Anti feminist women

Dudess

Came across the following blog entry which sums up perfectly my feelings on women under 60 (or thereabouts) who enjoy the fruits of what the feminist movement helped achieve, yet like to proclaim themselves "anti feminist". Ann Coulter - great example: the ball-busting, unmarried, childless career woman who believes women's place is in the home serving their husbands and raising children.

http://community.feministing.com/2008/07/anti-feminist-women.html

I mean, it's one thing to have no time for man-haters, to be of the view that men have it bad in a lot of ways because of their gender (while also acknowledging that women have it bad in a lot of ways because of their gender), to revel in girlyness, to fancy the strong alpha-male type (yes please )... but I don't see how being anti-feminist is a necessary accompaniment to the above. To me, feminism was originally about deconstructing the notion that women are limited to living life a certain way because of their gender - no more.

Or being conservative = anti-feminist. Why do some people who embrace conservatism have to support EVERY conservative ideology in order to avoid being seen as inconsistent? Why not leave a little room for flexibility?
Margaret Thatcher - another example. Hated feminists. Was totally the type who'd assume a feminist meant unattractive, butch etc - seemingly oblivious to the irony of the fact that you don't get to become female prime minister of Great Britain without what the feminist movement achieved.

Just thought I'd share...

midlandsmissus

Feminism basically boils down to the proposal tha women should have equal right and opportunities as men.

I am very much a feminist, and challenge anyone on their sexist behaviour(still an awful lot of it going round)

People seem to associate feminism now with hairy legged, aggessive, man haters, which is totally wrong.

If you think you should have the same rights as men you're a feminist.

Silverfish

I'm an egalitarian.

I feel focusing on one specific group is being biased.

DarkJager

I just have to ask, do you not feel feminism is a bit "patethic" in this modern age? Its completely unneccesary now, as women are pretty much equal to men in terms of rights (and maybe a bit further if you want to look at how the rights split in a divorce for example). I don't see any "chauvinists" around beating their chests and proclaiming their superiority, so whats make women think they still need to do the same?

As for sexism, I think you would be quite wrong to allude that feminists should challenge people on their "sexist behaviour" - a fine hypocritical statement to make. Everything with womens culture these days likes to paint men as being some sort of idiotic lecherous breed, who only want sex and have absolutely no other human qualitys than to be the butt of a joke "between the girls". Its prevailent in music ("If I were a boy"), its in advertising ("so easy a man could do it"), its ****ing everywhere and to be honest, it makes me feel nauseous to the pit of my stomach everytime I see another loser waving the "girl power" flag. I'm all for equality between the genders, but anyone who openly comes out and proclaims themselves to be either a chauvinist or a feminist in this day and age can **** right off IMO. It is gender ego tripping and nothing more.

PrivateEye

I think the 'F' word is still seen as a dirty 'radical' word to be honest, which is a real shame. In Ireland for example its arguable that one of the greatest feminists in our history was a man (James Connolly arguing for womens rights in the workplace, the right to vote, and the right to social equality- he said that while workers were the slaves of society, female workers had become 'the slaves of slaves') and I would HOPE most other men would agree with the core points of feminism.


The anti-feminist movement have long argued feminists merely want to replace a male hierarcy with a female one. Most of the women I know who'd consider themselves feminists have all wanted to do away with the hierarcy itself, rather than change its gender.

I don't buy the arguement that 'sure now womens culture presents us as football obsessed louts on the couch sleeping under a mountain of beer cans' Look at all the 'Lovely Girls' competition that still exist in Ireland today, Miss U.C.D for example. Feminism isn't about women getting together and slinging sh/te at men.

The political, economic and social equality of women. If thats a mad thing to demand.......what can you ask for?

Macha

Silverfish wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian.

I feel focusing on one specific group is being biased.

I'm an egalitarian too. That doesn't stop be recognizing discrimination against certain groups like travellers or women.

DarkJager wrote: »

Its completely unneccesary now, as women are pretty much equal to men in terms of rights (and maybe a bit further if you want to look at how the rights split in a divorce for example).

Family law in Ireland is always the first port-of-call of people arguing that women "have it good". However, there are very few other areas that women actually have more rights than men. Moreover, the logic behind the bias in Irish familly law in Ireland towards woman comes from an intrinsically sexist stance: the sphere of the family and children is the woman's sphere.

DarkJager wrote: »

I don't see any "chauvinists" around beating their chests and proclaiming their superiority, so whats make women think they still need to do the same?

You're totally missing the point. Feminism isn't about women proclaiming their superiority: it's about equality and choice.

DarkJager wrote: »

Everything with womens culture these days likes to paint men as being some sort of idiotic lecherous breed, who only want sex and have absolutely no other human qualitys than to be the butt of a joke "between the girls". Its prevailent in music ("If I were a boy"), its in advertising ("so easy a man could do it"), its ****ing everywhere and to be honest, it makes me feel nauseous to the pit of my stomach everytime I see another loser waving the "girl power" flag.

Firstly, what's "women's culture" and are you sure it's "everything" in this culture that paints men like idiots? I'm the first to acknowledge that a lot of advertising paints men as idiots but there are ads out there that paint women as idiots as well. The above examples, which regrettable, do not negate the fact that true equality does not exist.

DarkJager wrote: »

I'm all for equality between the genders, but anyone who openly comes out and proclaims themselves to be either a chauvinist or a feminist in this day and age can **** right off IMO. It is gender ego tripping and nothing more.

