nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

Eoin

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?

Is most of the maternity leave not generally taken after the child is born? If so, then why can't the man take the time off work to care for the child?

savoyard

The Atheist wrote:

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.

There's only a minority of employers who discriminate in this way - otherwise no woman between 18 and 35 would ever get a full time job.

And that kind of thinking will fade with time.

eoin-s wrote:

Is most of the maternity leave not generally taken after the child is born? If so, then why can't the man take the time off work to care for the child?.

Totally depends on the pregnancy - some women can't fit behind their desk by the eighth month. And as I said, men can't breastfeed and when a baby is very young, they feed a lot so practically speaking, it can be difficult. Women also need time to physically recover.

And listen, you only get paid for 18 weeks by the state. Any more time is unpaid. So sure, the man can take time off. But as theAtheist pointed out, men don't want employers to think they value their family over their job as it might affect their career too.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

Is most of the maternity leave not generally taken after the child is born? If so, then why can't the man take the time off work to care for the child?

I am all for paternity leave, the father of the child should be there to take care of both the baby and the mother. Its ridiculous in this day and age the the woman is still forced to have sole responsibility for a new born.

Steps in the UK have been taken to introduce proper paternity leave of up to six months, along with other good ideas like "keep in touch" days allowing parents to return to work for a few days without losing the status of a parent on new-born leave, and better flexi time support for parents with young children. I think it will come into force in April 2007.

In Ireland there have been similar calls (a lot from Sinn Fein .. they are useful for something after all

) to introduce similar status in Ireland. As far as I know Ireland ranks last in Europe for paternity leave status, and other childcare provisions

I think it will get strong resistence from employers, but the unions seem to behind the idea. And I don't think you will get much objection from men. I think it is a stereotype that men forsake their family to get a head in business. I am sure some do, but I doubt most would

Dades

savoyard wrote:

There's only a minority of employers who discriminate in this way - otherwise no woman between 18 and 35 would ever get a full time job. And that kind of thinking will fade with time.

I'd like to think it will fade with time, but the fact is its a business decision rather than an outdated perception. Time won't change the fact that certain catagories of women are "high risk" when it comes to down to it. As long as business' operate for profit this will be a millstone to bear.

Don't get me wrong, its not fair, but it is a reality I fear.

Sleepy

savoyard wrote:

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.

Assuming that the woman taking maternity leave has a reasonably skilled job, it can be a huge inconvenience and expense to firms. Temporary contractors are more expensive to hire than a full-time employee and won't always have the exact skill-set needed to adequately replace the person on leave. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that this is something employers should have to deal with, I just see the logic behind why some of them try to avoid it.

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?

So a man is useless at providing care for his own child? A woman won't need any help at all during this period? Men should be patient when the legislation has been written for us (at EU level) but society hasn't fully adapted to it yet but women should "keep banging on about inequality"

Let me ask you: who's sexist now?

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

So I don't matter? Is that personal abuse? Or is it just because I'm a man?

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.

Many jobs are that fast paced. And how is it patronising to say that six months away from doing something will have a negative effect on your performance? Even thinking back to my college days, it always took me and my classmates a few months to get the brains back in gear after the summer holidays.

Yes, they can and do.

So we can agree that this is a good thing?

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.

Have I condoned sexist work practices once in this thread? No. I just understand them and the reasons why some of them would be very, very difficult to change (though I did offer a constructive means of doing so which you shot down without even considering it)

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?

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

Yes, I believe there was a need for feminism. I also believe that that time has passed. This is the year 2005, women have every right afforded to men. Societally there are some areas in which both are discriminated against and I don't believe it helps anyone to tackle these societal issues from a unilateral standpoint.

Actually, I got the bit about men being kicked out of the feminist movements in the seventies from a feminist writer: Nancy Friday. Worth a read if you're interested in the changing role of women and female sexuality throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

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.

Well, it appeared to be what you were suggesting. Forgive me if I took you out of context.

savoyard

Sleepy wrote:

So a man is useless at providing care for his own child? A woman won't need any help at all during this period? Men should be patient when the legislation has been written for us (at EU level) but society hasn't fully adapted to it yet but women should "keep banging on about inequality"

Let me ask you: who's sexist now?.

Am i missing something? Can you breastfeed or give birth? Where did I say men couldn't look after kids? Just that they don't need as much time off for medical reasons.

Sleepy wrote:

So I don't matter? Is that personal abuse? Or is it just because I'm a man??.

No, because you're a random on the internet. No offense meant - the UN take those figures seriously as do most working in the area, so if you choose not to believe them, that is your choice. I'm not going to convince you.

Sleepy wrote:

Actually, I got the bit about men being kicked out of the feminist movements in the seventies from a feminist writer: Nancy Friday. Worth a read if you're interested in the changing role of women and female sexuality throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

have to say I'm not a great fan of her writing, but I've only read one or two of her books. Which one has the men being kicked out of feminism bits in it and I can have a reread?

Vangelis

My input. An equality test put Ireland as no. 16, while Sweden came as no. 1.
What the test was based on is another question, but I know that Sweden are good at paying women and men equally, employing women and men equally, and having about as many females in the government as men.

the_syco

U$ername wrote:

Or actually since you brought it up why isnt the male/female ratio of soldiers 50/50?

Cos not all women can carry a full pack, a loaded gun, and march for 6 or so hours. Men are geniticly stronger than women, thus can do it better.

Stark wrote:

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

To show the world how "equal" their work place is, they must have an "equal" percentage of women working there. Whilst some deserve to be there, their effor is watered down by women who get promoted so that the ratio stays "equal".

=-=

When a person leaves a company, you replace them. If a woman gets pregnant, its illegal to hire someone to fill her place. Also, if its a small company, say of about 6 people, and one leaves, that workload will be unfairly put on the other 5 people. Who cares if the state pays, the company will still be one person short.

To get to a high paying CEO wage, you must do long hours, lots of overtime, etc. If a woman wants to work only 9 to 5, have weekends off, and get maternity leave, fine. But don't expect to be treated the same as women who don't have kids, do the overtime, to get the promotion.

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.

No it doesn't. It'll take into account that women go on leave for 6 months, and within those 6 months the company looses productivity, due to the loss of the employee.

Feminism believes that the sexes should be equal socially, politically and economically

Look into it, lass. Equality. Feminism. Two different things. Equality fights for man and women to have equal rights. Feminism fights for womens rights.
I have seen some feminists fight for equality, but they fight under the banner of equality. WHy do they not fight under the banner of feminism? Because feminism is not about equality.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

If you look to the point before Brest cancer was well known, before there was ads about it, before the goverment, or anyone, did anything about it, you may find that not alot of women had any intrest in it. Likewise with testicular cancer, not many men know about it, as there's not much infomation about it. Also, because the stereotype is that men are big, strong, and don't cry, they also shouldn't care about their bodies. Look at how "moisturizing for men" was first laughed at, and you'll see why there is so little intrest, as the sexist attitude is that men shouldn't care about their health. Stupid, but there you go.

dudara

I'm female, a physicist/electrical engineer, who writes her own code. ANd do you know what? I'm not alone, there are a good few of us women here in my department.

My sex has nothing to do with my work, and it never has, even in manual labour jobs that I had when younger. All that matters is a person's ability to do the job. That is the fact that we need to recognise.

Vangelis

dudara wrote:

I'm female, a physicist/electrical engineer, who writes her own code. ANd do you know what? I'm not alone, there are a good few of us women here in my department.

My sex has nothing to do with my work, and it never has, even in manual labour jobs that I had when younger. All that matters is a person's ability to do the job. That is the fact that we need to recognise.

Sorry, just have to go off-topic here. Wow, that's cool! A female engineer/physicist? Raw! Go girl!! :cool: