Is it still a man's world?

Freiheit

In marriage a woman assumes her husbands name as do her children. Saw footage on Sky of a Muslim woman being flogged by men for wearing a pants under her Burqua, over 80% of TD's are men, as are most store managers and school principals. Men in general earn more.

Is it a man's world or do the above really matter?.:)

Stercus Accidit

There is still a lot of people around from before feminism and so on, and status and wealth take generations to aquire mostly, people in their 30's and 20's may never see the glass ceiling there used to be.

TD's are representative mostly of people and attitudes from 30 years ago.

Nolanger

How many movies on release this year were directed by women?

speedboatchase

Nolanger wrote: »

How many movies on release this year were directed by women?

67? I don't see your point? It's not as if a movie won't not be greenlit if the director is a woman. And Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director at the Oscars in February

_JOE_

To further clarify your query Nolanger, Professor Martha Lauzen of San Diego State University found that only 9% of Hollywood directors in 2008 were women...

Pherekydes

MaBy it is, MaBy it isn't.

Chuchoter

I would say so, less than in previous years but its still there. I think pop culture is a pretty good indicator, films with women leads make substantially less money, few films and TV shows pass the Bechdel test, most prominent female musicians are valued more for the way they look than their music. I could go on all day :S

In terms of the glass ceiling, very, very few senior positions in any field are held by women.

The Agogo

crayolastereo wrote: »

In terms of the glass ceiling, very, very few senior positions in any field are held by women.

Women always state this but never state the reason behind it.

IMO, I think because there are so few women in high positioned areas it crumbles the impetus for women to seek out these positions.

Many women have gotten the positions they wanted, they just refused to be put-off by the lack of footsteps leading up towards it.

*the surname thing for children and husbands isn't law, just the done thing - so I don't see what the argument is about here.

The Agogo

Also - TDs are elected by women and men. So this is also an invalid argument.

Can I also put forward the motion that feminists never get uppity about the inequality of child custody for fathers? Or that men in general die before their female counterparts yet the age of retirement for men is higher?

SarahBeep!

90% of primary school teachers are women.

90% of primary school principals are men.

That speaks volumes IMO.

The Agogo

SarahBeep! wrote: »

90% of primary school teachers are women.

90% of primary school principals are men.

That speaks volumes IMO.

Clearly made up statistics.

I tried to be a piano teacher once. Parents always hired the woman over the man for the probable fear that I was a paedophile of some description. Now that's sexism.

PeakOutput

crayolastereo wrote: »

I think pop culture is a pretty good indicator, films with women leads make substantially less money

maybe they should make better films then?

also i cant remember the exact percentage but i think it was 85-90% of ceos of fortune 500 companies are over 6ft tall and in shape, is there a big conspiracy to keep shorter, fatter men out of the top positions and under their glass ceiling were they belong?

or maybe, just maybe, something the 6fters have makes them genuinely better at their job

The Agogo

^ Yay I'm 6ft.

Anyway, I'm firmly of the belief that if women started going to the golf club with their boss and mingled with the higher-ups in the pub then they'd have a better chance of promotion.

Just saying, that's what men do...and it seems to work! Men don't just get promoted for having a schlong.

PandyAndy

Freiheit wrote: »

In marriage a woman assumes her husbands name as do her children. Saw footage on Sky of a Muslim woman being flogged by men for wearing a pants under her Burqua, over 80% of TD's are men, as are most store managers and school principals. Men in general earn more.

Is it a man's world or do the above really matter?.:)

I was thinking about that the other day lol. Always seemed unfair even if was the 'traditional' thing to do. Why can't women keep their surname and then the children have both the parents' surnames and then just drop one surname when they themselves eventually have children?

eg. John Smith marries and has children with Jane Daly (She stays Jane Daly). Son is Jack Smith-Daly, daugther is June Smith-Daly. Jack gets married and has kids with Lucy Power so their son would then be Alan Smith-Power. Son's would carry the father's surname and daughters carry the mother's surname.