Sad..it's attitudes like this that probably cause a lot of young women to be ashamed of the word feminism. I'm as proud to be a feminist as I am proud to be someone who contributes towards helping the less-well off in other countries. Inequality is inequality, whatever name you put on it.

Dudess, there's a particular author doing the rounds at the moment who really irritates me. Megan Basham is her name and she is advocating that women give up work to support their husbands :rolleyes::rolleyes: This is an article about her:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/27/women-work-and-careers

honru

midlandsmissus wrote: »

People seem to associate feminism now with hairy legged, aggessive, man haters

Probably because the original message of feminism has been integrated into Western society.

While the movement was badly needed, the pendulum definitely swung too far imo. A significant portion of the current generation of men carry around a lot of unconscious guilt and shame about the mistreatment of women over the centuries and thus act in a very careful manner when dealing with the opposite sex. Appeasing women appears to be the norm in our society as opposed to chivalry and owning what you want unapologetically.

Elle Victorine

DarkJager wrote: »

Everything with womens culture these days likes to paint men as being some sort of idiotic lecherous breed, who only want sex and have absolutely no other human qualitys than to be the butt of a joke "between the girls".

Ah...The Sex and the City Afterbirth.:rolleyes: But I get where you're coming from...Infantilisation can be a hard thing to stomach.

Personally I do not in anyway agree with the treatment of men in certain media circles. I saw an add before where women rob a towel on a man near a pool and I remember htinking god if that was a man doing it to a woman there'd be war. However it's equal in the media....another advert was about a man and a woman on a date and she says "im going to slip into something more comfortable" and comes out a frump with bleach on her top lip and nags him. If I didn't have a sense of humour about it I'd probably be among the groups of women who found the yorky add offensive too. Fact is not all women share the same gender role stereotypes that you're accusing them of.


I don't get anti-femenism but I think it's important to remember that without it we wouldn't have some of the rights we do now. It's all well and good giving out about it now but personally I like the right to land, education and oh yeah..VOTING! As for Ann Coulter, I wouldn't really suffer that woman's opinions on where I should be spending my time anyway. It's not really her decision to make so let her off..there's about 10 women to her one lined up ready to do the same to her for not doing what suits them.

I think it's somewhat unfair of her to let the man of the house carry all the financial burdens to be honest. It's not a man's job to take care of his wife it's their responsibility to take care of eachother. What an eejit like lmao!

She got her lazy husband a job by doing his cv and writing his letters? As a weatherman? And gave up journalism and editing to do this?

I was happy enough to read on - women want to stay at home, absolutely fine, as long as it's not "expected" - but that just boggles to me.

Macha

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

Probably because the original message of feminism has been integrated into Western society.

While the movement was badly needed, the pendulum definitely swung too far imo. A significant portion of the current generation of men carry around a lot of unconscious guilt and shame about the mistreatment of women over the centuries and thus act in a very careful manner when dealing with the opposite sex. Appeasing women appears to be the norm in our society as opposed to chivalry and owning what you want unapologetically.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?

A few statistics on the question of whether the pendulum has swung too far, in Europe at least:

-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Economics
-all 27 governers of central banks in the EU are men
-The governing council of the ECB (European Central Bank) is made up a six member executive board, which includes just one woman, and the governors of the central banks of the 15 Euro area countries, who are all men. Overall control of the European financial system therefore has less than 5% female influence

This is before I even go into social indicators. But suuuuree, we're like tootally equal. No, no in fact you're right. We have too many women in key positions and making important decisions at a national and European level.

Edit: Bluewolf - but she didn't actually give up her job - she's just published a book! The hypocrisy is insane.

Silverfish

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

Probably because the original message of feminism has been integrated into Western society.

While the movement was badly needed, the pendulum definitely swung too far imo. A significant portion of the current generation of men carry around a lot of unconscious guilt and shame about the mistreatment of women over the centuries and thus act in a very careful manner when dealing with the opposite sex. Appeasing women appears to be the norm in our society as opposed to chivalry and owning what you want unapologetically.

Well, its great that feminism got me so far that I can have the job I have now, I am the only female in the history of the company to be employed in this department.

Its ****e that feminism has only come so far that every day I am subject to a tirade of 'tsk, women :rolleyes:' jokes that each of my twenty male colleagues thinks he's the first to make.

Yes I should be grateful, but not when I am the only person in the company being ridiculed for their gender. That is still not equality.

DarkJager

Silverfish wrote: »

Its ****e that feminism has only come so far that every day I am subject to a tirade of 'tsk, women :rolleyes:' jokes that each of my twenty male colleagues thinks he's the first to make.

Yes I should be grateful, but not when I am the only person in the company being ridiculed for their gender. That is still not equality.

Oh please...men are subject to those sort of jokes every day in a workplace with female colleagues, I don't see why its suddenly so offensive when the shoe is on the other foot.

Silverfish

DarkJager wrote: »

Oh please...men are subject to those sort of jokes every day in a workplace with female colleagues, I don't see why its suddenly so offensive when the shoe is on the other foot.

I never said it wasn't.

But this thread is about feminism, you made an example, I pointed out my experience as a female.

If you want to contribute your experience, feel free.

DarkJager

DarkJager wrote: »

Oh please...men are subject to those sort of jokes every day in a workplace with female colleagues, I don't see why its suddenly so offensive when the shoe is on the other foot.

