Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

smash

I cook every night. Then at least I know what I'm eating and that it will taste good!

Bipolar Joe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see no reason why an adult should be financially supported by another adult simply because they had been married. Gender doesn't come into it.

I do think if one partner removed themselves from the job market to raise the children - and I know both men and women who have done this - thereby negatively impacting on their career/income prospects then that should be factored in to any final settlement.

Where both partners worked - any joint property should be split 50/50 - as should custody of children. If they wish to come to a different, private arrangement that is a matter for individuals.

However - may I say this one last time - my point is women can and do pay alimony in Ireland.

[Large intake of breath]......

I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN'T!

Bigtoe107

smash wrote: »

I cook every night. Then at least I know what I'm eating and that it will taste good!

To the surprise of many an aunt, I love cooking. Why have somebody make something how they think you like it, when you can make it exactly how you like it!

Morag

token101 wrote: »

Not always, but usually. If you look at all the top companies in the world; their founders are almost always men. Facebook, Microsoft, Nike, Adidas, Apple, etc,etc. All white males. So it would make sense to have a majority of white male CEOs in the Fortune 500s and the likes. But let's not let sense get in the way.

Well then it's time to question why it seems that only white males get the backing and loans they need to create companies.

WindSock

Why do so many people critique feminism as a having your cake and eating it ideology. Is what I wonder.

Always the same lines get trotted out...equality for some etc when I have not read one single post ever on boards from someone who believes women should get a larger slice of the cake than men.

In fact the whole parental leave issue is fairly counteractive to the sort of feminism I am aware of. Yet there are always people chanting and baying about it and fathers rights as if it is entirely the feminists fault.

And throw in a 20 year old Diet Coke ad for good measure.

Also, wtf is has the marriage proposal analogy got to do with equality, I really don't know. This is the kind of ridiculousness that makes sexism a difficult topic to discuss rationally.

catthinkin

token101 wrote: »

catthinkin wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

If that's true, and I'd doubt it, maybe there just aren't enough capable women in the other 97%? Maybe the guy was just better? It shouldn't be about quotas, it should be about who's best in every walk of life.


http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2009/12/women_ceo_why_so_few.html

taking the words of another poster as i wouldnt be so patrionising myself i would encourage you to read this

Says 7.4% overall here

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-01-01-women-ceos-increase_N.htm

Still woefull when there is at least as many woman on the planet as men .

Scanlas The 2nd

Sharrow wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

Not always, but usually. If you look at all the top companies in the world; their founders are almost always men. Facebook, Microsoft, Nike, Adidas, Apple, etc,etc. All white males. So it would make sense to have a majority of white male CEOs in the Fortune 500s and the likes. But let's not let sense get in the way.

Well then it's time to question why it seems that only white males get the backing and loans they need to create companies.

My initial reaction was you are joking and I laughed. Now I think you are serious.

If serious; has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe more men start businesses because men and women are different. Maybe men enjoy taking risks more and want power and financial success more than women; do you think that is a possible explanation for greater numbers of male entrepreneurs.

token101

Sharrow wrote: »

Well then it's time to question why it seems that only white males get the backing and loans they need to create companies.

Or question why women don't come up with winning concepts?

token101

catthinkin wrote: »

Still woefull when there is at least as many woman on the planet as men .

Not really. There are far less female entrepreneurs around so it would make a bit of sense. As has been said, the majority of the major corporations were started by men. White men too. And the ones that weren't have female CEOs/bosses, like Rachel Elener, Deborah Meaden, Darina Allen, Nigella, Delia, your one from Jimmy Choo. They've all done alright from their 'gender roles'

foxyboxer

WindSock wrote: »

Why do so many people critique feminism as a having your cake and eating it ideology. Is what I wonder.

Always the same lines get trotted out...equality for some etc when I have not read one single post ever on boards from someone who believes women should get a larger slice of the cake than men.

What is the cake here?

Money, power??

Morag

They do but if you were looking at investing in a company and the person behind it is a woman all the same sexist reasons crop up and most men won't that that risk and that gamble.

Also with women expected to spend X amount of time on appearance and doing more then 50% of domestic chores even if both partners are working and working the same amount of hours, plus caring for family members gets left usually to women.

Women's time is not as respected or seen as valuable as men's, so men get to thinker and invent more and were women have been able to do so, they just have never gotten the same sort of backing.

