A Womans Place - The search for Equality.

ferdi

ok before i'm shot let me say i'm not a big sexist bastard (a big sexy bastard maybe )

Most of the prominent areas of life are male dominated - Politics, Business, Music, Sport etc. Why?

I dont know the answer but I can only really think of three possibilities - Constructed(1), Natural(2) or Illusionary(3).

Argument 1: We live in a patriarchal world in which men opress and objectify women through constrictive social devices.

Argument 2: The natural state of the Female sex is a more passive one than the Male.

Argument 3: These so called prominent areas of life are not, in reality, important and women infact carry the most significant roles in our society.


This thread has probably been done to death but alas, no search function.

Zombrex

ferdi wrote:

ok before i'm shot let me say i'm not a big sexist bastard (a big sexy bastard maybe )

Most of the prominent areas of life are male dominated - Politics, Business, Music, Sport etc. Why?

I dont know the answer but I can only really think of three possibilities - Constructed(1), Natural(2) or Illusionary(3).

Argument 1: We live in a patriarchal world in which men opress and objectify women through constrictive social devices.

Argument 2: The natural state of the Female sex is a more passive one than the Male.

Argument 3: These so called prominent areas of life are not, in reality, important and women infact carry the most significant roles in our society.


This thread has probably been done to death but alas, no search function.

The first one because of the second one ...

patchouli

Is this for an essay / thesis ?

ferdi

patchouli wrote:

Is this for an essay / thesis ?

na, just for sh!ts and giggles:)

AARRRGH

Do you ever notice how many "middle managers" are female? Lots!

I think women are beginning to get the upper hand...

simu

Nah, it's pretty sweet being a woman... now Spock's much harder to find. o_O

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Do you ever notice how many "middle managers" are female?

More than men or just "lots"?

:rolleyes:

Eoin

ferdi wrote:

Most of the prominent areas of life are male dominated - Politics, Business, Music, Sport etc. Why?

Music: do you mean artists or in the business end of it? I really can't think of a reason why male artists would be more popular than female artists - I would think this is very much an equal opportunity area. However, I would think that 99% of my music collection is of make artists. Don't know why that is, I would hope it's not for any negative reasons... If you mean the production side of things, then I guess that falls under the business topic.

Sports: I hate to say it, but men are generally better at sports. I prefer to watch womens' tennis, but for the reason that they can't hit the ball as hard (Williams sisters not included), and therefore there are more rallies etc.

Politics: This is definitely changing, women from the grassroots are coming up through the parties and beginning to take a much larger part in politics. However, due to the nature of the beast this can take a while before it is noticed at higher levels. I hope it is just a matter of time before women take up 50% of the government as they are representing 50% of the population. My only problem would be positive discrimination or quota filling. I genuinely don't like this concept, because IMO the first thing it tells a woman (for this example) is that the primary reason they got the position was because she is a woman. This could lead to the woman having to prove herself even more.

Business: Same as above I think. Again, though this can't happen immediately. It has to happen from the lower levels first and filter upwards.

dublindude wrote:

Do you ever notice how many "middle managers" are female? Lots!

I think women are beginning to get the upper hand...

This is definitely on the increase in IT from my experience. I am trying to find some backup links for this, but according to a lady at work who used to work in HR, the vast majority of complaints about bullying at work were made against women by other women.

One reason you didn't mention is that men are generally more aggressive. This is normally demonstrated by crime statistics, however the notion that men are more inventive / more prone to exploration could also be explained by this.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

One reason you didn't mention is that men are generally more aggressive. This is normally demonstrated by crime statistics, however the notion that men are more inventive / more prone to exploration could also be explained by this.

I don't know if men are more "inventive" than women ( you would have to define inventive first) but I certainly find a lotwomen just don't get computers and programming. I don't mean they can't use a computer but they don't seem as interested in making a computer work, programming it and making it tick. To me it goes back to the toys for big boys thing, men seem to just like playing around with electronic stuff (or stuff in general) more than women. The vast majority of women I meet in IT do it as a job not cause they like "nerdy" things (not always true, I know a few nerdy women)

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

I don't know if men are more "inventive" than women ( you would have to define inventive first)

By inventing, I meant the broad area of innovation and invention. Some people would contend that men are more prone to looking outside his boundaries or comfort zone, i.e. one of the (few?) positive outcomes of testosterone.

Wicknight wrote:

but I certainly find a lotwomen just don't get computers and programming. I don't mean they can't use a computer but they don't seem as interested in making a computer work, programming it and making it tick. To me it goes back to the toys for big boys thing, men seem to just like playing around with electronic stuff (or stuff in general) more than women. The vast majority of women I meet in IT do it as a job not cause they like "nerdy" things (not always true, I know a few nerdy women)

I certainly wouldn't class an interest or ability in computers as "toys for boys", that is quite a derogatory intepretation of it in my opinion. I think the toys for boys phrase applies more to useless gadgets to make themselves look more important / affluent etc.

I think the notion that men are naturally better at programming could boil down to the stereotype that men are better at the logic side of things, where women are better at the creative / softer skill areas. The whole right/left side of the brain thing (can't remember which side corresponds to logic/creativity).

I am not too sure if this is the case for other people, but I have to say that in general, the best programmers / computer people I have met are men - and with that, I honestly don't believe that there is ANY sexism involved at this level of the industry (i.e. anyone who is not in management). I believe that women have as much chance of learning IT in college, and from there, gain employment.

simu

Well, women were screwed over for a very long time and until very recently (and still are in many parts of the world) - getting to a fairer balance of power takes time.