I've seen plenty of threads ages back about men in workplaces surrounded only by female colleagues and not being too pleased.
:rolleyes:

Dudess

Well I realise this isn't "my" thread, but it was intended as a discussion about anti feminist women, not feminism in general.

Silverfish

Dudess wrote: »

Well I realise this isn't "my" thread, but it was intended as a discussion about anti feminist women, not feminism in general.

Ach well, without feminism, they'd never even get so far as to have their opinions heard, so they've automatically proved themselves hypocrites with that one right off the bat.

Nevyn

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: Bluewolf - but she didn't actually give up her job - she's just published a book! The hypocrisy is insane.

She did give up her job and she wrote the book in her spare time at home.
Like I do my writing when I have time at home.

I do think that either parent should have the option to become a stay at home parent and be the logistical support for thier partners career it has been proven that those who do have such support and can work the longer hours do better which benefits the family as a whole.

With the down turn in the gobal ecomony I think we will see a lot of women
having an extra child and then due to childcare costs and other considerations taking a break in their career to stay at home.

This should be a choice, feminism is about choice.

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, its great that feminism got me so far that I can have the job I have now, I am the only female in the history of the company to be employed in this department.

Its ****e that feminism has only come so far that every day I am subject to a tirade of 'tsk, women :rolleyes:' jokes that each of my twenty male colleagues thinks he's the first to make.

Yes I should be grateful, but not when I am the only person in the company being ridiculed for their gender. That is still not equality.

I agree and it is not something you should have to out up with,
yes feminism only got so far most due to people thinking all the work was done.

Smug and snotty women who think that women have it all and we are all now post feminism
do my head it tbh and one day they will find themselves getting the shítty end of the stick
and become all disillusioned and usually bitter when they find out the world is not as they
think it is.

DarkJager

Silverfish wrote: »

I never said it wasn't.

But this thread is about feminism, you made an example, I pointed out my experience as a female.

If you want to contribute your experience, feel free.

Yes, but you made a point about "feminism only getting so far", as being the reason why you are subjected to these jokes. I don't quite get that. Are you saying if feminism went the whole way (which thank **** it didn't) every man would be sitting there like a quiet sheep afraid of getting a slap on the wrist? Its not "being ridiculed", its a gentle yet edgy style of joke that has been around for years and is well practiced by both sides of the gender divide.

Nevyn

DarkJager wrote: »

Yes, but you made a point about "feminism only getting so far", as being the reason why you are subjected to these jokes. I don't quite get that.

Cos no one should be subjected to that in the work place esp when they are
a minority and the first female to hold such a postion. The fact that she is makes her a ground breaker and that is hard enough with out that shíte.

DarkJager wrote: »

Are you saying if feminism went the whole way (which thank **** it didn't) every man would be sitting there like a quiet sheep afraid of getting a slap on the wrist?

You have a rather fúcked up idea of what the goals of feminism are/were.
IF you want to start another thread on that topic, I would be happy to take part in that
discussion as it really is off topic to this thread.

DarkJager wrote: »

Its not "being ridiculed", its a gentle yet edgy style of joke that has been around for years and is well practiced by both sides of the gender divide.

There are a time and place for such things and the work place really is not
one of them esp when there is such a gender disbalance.
I would say the exact me thing if the genders were reversed.


I think a lot of the ungratefulness and complacency comes from lack of awareness and lack
of education. We do not teach children in school about such topics or the history and cultural
changes of the last 50 years, most 20 year olds have no idea that it was illegal in the 70s for married women to stay in work, or that contraception was illegal until the mid 80s
and so were condom machines until the mid 90s.

Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

Silverfish

DarkJager wrote: »

Yes, but you made a point about "feminism only getting so far", as being the reason why you are subjected to these jokes. I don't quite get that. Are you saying if feminism went the whole way (which thank **** it didn't) every man would be sitting there like a quiet sheep afraid of getting a slap on the wrist? Its not "being ridiculed", its a gentle yet edgy style of joke that has been around for years and is well practiced by both sides of the gender divide.

I have never once complained to my managers that the males in my department are incapable of doing their jobs, are incapable of doing maths, reading technical drawings, understanding taxes and computers, and driving a car, when they're on their first week in the job.

When I find myself doing that, I'll come back here and apologise to you.

Bearing in mind I've been in the workforce for 16 years and haven't done it yet, I wouldn't hold my breath.

In fact, I did complain to a manager before about one male in a female dominated workplace. I asked why he was forced to wear a shirt and tie every day to work when he was clearly uncomfortable, when we could wear what we wanted provided we looked respectable.

Terodil

taconnol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?

Firstly, your statistics are probably accurate (I won't bother confirming since they ring very true), and that indeed shows that men and women are not equal when it comes to job positions.

Statistics are difficult to interpret without additional reference data though. Is this discrepancy due to women being discriminated against in the labour market? Is it due to them not choosing those careers? I don't know, I cannot tell. I have a feeling it's both. We should do something about the first explanation, as it's no longer acceptable, for good reason. However if the second holds then we'll make a mistake by introducing/applying an implicit 'women quota'.

About the guilt question: No, it's not the fault of women that men feel guilty. But me are often made to feel guilty, no doubt about it. One very simple example can be seen if you look at the education system these days. I don't know the situation in Ireland; in Germany, 95% of primary school teachers are female. Boys are regularly put aside and reprimanded because of their (statistically) higher activity levels and lack of concentration. This leads to significantly higher proportion of girls making it into grammar schools than boys. Yet at the same time, calls for 'girl only math classes' are getting louder and louder 'because they don't feel comfortable about learning maths in the company of boastful boys'. Hmm...

In conclusion we have a very weird situation this day. On the one hand, equality has not been fully reached, but we do not know what to do about it or how much we need to do about it. On the other hand I can see what one pre-poster above said about the pendulum having gone too far: If boys are rejected from certain classes (e.g. confidence-building or self-defense classes 'for girls only') then something's definitely wrong.

I think we are in desperate need of making one more step. We're clearly wrong if we focus exclusively on the existence or absence of the annex down there. We need to pay a lot more attention to personality patterns. There are shy men, aggressive women, male math geniuses and female math geniuses... cooperative male managers and dictatorial female managers... I think the old patterns simply do not hold very much. They were required in the past, no doubt about it, but these days, to find true balance, they are more a hindrance than help.

honru

taconnol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?

No-one in particular is at fault; we all must take responsibility for our emotions, yet it was perhaps inevitable that guilt would arise in males after the feminist movement. Whether the awareness of such will also serve as a positive consequence in the path to full equality for both parties remains to be seen.

As for the women and the workplace, I don't have much to say on the subject. But looking at your examples, if you consider a gender comparison in the context of time, rather than a gender-to-gender comparison, I would think that 37% female presence in the European Commission is a significant increase over how it was two or three decades ago. Maybe I'm wrong?

Macha

Thaedydal wrote: »

She did give up her job and she wrote the book in her spare time at home.

Sure but she took on a new career - as a writer. Not all women have the ability to take up such a flexible job.

I don't disagree with her idea that one parent stays at home: my issue is that she argues that women have "supporting" and "nurturing" tendencies that mean they are the ones that should stay at home.

She doesn't go into the pension implications of giving up work, nor does she seem to consider the idea that many men may equally want to give up work and stay at home with the kids.

Terodil wrote: »

Statistics are difficult to interpret without additional reference data though. Is this discrepancy due to women being discriminated against in the labour market? Is it due to them not choosing those careers? I don't know, I cannot tell. I have a feeling it's both. We should do something about the first explanation, as it's no longer acceptable, for good reason. However if the second holds then we'll make a mistake by introducing/applying an implicit 'women quota'.

Oh sure, the reasons behind these sort of statistics are the subject of much research.

Terodil wrote: »

About the guilt question: No, it's not the fault of women that men feel guilty. But me are often made to feel guilty, no doubt about it. One very simple example can be seen if you look at the education system these days. I don't know the situation in Ireland; in Germany, 95% of primary school teachers are female. Boys are regularly put aside and reprimanded because of their (statistically) higher activity levels and lack of concentration. This leads to significantly higher proportion of girls making it into grammar schools than boys. Yet at the same time, calls for 'girl only math classes' are getting louder and louder 'because they don't feel comfortable about learning maths in the company of boastful boys'. Hmm...

Do you have any stats on boys being pulled aside more frequently than girls and how this impacts on their grades? I do worry about the fact that girls seem to do so much better than boys in school - when things tip too far one way or the other, it's normally a sign that something is wrong.

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

No-one in particular is at fault; we all must take responsibility for our emotions, yet it was perhaps inevitable that guilt would arise in males after the feminist movement. Whether the awareness of such will also serve as a positive consequence in the path to full equality for both parties remains to be seen.

I see what you mean and as a feminist I would never ever try and make any male I meet feel guilty. Some do and pass negative comments if I bring up a particular issue, but I can't help that. To give a similar example, I live in a country that benefits from huge trade barriers to keep this country rich and other countries poor. I can't help but feel guilty about that situation even through I didn't personally have a hand in creating it.

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

As for the women and the workplace, I don't have much to say on the subject. But looking at your examples, if you consider a gender comparison in the context of time, rather than a gender-to-gender comparison, I would think that 37% female presence in the European Commission is a significant increase over how it was two or three decades ago. Maybe I'm wrong?

Oh sure, it's changing. Just a matter of time, hopefully Although some worrying trends did appear in the UK a few months ago, in relation to statistics and attitudes. It seems that while the economy is motoring along, everyone's happy for women to be in the workplace but as soon as things turn bad, people start thinking "they're takin our joooobs"

Back on topic (sorry Dudess..!) Top of my anti-feminist women:

Sarah Palin (Argh!!)
Ann Coulter (absolutely can't stand her)

994

taconnol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?

Why should one feel guilty about things that happened before one's birth? Half of my ancestors were female, and half of yours were male, and it's not as if no woman ever exploited a man (cuckoldry, forcing men to go to war, etc.)

p1akuw47h5r3it

taconnol wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian too. That doesn't stop be recognizing discrimination against certain groups like travellers or women.


Family law in Ireland is always the first port-of-call of people arguing that women "have it good". However, there are very few other areas that women actually have more rights than men. Moreover, the logic behind the bias in Irish familly law in Ireland towards woman comes from an intrinsically sexist stance: the sphere of the family and children is the woman's sphere.


You're totally missing the point. Feminism isn't about women proclaiming their superiority: it's about equality and choice.



Firstly, what's "women's culture" and are you sure it's "everything" in this culture that paints men like idiots? I'm the first to acknowledge that a lot of advertising paints men as idiots but there are ads out there that paint women as idiots as well. The above examples, which regrettable, do not negate the fact that true equality does not exist.


Sad..it's attitudes like this that probably cause a lot of young women to be ashamed of the word feminism. I'm as proud to be a feminist as I am proud to be someone who contributes towards helping the less-well off in other countries. Inequality is inequality, whatever name you put on it.

Dudess, there's a particular author doing the rounds at the moment who really irritates me. Megan Basham is her name and she is advocating that women give up work to support their husbands :rolleyes::rolleyes: This is an article about her:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/27/women-work-and-careers

(The bit in bold): Ri I'm a fella and I'm not trying to annoy you but:

How does true equality (in the Western world ) not exist?

stovelid

Dudess wrote: »

Came across the following blog entry which sums up perfectly my feelings on women under 60 (or thereabouts) who enjoy the fruits of what the feminist movement helped achieve, yet like to proclaim themselves "anti feminist". Ann Coulter - great example: the ball-busting, unmarried, childless career woman who believes women's place is in the home serving their husbands and raising children.
.

Remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP5jQRxLpy4

brianthebard

PrivateEye wrote: »

I think the 'F' word is still seen as a dirty 'radical' word to be honest, which is a real shame. In Ireland for example its arguable that one of the greatest feminists in our history was a man (James Connolly arguing for womens rights in the workplace, the right to vote, and the right to social equality- he said that while workers were the slaves of society, female workers had become 'the slaves of slaves') and I would HOPE most other men would agree with the core points of feminism.


The anti-feminist movement have long argued feminists merely want to replace a male hierarcy with a female one. Most of the women I know who'd consider themselves feminists have all wanted to do away with the hierarcy itself, rather than change its gender.

Two points of clarification; While Connolly was great and all I do think that Francis Seehy-Skeffington and his wife Hanna had more to say on feminism than Connolly.

Secondly, radical feminism did argue to replace a male hierarchy with a female one, to invert the binary, and also to destroy their femininity by dressing and acting masculine or butch. There are many feminists who have said and acknowledge this, and say that it is the wrong method. Kristeva for one. That is not to say that all feminists subscribe to this radical viewpoint, but its not surprising that opponents to the movement have used the most extreme version to tarnish the whole collective.

LightningBolt

I want to live in this sort of society, I like their method of dealing with conflict;) [FONT=&quot]http://www.geocities.com/willc7/bonobos.html[/FONT]

Women have near full equality nowadays I believe. It's when we look at high ranking positions that we have to question why there isn't more women at the helm. Does it boil down to them not being as qualified as their male counterparts, not commanding the same respect from peers (the final barrier to having an equal society I believe) or ability to commit to the job role because of pregnancy? What's the age profile of the ECB Board, I'd be willing to bet that it's at least 45+. I think it's another 10 years before we'll have women appearing on these types of boards or central banks purely because women are only now working in jobs that will give them the experience required in future to be able to command those positions.

Stheno

LightningBolt wrote: »

Does it boil down to them not being as qualified as their male counterparts, not commanding the same respect from peers (the final barrier to having an equal society I believe)

Eh? How can a woman who has the same qualification at the same level as a man, and has the same experience be less qualified?

And what do you mean about not commanding the same respect from peers?

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?


-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Very genderist of you and I suppose you are taking responsibility for behavior of women everywhere and in previous generations too.

It may come as a surprise to you that Women have the Vote in Ireland - at least I think so.:rolleyes:

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Very genderist of you and I suppose you are taking responsibility for behavior of women everywhere and in previous generations too.

It may come as a surprise to you that Women have the Vote in Ireland - at least I think so.:rolleyes:

Mother of God, you sound like a male colleague of mine who tried to (unsuccessfully) argue recently that men were discriminated against in Irish Society :rolleyes:

Anyway as regards your post, the OP that you quoted is talking about the proportion of female representatives in government, NOT whether or not women have the vote, there's a slight difference there :rolleyes:

Back OT I dislike anti feminist women, it seems in the past few years there has been a backlash/movement emanating from the States which advocates the "traditional" homemaker role for women, I've not read any of the women quoted, but will over the next few days, my problem with it is the lack of choice rather than any gender based role.

LightningBolt

Oh here we go, I'm merely saying that with certain jobs (I'm talking EU Board level here not some Irish company looking for a Financial Director) I believe men may have had more experience at jobs that gave them an advantage due to the fact that in previous years it was very difficult for women to gain that experience. As it is now it's slowly changing and in future I'd hope that public representatives are more evenly balanced in terms of gender profile.

Not once did I say that a woman with the same qualification and experience as a man be less qualified for a job.

As for commanding respect from peers, women are not as well respected in the workforce as they should be. A proportion of men still have the tendency to dismiss women's opinions and not give them the same respect as they would a male colleague. Once we have a society where people are judged on their actions and not on their gender we'll be equal in my eyes.

Does that clear up what I said?

Stheno

LightningBolt wrote: »

Oh here we go, 1
I'm merely saying that with certain jobs (I'm talking EU Board level here not some Irish company looking for a Financial Director) I believe men may have had more experience at jobs that gave them an advantage due to the fact that in previous years it was very difficult for women to gain that experience. As it is now it's slowly changing and in future I'd hope that public representatives are more evenly balanced in terms of gender profile.

2 Not once did I say that a woman with the same qualification and experience as a man be less qualified for a job.

3 As for commanding respect from peers, women are not as well respected in the workforce as they should be. A proportion of men still have the tendency to dismiss women's opinions and not give them the same respect as they would a male colleague. Once we have a society where people are judged on their actions and not on their gender we'll be equal in my eyes.

Does that clear up what I said?

1. I can see the point of your argument and accept that.

2. No you said

Does it boil down to them not being as qualified as their male counterparts

which lead to my question?

3. A proportion of men yes, but not all men given your point, and imo the same applies to women, if not moreso in some cases

Thanks

LightningBolt

Does it boil down to them not being as qualified as their male counterparts

I think we're getting our wires crossed on this one. I was posing that as a question attempting to solve why women weren't as prevalent in these roles. What I meant by that was: is it possible for some positions, that it is plausible women may not have the experience necessary due to previous barriers they faced which prevented them gaining the experience required.

Hope that clears it up.

Stheno

LightningBolt wrote: »

I think we're getting our wires crossed on this one. I was posing that as a question attempting to solve why women weren't as prevalent in these roles. What I meant by that was: is it possible for some positions, that it is plausible women may not have the experience necessary due to previous barriers they faced which prevented them gaining the experience required.

Hope that clears it up.

It does thanks

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Mother of God, you sound like a male colleague of mine who tried to (unsuccessfully) argue recently that men were discriminated against in Irish Society :rolleyes:

Anyway as regards your post, the OP that you quoted is talking about the proportion of female representatives in government, NOT whether or not women have the vote, there's a slight difference there :rolleyes:

Back OT I dislike anti feminist women, it seems in the past few years there has been a backlash/movement emanating from the States which advocates the "traditional" homemaker role for women, I've not read any of the women quoted, but will over the next few days, my problem with it is the lack of choice rather than any gender based role.

At lots of levels men are discrininated against- must be a divorced or seperated guy. Thats when gender equality really hits home.

Women usually dont run on a gender ticket.On an aside I was appalled at the treatment Mary Harney has had -often -from women especially on her appearance moreso then her political skills.

In Ireland we have an in-camera rule in family law courts -which -does leave it open to charges of gender/active woman bias.

There has also been feminazation of professions such as medical & teaching and where gender does affect service delivery and the availability of the services.So there are positives for women. IMHO the workplace adapts to women and not vice versa which makes employing women expensive. Wghere do you stand on that?

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

At lots of levels men are discrininated against- must be a divorced or seperated guy. Thats when gender equality really hits home.

The only level at which men are discriminated against is in family rights, and that's for a specific reason, so that men can enjoy favourable discrimination in every other aspect of society. That's not to belittle the lack of rights for fathers, but don't overegg it cd.

CDfm

LightningBolt wrote: »

Not once did I say that a woman with the same qualification and experience as a man be less qualified for a job.

As for commanding respect from peers, women are not as well respected in the workforce as they should be. A proportion of men still have the tendency to dismiss women's opinions and not give them the same respect as they would a male colleague.

Does that clear up what I said?

But surely until feminism throws of genderism you will have this. JUst going back to the family law issue which has positive discrimination to gender specific roles. Could it be that one flows on from the other that wonen are percieved in this way. Like it feeds the stereotype.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

The only level at which men are discriminated against is in family rights, and that's for a specific reason, so that men can enjoy favourable discrimination in every other aspect of society. That's not to belittle the lack of rights for fathers, but don't overegg it cd.

Thats a huge cost issue in itself.

But dont lets forget that women are discriminated against by women if they have a non traditional lifestyle. Like lesbians or women who are not mothers ever.

dfx-

taconnol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?

A few statistics on the question of whether the pendulum has swung too far, in Europe at least:

-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Economics
-all 27 governers of central banks in the EU are men
-The governing council of the ECB (European Central Bank) is made up a six member executive board, which includes just one woman, and the governors of the central banks of the 15 Euro area countries, who are all men. Overall control of the European financial system therefore has less than 5% female influence

This is before I even go into social indicators. But suuuuree, we're like tootally equal. No, no in fact you're right. We have too many women in key positions and making important decisions at a national and European level.

Edit: Bluewolf - but she didn't actually give up her job - she's just published a book! The hypocrisy is insane.

:mad:

Why I don't like feminism generally is the pursuit of equality and retribution above all else and often summed up by statistics as above and especially the dragging up of the "thousand years" timeframe retribution, which to me is certainly what quoting these statistics are - to redress the imbalance. It reminds me of a post in another thread here where one woman was nasty to a guy and someone (pfb I think) piped up 'it's revenge for the years of what men did'. When someone said in reply "great, men now be punished for what their forefathers did", it was an exceptionally good point.

People should be picked on their ability to do their job, not whether the male 'gender allocation' was taken up, so it must go to a woman to redress the balance. What was the resume of those appointments? Is there anything to suggest the men shouldn't have got these jobs? Were there female competitors? Any basis that they got these jobs solely because they were men? Any basis that female counterparts would do any better because they can add a 'female influence' (wtf)? Why would they? Statistics can be moulded anyway you want. Seems similar to the grotesque South African policies of 'affirmative action' and quotas to me.

Similarly, I don't like 50/50 gender governments like Sweden (when campaigns of 'men are animals' and 'Society of Cutting Up Men' were around supposedly had some place in political debate!)..I don't care what gender a government or what gender a job is as long as it's not selected on the basis of gender, male or female.

CDfm

Willie O'Dea summed it up well when he said that men are treatred as if they are a different species (commenting on his days as a solicitor)

spinandscribble

Silverfish wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian.

I feel focusing on one specific group is being biased.

thank you for defining how i feel about these things.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its a really difficult one. So many feminists have polar opposite opinions on whats feminist and what isn't. Abortion, IVF etc.

