baby] to reach a higher ranking position, that is a subjective valuation. I've heard people (of both genders) suggest this in the past about their situation, but more objectively it was simply because they weren't as good.

See post 35 on the Are Women harder to work for thread - just below this one.

My wife's a teamleader in her company. Mostly girls on her team. When recruiting a newbie, she won't hire a woman with children, a newly wed, and if she could get away with it, a woman of childbearing age.

I was horrified when she told me what she was up to. She's not Irish. I said "you can't do that, you can't do that, it's completely illegal. You can't ask if anyone has children."

She smiled slyly at me and said that her manager taught her a trick, ask people about themselves and it comes out whether they've children...as people love to talk about themselves.

I was gutted. She'd be the first to throw the gender-card in any situation, and here she was discriminating, herself.

Next birth control will be written into the contract.

The Corinthian

The short answer is that it's illegal and policing it is the problem, not that it occurs.

The longer answer is that we have to ask why women are discriminated against in such cases, especially if it's other women who are doing the discriminating.

Women with children cannot put in the same hours into a job or have it as the top priority as men because they carry out the lion's share of child care.

Women who are newly wed or of a particular age group (late twenties through to late thirties) are far more likely to try to have children and thus be out of work for prolonged periods of time (often never to return).

Much like it does not make commercial sense to offer the same car insurance a male driver of a certain age as a woman of the same age, neither does it make commercial sense to hire a woman in those demographics. Of course Feminism will only complain about the latter.

Of course, the answer to this may be to better share the burden of child care (as is done in Scandinavian countries) and take away the stigma towards men adopting traditional female roles (such as homemaking). Unfortunately it's often women who act against this as they still seek 'good providers' when choosing a mate and resist any attempt to dilute their hegemony on parenting rights.

Whether women like it or not they really can't have their cake and eat it and this is essentially what Feminism represents in the West - not equality - and this is why I believe Feminism has essentially gone as far as it can here because it is philosophically ill equipped to remove the remaining inequalities because they are largely justified by the inequalities that Feminism seeks at best ignore or at worst defend.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, the answer to this may be to better share the burden of child care (as is done in Scandinavian countries) and take away the stigma towards men adopting traditional female roles (such as homemaking). Unfortunately it's often women who act against this as they still seek 'good providers' when choosing a mate and resist any attempt to dilute their hegemony on parenting rights.

.

A vicious circle then. If you know you wont even get hired because you have either reproduced or are of childbearing age, more and more women will seek good providers.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

A vicious circle then. If you know you wont even get hired because you have either reproduced or are of childbearing age, more and more women will seek good providers.

And by the same logic if a man is expected to provide for his wife/partner/ex and/or children then he should be entitled to earn more.

Can it change? With time yes, but not if equality is a one way street. And even then men and women may choose that they want to retain some of those inequalities regardless.

Procasinator

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are you for real? Ad agencies know exactly what they are doing. How could you not notice it?

They know their target market alright.

I probably didn't notice because I don't always define people by their career - especially people in adverts. I find your reasoning on this one to irrational, and to honest, verging on paranoid. You think the creators of this ad have disrespected females? Do you think they did it on purpose?

Whatever about sexes on this one, I find PC thinking like this is detrimental. We shouldn't cotton wool the world and limit expression because we are worried that some people are too impressionable. You could find wrong things in anything if you are looking for wrong things in everything.

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. Not Boots - the ad agency they hired.

Well, that is just silly. They had to approve the ad. That must of been happy with the ad. How could the blame lay solely with the ad agency?

metrovelvet wrote:

WEll, maybe you should be. And also afraid. I dont like those ads either because it reinforces or even advocates their messyness and ineptness, and as a slob myself tells me as a woman I should be a lot tidier. Bah.

I don't really care. What people do on ads has little relevance to me - why should I be afraid? I just take these ads with light humour.

Procasinator

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can it change? With time yes, but not if equality is a one way street. And even then men and women may choose that they want to retain some of those inequalities regardless.

Exactly! This is why I think feminism, to me, is such an ugly world. It has far to many stigmas attached to it.

Some people are saying on this thread that people just misunderstand the word. That's not the case, it just the word doesn't have a simple definition. It can be defined multiple ways. Even people claiming to be feminist in this thread don't have a general consensus on what that actually means.

Feminism the world itself doesn't suggest the quest for equality, but rather only things that (feminists feel) are oppressing them as individuals. And in Ireland that isn't a hell of a lot in my opinion.

Females suffer horrendously in some countries compared to Males but I would never say I was a feminist because I believe this should be rectified. I'm for all people being treated fairly - regardless of gender, race - and there is no need to focus my beliefs on what particular group of people, even if I were to focus my time and donations on them.

WindSock

The Corinthian wrote: »

The longer answer is that we have to ask why women are discriminated against in such cases, especially if it's other women who are doing the discriminating.

That's why the battle is so difficult and on going. It's hard enough living in a Mans world, by which I mean, a working world built by and for majoritivly males and their societal roles, let alone trying to recruit some fellow Women on the side so we can establish ourselves and our needs to work harmoniously alongside Men.
Instead we are finding ourselves trying to adapt to male way of life and we are running into walls, often built by other women and those women will eventually find themselves trapped by the very wall that they have built. We need to change and evolve how we need to approach our careers with important things in mind, such as working with building our families.

Women with children cannot put in the same hours into a job or have it as the top priority as men because they carry out the lion's share of child care.

If a company employs two Women/Parents part-time, or they could work out a time-share roster. I think there would be a lot more productivity instead of employing one person full time, who will be unhappier in the long run and will need to take lots of time off anyway, if/when their own family gets started. ...

Much like it does not make commercial sense to offer the same car insurance a male driver of a certain age as a woman of the same age, neither does it make commercial sense to hire a woman in those demographics. Of course Feminism will only complain about the latter.

Well as I said previously I would call myself a Feminst, but I don't agree with charging Men more for insurance, but then again, I don't see any Mens movements fighting for cheaper insurance on the basis of inequality. (thats not to say they don't exist, of course)
Also, give me more insurance over employment discrimination anyday.

Of course, the answer to this may be to better share the burden of child care (as is done in Scandinavian countries) and take away the stigma towards men adopting traditional female roles (such as homemaking). Unfortunately it's often women who act against this as they still seek 'good providers' when choosing a mate and resist any attempt to dilute their hegemony on parenting rights.

I think the burden of childcare is being shared more equally now in todays Ireland. I also agree that it is grossly unfair that Fathers have feck all rights when it comes to their kids.

Whether women like it or not they really can't have their cake and eat it and this is essentially what Feminism represents in the West - not equality - and this is why I believe Feminism has essentially gone as far as it can here because it is philosophically ill equipped to remove the remaining inequalities because they are largely justified by the inequalities that Feminism seeks at best ignore or at worst defend.

In my opinion, the Feminist movement has been asleep for a while. Since we got over the main hurdles like being able to vote, be an unmarried mother, be able to work certain jobs etc, we have forgotten that we must change the system in order to suit everyone, rather than just having us adapt to the Mens world, and have Men adapt to having us living in it. The scales are tipped more in our favour at the moment for lots of things, but soon enough frustrated Men will retaliate and it may take us back to square one.
We really need to start working on a long term plan that will suit all of us, instead of having an ongoing tit for tat power battle between the Sexes.

JC 2K3

Piste wrote: »

JC2K3 will slate me for this, I can tell but I think men are scared to do things like hold doors open for women etc. For fear of a FemiNazi thinking they're implying they're weak. Now I'm not saing guys should be EXPECTED to do this, but things like holding a door open for a lady or giving her your coat on a cold evening are just sweet gestures that unfortunately I think are dying out because guys are scared of the aforementoned FemiNazis.

I'm not going to slate you, but I will respond. Consider what you said at the end of your post:

Piste wrote: »

Or perhaps the guys think it's about time the lazy bitches opened a door for them for a change

You say that in a joking manner, but is the idea really laughable?

The feminist movement made women, for the most part, legally equal to men, but many people, like yourself, seem to hold these traditional social values, which see men as having a duty to be chivalrous and imply that women deserve more respect than men.

Years ago, the mere notion that women should be allowed vote or hold certain jobs was deemed ridiculous. Therefore, is it really so ridiculous to suggest that men might like to have doors held open for then or be given lends of coats on cold nights?

