Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mens Rights

1…5681011

Comments

  • #212
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Zulu wrote: »
    To me, the point was that "most men are ok with night shifts and weekend work". I didn't extrapolate anything else. CDfm can you confirm please? Was you're intention to imply that women were not ok to work shifts & weekends?

    No.

    McGregors Theory X & Y are normally used as the basis for any serious arguments on workplace motivation.

    http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_03_mcgregor.html


  • #213
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    sam34 wrote: »
    a) no back seat modding please
    Look I'm calling it as I see it.
    d) the point toi me appeared double pronged, that men are happy to do nights/weekends and that women arent so you need to train men to cover those shifts
    Well he's after confirming that it's not. In reality, it would appear that you've brought your own prejudice into this.

    Which is part of the reason a) men find it so difficult to discuss problems they face & b) any approach other than an egalitarian approach, I believe, is ultimatly doomed.


  • #214
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Zulu wrote: »
    Look I'm calling it as I see it.

    Well he's after confirming that it's not. In reality, it would appear that you've brought your own prejudice into this.

    Which is part of the reason a) men find it so difficult to discuss problems they face & b) any approach other than an egalitarian approach, I believe, is ultimatly doomed.

    Adrienne Royer the US blogger quotes Clare Luce Booth and is very egaliarian and you might like her
    It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.

    Her blog is the Cosmopolitan Conservative here and it is very American "Capitalist" Feminist analysis rather than the European "Socialist" School.

    http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/tag/christina-hoff-sommers/


  • #215
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    CDfm wrote: »
    No.

    McGregors Theory X & Y are normally used as the basis for any serious arguments on workplace motivation.

    http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_03_mcgregor.html

    Ok so leaving aside the McGregor stuff, what was your point earlier, in a few sentences of your own words would be cool.


  • #216
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Zulu wrote: »
    Look I'm calling it as I see it.

    Well he's after confirming that it's not. In reality, it would appear that you've brought your own prejudice into this.

    Which is part of the reason a) men find it so difficult to discuss problems they face & b) any approach other than an egalitarian approach, I believe, is ultimatly doomed.

    Zulu,

    I'm sorry here mate, but bear with me.

    CDfm has made a statement, or rather a bunch of em and someone has called him out on this. He has been asked to back it up, to state what he meant etc and from what I can see has failed to do this. Instead, we've had what I can only describe as waffle.

    Thats me calling it as I see it tbh. I've made that call before too. I don't really give a balls of something is based on gender based or not. All i ever ask for is some evidence. I've had this debate with CDfm and others on this forum before.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    So what are we asking him to prove? His assertion that:
    CDfm wrote:
    the cost of equality might be that we charge doctors for their training or we train so many of em that maternity & career breaks are irrelevant but the job status & pay decreases.

    nursing the same -train men & you get shift work and weekend work as men never have a problem with that.
    ???
    Whats wrong with that statment? (other than the fact that he didn't state "some/most" before men?

    Seriously? Do we have to take the post 100% literally? We can't afford him the courtsey of taking his salient point?

    ...or have I missed something entirley?


  • #218
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    Ok so leaving aside the McGregor stuff, what was your point earlier, in a few sentences of your own words would be cool.

    Let me ask you a question. Why do you work and do the job you do?


  • #219
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Jaysus, good thread, pity about the stuff that could have been sorted out by PM!

    Anyway, on the "mother knows best type stuff for the first year", I'd agree with that to a certain extent. I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get. It is one of those differences we have to accept, as part of recognising equality. Wouldn't go so far as a year though.

    Does that mean fathers are worth less than mothers, No. Just they are different.

    Anyway, it is my personal opinion, through my own experience, so I'm not getting into a word for word, line by line debate on it.

    However and this is very important and relevant to the thread. We should be like Scandinavia and other European countries. The lack of Paternal leave is a joke and probably the biggest glaringly obvious area that men lack, for so many reasons, social and financial.

    Whatever my personal beliefs, the option should be there to interchange paid parental leave. AFAIK, we have it for unpaid leave but that leaves fathers at a severe financial disadvantage.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #220
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    as i expected, cdfm has neither backed up his statement nor retracted it


    surprised?

    not me


  • #221
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,889 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    on this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66577676&postcount=206

    It looks like he has backed down from what he said to me at least

    ******



  • Advertisement
  • #222
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    CDfm wrote: »
    Let me ask you a question. Why do you work and do the job you do?