One thing though. I actually think Margaret Thatcher could have become PM without the feminist movement! She probably could have been the supreme leader of Iran if she'd been born there

Macha

994 wrote: »

Why should one feel guilty about things that happened before one's birth? Half of my ancestors were female, and half of yours were male, and it's not as if no woman ever exploited a man (cuckoldry, forcing men to go to war, etc.)

No, I'm not saying men should feel guilty - in fact, the total opposite. I just don't think men's guilt should be used as an argument against women's rights movements.

Gia Panicky Moped wrote: »

How does true equality (in the Western world ) not exist?

You're not annoying me - I won't bite your head off. There are many economic, political and social indicators that show that equality does not exist. And laws very often precede attitudes so while men and women may have something approaching legal equality, that doesn't always translate into practice.

CDfm wrote: »

Very genderist of you and I suppose you are taking responsibility for behavior of women everywhere and in previous generations too.

It may come as a surprise to you that Women have the Vote in Ireland - at least I think so.:rolleyes:

Explain how pointing out inequalities is "genderist" of me. I'm not taking responsibility or any other obscure accusation. I'm pointing out some facts.

Having the vote is not the same as holding decision-making positions.

dfx- wrote: »

:mad:

Why I don't like feminism generally is the pursuit of equality and retribution above all else and often summed up by statistics as above and especially the dragging up of the "thousand years" timeframe retribution, which to me is certainly what quoting these statistics are - to redress the imbalance.

Yees..I'm quoting current statistics on the inequalities between men and women as "retribution"... bizarre.

dfx- wrote: »

It reminds me of a post in another thread here where one woman was nasty to a guy and someone (pfb I think) piped up 'it's revenge for the years of what men did'. When someone said in reply "great, men now be punished for what their forefathers did", it was an exceptionally good point.

So you agree, calling it an "exceptionally good point"? The fact that a few people act like that, again, does not negate the need for further work in achieveing equality.

dfx- wrote: »

People should be picked on their ability to do their job, not whether the male 'gender allocation' was taken up, so it must go to a woman to redress the balance. What was the resume of those appointments? Is there anything to suggest the men shouldn't have got these jobs? Were there female competitors? Any basis that they got these jobs solely because they were men? Any basis that female counterparts would do any better because they can add a 'female influence' (wtf)? Why would they? Statistics can be moulded anyway you want. Seems similar to the grotesque South African policies of 'affirmative action' and quotas to me.

Yes, there is ample evidence that many men get the job because they are men and testimony to that comes from men as well. I don't blame the men involved - it's human nature that jobs are given through contacts - I think everyone accepts that most jobs aren't even advertised or very often the recruitment process is more for show as the likely candidate has already been chosen. This from the man who instigated the quota law in Norway:

"I could not see why, after 25-30 years of having an equal ratio of women and men in universities and with having so many educated women with experience, there were so few of them on boards," he said. "From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked. They come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together. They're buddies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/norway-gender-executive-salaries1

dfx- wrote: »

Similarly, I don't like 50/50 gender governments like Sweden (when campaigns of 'men are animals' and 'Society of Cutting Up Men' were around supposedly had some place in political debate!)..I don't care what gender a government or what gender a job is as long as it's not selected on the basis of gender, male or female.

Can you link to some of these "men are animals" campaigns? I have never heard of them.

Edit: OK just googled and those campaigns are horrible! However, I can't find any proof that they are the work of anything other than a lunatic fringe.

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

A few statistics on the question of whether the pendulum has swung too far, in Europe at least:

-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Economics
-all 27 governers of central banks in the EU are men
-The governing council of the ECB (European Central Bank) is made up a six member executive board, which includes just one woman, and the governors of the central banks of the 15 Euro area countries, who are all men. Overall control of the European financial system therefore has less than 5% female influence

We need details on how exactly people make it into those positions. Are they voted in or appointed? If voted in what is the gender breakdown of the applicable voting populace. What experience is required to do the rolls? How may women are there with that experience at the moment? Has there been a positive percentage increase at each voting/appointing time? Is this increase in line with the increase of women who through the change in discrimination brought about by the Feminist and Equal Rights movements have been able to advance in exactly these fields? All basic things that i feel need to be covered if you are going to post figures like this if i am honest.

Also, do you think any of the men in the above positions do a bad job simply because they are men?

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

We need details on how exactly people make it into those positions. Are they voted in or appointed? If voted in what is the gender breakdown of the applicable voting populace. What experience is required to do the rolls? How may women are there with that experience at the moment? Has there been a positive percentage increase at each voting/appointing time? Is this increase in line with the increase of women who through the change in discrimination brought about by the Feminist and Equal Rights movements have been able to advance in exactly these fields? All basic things that i feel need to be covered if you are going to post figures like this if i am honest.

EU Commisioners - appointed by member states
Lower Houses - voted in
Upper Houses - a mix of voted in/appointed (I'm generalising across 27 countries)
Governors of Central banks - appointed in Ireland and in all other EU countries afaik
Governing council of ECB - 2 mandatory positions and other 4 are appointed.

So the majority of these important positions are appointed.

On the question of improvements - of course there have been improvements. It doesn't remove from the above figures. I can post accurate statistics if I like and without an obligation to go into such detail as you request above. I'm not saying it's not relevant but you're asking for a large amount of detail that would take me a long time to gather. The statistics are still accurate.