Chivalry shouldn't be a gender specific thing. Men shouldn't be expected to be "gentlemen" all the time and women shouldn't be expected to make kind gestures to men all the time, but both sexes should be mutually respectful towards each other. Once again I ask, why the need for a gender distinction?

pretty-in-pink

The insurance thing is based on stats from accidents. With regards to female bosses- I have always found male ones to expect more, give more, be nicer and in general treat you as an equal- with the odd exception female bosses have tried to keep girls in "girl" jobs, and have treated girls and boys (or men and women) differently. Male bosses seem to accept that you are a person with x,y,z abilities and gender doesn't come into it. Female bosses (for the most part) see the gender, and that clouds the ability to see the abilities. Not all female bosses are like this- I've had some great ones, ut I've had far more bad female bosses then male bosses

Wibbs

pretty-in-pink wrote: »

The insurance thing is based on stats from accidents.

True, but as the corinthian has pointed stats would also suggest that women of a certain age are more likely to have children and leave for a time, which would affect productivity and profits in a company. Especially a small company.

Though he puts it far more succinctly; "Much like it does not make commercial sense to offer the same car insurance a male driver of a certain age as a woman of the same age, neither does it make commercial sense to hire a woman in those demographics."

Speaking as someone who runs a small company this would be an issue for me as it would simply cost me money and time to hire and train a replacement in the case of a woman leaving to start a family. Of course a man or woman might get a better offer and jump ship regardless, so that will always be an issue, but the family situation is more of an issue with women.

Piste

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'm not going to slate you, but I will respond. Consider what you said at the end of your post:

You say that in a joking manner, but is the idea really laughable?

The feminist movement made women, for the most part, legally equal to men, but many people, like yourself, seem to hold these traditional social values, which see men as having a duty to be chivalrous and imply that women deserve more respect than men.

Years ago, the mere notion that women should be allowed vote or hold certain jobs was deemed ridiculous. Therefore, is it really so ridiculous to suggest that men might like to have doors held open for then or be given lends of coats on cold nights?

Chivalry shouldn't be a gender specific thing. Men shouldn't be expected to be "gentlemen" all the time and women shouldn't be expected to make kind gestures to men all the time, but both sexes should be mutually respectful towards each other. Once again I ask, why the need for a gender distinction?

Based on tradition.


Hehe I knew you'd pick me up on my last point, which I tried to avoid by saying that I didn't think men should be expected to do these things, just that they are nice gestures.

I would never take it for granted that I guy would walk me down a dark road or hold a taxi door open for me, but it is sweet when they do. I never take it for granted when my boyfriend walks me to the luas and I'm grateful everytime.

Small things like that, keeping a girl safe by walking her through a dark area makes a guy feel manly and protective and a girl feel dainty and cared-for - win win situation really!

Unfortunately us girls are a bit useless (:p) so we cant really do nice stuff like that, but I think we make up for it by bearing our men's children

And on a practical note, a girl is less likely to lend a guy her coat on a cold night as he'd a)probably look ridiculous in it or b)be far too big for it!

JC 2K3

Piste wrote: »

Small things like that, keeping a girl safe by walking her through a dark area makes a guy feel manly and protective and a girl feel dainty and cared-for - win win situation really!

Women staying at home, doing housework and minding children while men went out and worked to provide for the family made women feel matriarchal and womanly and men feel manly and dominant - win win situation!

Oh wait....

Piste

Can't compare the two I'm afraid!

WindSock

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Women staying at home, doing housework and minding children while men went out and worked to provide for the family made women feel matriarchal and womanly and men feel manly and dominant - win win situation!

Oh wait....

To put much of what has been said in the last few pages in context, using a 'friend' as an example...

She believes in staying at home for the first few years of a childs life. She doesn't believe in having just one child, She thinks a child should have siblings to learn from. She also believes in starting a family in her early to mid 30's, any later and she thinks the generation gap is too wide.

She is now 26. She has no degree in anything, instead she went travelling and lived abroad. She now has little money as a consequence and can't get a decent job without a degree. She will have to go back to study, and also wants to, that will take her another 4 years. By then she'll be 30/31. Who will hire her at that age? She will be even more penniless by then, so how is she going to even consider having children without having anything to provide for them?
The Father could, yes, but to have a decent house in a decent enough area, a dual income seems to be the only way to live in this country.