I'm wary of people saying that, say, men are better at job X than women and so on, because if you look at other countries or times, you see completely different qualities and aptitudes being ascribed to both sexes. Or in brief, there are a lot of cultural biases out there!

Eoin

simu wrote:

Well, women were screwed over for a very long time and until very recently (and still are in many parts of the world) - getting to a fairer balance of power takes time.

Very true, and I think that women have to give it time, rather than insist on equality through positive discimination.

simu wrote:

I'm wary of people saying that, say, men are better at job X than women and so on, because if you look at other countries or times, you see completely different qualities and aptitudes being ascribed to both sexes. Or in brief, there are a lot of cultural biases out there!

Yes, I am wary of doing the same, and most the comments I made earlier are only meant to refer to my personal experience. However, there are differences between men and women, which can make one gender more suitable for a job than another. Not all of these differences are perpetuated through cultural baises either, they are just basic physiological differences.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

I think the toys for boys phrase applies more to useless gadgets to make themselves look more important / affluent etc.

Which alot of people would classify computers under ... I mean I get as excited as the next guy when a new Gnome version is release, but do I really need it? Nope. Is it great fun downloading and install it? Yup. My love for computers doesn't come from the fact that some computers actually perform useful purposes, it comes from playing around with them, even in a completely useless fashion.

eoin_s wrote:

I think the notion that men are naturally better at programming could boil down to the stereotype that men are better at the logic side of things, where women are better at the creative / softer skill areas. The whole right/left side of the brain thing (can't remember which side corresponds to logic/creativity).

I don't think men are naturally better at programming, but they are naturally more interested in programming (see above) which is more important in my mind. Some of the best computer programmers in the world have been women (including some of the first) but still u don't see women entering the field, not cause they are crap at it but because they are simply not interested in it.

eoin_s wrote:

I am not too sure if this is the case for other people, but I have to say that in general, the best programmers / computer people I have met are men

Well that is kinda cyclical logic since there are not that many women programmers. But if you look at world reknowned programmers, the ones that have actually made a difference, a lot have been women. So i don't think it is fair to say women are crap programmers, only that women on a whole don't seem to be interested in programming. The ones that are tend to excel.

simu

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think men are naturally better at programming, but they are naturally more interested in programming (see above) which is more important in my mind. Some of the best computer programmers in the world have been women (including some of the first) but still u don't see women entering the field, not cause they are crap at it but because they are simply not interested in it.

I think many women just don't see themselves as programmers. If there was a Sex and the City type programme where one of the really glamorous women was a programmer, that might change!

savoyard

ferdi wrote:

Argument 1: We live in a patriarchal world in which men opress and objectify women through constrictive social devices.

Considering women only got the vote in 1918 in Ireland (1973 in Switzerland:eek: ) and that in Ireland for example, a marriage bar in the civil service was in existence until the early seventies (where women had to stop working on marriage) it's not surprising women don't dominate working life. What is amazing is how fast things have been moving. It's only in the last century that we've been allowed go to university. I think its fair to say women have been opressed and objectified through social devices.

The Irish constution even states (article 41)
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Recognising the work of women or tying them to the kitchen sink?

ferdi wrote:

Argument 2: The natural state of the Female sex is a more passive one than the Male.

Passive in what way? Less violent? Less pushy? Violence by women is becoming more and more prevalent. I know as many passive men in the workplace as women.

ferdi wrote:

Argument 3: These so called prominent areas of life are not, in reality, important and women infact carry the most significant roles in our society.

"Women's work" has always been devalued.

Women, by and large, have been confined to the home or the caring professions for years.

There simply hasn't been enough time to figure out if gender differences in all areas are due to opression or ability.

It's been a man's world for centuries, give us a chance to catch up:)

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think men are naturally better at programming, but they are naturally more interested in programming (see above) which is more important in my mind. Some of the best computer programmers in the world have been women (including some of the first) but still u don't see women entering the field, not cause they are crap at it but because they are simply not interested in it.

Yes, some of the first and best programmers have been women. I am not debating that. I also not saying that there are no good female programmers at all (see your comment in bold below). What I am saying is that there seems to be some proof that men - in general - have better ability to process logic, and this makes it easier for them to be programmers.

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is kinda cyclical logic since there are not that many women programmers. But if you look at world reknowned programmers, the ones that have actually made a difference, a lot have been women. So i don't think it is fair to say women are crap programmers, only that women on a whole don't seem to be interested in programming. The ones that are tend to excel.

I don't think it's fair to say that either, that's why I didn't.

U$ername

I am and will always be sexist.

Which was first: a male nurse or a female doctor?

Nevyn

There have always been male nurses in armies and feild hospitals.

U$ername

So men were nurses first? Why are there more female nurses than male nurses now? Or actually since you brought it up why isnt the male/female ratio of soldiers 50/50?

Zombrex

U$ername wrote:

So men were nurses first? Why are there more female nurses than male nurses now? Or actually since you brought it up why isnt the male/female ratio of soldiers 50/50?

Cause traditionally women were not allowed in modern armies. When they are needed (WW2) or allowed (1981 I think in Ireland) they flooded into the army. But just like male nurses their exists a stereotype that men/women are not suited to this type of work. Which is kinda silly in my view, a person is either good at something or not, their gender has very little to do with that.

Nevyn

Orders of nursing nuns and Florence Nightingale. They made the job respectable.
Up until then a lot of female nurses were the lowest of the low and usual whore that were too old to ply thier trade and were usually drunkards.

Basically the two world wars were great for getting women out and working.
From farmerettes, reporters, working in factories for the war effort during WW1
To WRACs and all the roles woman took up during WW2.

While each war effort got women out working in what was seen as nontraditional roles, but once the war was over and Johnny came home from war Rosie was expected to hand over the rivet gun and go back to tending house.

Yes there were the execption before the during this time usually women who had enough money to never need to marry or had staff to clean her house and mind her children and a husband that did not mind her odd ways.

Not much difference really as things is today.
If you have the money to pay someone to do your womanly duties,
A nanny/childminder/creche and a cleaner you can have children and still
Pursue a career. Which is why a lot of women are choosing not to or are putting off having kids?

How many women even if they don't have kids even if they are in a relationship where they have a higher profile and earn more then the man in thier life still are the on who has to clean the toilet ?

Yes there are jobs that are seen as unfeminine. I have a friend who is a garda
And it is mad the amount of men who are uncomfortable with that.
Any women who is for the most part in a job or a career that is considered
Masculine is seen as less a woman.

Hell when I was in college there was still the notion that the girls doing
Engineering were looking more for there Mrs. then thier BA. That there would
End up marrying a classmate and have kids and ever use thier qualification
And so were wasting a college place that a bloke could have to get a qualification to get a good job to feed his family. This was the attitude from 2 of the lecturers and a lot of the male students and that is less then 10 years ago.

Yes there has been a lot of work towards breaking down gender stereotypes for jobs and careers but there are still a lot of girls out there that are starting secondary school and the likes of Tec graphics and woodwork and engineering are not available in thier School and the sciences and applied maths and physics are seen as 'boys' subjects.
If they don’t have the subjects at junior cert and leaving cert level they will not have the option to a lot of the courses at college level or to even take up an apprenticeship.

It is surprising how girl children see the world around them. I have a 5 year old daughter and while getting on a bus with her she remarked ‘oh look a lady bus driver is the bus driver sick and she is driving the bus for him? ’ Que a chat from the ‘lady’ bus driver explaining that this is her bus and girls can be bus drivers just as good as the men and sometimes better. This is how she saw things and this is with me consciously as a currently full time mother trying to make sure that both my children see that people can be nearly anything they wish so that they don’t get locked into genderised perceptions of what is men’s work and what is women’s work.

As for why are there not a lot of female programmers; yes we need to give children all the options why want and blow away all the gender streaming thinking that is out there
But end of the day men and women are physically different (you may have noticed that  ). Men are usually better and one type of thing and women at another.
Personally I think it is the single minded focus that men can have compared to women’s multitasking that tends make them better programmers.

The same obsessive pursuit that men applied as hunters being used in the pursuit of a single programming goal. Plus men can put in the 18 hour day for they are in a relationship not usually the default person that has to pick up the kids and tend to them after work or stay at home when the kids are sick or care for elderly relatives.

I dont think that is is possible for true equaltiy to happen with out tearing soicety part; but we can endeavour not to limit our children and give them
equal oppertunites to education of all types.

Little boys will tend play with cars and little girls tend to play with dolls;
but they should both be afforded the chance to play with both and they should all be allowed to play with lego and crayons.

Stark

Thaedydal wrote:

Little boys will tend play with cars and little girls tend to play with dolls;
but they should both be afforded the chance to play with both and they should all be allowed to play with lego and crayons.

Generally if you put very young boys and very young girls in a room with lots of toys, the boys will take the "boy" toys and the girls will take the "girl" toys. Like you said in the post, there is a very real difference between boys and girls that you can't ignore.

Thaedydal wrote:

Men are usually better and one type of thing and women at another. Personally I think it is the single minded focus that men can have compared to women’s multitasking that tends make them better programmers.

This is pretty much the reason why men tend to be much better at mathematics. Maths requires a person to single-mindedly obsess over a problem for long stretches.

Passive in what way? Less violent? Less pushy? Violence by women is becoming more and more prevalent. I know as many passive men in the workplace as women.

For years women tended to be more modest and less pushy than men in the workplace. Men tended to put their hands up for promotion whereas women kept their heads down. Many companies now have "women in work" programs which are changing all that by teaching women techniques to get ahead.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

More than men or just "lots"?

:rolleyes:

LOL, you really are a glass half empty person, aren't you?

PS Stop stalking me and my posts

U$ername

I fail to see how there really is an equality issue any more. Perhaps im not so sexist, more anti-feminist. The reality of the situation is that men or women can now do whatever job they want. However some jobs are just better suited to males or females exclusively.

Im just guessing that after thousands of years of evolution peoples sex has decided which roles they are better suited to. Every daughter was her mothers apprentice, just as every son was his fathers. Who knows? Methinks some thought that a vote for women would put more women in government as opposed to allowing women to vote on the issues rather than the elected representatives.

Im just wondering is there anything directly wrong with the way things are? Equality was found when people realised that aiming at someone elses goalposts may not be the way to go.

savoyard

U$ername wrote:

I fail to see how there really is an equality issue any more.

Im just wondering is there anything directly wrong with the way things are?

Women are underrepresented in almost every part of public life. Political life, business life - it's only now that we are breaking through. The world is run by white men and yes, things do have to change. Female dominated professions tend to be lower paid than men. To reach the top in business, women have to give up the idea of having a family. Look at the top CEOs in the US. For a start, women are in a minority. The second striking thing is while top male ceos generally have a family, the same is not true for female ceos. We still have to make the family or career choice: men don't.

In cultural life also, women are certainly not treated as equals. You only have to read a few posts on this forum to realise that double standards in sexual matters is rampant among young Irish males, that women are judged, for one, on how thin they they are. Good looking women are thick and bitchy - it's only the ugliers ones that have a personality.

Equality is now enshrined in law, but attitudes have still a long way to go. Women in Ireland earn 84% of men's wages. Women in Ireland are still being (illegally) made redundant when they get pregnant. I know male employers reluctant to hire women in their late twenties / early thirties for fear they'll get pregnant (even through it is the State, not them, that pay statutory maternity leave). There is a lot of work to be done in figuring out how to mix pregnancy and work, but the women I work with do not want to give up their jobs forever just because they have children.

Women have been subjugated by men for centuries, mentally and phyically. For centuries we have been told we are too sensitve for important work, or even for study, that our brains couldn't cope with intellectual rigour. Now you're telling me that I'm naturally unable to be good at maths, that men are naturally better at being inventive and cutting edge. Bollocks - its just another way of hanging on to the status quo.

Things are changing, but they are certainly not there yet.

stark wrote:

Many companies now have "women in work" programs which are changing all that by teaching women techniques to get ahead.

Really? Can you name a company in Ireland that does this? I can honestly say I have never heard of one of these programmes, in the UK or Ireland. Neither have I heard any of my friends, who work in a variety of medium and large companies in Ireland and the UK mention these.

Dades

savoyard wrote:

Women are underrepresented in almost every part of public life. Political life, business life - it's only now that we are breaking through.

Do we know for a fact that there are as many women trying to be a part of political or public life? I would hazard a guess there are not. For the reason addressed in your next comment.

savoyard wrote:

To reach the top in business, women have to give up the idea of having a family. Look at the top CEOs in the US. For a start, women are in a minority. The second striking thing is while top male ceos generally have a family, the same is not true for female ceos. We still have to make the family or career choice: men don't.

Isn't this a fact of life? What can anyone do about this? Men can't have children. If a couple want children the woman has to have them. The only discrimination is evolutionary.

savoyard wrote:

I know male employers reluctant to hire women in their late twenties / early thirties for fear they'll get pregnant (even through it is the State, not them, that pay statutory maternity leave).

This also is a fact of life. Whether it's right or wrong it is a factor like any other an employer will consider when choosing a candidate. Short of having "blind" interviews where the age/gender of candidates is withheld it will always be there. (BTW the fear isn't a loss in wages, but in finding a replacement and retraining replacement staff).

savoyard wrote:

There is a lot of work to be done in figuring out how to mix pregnancy and work, but the women I work with do not want to give up their jobs forever just because they have children.

All I see on this thread is problems without solutions.
What exactly do you want the government/corporate sector to do?

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

LOL, you really are a glass half empty person, aren't you?

I will take that as a "I actually have no idea" ... :rolleyes:

bonkey

Stark wrote:

This is pretty much the reason why men tend to be much better at mathematics.

I thought that women were better at math, except where they grow up in societies which insist that men are better.

i.e. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy - enough people buy into the idea that their belief in it actually lends it truth.

For years, women were taught that they would not be and could not be as good as men at math. When they're not given this negative reinforcement, my understanding was that they turn out to be as good as, if not better than, men.

jc

Eoin

bonkey wrote:

I thought that women were better at math, except where they grow up in societies which insist that men are better.

i.e. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy - enough people buy into the idea that their belief in it actually lends it truth.

For years, women were taught that they would not be and could not be as good as men at math. When they're not given this negative reinforcement, my understanding was that they turn out to be as good as, if not better than, men.

jc

There are some skills that men are generally better at. As cliched as it sounds, men usually find map reading easier, have better spacial awareness and in general their minds seem to cope with programming constructs easier than women's do. (I don't know if maths is explicitly included with this or not).

There certainly are women who exceed in all of these areas, but we are speaking in generalities here

The Athiest wrote:

Do we know for a fact that there are as many women trying to be a part of political or public life? I would hazard a guess there are not.

Actually, according to some women on the radio, there are a good few women entering politics at the local level, and progressing up through the parties. Their experience was that, if anything, the fact that they are female assisted in their progress as there is a desire within these parties to become more balanced.

U$ername wrote:

I fail to see how there really is an equality issue any more. Perhaps im not so sexist, more anti-feminist.

I think you can be pro-equality even if you are anti-feminist.

Sleepy

savoyard wrote:

Women are underrepresented in almost every part of public life. Political life, business life - it's only now that we are breaking through. The world is run by white men and yes, things do have to change. Female dominated professions tend to be lower paid than men. To reach the top in business, women have to give up the idea of having a family. Look at the top CEOs in the US. For a start, women are in a minority. The second striking thing is while top male ceos generally have a family, the same is not true for female ceos. We still have to make the family or career choice: men don't.

And this inequality is men's/society's fault how exactly? It's biology which dictates that women have the children, nothing else.

In cultural life also, women are certainly not treated as equals. You only have to read a few posts on this forum to realise that double standards in sexual matters is rampant among young Irish males, that women are judged, for one, on how thin they they are. Good looking women are thick and bitchy - it's only the ugliers ones that have a personality.

And Darwinism should take care of this, as all the smart, good looking women with personalities will mate with the males who aren't sexist and don't have double standards. Or is this asking too much of women?

Equality is now enshrined in law, but attitudes have still a long way to go. Women in Ireland earn 84% of men's wages.

This is one statistic which still pisses me off. It's a complete nonsense statistic. By and large, men make more than women, yes. But to claim that this is inequality is complete horsecrap. In general, men make more than women because they get promoted higher, due to women's career choices: choosing to work in lower paid fields (e.g. childcare, HR, admin etc.); choosing to have children and put their career on hold for a while; choosing to work part-time or job-share to spend more time with their children etc. Show me a man and a woman doing the same job receiving different salaries and I'll take this statistic seriously. Until then, stop repeating it.

Women in Ireland are still being (illegally) made redundant when they get pregnant. I know male employers reluctant to hire women in their late twenties / early thirties for fear they'll get pregnant (even through it is the State, not them, that pay statutory maternity leave).

I know female employers reluctant to hire women in their late twenties / early thirtiesfor the same reason. It's illegal and immoral but let's be honest, it's good business.

There is a lot of work to be done in figuring out how to mix pregnancy and work, but the women I work with do not want to give up their jobs forever just because they have children.

Well, they'll have to either get jobs which can pay for childcare or earn enough to support a stay at home husband.

Women have been subjugated by men for centuries, mentally and phyically. For centuries we have been told we are too sensitve for important work, or even for study, that our brains couldn't cope with intellectual rigour. Now you're telling me that I'm naturally unable to be good at maths, that men are naturally better at being inventive and cutting edge. Bollocks - its just another way of hanging on to the status quo.

If it's what the research being conducted into the human psyche indicates, why do you feel that it's Bollocks? Are you as opposed to the research indicating that women are better multi-taskers than men are? If not, who's really the sexist here?

Things are changing, but they are certainly not there yet.

And what, other than time do you think can bring us there? Societal change will always take time, the framework has been already put in place so it's now just a matter of waiting for the changes to take effect. Look at the Law Society or Blackhall Place for example, both traditionally male dominated and both now teaching to classes that have a noticable female majority.

Really? Can you name a company in Ireland that does this? I can honestly say I have never heard of one of these programmes, in the UK or Ireland. Neither have I heard any of my friends, who work in a variety of medium and large companies in Ireland and the UK mention these.

I must admit, I've never seen one of these "women in the workplace" course either. I have seen "Personal Development" courses offered to staff by one of the major banks and the course was only attended by women so maybe this is the type of thign Stark is reffering to.

Sleepy

eoin_s wrote:

I think you can be pro-equality even if you are anti-feminist.

Since feminism is about furthering women's interests rathering than seeking equality it's very easy to be so. In fact, I believe any woman that was genuinely interested in equality should be anti-feminist.

ferdi

some very valid and challenging points there sleepy.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

In fact, I believe any woman that was genuinely interested in equality should be anti-feminist.

Only if you think "equality" means we should restrict one gender because the same [edit]services[/edit] might not exist for the other.

Its like saying women shouldn't campaign for another Brest Check clinic in Dublin, even if it is badly needed to save lives, because we already have far more BC clinics than testicular cancer clinics. So if men have to suffer so should women.

Or saying that men's football shouldn't be shown on television more than womens football, they should be shown an equal amount. If women can't see that much womens football (even if there isn't a market for it), then neither should men be allowed.

Both view points above in my mind are nonsense, and I am interested in equality and in feminism (i'm a man btw).

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

Only if you think "equality" means we should restrict one gender because the same [edit]services[/edit] might not exist for the other.

Its like saying women shouldn't campaign for another Brest Check clinic in Dublin, even if it is badly needed to save lives, because we already have far more BC clinics than testicular cancer clinics. So if men have to suffer so should women.

If a woman was interested in equality, then she may think it's a great idea to have another testicular cancer clinic because there aren't enough of them. A feminist probably wouldn't care as it doesn't further the feminist "cause".

savoyard

Sleepy wrote:

And this inequality is men's/society's fault how exactly? It's biology which dictates that women have the children, nothing else.

Pregnancy does not last for life - women generally take 6 months maternity leave and go back to work. Biology dicates we have children, but employers penalise us for having them. There are generally two people who have children: a man and a women. Why does the burden fall to the woman only? The long hours culture also contributes to this. As I said, it's changing: due in a large part to fathers who take equal part in caring for children.

Sleepy wrote:

This is one statistic which still pisses me off. It's a complete nonsense statistic. By and large, men make more than women, yes. But to claim that this is inequality is complete horsecrap. In general, men make more than women because they get promoted higher, due to women's career choices: choosing to work in lower paid fields (e.g. childcare, HR, admin etc.); choosing to have children and put their career on hold for a while; choosing to work part-time or job-share to spend more time with their children etc. Show me a man and a woman doing the same job receiving different salaries and I'll take this statistic seriously. Until then, stop repeating it.

The stats refer to full time jobs, not part time (the pay differential is 40% among part time workers). Neither does it refer to lifetime earnings, which would account for the time off for kinds. There's a far bigger differential in lifetime earnings. I agree the stat is affected by the fact that jobs that are dominated by women are generally lower paid, but on the whole it is a powerful indicator of inequality. It's not calculated and used by some mad cabal of feminists, but by the UN.

In addition, plenty of successful sex discrimination cases in the city in London attest to the fact that women get paid less for doing the same job. It's also interesting to look at the updates from jobfinder.com - they split salaries according to gender.

Sleepy wrote:

I know female employers reluctant to hire women in their late twenties / early thirtiesfor the same reason. It's illegal and immoral but let's be honest, it's good business.

And until it stops, we'll keep banging on about inequality. If society wants women to work (which it does to keep the economy going) it needs to take the fact that women get pregnant in account.

Sleepy wrote:

If it's what the research being conducted into the human psyche indicates, why do you feel that it's Bollocks? Are you as opposed to the research indicating that women are better multi-taskers than men are? If not, who's really the sexist here?

I'm not denying that there are biological differences between men and women. Nor have I seen research that says that the gender imbalance in science in maths is due wholly to the fact that women can't do maths and men can't speak languages.

Sleepy wrote:

Since feminism is about furthering women's interests rathering than seeking equality it's very easy to be so. In fact, I believe any woman that was genuinely interested in equality should be anti-feminist.

Rubbish. Feminism believes that the sexes should be equal socially, politically and economically. That's the overall aim of feminism - it's not about making women better, its about equal opportunities and outcomes. Of course there are some separatist feminists out there - but mainstream feminism has always been about equality for all.

Look, my post was just pointing out that inequality does still exist, and there is still a lot of work to be done. Things have gotten so much better for women, but to pretend that all the inequality has disappeared is delusional. As you point out, it is only time and changing attitudes that will change things. Personally, I believe that those with the real power to change things in the workplace are men, and this is happening.

As more women earn more that their partners, the decision on who is going to be the primary carer of children is based more on economics than gender. It's only recently that men have felt able to do this, and my personal belief is that as more and more men know they can play a full role in taking care of their children, more and more family friendly policies will be introduced into the workplace, making it easier for both men and women to balance worklife and childrearing.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

If a woman was interested in equality, then she may think it's a great idea to have another testicular cancer clinic because there aren't enough of them.

Find me a breast cancer campaigner, feminist or otherwise, who thinks testicular cancer clinics are a bad idea, then you might have a point.

eoin_s wrote:

A feminist probably wouldn't care as it doesn't further the feminist "cause".

Most people campaign for issues close to them. My grand mother died of breast cancer, and since then my family have been a bit involved in breast cancer campaigns, and more generally cancer campaigns. Most of the people running these campaigns do so because they have either had breast cancer or know someone who has. I would assume the same is true of testicular cancer campaigners.

To say a feminist would never care about someone with testicular cancer because they are by definition not a female, or that feminist woman would campaign for breast cancer clinic only further the feminist "cause" (what ever that is), is nonsense

Zombrex

savoyard wrote:

Rubbish. Feminism believes that the sexes should be equal socially, politically and economically. That's the overall aim of feminism - it's not about making women better, its about equal opportunities and outcomes.

Prepare to get a barrage of posts saying "Well if feminists really cared about equality they would spend at least half their time campaigning for male issues as well. Since you never hear about feminists movement for male issues they must only care about advancing the services for women and high-lighting the issues of women, even if they go past the current state of services provided to men"

Trying to explain the fundamental flaws in the logical of the above statement (and those like it) seems to be lost on most of the people on Boards who have a rather irrational view of feminists and the feminist movement.

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

Find me a breast cancer campaigner, feminist or otherwise, who thinks testicular cancer clinics are a bad idea, then you might have a point.
...
To say a feminist would never care about someone with testicular cancer because they are by definition not a female, or that feminist woman would campaign for breast cancer clinic only further the feminist "cause" (what ever that is), is nonsense

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that anyone would think it a bad idea, and certainly did not say that they wouldn't care about anyone with testicular cancer.

What I am trying to say (not very well) is that I would doubt that feminists would campaign in a situation where men's rights / health / whatever were at stake.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

I will take that as a "I actually have no idea" ... :rolleyes:

Again with the negative!

Come on, cheer up.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

What I am trying to say (not very well) is that I would doubt that feminists would campaign in a situation where men's rights / health / whatever were at stake.

Well not under the banner of feminism cause that wouldn't make sense.

You wouldn't stick the stamp of "feminist movement" on a campaign for men's health cause that would make as much sense as asking Greenpeace to campaign for breast cancer.

But there is nothing stopping a woman, who is a feminist (or an evironmentalist etc), also campaigning for other issues including mens health.

To assume that feminists don't care about men's health issues from the fact that there is no feminist lead campaign for testicular cancer makes about as much sense as saying that the members of Greenpeace don't care, or that the members of the HIV/AIDS foundations don't care, because there is no Greenpeace or Red Ribbion campaign for testicular cancer.

A person is more likely to campaign for something that is close to them. And people are limited to the amount of causes they can take up. Thats not a reflection they don't care. For a woman (I assume, I'm a dude) breast cancer is very close to them, and very scary. So naturally women are going campaign for it. Thats not to say they don't care about testicular cancer, but it isn't something that will directly effect them unless they know someone close who has it (like a husband, son or father). So with all the issues facing women, it would be unlikely that a woman would just randomly choice testicular cancer as something to campaign for.

The question people should be asking isn't "Why do feminists seem to care so little about testicular cancer?", but really "Why do men, who are directly effected by it, seem to care so little about testicular cancer?"

There is nothing to stop a testicular cancer campaign to rival the biggest breast cancer campaigns (certainly not feminists) yet it isn't happening. We have a rather juvenile ad campaign with yer one from S-Club 7, thats about it. The lack of interest from men in male health issues is, to me, far more worrying and frustrating than the lack of interest in male health issues from women.

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Again with the negative!

Come on, cheer up.

:eek:

... happy? :cool:

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

Well not under the banner of feminism cause that wouldn't make sense.

You wouldn't stick the stamp of "feminist movement" on a campaign for men's health cause that would make as much sense as asking Greenpeace to campaign for breast cancer.

But there is nothing stopping a woman, who is a feminist (or an evironmentalist etc), also campaigning for other issues including mens health.

To assume that feminists don't care about men's health issues from the fact that there is no feminist lead campaign for testicular cancer makes about as much sense as saying that the members of Greenpeace don't care, or that the members of the HIV/AIDS foundations don't care, because there is no Greenpeace or Red Ribbion campaign for testicular cancer.

You are talking about unrelated issues, but if the Red Ribbon organisation only campaigned for men with HIV/AIDS then I would be more likely to support an organisation who supported men and women. I believe that in 90% of cases, men and womens rights could be campaigned for together as they do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The Breast Cancer / Testicular cancer argument is probably a red herring in this case as they are sort of particular to men and women (although men can get breast cancer AFAIK).

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

You are talking about unrelated issues,

Testicular cancer and breast cancer are unrelated cancers, and issues. It just happens one effects mostly men and the other effects mostly women.

eoin_s wrote:

The Breast Cancer / Testicular cancer argument is probably a red herring in this case as they are sort of particular to men and women (although men can get breast cancer AFAIK).

Ok, well then what specifical campaings do feminists campaign for where both men and women are at a disadvantage but which feminists are attempting to only advance women at the expense of men?

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

Its like saying women shouldn't campaign for another Brest Check clinic in Dublin, even if it is badly needed to save lives, because we already have far more BC clinics than testicular cancer clinics. So if men have to suffer so should women.

My view is that everyone should be campaigning for more Breast Check Clinics in Dublin, not just women. It may be a disease that only women contract, but it effects us all as we all have wives, mothers, sisters and female friends. I don't think that there should be groups for one sex to try and achieve things at the other's expense.

Eoin

Sleepy wrote:

My view is that everyone should be campaigning for more Breast Check Clinics in Dublin, not just women. It may be a disease that only women contract, but it effects us all as we all have wives, mothers, sisters and female friends. I don't think that there should be groups for one sex to try and achieve things at the other's expense.

I think men can actually get it too, it just isn't covered all that often.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

My view is that everyone should be campaigning for more Breast Check Clinics in Dublin, not just women.

They are, I know of men (a lot actually) working on breast cancer campaigns in Dublin and Ireland. I also know of at least one woman working on a testicular cancer campaign in England (her husband died of it). And she would certainly consider herself a feminists, having been around in the 60s womens liberations campaigns.

As I have always said, it is a myth that women, who are feminists, don't also work on or at least care about other issues, including male health issues. It is a myth that feminists are only interested in issues directly effecting women, just as it is a myth that men don't want to understand and help in women's health issues. It is a myth that if you care about and work in male issue area you can't also be a feminists.

Sleepy

savoyard wrote:

Pregnancy does not last for life - women generally take 6 months maternity leave and go back to work. Biology dicates we have children, but employers penalise us for having them. There are generally two people who have children: a man and a women. Why does the burden fall to the woman only? The long hours culture also contributes to this. As I said, it's changing: due in a large part to fathers who take equal part in caring for children.

Those 6 months can be of massive inconvenience and expense to the employer so I can understand (if not condone) the thinking behind the practice. The simplest means of dealing with this issue imho is to bring in legislation granting new fathers paternity leave equal to the duration of current maternity leave.

The stats refer to full time jobs, not part time (the pay differential is 40% among part time workers). Neither does it refer to lifetime earnings, which would account for the time off for kinds. There's a far bigger differential in lifetime earnings. I agree the stat is affected by the fact that jobs that are dominated by women are generally lower paid, but on the whole it is a powerful indicator of inequality. It's not calculated and used by some mad cabal of feminists, but by the UN.

Regardless of who calculated it, it's one of those statistics that proves the old adage about lies, damned lies and statistics. Until you can show me a man and a woman of equal experience and skill earning different salaries I'm going to treat the stats as BS.

People choose their career paths in Ireland, we are extremely lucky to have cheap 3rd level education. If more men choose to make something of themselves than women is this inequality?

In addition, there's probably an impact on the salary levels due to maternity leave. Six months out of a job will have a negative impact on your performance when you return and while you'll return on the same salary as you left you won't be performing at your best for a while and this will probably impact on your next salary negotiation. Is this inequality?

It's not the 70's any more, if a woman is earning less than a man of equivalent experience and talent she can sue her employer and will win. Just as a man would if he were discriminated against in the same fashion.

In addition, plenty of successful sex discrimination cases in the city in London attest to the fact that women get paid less for doing the same job. It's also interesting to look at the updates from jobfinder.com - they split salaries according to gender.

And until it stops, we'll keep banging on about inequality. If society wants women to work (which it does to keep the economy going) it needs to take the fact that women get pregnant in account.

Since when is London part of Ireland? And as you attested to, the cases are successful. What more protection from discrimination do you want? The legislation is already there and employers will adhere to it if the courts do their job (which they seem to be doing).

Rubbish. Feminism believes that the sexes should be equal socially, politically and economically. That's the overall aim of feminism - it's not about making women better, its about equal opportunities and outcomes. Of course there are some separatist feminists out there - but mainstream feminism has always been about equality for all.

Then why isn't it called humanism? Why were men kicked out of the original feminist movements? Why just deal with one side of the inequalities that exist? Equality for all cannot be achieved by only fighting for the rights of half the population.

Look, my post was just pointing out that inequality does still exist, and there is still a lot of work to be done. Things have gotten so much better for women, but to pretend that all the inequality has disappeared is delusional. As you point out, it is only time and changing attitudes that will change things. Personally, I believe that those with the real power to change things in the workplace are men, and this is happening.

I honestly cannot think of one area where women are legally able to be discriminated against. Sure, some examples still exist of individuals being discriminated against but these individuals have the benefit of legal recourse.

As more women earn more that their partners, the decision on who is going to be the primary carer of children is based more on economics than gender. It's only recently that men have felt able to do this, and my personal belief is that as more and more men know they can play a full role in taking care of their children, more and more family friendly policies will be introduced into the workplace, making it easier for both men and women to balance worklife and childrearing.

Possibly true and tbh, I'm not sure that I'd agree with all "family friendly policies". While someone shouldn't be punished for being a parent, I don't think it's fair to punish someone for not having them either. If companies pay for a creche for some employees, I believe the non-parents of the workforce should be entitled to other remunerations of equal value.

As for the idea of more stay at home fathers? I'd love to see it. If any future partner of mine was earning more than me and had better career prospects I'd be happy to become a stay at home father.

savoyard

Sleepy wrote:

Those 6 months can be of massive inconvenience and expense to the employer so I can understand (if not condone) the thinking behind the practice. The simplest means of dealing with this issue imho is to bring in legislation granting new fathers paternity leave equal to the duration of current maternity leave.

That practice is illegal and its not a "massive" inconvenience and expense. As I already pointed out, the state pays the maternity benefit. Firms have to hire and rehire all the time, it is something they just deal with.

Re paternity leave: they already do have it in most European countries. I'm sure it will come to Ireland at some point, probably when the EU forces it in. For example,in the UK men are entitled to two weeks paid leave and 13 weeks unpaid leave. Be patient.:)

There is no point in giving men the same amount of time because women have to give birth. You can't do that for us, nor can you breastfeed, so why would you need all that time off?

Sleepy wrote:

Regardless of who calculated it, it's one of those statistics that proves the old adage about lies, damned lies and statistics. Until you can show me a man and a woman of equal experience and skill earning different salaries I'm going to treat the stats as BS.

Fine. I'm really not bothered whether or not you believe it - enough people that matter do.

Sleepy wrote:

In addition, there's probably an impact on the salary levels due to maternity leave. Six months out of a job will have a negative impact on your performance when you return and while you'll return on the same salary as you left you won't be performing at your best for a while and this will probably impact on your next salary negotiation. Is this inequality?

A negative effect on your performance? How patronising can you get? The women I work with who come back from maternity leave put as much into their job as they did before. And taking sabbaticals is becoming much more common for men too - in fact some companies encourage it, rather than assuming their brains will have died in the intervening 6 months. Most jobs aren't that fast paced that six months out will have changed everything.

Sleepy wrote:

It's not the 70's any more, if a woman is earning less than a man of equivalent experience and talent she can sue her employer and will win.

Yes, they can and do.

Sleepy wrote:

Since when is London part of Ireland? And as you attested to, the cases are successful. What more protection from discrimination do you want? The legislation is already there and employers will adhere to it if the courts do their job (which they seem to be doing).

Since when did I say it was? I quoted the London cases because they were pretty high profile when I worked in London. I wasn't aware all comments had to be related directly to Ireland? And I haven't asked for more legislation: I am extremely happy that there is legislation to protect women from the likes of you who probably wouldn't hire me in the first place seeing as how I have a womb.

Sleepy wrote:

Then why isn't it called humanism? Why were men kicked out of the original feminist movements? Why just deal with one side of the inequalities that exist? Equality for all cannot be achieved by only fighting for the rights of half the population.

Feminism was born because women were treated as second citizens in the eyes of the law and society. What part of men having all the rights don't you understand? Inequality is by its very nature onesided - one gender had the rights, the other half didn't. Why would (for example) feminists bother to campaign for men to be allowed take a degree when men already had the right to do so? Do you think there was never a need for feminism - that women just campaigned and fought for a laugh. I don't ask gay rights activists to campaign on women's rights issues.

Where did you get this men being kicked out of feminist movements stuff anyway?

Sleepy wrote:

I honestly cannot think of one area where women are legally able to be discriminated against. Sure, some examples still exist of individuals being discriminated against but these individuals have the benefit of legal recourse.

I never said there were any legal areas left. Its just down to changing social habits and perceptions now.

Sleepy wrote:

Possibly true and tbh, I'm not sure that I'd agree with all "family friendly policies". While someone shouldn't be punished for being a parent, I don't think it's fair to punish someone for not having them either. If companies pay for a creche for some employees, I believe the non-parents of the workforce should be entitled to other remunerations of equal value.

Oh for chrissakes. Can we start off with companies who pay for their staff's childcare? How many subsidied company creches are there in Ireland anyway? I don't know anyone whose company actually pays for their childcare.

Dades

Sleepy wrote:

The simplest means of dealing with this issue imho is to bring in legislation granting new fathers paternity leave equal to the duration of current maternity leave.

Except of course a lot of men won't take their allotted leave because they know their career prospects may be compromised by doing so. So in some cases, instead of one, two careers will be affected by having a family.

I don't see a solution to the "issue".

savoyard

oops. double post

Dades

savoyard wrote:

There is no point in giving men the same amount of time because women have to give birth. You can't do that for us, nor can you breastfeed, so why would you need all that time off?

So what then? Appeal to "social habits and perceptions" so that employers will discount the risk of hiring potentially clucky employees? Whether its right or wrong that practice will never go away, unless somebody comes up with an ingenius plan that I have yet to hear of.