Dragan wrote: »

Also, do you think any of the men in the above positions do a bad job simply because they are men?

Im a bit surprised you even ask me that. It's not about whether they do a bad job or not, it's about everyone having equal opportunity to access these positions.

Edit: this discussion is slightly off-topic. So back on-topic here's a clip of Ann Coulter on the daily show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=124316&title=ann-coulter

and a quote..:

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

On the question of improvements - of course there have been improvements. It doesn't remove from the above figures. I can post accurate statistics if I like and without an obligation to go into such detail as you request above. I'm not saying it's not relevant but you're asking for a large amount of detail that would take me a long time to gather. The statistics are still accurate.

*grins* I know all about Statistics, and i know that a large percentage of the strength of any statistic is in the delivery.

If you didn't want to answer my questions then either ignore the post or just say "i don't want to answer that, go find out for yourself". I am not asking you to justify what you posted beyond the justifications I need to do myself, in my work, or that i would seek from anyone else about anything else.

You know, or at least i hope you know, that i very much value your opinion around subjects like these. It is clear that you have done a huge amount of research and self education here, so if i am asking you a question it is simply because i am hungry to know your opinion, or to learn something from you. I hope my last post didn't seem like i was attacking what you posted, i was simply trying to get to the root of why they are what they are.

If it came across as any other way then i apologise.:o I have a head cold and a million distractions today, so sadly i feel my wording in the last post was less than stellar.

Im a bit surprised you even ask me that. It's not about whether they do a bad job or not, it's about everyone having equal opportunity to access these positions.

I'm just devils advocating...it would be like saying i should have a chance to go for those positions, when i clearly shouldn't. As such, i am just looking to work out the poor of suitable candidates and figure out what the gender split there is. If it's strongly a high male percentage, i have no issue with it.

My issues when then turn to the tier below, that is actually impacting on women and figure out why they are not able to get to that same qualified level. Basically, i would work my way from that level, back to college entry and graduate numbers and feeder positions. I'll do it later if i have the time.

I'm a firm believer in causing change to the area's i feel need it by working on the area's that feed it.

Nevyn

And yet another thread decends into justify feminism when it was about women and men
who do not appericate what feminism has done to change and shape the world we live in
for the better. /shrug

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

And yet another thread decends into justify feminism when it was about women and men
who do not appericate what feminism has done to change and shape the world we live in
for the better. /shrug

Actually, it was just about women, from the title?

To get back on topic, i find the idea that somebody MUST accept and appreciate something just because i do, regardless of the evidence of it's positive benefit on the world and lives of the people who live on it, to be hilarious.

Freedom of thought and speech and your right to view the world your way and formulate and express your own idea's and opinions does not work on the assumption that the ends you will reach will be the same as mine, or even by the same means.

Telling a woman that she MUST be proud of Feminism is the same as any other illogical argument to me. Maybe these people really do believe that their lives, and the lives of others, would be better without it the same way as we really do believe that our lives are better because of it?

Dudess

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

One thing though. I actually think Margaret Thatcher could have become PM without the feminist movement! She probably could have been the supreme leader of Iran if she'd been born there

No she couldn't, for the simple fact that she was a woman. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - a taking for granted of just how inferior women were considered before they got the courage to fight for their rights.
How ignorant do you have to be to be an educated woman who votes and has a successful career yet who is anti feminist? I'm thinking: extremely.

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

*grins* I know all about Statistics, and i know that a large percentage of the strength of any statistic is in the delivery.

Argh Dragan I know about you and statistics!! You'll beat me at it any day.

Dragan wrote: »

If you didn't want to answer my questions then either ignore the post or just say "i don't want to answer that, go find out for yourself". I am not asking you to justify what you posted beyond the justifications I need to do myself, in my work, or that i would seek from anyone else about anything else.

No I don't like when people put forward an opinion and then say "you back it up". It's lazy. And I certainly didn't want to ignore your post because you made some v good points. I just don't have access to a lot of the stuff (that is totally relevant) that you're asking for.

Dragan wrote: »

You know, or at least i hope you know, that i very much value your opinion around subjects like these. It is clear that you have done a huge amount of research and self education here, so if i am asking you a question it is simply because i am hungry to know your opinion, or to learn something from you. I hope my last post didn't seem like i was attacking what you posted, i was simply trying to get to the root of why they are what they are.

What a nice thing to say! Wow. No need to justify your post at all: you made good points.

Personally I think a lot of it is down to the networking thing. Just look at all the dodgy bankers and board members coming out of the woodwork these days and how many of them are on 5 or 6 boards. Ann Heraty, for example, was an Anglo Director, on the board of the Irish Stock Exchange, director of Bord na Mona AND on the board of Forfas!! When it gets up to those sort of echelons, it's all just a little too incestuous and closed to whoever is outside those circles, be they male of female. It just so happens that most of the people in the circle are men and so it reflects badly in the statistics. As Heraty has shown, once you're inside the circle, it doesn't matter much what gender you are.

Dragan wrote: »

My issues when then turn to the tier below, that is actually impacting on women and figure out why they are not able to get to that same qualified level. Basically, i would work my way from that level, back to college entry and graduate numbers and feeder positions. I'll do it later if i have the time.

Sure and that's why it worries me that, as the Norwegian minister pointed out, for maybe 20 years now we have had as many women graduating from university as men but it's still taking a long time for these stats to change. Laws may move forward but we can't legislate people's attitudes or opinions.