If not why not ?

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.