Kinda went off-topic, sorry

The Agogo

PandyAndy wrote: »

I was thinking about that the other day lol. Always seemed unfair even if was the 'traditional' thing to do. Why can't women keep their surname and then the children have both the parents' surnames and then just drop one surname when they themselves eventually have children?

eg. John Smith marries and has children with Jane Daly (She stays Jane Daly). Son is Jack Smith-Daly, daugther is June Smith-Daly. Jack gets married and has kids with Lucy Power so their son would then be Alan Smith-Power. Son's would carry the father's surname and daughters carry the mother's surname.

Kinda went off-topic, sorry

All perfectly legal so what is the big problem with this issue?

Stheno

PeakOutput wrote: »

maybe they should make better films then?

also i cant remember the exact percentage but i think it was 85-90% of ceos of fortune 500 companies are over 6ft tall and in shape, is there a big conspiracy to keep shorter, fatter men out of the top positions and under their glass ceiling were they belong?

or maybe, just maybe, something the 6fters have makes them genuinely better at their job

There's a fair bit of research come out recently that tall people both male and female tend to be more successful

jugger0

Freiheit wrote: »

Is it a man's world or do the above really matter?.:)

Well yes and it should be. Everything of worth was created by men, all the buildings in the world were built by the hands of men, men are naturally dominant over woman. Most politicians are men, we're just naturally inclined to be leaders, not because the system is sexist against woman. I dont understand all this extreme feminism, making out the diffrences between the sexes to be a bad thing... its just the way it is.

Wibbs

jugger0 wrote: »

Well yes and it should be. Everything of worth was created by men, all the buildings in the world were built by the hands of men, men are naturally dominant over woman.

Oh God not this old argument.. OK lets imagine you're correct. Even if you were, it wouldn't be men, it would be some men, actually quite a tiny number, most men in history were scrabbling about in the mud. It's not "Men" tm This argument is similar to the one bald men come out with as a comfort. "Sean connery is bald, therefore because I am, I = Sean". Eh no. You dont.

But of course you're incorrect too. Of that small number of people that have affected the world(for good and ill) there are quite a number of women. Many have been de facto rulers and builders of nations and empires, even in very male dominated worlds.

jugger0

Wibbs wrote: »

But of course you're incorrect too. Of that small number of people that have affected the world(for good and ill) there are quite a number of women. Many have been de facto rulers and builders of nations and empires, even in very male dominated worlds.

Where? i know the Britons had a female ruler, but that didnt end so well for them. If 10 men and 10 woman got stranded on an island, who would take charge and call the shots?

Freiheit

It struck me in the company of an unmarried female friend whose child has taken the fathers name, actually caused her a few hindrances at the airport.

It isn't law for a woman to take the man's name on marriage but one rarely if ever hears of the reverse happening. Do many women ever think about this?.

It's origins clearly are in patriarchy although I accept that it isn't a conscious influence now, it's simply 'the done thing' which few people question.

krudler

About the "more TD's are men" thing, given the state they got the country into its probably one thing women are glad they had no part in :pac:

Wibbs

jugger0 wrote: »

Where? i know the Britons had a female ruler, but that didnt end so well for them.

There were quite a few in the ancient world and beyond. Hatshepsut was one of the most accomplished rulers of ancient Egypt, of either gender(and they had a few others, Cleo ring any bells?). Tzu-hsi, Catherine the Great, Lizzie the first, Katherine de Medici, Eleanor of Aquitane, Isabella of Spain, to name but a few. Then there were the women who ruled behind the throne of which there were many many more. The world would look a lot different if these women had never existed.

If 10 men and 10 woman got stranded on an island, who would take charge and call the shots?

Depends entirely on the makeup of the 20 people. It could quite easily be a woman. Your mistaking obvious power, with actual power.

bmarley

Maybe women don't strive for the same things as men, not as power hungry. As for the flogging thats all about control.

28064212

SarahBeep! wrote: »

90% of primary school teachers are women.

90% of primary school principals are men.

That speaks volumes IMO.

It does, but not about the subject that you think it does. Are women being passed over for principal positions because they're women? If not, it's nothing to do with sexism. People have a tendency to confuse gender dominance in statistics with sexism. Is it sexist that 90% of construction workers are male?

pickarooney

Would I be wrong in thinking that the majority of people in CEO positions are there because they started the companies of which they are CEOs?

jugger0

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh God not this old argument.. OK lets imagine you're correct. Even if you were, it wouldn't be men, it would be some men, actually quite a tiny number, most men in history were scrabbling about in the mud. It's not "Men" tm This argument is similar to the one bald men come out with as a comfort. "Sean connery is bald, therefore because I am, I = Sean". Eh no. You dont.

Obviously i dont mean every man... ridiculous to assume that i ment that. What im saying is men have built and invented pretty much everything in the entire world, thus it is a mans world. Men have always been the warriors,inventors,builders,thinkers and for the most part leaders. I dont see why this should change. If woman are capable and prove themselves to be equal to men in a certain field then thats grand, but under no circumstances should allowances be made for being female. Men are better at some things woman at others... we arent equal.. we are different but thats not a bad thing.

donfers

SarahBeep! wrote: »

90% of primary school teachers are women.

90% of primary school principals are men.

That speaks volumes IMO.

95% of all statistics are made up or manipulated by special interests groups to further their own cause

as for the man's world thing, care to define what that means?

politics - a lot of women just aren't interested despite the fact there is no legal impediment to them making a go of it at least in western democracies.......women vote for the many fcuking idiotic male politicans you see out there so they must share in the blame

popular culture - movie stars, directors and pop stars are mentioned here, again women have the right to pay for whatever music or movie they like, it is mainly women that have made millionaires out of the likes of westlife and justin bieber and led to the proliferation of garbage rom-coms out there, anyway there are many great female musicians and actresses out there but unfortunately there are far more fans of enrique iglesias out there than say joanna newsom, we must take responsibility for our choices/tastes rather than meekly claim some world brainwashing conspiracy has made us morons

education - not sure of the stats but just going on first-hand evidence, there should be a lot lot more female principals, in my experience they are generally excellent, as there should of course be more male primary school teachers

health - a lot more female qualified doctors these days

etc etc... really the argument is circular unless you define

a) what a man's world means

b) do you support it

c) what affect it has on you

and

d) if you are implying that it is part of some comspiracy to suppress women (which is completely missing the point in my view)

this debate or something similarily themed comes up in thread quite frequently and I feel that rather than targeting men in general any criticism should be focused on the small superclass that actually make the decisions that impact on our lives (the majority of the superclass are men but that is irrelevant as the powerbase, no matter what gender they are, will always make decisions to maintain their hegemony and make money)

They're delighted that we're all down here blaming each other, getting angry at one another and losing the cool while they get away with murder, just keep splashing the cash to make yourselves feel good or better or more successful than the other and keep choosing the wrong targets for your aggression and keep shopping till you drop and paying to see bad movies and buying the music you see on the billboards and fearing wearing or liking something that hasn't been marketed or advertised evrywhere you look and most of all when it ultimately leaves you unfulfilled blame each other and not them

off-topic to cut a long story short, I would choose more focused attacks on those who actually are respopnsible for the so-called man's world

I would suggest it's not a man's world but a "capitalist superclass" world the majority of whom happen to be men but whose decisions are rarely related to suppressing women but suppressing all of us

Nolanger

_JOE_ wrote: »

To further clarify your query Nolanger, Professor Martha Lauzen of San Diego State University found that only 9% of Hollywood directors in 2008 were women...

and 90% of their films were SH*TE!

The Agogo

krudler wrote: »

About the "more TD's are men" thing, given the state they got the country into its probably one thing women are glad they had no part in :pac:

Mary Coughlan - Tanáiste (effectively 2nd in command)

Mary Harney - Health Minister (destroyed health system)


Two women who had major input into the current economic disaster.

seenitall

The Agogo wrote: »

Mary Coughlan - Tanáiste (effectively 2nd in command)

Mary Harney - Health Minister (destroyed health system)


Two women who had major input into the current economic disaster.

Tanaiste 2nd in command? Yeah right! :rolleyes:

The office is analogous to the Vice President in the US. Second in command chronologically (should Taoiseach be incapacitated unexpectedly), in which case she would be replaced post haste anyway, and otherwise good only for deputising for the Man, natch. No power of making executive decisions whatsoever.

PeakOutput

pickarooney wrote: »

Would I be wrong in thinking that the majority of people in CEO positions are there because they started the companies of which they are CEOs?

yes you would be, particularly for large companies like the ones in the fortune 500