    Same question to you sam34
    sam34 wrote: »
    as i expected, cdfm has neither backed up his statement nor retracted it


    surprised?

    not me

    You seem a tad obsessed about one particular line in a post I made. You are a practicing female doctor and it seems to me that it is not that line that is upseting you but something else that I have posted here.
    c) i'm trying to get cdfm to agree its not a gender issue, or else to provide evidence which shows it is

    d) the point toi me appeared double pronged, that men are happy to do nights/weekends and that women arent so you need to train men to cover those shifts

    I think you are trying to read into my posts something which is not there.

    Can of worms,and I'm not going to go there.


  • #223
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Thought I'd post a link to this relevant story. A little bit of education and coverage!
    MANY UNMARRIED fathers still don’t know that they have no rights to their child unless they have guardianship, the annual general meeting of Treoir has heard.

    The group, which represents unmarried parents, said many fathers mistakenly believe they have rights to their child because their name is on the child’s birth cert.


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0625/1224273271359.html


  • #224
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    sam34 wrote: »
    as i expected, cdfm has neither backed up his statement nor retracted it
    What do you want him to back up? Did you read my post? Did you read his post clarifying his position?

    Why are you harassing him on this irrelevant point?
    Why are you so doggedly pursuing this irrelevant point to the detriment of the thread?
    surprised?
    I am. I'm very surprised you can't let it go, particularly after he confirmed that it wasn't a veiled dig at women. Why won't you extend common courtesy to him?

    I've reported you post under the "harassing" guise. For what good it'll do.


  • #225
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    taconnol wrote: »
    Thought I'd post a link to this relevant story. A little bit of education and coverage!




    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0625/1224273271359.html

    I know a man whose partner died when the child was a year old. I think in the chaos of the death and the aftershock he passively allowed the maternal grandmother to take in the baby because he wasnt coping. Three years later he decided he could cope again and wanted the child back. However, he had no guardianship so an ensuing battle followed. The thing is because the child settle and bonded with the grandmother and that community the courts and the social workers did not want to uproot the child at the age of 4, and that is even with a convicted pedophile on the premises [the grandfather- the judge said because his vicitims were boys she was not at risk!]


  • #226
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    CDfm wrote: »
    Same question to you sam34



    You seem a tad obsessed about one particular line in a post I made. You are a practicing female doctor and it seems to me that it is not that line that is upseting you but something else that I have posted here.



    I think you are trying to read into my posts something which is not there.

    Can of worms,and I'm not going to go there.

    ease up on the armchair psychology :rolleyes:

    i've asked you a question repeatedly which you're not answering

    i'm not going to ask it again... i dont really care anymore

    its not that particular point i have huge issue with,, its your general habit of making sweeping statements and then not being able to back them up, so answering questions that were never asked when you are called up on it

    i have no interest in pursuing it any further- your actions have confirmed everything i suspected about you


  • #227
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    sam34 wrote: »
    ease up on the armchair psychology :rolleyes:

    i've asked you a question repeatedly which you're not answering

    I did respond to you & I raised a topic based on motivation & work - I even asked you so I could put it in context.
    i have no interest in pursuing it any further- your actions have confirmed everything i suspected about you

    Why dont you just say what you mean.


  • #228
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    K-9 wrote: »
    Jaysus, good thread, pity about the stuff that could have been sorted out by PM!

    Anyway, on the "mother knows best type stuff for the first year", I'd agree with that to a certain extent. I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get. It is one of those differences we have to accept, as part of recognising equality. Wouldn't go so far as a year though.

    Does that mean fathers are worth less than mothers, No. Just they are different.

    Anyway, it is my personal opinion, through my own experience, so I'm not getting into a word for word, line by line debate on it.

    However and this is very important and relevant to the thread. We should be like Scandinavia and other European countries. The lack of Paternal leave is a joke and probably the biggest glaringly obvious area that men lack, for so many reasons, social and financial.

    Whatever my personal beliefs, the option should be there to interchange paid parental leave. AFAIK, we have it for unpaid leave but that leaves fathers at a severe financial disadvantage.

    I totally agree with all of this. 100%

    I don't think a strive for equality should be a strive for men and women to be the same. I think the 'mothering' role and the 'fathering' role are very different, and equally valuable roles. I think for most families it is the mother who does the 'mothering' and the father who does the 'fathering', but that for families who want to do it differently, they should have the legal provisions to be able to do this.

    However, the fact that breastfeeding is best for mother and baby means that for mothers who make the choice to breastfeed for 6 months or more, a biological difference between man and woman DOES mean that she will be the primary caregiver for that amount of time, and will probably have a stronger bond with the child. I think that's probably difficult for a lot of fathers, but I'd be reluctant to discourage it for families it works for.

    Yes, a lot of babies are bottle fed, but Ireland has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates of the developed world, and I wouldn't want to encourage it to get any lower.

    I hope this doesn't seem off topic, and I REALLY hope this doesn't turn into a breastfeeding debate, but the point I'm making is that men and women ARE different and this shouldn't be a bad thing! For those who are the exception, they should be provided for without doubt (is anyone actually arguing that they shouldn't?), but it shouldn't be the goal that there are equal numbers of stay-at-home dads and mums just for the sake of 'equality'.

    I think it's a shocker that parental leave isn't available here, BUT if it was, my guess is that it would still be used by the mother the majority of the time.


  • #229
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I know a man whose partner died when the child was a year old. I think in the chaos of the death and the aftershock he passively allowed the maternal grandmother to take in the baby because he wasnt coping. Three years later he decided he could cope again and wanted the child back. However, he had no guardianship so an ensuing battle followed. The thing is because the child settle and bonded with the grandmother and that community the courts and the social workers did not want to uproot the child at the age of 4, and that is even with a convicted pedophile on the premises [the grandfather- the judge said because his vicitims were boys she was not at risk!]

    That is a shocker -there is something fundamentally wrong there.:mad:


  • #230
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    K-9 wrote: »
    Anyway, on the "mother knows best type stuff for the first year", I'd agree with that to a certain extent. I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get. It is one of those differences we have to accept, as part of recognising equality. Wouldn't go so far as a year though.
    Why do you agree though? There's been some vague suggestion that this can be scientifically backed up, but as yet - despite repeated calls by me - no one has presented any evidence, even from a questionable, let alone credible source.

    Instead all we have heard is people base their claims on "I think" or "I believe", as if by doing so makes it true.
    Kooli wrote: »
    However, the fact that breastfeeding is best for mother and baby means that for mothers who make the choice to breastfeed for 6 months or more, a biological difference between man and woman DOES mean that she will be the primary caregiver for that amount of time, and will probably have a stronger bond with the child. I think that's probably difficult for a lot of fathers, but I'd be reluctant to discourage it for families it works for.
    To begin with many women already, by choice, express their breast-milk, so there is no need for them to be physically there. Secondly, you claim that breastfeeding is best for a child is a fact - when in reality its benefits, especially against modern alternatives, have been repeatedly questioned.

    This is one of the problems with mens rights; we presume that things are a certain way, then like mindless puppets never ask if they really are. We just accept it. Women cannot abuse or commit violence against men, and when they do we rationalize it as being justified somehow. Or that they are essential to the well-being to a child when there is no credible evidence that children who do not 'bond' with their mothers in their first year turn out any different to those who do. Or that for a women to do the housework is normal (bless those nest-building instincts) while a man who may stay at home to do the same is a loser.

    If we really want to just suspend reason and accept such 'truths' on faith alone, as is evidently going on here, then fine and let's just turn back the clock a century or two.
    I think it's a shocker that parental leave isn't available here, BUT if it was, my guess is that it would still be used by the mother the majority of the time.
    With attitudes towards gender roles such as yours, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.


  • #231
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Why do you agree though? There's been some vague suggestion that this can be scientifically backed up, but as yet - despite repeated calls by me - no one has presented any evidence, even from a questionable, let alone credible source.

    Instead all we have heard is people base their claims on "I think" or "I believe", as if by doing so makes it true.

    To begin with many women already, by choice, express their breast-milk, so there is no need for them to be physically there. Secondly, you claim that breastfeeding is best for a child is a fact - when in reality its benefits, especially against modern alternatives, have been repeatedly questioned.

    This is one of the problems with mens rights; we presume that things are a certain way, then like mindless puppets never ask if they really are. We just accept it. Women cannot abuse or commit violence against men, and when they do we rationalize it as being justified somehow. Or that they are essential to the well-being to a child when there is no credible evidence that children who do not 'bond' with their mothers in their first year turn out any different to those who do. Or that for a women to do the housework is normal (bless those nest-building instincts) while a man who may stay at home to do the same is a loser.

    If we really want to just suspend reason and accept such 'truths' on faith alone, as is evidently going on here, then fine and let's just turn back the clock a century or two.

    With attitudes towards gender roles such as yours, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to believe that men and women are the same, and are only conditioned to be different, or the differences are only socially constructed. And I know a lot of people who would agree.
    I believe men and women are different, due to both evolution and social conditioning. I don't believe that's a bad thing at all. I believe these differences should be respected and valued, not ignored or dismissed. And I believe that exceptions to the rule (of which there are many) should be facilitated just as much as those who do what is 'expected - traditionally 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities should be valued whether they appear in a man or a woman.

    So in terms of policy, law, anything like that, I don't actually disagree with you at all.

    But the fact that you don't recognise any differences between men and women is something I can't go along with.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Kooli wrote: »
    Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to believe that men and women are the same, and are only conditioned to be different, or the differences are only socially constructed. And I know a lot of people who would agree.
    That's not what I said. It's obvious that men and women differ, the question is how and when? What I've challenged is these sweeping presumptions that you, K-9, metro and others make with regard to how and when.

    What you believe to be these differences appear to be based on little more than traditional values. Other than 'thinking' or 'believing' them so, can you point to any rational reason for them to actually be so? Have you ever questioned these differences?


  • #233
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Personally on this issue I agree with Plato's and Socrates view on the role of women.


  • #234
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's not what I said. It's obvious that men and women differ, the question is how and when? What I've challenged is these sweeping presumptions that you, K-9, metro and others make with regard to how and when.

    What you believe to be these differences appear to be based on little more than traditional values. Other than 'thinking' or 'believing' them so, can you point to any rational reason for them to actually be so? Have you ever questioned these differences?

    The differences between mothers and fathers is a very subjective thing. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.

    How do you think they differ yourself?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #235
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    K-9 wrote: »
    The differences between mothers and fathers is a very subjective thing. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.
    There's nothing subjective about it. Any differences are biological, which is ultimately all that differentiates us in the end, and that is something that can be scientifically, and thus objectively, studied.

    Suggesting that it is "a very subjective thing" is really just another "let's agree to disagree" cop-out.
    How do you think they differ yourself?
    I think it is difficult to say because there is so much tradition and social conditioning confusing the issue.

    I do think that to suggest a father could not act as primary carer at infancy is pure rubbish, based on the fact that I have known people who were raised by their fathers and have turned out no worse (and sometimes better) than those raised by mothers. Same goes for breast feeding.

    Certainly this is only anecdotal evidence, but it is more than enough for me to challenge your preconceived notions.

    At the same time women may be better, not by nature, but though nurture - from childhood females are conditioned to become carers (e.g. dolls, etc.). But even then nurture is not as set in stone as nature and can be changed. Additionally, even if one concedes that women may be better because of this conditioning, it does not mean that they must be the carers - especially as there are some women out there who should never be let near an infant (despite nature or nurture).


  • #236
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    There's nothing subjective about it. Any differences are biological, which is ultimately all that differentiates us in the end, and that is something that can be scientifically, and thus objectively, studied.

    Suggesting that it is "a very subjective thing" is really just another "let's agree to disagree" cop-out.

    No, I'd just rather not have an endless debate nit picking every word and meaning.

    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Certainly this is only anecdotal evidence, but it is more than enough for me to challenge your preconceived notions.

    Is that not subjective? My evidence is anecdotal too, your is better than mine, yes? and less preconceived?
    The Corinthian wrote: »

    I do think that to suggest a father could not act as primary carer at infancy is pure rubbish

    Well I didn't suggest that, don't think anybody else did. Considering I used to be a primary carer, it would be rather silly for me to do that. Don't know where you got that notion, it's like saying I believe mothers are best of staying at home.
    The Corinthian wrote:
    At the same time women may be better, not by nature, but though nurture - from childhood females are conditioned to become carers (e.g. dolls, etc.). But even then nurture is not as set in stone as nature and can be changed. Additionally, even if one concedes that women may be better because of this conditioning, it does not mean that they must be the carers - especially as there are some women out there who should never be let near an infant (despite nature or nurture).

    Luckily, nobody is suggesting that either.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #237
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    K-9 wrote: »
    No, I'd just rather not have an endless debate nit picking every word and meaning.
    How am I 'nit-picking'?

    I'm certainly not challenging every word and meaning; I'm challenging your entire presumption as arrogant and based on nothing more than prejudice. That's not nit-picking.

    But if calling it nit-picking means you don't have to back anything up, go for it.
    Is that not subjective? My evidence is anecdotal too, your is better than mine, yes? and less preconceived?
    I've no idea what evidence, be it anecdotal or otherwise, is - you never presented it and even refused to do so, so I can't say if your evidence is any better or just self-justifying claptrap.