Feeona

Thread about sexism about men=that's terrible, what can be done about it? (from both genders)

Thread about sexism against women=what are you talking about? get back in the kitchen. (from an extremely vocal minority)

It seems that it's not difficult to talk about sexism against men. Rather that it's difficult to talk about sexism against women.

jaja321

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Give me examples of ways women are still discriminated against and ways that you propose to change it. I'm not just going to take you at your word. As I see it the pendulum has started swinging the other way, which is what I see as the main problem people have with feminism

Didn't you say though in the previous thread on Male Feminists that if a woman aged between 25-40 and an equally qualified man go for a job, then the man should be given the job, because the woman may go on maternity leave?! I am absolutely aware that in applying for jobs that I may be passed up for a position because of the fact that I'm of 'baby-making age' (whether or not I want children doesn't even come into it) I can be discriminated against because I'm a woman in the age group you mentioned. That's not equal opportunity. I really feel that we should have parental leave so that parents can decide between them who should take the leave, or even share the leave so that a) women aren't discriminated against in this way and b) so that men have the opportunity to spend more quality time with their children when they are really young, which I believe is really important. I think its unfair and discriminatory that they don't have the same opportunity to do so currently.

catthinkin

smash wrote: »

That's really an article about fashion. It has nothing to do with someone capabilities. If a woman doesn't get a job as a CEO it's not because of what she's wearing. It's because the person who will make the company the most profit will get the job!

That article is rubbish to be honest.

fashion only in the last line does it mention what a woman ceo wears might be more newsworthy than what she does. i think you dismiss it because it dosnt help support the theory there is no glass ceiling for woman .

Bipolar Joe

Feeona wrote: »

Thread about sexism about men=that's terrible, what can be done about it? (from both genders)

Thread about sexism against women=what are you talking about? get back in the kitchen. (from an extremely vocal minority)

It seems that it's not difficult to talk about sexism against men. Rather that it's difficult to talk about sexism against women.

That's sexist.

Micky Dolenz

token101 wrote: »

Or question why women don't come up with winning concepts?

Mod
Please don't post in this thread again,As per opening post. Not liking the tone of your other posts much either.

PM for clarification.

Feeona

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

That's sexist.

I agree!

Bipolar Joe

Feeona wrote: »

I agree!

I like you. You're just the correct amount of facetious for a woman.

Feeona

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I like you. You're just the correct amount of facetious for a woman.

So (reading between the lines) if I were a man I'd have my block knocked off by now? :pac:

Bipolar Joe

Feeona wrote: »

So (reading between the lines) if I were a man I'd have my block knocked off by now? :pac:

No, I'm short and weak, so even if I could reach your block I don't have the physical strength to knock it off. But you are funny.

Bipolar Joe

See? The genders can get along. Fuck you, social convention.

catthinkin

.Women CEOs: Why So Few?
3:00 PM Monday December 21, 2009
by Herminia Ibarra and Morten T. Hansen | Comments (43)

FEATURED PRODUCTS
Leadership That Gets Results
by Daniel Goleman
$6.95
Buy it now » Nine Things Successful People Do Differently
by Heidi Halvorson
$3.99
Buy it now » EmailShare PrintEditor's note: Check out the Top 100 CEOs slideshow created by these authors

Nancy McKinstry, CEO of Wolters Kluwer, a Dutch publishing and information company, recalled holding a strategy meeting in which the press in Holland wrote that she wore a suit that was the same color as the KLM flight attendants'. As she told the New York Times recently, "Here we were talking about the plans for the business and that's what they focused on."

In spite of progress in the past decade, women still face tougher odds getting to — and staying in — the C-suite.

When we studied the leadership of 2,000 of the world's top performing companies, we found only 29 (1.5%) of those CEOs were women, an even smaller percentage than on the Fortune 500 Global list (2.6%). So it should not come as a surprise that only one woman, Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, made it to the top 100 of our rankings.

One notable difference between the men and women CEOs on our list suggests that women still aren't treated as equals to men when it comes to high stakes positions: Women CEOs were nearly twice as likely as men to have been appointed to the job from outside the company — even though our analysis clearly shows that inside-CEO candidates perform better over time, presumably because long-term growth depends on deep industry- and firm-specific knowledge. Do top women have to go outside to move up? Our results suggest women are less likely to emerge as winners in their own companies' internal CEO tournament.

Remarkably, this paltry showing by females actually represents some progress. A decade ago only three women headed large public companies in the US; today 15 make the Fortune 500 list. With many of today's female chief executives of public companies appointed only in the last few years, women have had little time to build their legacies. Of our list of 29, 19 of the women were appointed on or after 2002.

A common explanation for so few women reaching the top is the "glass cliff" theory, whereby women are more likely than men to be appointed to top jobs in poorly performing companies. This was not true in our data: women were no more likely than men to be named CEO in times of tumbling share prices. Moreover, the best performers in our study, male and female, were precisely those who took over troubled firms. Witness Kate Swann, who achieved an impressive turnaround of WH Smith by focusing the troubled bookseller on airport and railway stores.

Another explanation is that women senior executives are still more likely to be concentrated in consumer goods and media, industries that have been open to women managers longer than, say, technology and science-based firms. Apart from Whitman, no other woman CEOs on our list came in on the ground floor of a high-tech, bio-tech or internet company — companies that tend to be smaller than their industrial counterparts, and therefore have more upside potential.

Even those women who do make it to the top spot — from an outsider status — face additional market and media scrutiny. A study by Darden professor Erica James, reported in Strategic Management Journal found that stock in a company drops after the announcement of a female CEO, but not after that of a male CEO, and that this effect was stronger for outsider CEO women. James also found that journalists reference gender more when writing about newly-appointed women executives than when writing about men. Visibility for women leaders is problematic in a way it's not for men, as McKinstry's "KLM suit" episode illustrates. Visibility can help a CEO get focus on his or her leadership, but when male CEOs talk strategy, it's fair to say no one's thinking instead about what he's wearing.


the article about fashion apparently ?

Scruffles

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Actually, let's look at that again...

Hmmm, 26 women polled wanted their man to propose - 26.

It should surely go without saying but that doesn't equal 75% of "women" - it doesn't even constitute 75% of women who post in AH....nor does such a pathetic number give anything close to grounds for dismissal of every topic and subject where folks are "wanting equality"...I think it's precisely this kind of sweeping dismissal based on such ridiculous points that causes some of the issues.

agreed!
am female and never posted in that thread nor any other thread remotely connected to romance/relationships due to being asexual.
that vote or thread doesnt represent a gender overall nor AH-and who is to say users voting as female,are actualy female given the over the top sockpuppetry from some? itd be easy enough for someone to manipulate a vote in that respect to cause trouble and put opposers off or to backup their biased view.
-one idea...make everyone who voted as a female back up their claim by giving staff a new photo of themselves holding a sign with their username and date,have got a feeling that the amount of females on the poll woud suddenly drop.

Bannasidhe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

[Large intake of breath]......

I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN'T!

post #107

Bipolar Joe

It's the idea of "Pink 'n' Mix" equal rights, like "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

or something.

You did actually...

and there is no need to shout. I was responding to hondasam's comment (which was why I quoted it) - not your original post #107.

Eric Cartman

sexism could never be a topic talked about in a rational way on boards because you have a variety of issues.

1) any man or woman who tries to root for the other side will be shouted down and dismissed

2) a lot of people on both sides use arguing tactics like playing the victim card, claiming bullying because multiple people disagree or throw around the words 'chauvanist' or 'feminazi' which sends people off on a mad one.

3) a lot of people deep down do think the other gender is inferior, even if they dont care to admit it.

4) the only way to really discuss gender issues is to use stereotypes as you cant speak for 100% of a group, but theres always some smart cúnt wholl scream the house down about stereotypes and strawmen arguments that crash the debate into the ground.

im guilty of some of the above, but meh Im just having a laugh really, its a touchy subject, especially since a lot of it took place on valentines day when the more bitter single members of boards would have nothing better to do that insult men and women all night

Dudess

I like Valentine's Day - brings out niceness in people.

Saying people cry bullying or get irrational on these discussions simply "because they are disagreed with" is lazy, disingenuous and basically a lie. And is being a dick - as prohibited by the charter.

It's not the mere disagreement - it's the way it's done. Millicent was told she hadn't posted any cogent arguments despite doing nothing else - now THAT was an example of someone getting butt-hurt because of being disagreed with.

Bipolar Joe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

post #107



You did actually...

and there is no need to shout. I was responding to hondasam's comment (which was why I quoted it) - not your original post #107.

No, if I'd have said that it would have read "Women do not pay alimony." Do you practice?

Bannasidhe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

No, if I'd have said that it would have read "Women do not pay alimony." Do you practice?

How is that different from "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

?

Morag

I think many people live thier lives with gender blinkers on.
If they or someone close to them hasn't experienced it or has and hasn't spoken to them about it then it doesn't happen.

I think that it is skewed by how we as society value younger women.
Young lads grow up and it's the young pretty girls who seem to have all the power and attensions and they don't see the pressure that those young women are under to conform to certain standards, they just see them getting into clubs easier ect.

And then when the move into the next stages of thier lives the 'wedding' is all about the brides rather then the couple and then women seem to hold all the cards when it comes to having children.

Unless a young lad is reared to be aware of the issues that impact on women, by his parents and family most of them just don't get, don't see it and never take the time to take of the 'blinkers' as that is how life is as far as they are concerned and anyone who contradicts what world view is bonkers. There are young women who are reared this way to but eventually life and sociteties issues with women do catch up with her.

This makes it very hard to challenge people's ideas.
If they don't have the experience of it, most will believe the rhetoric which they have been reared with and never question it, as finding out the world is more fúcked up then they tought can be hard to deal with.

I know a few men and women who when they groked what goes on, were so very angry that it happens and keeps happening and get frustrated with why more isn't done to change things, so when they go and try and to enguage on the topic they don't come off the best and get frustrated by those who don't get it and can't understand it, as they have no context.

Yes young men in society face pressures which young women don't and vice verse both need to be supported and change made to happen but you'll not make an ally out of a feminist by demanding she fight on your behalf why saying she has nothing left to fight for as she has already decided she does by becoming a feminist.

My Dad would call himself a feminist and he is, my brother not so much he sees being a feminist as being normal and part of who he was reared as much as he's Irish. It would be nice if that was the case for all of us but we are not there yet.

Bipolar Joe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is that different from "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

?

Holy sh!t......

It's different because one is a mindset, something a group of people could want. The other is a statement put forth as fact.