The Corinthian

WindSock wrote: »

She is now 26. She has no degree in anything, instead she went travelling and lived abroad. She now has little money as a consequence and can't get a decent job without a degree. She will have to go back to study, and also wants to, that will take her another 4 years. By then she'll be 30/31. Who will hire her at that age? She will be even more penniless by then, so how is she going to even consider having children without having anything to provide for them?
The Father could, yes, but to have a decent house in a decent enough area, a dual income seems to be the only way to live in this country.

To be perfectly honest, tough.

Whether she was male or female, her career would still be stillborn, not because of children or gender, but because she did not work on building it up since she was 18. This means that if she no belatedly starts her career she will be in effect getting her 'first' job an odd eight years after many of her peers - both male and female.

TBH, I do think that you can't blame her situation on gender as a result. However, what often happens to women in her situation is that they look at the reality of starting a late career and opt to go down the housewife/mother route instead. Men in the same situation don't really have the same 'out' and so end up having to bite the bullet on the late start.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

And by the same logic if a man is expected to provide for his wife/partner/ex and/or children then he should be entitled to earn more..

Why?

I have heard theorries that women entering the workforce however, has in fact devalued money and salaries by increasing competitition among the labour force.

The situation we are in now is not liberation. Where feminism has failed is in its pursuit of demanding both men and women to have women adappt to male strictures and paradigms. What feminism should seek are models for a woman's life, where the possibility of motherhood can be accommodated.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Speaking as someone who runs a small company this would be an issue for me as it would simply cost me money and time to hire and train a replacement in the case of a woman leaving to start a family. Of course a man or woman might get a better offer and jump ship regardless, so that will always be an issue, but the family situation is more of an issue with women.

This is interesting. As fathers gain more rights and custody would you also be more hesitant about hiring a man? As gay couples eventually get the right to adopt will you apply the same concern to men?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why?

I was just following your logic. If it is acceptable that men take up the provider role, then it follows that as providers they should be compensated for the extra burden.

The situation we are in now is not liberation. Where feminism has failed is in its pursuit of demanding both men and women to have women adappt to male strictures and paradigms. What feminism should seek are models for a woman's life, where the possibility of motherhood can be accommodated.

That's up to women to decide, TBH. You can't expect a man to buy you dinner and then complain you are paid less - after all, he needs the extra money to feed you. Ultimately women need to either accept equality on everything (if that is even possible) or accept that there will be inequalities that will cancel on balance out and stop complaining.

old boy

baby boy born 7.30 am, 7lbs 11oz, seems it took only 40 minutes to make an apperance

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was just following your logic. If it is acceptable that men take up the provider role, then it follows that as providers they should be compensated for the extra burden..

So an employer should pay more to a narried man with kids than a single one?

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's up to women to decide, TBH. You can't expect a man to buy you dinner and then complain you are paid less - after all, he needs the extra money to feed you. Ultimately women need to either accept equality on everything (if that is even possible) or accept that there will be inequalities that will cancel on balance out and stop complaining.

Everyone thinks it was Salome who asked for the head of John the Baptist. It wasnt - it was her mother.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

So an employer should pay more to a narried man with kids than a single one?

Why? Whether men are married or not, they still would be expected to pick up the bill in the provider role. Even a single man would be expected to woo a woman with gifts and dinners or provide for his parents and potentially unmarried sisters.

The point I'm principally making is that if men are expected to have certain responsibilities then they should get certain rights. Likewise if women reject certain responsibilities (that they should provide for themselves, as you suggested) then they must in turn lose some.

Everyone thinks it was Salome who asked for the head of John the Baptist. It wasnt - it was her mother.

Irrelevant cliche.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why? Whether men are married or not, they still would be expected to pick up the bill in the provider role. Even a single man would be expected to woo a woman with gifts and dinners or provide for his parents and potentially unmarried sisters..

There is no law to back that up.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point I'm principally making is that if men are expected to have certain responsibilities then they should get certain rights. Likewise if women reject certain responsibilities (that they should provide for themselves, as you suggested) then they must in turn lose some..

So a woman should get paid less for the same job?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant cliche.

Completelt relevant and cliche is the voice of the people so dont knock it.

JC 2K3

WindSock wrote: »

To put much of what has been said in the last few pages in context, using a 'friend' as an example...

She believes in staying at home for the first few years of a childs life. She doesn't believe in having just one child, She thinks a child should have siblings to learn from. She also believes in starting a family in her early to mid 30's, any later and she thinks the generation gap is too wide.

She is now 26. She has no degree in anything, instead she went travelling and lived abroad. She now has little money as a consequence and can't get a decent job without a degree. She will have to go back to study, and also wants to, that will take her another 4 years. By then she'll be 30/31. Who will hire her at that age? She will be even more penniless by then, so how is she going to even consider having children without having anything to provide for them?
The Father could, yes, but to have a decent house in a decent enough area, a dual income seems to be the only way to live in this country.

I don't see how this has any relevance. Your friend has made bad life choices, so what?

WindSock

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether she was male or female, her career would still be stillborn, not because of children or gender, but because she did not work on building it up since she was 18. This means that if she no belatedly starts her career she will be in effect getting her 'first' job an odd eight years after many of her peers - both male and female.

Not if she has been doing jobs that are relevent to the degree for the last 8 years. In order make any advancements in the job, she needs a degree, in order to get a degree it will take another 4 years. Understood most people do this when they leave school, but not everyone is sure what they want to to until much later.

TBH, I do think that you can't blame her situation on gender as a result. However, what often happens to women in her situation is that they look at the reality of starting a late career and opt to go down the housewife/mother route instead. Men in the same situation don't really have the same 'out' and so end up having to bite the bullet on the late start.

Men don't have the same 'out' because their options are far wider than just focusing on raising a family.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't see how this has any relevance. Your friend has made bad life choices, so what?

It has plenty of relevance, when some people leave school, the last thing on their mind is that they may have to hurry the fcuk up and get a career, because they will have to have a family by the time they are 35, because they are Female, forgetting that they are not equal, but supposed to be, to Males.


There may have been bad life choices, but there is more leeway for Men to make them, as there is more time for correction. If a Woman focuses on her career for 20 years, then she will find it more and more difficult to settle down and have a family.

JC 2K3

Since when do women HAVE to have children?

WindSock

Since that they may realise they would want them and it may be too late.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

This is interesting. As fathers gain more rights and custody would you also be more hesitant about hiring a man? As gay couples eventually get the right to adopt will you apply the same concern to men?

Of course, I'll apply the same concern to whatever may impact my bottom line frankly. In the case of the gay couple as an example I would like to know which of the two was the primary care giver to the child or children in question. That would impact how I would view them in a full time position. Part time would be another matter.

In the same way to take the earlier example of the insurance companies, who would increase car insurance for women overnight if they had the same payouts as for men. Simple bottom line logic really.

If I'm paying for something I need a return on that. If I was running a bigger company that had the resources to include childcare facilities etc then while it may impact my bottom line in one area, it could also increase it in others. In any case I would be in a position to budget accordingly. In a smaller company situation that's just not feasible, whichever way you cut it.

Wibbs

WindSock wrote: »

Men don't have the same 'out' because their options are far wider than just focusing on raising a family.

In some ways yes, in other ways no. If a man was left to raise his family alone and did so and then tried to get back into the job market at we'll say 40, he will have a much harder time getting a job than the woman in the same position.

Rozabeez

Assuming you mean a stereotypical feminist, then not at all! I like when men hold doors open or walk with me 'cause it's late.

Crumble Froo

i have to say, for all i believe in men and women holding a pretty equal role in socitey...i do like it when my man holds the door open for me, or buys me flowers. at the same time, i do often stand back to let him through teh door first, do several chores around the house to make him happy and be as polite/caring to him as he does be to me... but ... at the end of the dayl, when nobody else is around, he does tend to slip into 'male control 'i know what's happening around the hosue' mode...

i respect my man to the utmost, i have met a few women on a few nights out who speak of their men as if they were little mroe than a puppy who needed a coupla weeks training, but i really do have the utmost respect for them.

my b/f has a kid and has raised him every other weekend (the same way his kids' mother has raised him eveyr other weekend and he has spent weekdays at his grans') with his kid and is mad about him, and would... and i don't doubt his ability to follow through wiht this... and would probably seriously hurt/maim/kill anyone who really ****ed iwhyt his son.#

i think some things are as inherent in our typical roles as far as genes go, as they are with where personality goes... but i do believe that all people deserve respect and general acecptance of their views in society and thta nobody should be disciminated for their jobs or religion, as long as that ultimate view is not to eradicate the country theyr're in..

apoligies. i can phrase that a loit btter when sober.