    Nonetheless, I admit that my anecdotal evidence does not prove anything, but it is enough to disprove or at the very least challenge your presumptions.
    Well I didn't suggest that, don't think anybody else did. Considering I used to be a primary carer, it would be rather silly for me to do that. Don't know where you got that notion, it's like saying I believe mothers are best of staying at home.
    My mistake - that a father should not be carer over a mother (and I'm apparently nit-picking). And why? According to you:
    K-9 wrote: »
    I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get. It is one of those differences we have to accept, as part of recognising equality.
    So you recognize equality through recognition of an inequality? Rhetorical question. Anyhow, this is all opinion, stated as fact, according to anecdotal evidence that you won't disclose:
    Anyway, it is my personal opinion, through my own experience, so I'm not getting into a word for word, line by line debate on it.
    But you expect us all to believe you. Or at least not dare disagree with you.

    If it helps, Metro thinks that women are essential carers because they have wombs. Is that it? Maybe it's a psychic link with Gaia?


  • #238
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    But you expect us all to believe you. Or at least not dare disagree with you.

    :rolleyes:

    Any other straw men?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #239
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    There's nothing subjective about it. Any differences are biological, which is ultimately all that differentiates us in the end, and that is something that can be scientifically, and thus objectively, studied.

    Suggesting that it is "a very subjective thing" is really just another "let's agree to disagree" cop-out.

    I think it is difficult to say because there is so much tradition and social conditioning confusing the issue.

    This is the part that always intrigues me and that is the Nietschean concept of masculinity being a social construct. You also have the convergence of gender roles. So if one gender is a social construct then ceteris paribus the other must be.

    You no longer have the traditional nucleur family etc.
    I do think that to suggest a father could not act as primary carer at infancy is pure rubbish, based on the fact that I have known people who were raised by their fathers and have turned out no worse (and sometimes better) than those raised by mothers. Same goes for breast feeding.

    I agree.

    So if I am hearing you right you are saying that if their are some gender roles biology driven but the other roles are based on this "social construct" model.

    Back to Clare Luce Booth she tends to agree with you.


    At the same time women may be better, not by nature, but though nurture - from childhood females are conditioned to become carers (e.g. dolls, etc.). But even then nurture is not as set in stone as nature and can be changed. Additionally, even if one concedes that women may be better because of this conditioning, it does not mean that they must be the carers - especially as there are some women out there who should never be let near an infant (despite nature or nurture).

    Gender roles in the traditional society dictated choices but now these choices are now open to everybody.

    So what you essentially are saying is that this is where "feminism" (modern society) has brought us.

    So where does that leave us. If I look at your argument it is that because of the convergence of roles then the natural extention of that is to abandon the "social construct" and with this deconstruct the mechanisms such as family law etc and treat everyone (within reason) absolutely the same. You can do this because as Booth Luce says the nurture role is not "set in stone".

    The disagreement on this is not that men are resistant to this, but that women and feminism are.

    So currently we are "stuck" in the situation where women have the "choice" of which role they want and to what extent, and, probably because if this, men are stuck in the traditional role and cannot exercise the same choices.
    It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.


    Its all very well to say there is no-one definition of feminism but society and public policy can only operate within clear definitions.

    Even if you dont like Marx as an economist his method has been applied to sociological theories because of its clarity.

    So will it stay with the status quo or will logic dictate that women will have to accept the convergence of rules as a natural extention.So the choices also need to be 100% open to men and this is the natural extention of feminism.


  • #240
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    I came across this article recently. The central point is that fathers and mothers behave differently towards their children.
    When playing with their toddlers, fathers are more assertive while mothers are more compliant, a new study found. These differences could help ingrain gender stereotypes in children early on, the researchers said.

    http://www.livescience.com/culture/kids-learn-gender-stereotypes-100616.html

    It is hard to know which approach is best but in my own view a combination of both roles is the ideal scenario. It therefore should not be expected that both men and women play the exact same roles in child rearing and if this means shorter paterinity leave for men compared to women then so be it. However I would be critical that there is no flexibility in this system that would allow parents to decide for themselves what is best for their children rather than a one size fits all approach.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    K-9 wrote: »

    Any other straw men?
    ]

    So k-9

    is feminism about the total convergence of genfer roles and essentially abandoning the "social constructs" and the machinary that holds them in place.
    It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.

    If not -why not.

    Or indeed can it be defined llike that in one clear vision.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement