Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Feathers · 16-02-2012 10:18PM

Millicent wrote: »

It's (an no offence intended at all) still a bit of a lazy standpoint to assume that feminism is divisive without knowing more about the movement or the theology of it. People shouldn't rely on what they think they know about a subject and should seek to read up on something before forming a strong opinion of it. In the same way that I wouldn't judge a film, for example, that my friend said was crap without going to see it, a whole theology shouldn't be judged on what people *think* they know about it. Some of the best films I've ever seen were ones people told me were terrible. :pac:

I'd agree with that definitely (& the films bit too

), but I didn't mean that the academic theory of feminism was divisive in the points it put across. What I was getting at was what MD said at the start — why can't we have a discussion on sexism without it derailing — & I think part of that is that feminism as a term carries a baggage with it colloquially that has all sorts of connotations.

I'm not saying sexism against women doesn't exist, I just meant the genuine concerns would probably be met with less opposition if using a more neutral label.

Micky Dolenz · 16-02-2012 10:21PM

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

I've the final solution to get rid of sexism.
Lets bring in to law a rule that all women up to the age of 60
must wear something along these lines & if women are serious
about ending sexism we'll be seeing them in this attire in the near future.
Bring it on girls!!!
http://www.islamicboutique.com/dresscode.asp

Mod

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

As per opening post, Please do not post on this thread again.

Millicent · 16-02-2012 10:26PM

Feathers wrote: »

I'd agree with that definitely (& the films bit too ), but I didn't mean that the academic theory of feminism was divisive in the points it put across. What I was getting at was what MD said at the start — why can't we have a discussion on sexism without it derailing — & I think part of that is that feminism as a term carries a baggage with it colloquially that has all sorts of connotations.

I'm not saying sexism against women doesn't exist, I just meant the genuine concerns would probably be met with less opposition if using a more neutral label.

Ah, got you now and I see where you're coming from. The problem with that is that it puts the onus on feminists to change, rather than on those who have the misconception. It does colloquially have its issues -- it is a very rare occasion that I identify as a feminist that I don't get some sort of third degree or even hostility for it -- but that's an issue with those who react so harshly to it.

It also means that the onus on feminists to rebrand as something more palatable and attractive -- something, I'm sure you will understand, that will annoy a group of people who have been told to change or repackage themselves to be more palatable or attractive throughout their lives.

RDM_83 again · 16-02-2012 10:27PM

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

No its as old as the hills getting a man with your looks to gain power money . They are just more orange and have extentsions nowadays sigh i blame bratt dolls

Yeah but back then they had Jane Austin era push up dresses

On a serious note I do think that is one of the divisions that do exist between men and woman and probably affects the thinking of a lot of younger guys (say 15-21) in that they see they're female peers being able to get into clubs, have drinks bought for them, being able to get promo work, having a much easier time finding rental accommodation etc and this is after/ and at the same time as being labeled by society as less mature etc than their equivalent female peers.

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 10:31PM

Feathers wrote: »

I'm not saying sexism against women doesn't exist, I just meant the genuine concerns would probably be met with less opposition if using a more neutral label.

Can you understand that some people would see this as a 'men would like it better if women used a less confrontational/ more inclusive of men title for when they are campaigning' argument?

Sorry but...no.

My focus is not to make men feel less 'threatened' by saying I am an 'equalist' - which I am- but that label, as well as being wishy-washy, downplays the issues that concern me most, which are women's issues.

I am also anti- homophobia, anti-racist, any-ablebodist - those are what I am against.

Feminist says I am pro-women. Which despite the attempts some have made to spin it does not mean I am anti-man.

Feathers · 16-02-2012 10:35PM

Millicent wrote: »

Ah, got you now and I see where you're coming from. The problem with that is that it puts the onus on feminists to change, rather than on those who have the misconception. It does colloquially have its issues -- it is a very rare occasion that I identify as a feminist that I don't get some sort of third degree or even hostility for it -- but that's an issue with those who react so harshly to it.

It also means that the onus on feminists to rebrand as something more palatable and attractive -- something, I'm sure you will understand, that will annoy a group of people who have been told to change or repackage themselves to be more palatable or attractive throughout their lives.

Yeah, I know what you mean alright & ties in with what B0jangles was saying earlier too about tone, though it's just about what lens you view the campaign/issue through a lot of the time, rather than the issue itself; as in the issue of women in the boardroom is surely tied heavily to the issue of fathers' rights in family courts — they're both tied-up in gender stereotypes really.

Rather than rebranding, I'd see it as debranding. The most important aspect is getting the issue sorted — like the artists & musicians, we should focus on the issues themselves & leave the labels and the theory framework to the academics to study after the fact.

Millicent · 16-02-2012 10:36PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yeah but back then they had Jane Austin era push up dresses

On a serious note I do think that is one of the divisions that do exist between men and woman and probably affects the thinking of a lot of younger guys (say 15-21) in that they see they're female peers being able to get into clubs, have drinks bought for them, being able to get promo work, having a much easier time finding rental accommodation etc and this is after/ and at the same time as being labeled by society as less mature etc than their equivalent female peers.

I think this has partly do with the sexualisation of women though. I got stopped, at the age of 23, IIRC, by my older brother who was 29 at the time (and looked it) from going into a nightclub I frequented quite regularly at the time because he wanted ID. I was dressed quite conservatively (not dowdy by an means--knee length denim skirt, nice top, flat boots) and neither of us were drunk, aggro or in any way rough looking.

While we argued our case at the door, he waved in a group of four girls in miniskirts and with boobs hanging out who were quite clearly underage. In fact, I knew one of them was 16 because I was her supervisor in work and told him so! He shrugged at us.

So what those girls learned was that they could have what they wanted if they looked the right way. That's just one example of girls using their looks and men pandering to it. If all men stopped putting pretty girls on a pedestal, a lot of this shit would be eliminated, IMO.

midlandsmissus · 16-02-2012 10:39PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yeah but back then they had Jane Austin era push up dresses

On a serious note I do think that is one of the divisions that do exist between men and woman and probably affects the thinking of a lot of younger guys (say 15-21) in that they see they're female peers being able to get into clubs, have drinks bought for them, being able to get promo work, having a much easier time finding rental accommodation etc and this is after/ and at the same time as being labeled by society as less mature etc than their equivalent female peers.

There's such a lot that needs to change. But it's good that people see the inequalities around them and question them, rather than accepting things as the way they are. As I always say: there's nothing as dangerous as tradition. Just because something has been done one way as long as anyone can remember doesn't mean it needs to change.

We are all human.

Millicent · 16-02-2012 10:39PM

Feathers wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean alright & ties in with what B0jangles was saying earlier too about tone, though it's just about what lens you view the campaign/issue through a lot of the time, rather than the issue itself; as in the issue of women in the boardroom is surely tied heavily to the issue of fathers' rights in family courts — they're both tied-up in gender stereotypes really.

Rather than rebranding, I'd see it as debranding. The most important aspect is getting the issue sorted — like the artists & musicians, we should focus on the issues themselves & leave the labels and the theory framework to the academics to study after the fact.

Just like what Bannashide said though--feminists shouldn't have to rebrand or debrand or Russell Brand anything just because it would make some men more comfortable. The NAACP wouldn't rebrand to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and White People and Other Races Too (NAACPWPORT) just to make other races feel more included. Hell of a mouthful too! :pac:

strobe · 16-02-2012 10:44PM

later12 wrote: »

I think all groups need a focus. Some people are simply not as concerned about, or cannot relate to rights deficiencies in some areas relative to others. Generally this is based on one's own experiences. I see nothing wrong with such a focus.

Some people just don't have the same affinity for mothers' rights as they do for fathers' rights. That's their perogative.

I am interested in horse welfare and the rehabilitation of racehorses, which some might say is a bit silly for its exclusivity of other animals, let alone horses. That's fair enough, but that's just something I find interesting. I know that donkeys are as equally as deserving a cause, i just don't find their cause interests me,for whatever reason. It isn't always a bad thing to have a focus.

I don't buy it, Later. It doesn't even address the issue of the divisive element which for whatever reason clearly springs (just look around you, read this thread, read the ones just like it.) from this type of "I'll play for my team and you play for your team and hopefully we'll all somehow win" shite. If there was only one team the same people that want to play the game would still play and the ones that wouldn't, wouldn't. What you (and not just you I hear this all the time) seems to be saying is "if people aren't only motivated to only help themselves and those like them they won't be motivated at all". From what I can see the only people that are interested in this tribal form of human rights work but wouldn't be interested in a non segregated form are the people that should be kept well well away from the whole area as they are the self interested disingenuous cunts that actually do deserve the terms 'feminazi' or 'mascunazi(ehh?)' that sour the whole thing.

Anyway I won't post here again as I don't really have anything more to add than what I've (or someone else) already said but I will read your response if you make one. (<<Just adding that so you know I'm not ignoring).

Feathers · 16-02-2012 10:45PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you understand that some people would see this as a 'men would like it better if women used a less confrontational/ more inclusive of men title for when they are campaigning' argument?

Sorry but...no.

My focus is not to make men feel less 'threatened' by saying I am an 'equalist' - which I am- but that label, as well as being wishy-washy, downplays the issues that concern me most, which are women's issues.

I am also anti- homophobia, anti-racist, any-ablebodist - those are what I am against.

Feminist says I am pro-women. Which despite the attempts some have made to spin it does not mean I am anti-man.

But what's the main aim then? To have a nice 'feminism' banner to stand underneath or to sort out inequality? The whole thread is about what derails discussions on sexism — I think the feminism label adds to this big time.

I'm a republican in the real sense of the word; I would also like to see a united Ireland some day (through peaceful means, obv). The word republican however has now taken on connotions of the IRA & terrorism. Therefore, if I was having a debate on NI, I would unlikely to frame my points under a republican banner if I didn't want it to get derailed.

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 10:46PM

Millicent wrote: »

Just like what Bannashide said though--feminists shouldn't have to rebrand or debrand or Russell Brand anything just because it would make some men more comfortable. The NAACP wouldn't rebrand to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and White People and Other Races Too (NAACPWPORT) just to make other races feel more included. Hell of a mouthful too! :pac:

Wouldn't it be more like the NAACPBPYPRPWPPMR (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, Brown People,Yellow People,Red People, White People and People who are Mixed Race)?
In which case may as well just rename the NAAP National Association for the Advancement of People - by which time the whole point of the thing has been lost...

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 10:48PM

Millicent wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean alright & ties in with what B0jangles was saying earlier too about tone, though it's just about what lens you view the campaign/issue through a lot of the time, rather than the issue itself; as in the issue of women in the boardroom is surely tied heavily to the issue of fathers' rights in family courts — they're both tied-up in gender stereotypes really.

Rather than rebranding, I'd see it as debranding. The most important aspect is getting the issue sorted — like the artists & musicians, we should focus on the issues themselves & leave the labels and the theory framework to the academics to study after the fact.

Just like what Bannashide said though--feminists shouldn't have to rebrand or debrand or Russell Brand anything just because it would make some men more comfortable. The NAACP wouldn't rebrand to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and White People and Other Races Too (NAACPWPORT) just to make other races feel more included. Hell of a mouthful too! :pac:

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people over, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the past is no stain on my soul

Feathers · 16-02-2012 10:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more like the NAACPBPYPRPWPPMR (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, Brown People,Yellow People,Red People, White People and People who are Mixed Race)?
In which case may as well just rename the NAAP National Association for the Advancement of People - by which time the whole point of the thing has been lost...

Well they have their stated aim as

continue to fight for social justice for all Americans.

So maybe they've already lost their aim, no name change required?

RDM_83 again · 16-02-2012 10:52PM

Millicent wrote: »

I think this has partly do with the sexualisation of women though. I got stopped, at the age of 23, IIRC, by my older brother who was 29 at the time (and looked it) from going into a nightclub I frequented quite regularly at the time because he wanted ID. I was dressed quite conservatively (not dowdy by an means--knee length denim skirt, nice top, flat boots) and neither of us were drunk, aggro or in any way rough looking.

While we argued our case at the door, he waved in a group of four girls in miniskirts and with boobs hanging out who were quite clearly underage. In fact, I knew one of them was 16 because I was her supervisor in work and told him so! He shrugged at us.

So what those girls learned was that they could have what they wanted if they looked the right way. That's just one example of girls using their looks and men pandering to it. If all men stopped putting pretty girls on a pedestal, a lot of this shit would be eliminated, IMO.

I agree with your point, however it doesn't change the way my hypothetical young man perceives the situation which in turn colours his perception (possibly into later life) of gender issues, and if I read correctly this is perhaps what 2nd wave feminism tried to react against. And I know I'm straying away from the broad stream of the debate but as a young man and a guy in his late twenties there is no obvious area in which woman are in a worse position than a male, and I would hazard with the dominance in recent in take of females in such areas as medicine that not only are females likely to be employed but also probably better paid when employed, I understand that this is a discussion on equality and there is not a 'gender war' but rather illustrating why a younger male may take a rather dim view of feminism, while not reacting negatively to the idea of gender equality.

B0jangles · 16-02-2012 10:56PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people over, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the past is no stain on my soul

I think this fits in here, even though the original writer is talking about racism in the US:

(quoted from http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-tone-argument/)

"The tone argument is where you object to someone else’s argument based on its tone: it is too angry, too hateful, not calm enough, not nice enough, etc. It is a logical fallacy because none of those things has anything to do with whether the truth was spoken. It is used to derail and silence.
The privileged use it against the marginalized. This post looks at one case of that: white racists in America using it against blacks when talking about racism.
Examples:

“I am offended.”
“We would listen to you if you said it more nicely.”
“You are so full of hate.”
Blacks are angry, uppity, whining, etc.

Some things to keep in mind if they use it on you:
The whites who use it have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say – no matter what your tone. The tone thing is just to shut you up and dismiss you as an unreasonable person. What you said made them feel uncomfortable and tone is an excuse not to deal with it seriously.
No matter how nicely and calmly and reasonably you make your points some will still say you are whining or angry or full of hate. In their heads whites are so wonderful that to say anything bad about them can only come from hatred – no matter how many facts back you up. So a bad tone can get read into your words whether it is there or not.
If it were as simple as having the right tone then racism would have died out ages ago.
So screw tone. No reasonable person is going to fault you for being angry about racism. Those who do, those who expect you to be not only sweet and calm but to value their feelings over your own are closed-minded jerks. You might want to give them a piece of your mind, but do not fool yourself into thinking you can reason with them: they have already placed themselves beyond reason."

Millicent · 16-02-2012 11:00PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people over, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the past is no stain on my soul

I don't think my tone was heavyhanded.

I was clearly using humour to make a point, hence the "rebrand, debrand or Russell Brand" inclusion. Again

hardbackwriter · 16-02-2012 11:02PM

B0jangles wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people ove
r, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the
past is no stain on my soul

I think this fits in here, even though the original writer is talking about racism in the US:

(quoted from http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-tone-argument/)

"The tone argument is where you object to someone else’s argument based on its tone: it is too angry, too hateful, not calm enough, not nice enough, etc. It is a logical fallacy because none of those things has anything to do with whether the truth was spoken. It is used to derail and silence.
The privileged use it against the marginalized. This post looks at one case of that: white racists in America using it against blacks when talking about racism.
Examples:
“I am offended.”

“We would listen to you if you said it more nicely.”

“You are so full of hate.”

Blacks are angry, uppity, whining, etc.

Some things to keep in mind if they use it on you:
The whites who use it have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say – no matter what your tone. The tone thing is just to shut you up and dismiss you as an unreasonable person. What you said made them feel uncomfortable and tone is an excuse not to deal with it seriously.
No matter how nicely and calmly and reasonably you make your points some will still say you are whining or angry or full of hate. In their heads whites are so wonderful that to say anything bad about them can only come from hatred – no matter how many facts back you up. So a bad tone can get read into your words whether it is there or not.
If it were as simple as having the right tone then racism would have died out ages ago.
So screw tone. No reasonable person is going to fault you for being angry about racism. Those who do, those who expect you to be not only sweet and calm but to value their feelings over your own are closed-minded jerks. You might want to give them a piece of your mind, but do not fool yourself into thinking you can reason with them: they have already placed themselves beyond reason."

I see what you did there , by aligning the (plight ) of feminists with blacks in America circa 1961 , you insinuate that not only am I racist but that the treatment. Of women in Ireland is as much of an issue as that of blacks in the USA, and you accuse me of trying to silence debate

PrincessLola · 16-02-2012 11:04PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people over, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the past is no stain on my soul

No one is asking you to feel guilty (not on this thread) we are just asking men to acknowledge sexism exits and to accept that women are equal.

Feminism has really been demonised for about 30 years, women were made to feel less feminine for supporting it, but now its making a comeback which is brilliant.

On the 'getting into clubs' issue, whatever discrimination men face as youths is nothing compared to what women face in their adulthood, not getting hired for fear that they'll get pregnant and so on. Men over 50 are seen as 'dignified, established', women over 50 are 'desperate, and hormonal'

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2012 11:07PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people over, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the past is no stain on my soul

But it is an ultimatum. I won't deny it. Men may not like it but the feminist movement is not saying 'oh please may we have equal rights' in a ladylike fashion it is shouting 'I demand equal rights and I will not shut up until I get them' like a mouthy, stroppy woman. Some people, male and female, don't like that. But you know, if it wasn't for the mouthy, stroppy women we'd still be back in the 'bad' old days.

I don't care if men feel guilty or not. Should I as a white European feel guilty about Slavery? I don't - I do acknowledge the absolute immorality of it. But personally, I am not guilty but I have benefited from it. Slavery fuelled much of the Western economy and helped create this 'First' world I live in. I cannot change what happened - but I can acknowledge it and work to ensure it doesn't happen again. (So no - I do not own, and never will own, any Apple products while they are manufacturing them in China)

I would prefer men see that women are absolutely equal to them because it is true, therefore women and men should have equal rights'. But I am not going to try and cajole or plead for equality or make the message more palatable for men. I will challenge their assumptions head on whether they like it or not.

In exactly the same way as when I lived in London during the 80s bombing campaign I challenged assumptions people made about the Irish head on - no softening it.

I have challenged homophobia head on my whole adult life.

Feathers · 16-02-2012 11:09PM

B0jangles wrote: »

The whites who use it have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say – no matter what your tone. The tone thing is just to shut you up and dismiss you as an unreasonable person. What you said made them feel uncomfortable and tone is an excuse not to deal with it seriously.

The difference is that sexism exists against men & women within our society. I don't think many white people suffered racism in 1960s America.

People aren't saying don't call it sexism — they're not saying don't get angry that it still exists, or saying that it doesn't happen or that you shouldn't complain about it; they're saying if you were more inclusive as to who you include under that banner, people won't be able to derail your argument as easily as you will be seen to be fighting against sexism instead of (being perceived to be) fighting against men.

Millicent · 16-02-2012 11:09PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I agree with your point, however it doesn't change the way my hypothetical young man perceives the situation which in turn colours his perception (possibly into later life) of gender issues, and if I read correctly this is perhaps what 2nd wave feminism tried to react against. And I know I'm straying away from the broad stream of the debate but as a young man and a guy in his late twenties there is no obvious area in which woman are in a worse position than a male, and I would hazard with the dominance in recent in take of females in such areas as medicine that not only are females likely to be employed but also probably better paid when employed, I understand that this is a discussion on equality and there is not a 'gender war' but rather illustrating why a younger male may take a rather dim view of feminism, while not reacting negatively to the idea of gender equality.

Females are more dominant in the "caring" side of medicine though--men account for a higher proportion of doctors. The recent CSO findings showed too that in another area where women were MASSIVELY dominant -- teaching -- more men were still principals, despite the smaller proportion of men in teaching roles.

I understand why some men might take an unfavourable view of feminism because of the "Burn our bras" perception people have of it but that style of feminism is largely gone. (Incidentally and as an aside here, the bra burning thing never happened. I was amazed when I found that out.)

I understand too that young men suffer from their gender roles. The "strong, silent" type is a big contributor to suicide rates in this country, IMO. The homophobic or sexist labelling of men who like "feminine" pursuits as "gay" is another.

That said, I understand gender from my own experience. That is why feminism is important to me and why I think it's still valuable. You can't know anything until you know yourself and feminism is a way for some women to do that.

Millicent · 16-02-2012 11:17PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

Just like what Bannashide said though--feminists shouldn't have to rebrand or debrand or Russell Brand anything just because it would make some men more comfortable. The NAACP wouldn't rebrand to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and White People and Other Races Too (NAACPWPORT) just to make other races feel more included. Hell of a mouthful too! :pac:

Your tone is very high handed and severe , your ultimatum to men effectively reads , like our style of delivery or lump it , it's hardly a clever way to win people over, we dont all feel some guilty obligation to get in line with feminist thought , I'm responsible for me, what was done to women in the past is no stain on my soul

I'm going to respond to this again because honestly, I'm still baffled. What exactly is wrong with what I wrote? Where does that say that everyone has to get in line with feminist thought or feel guilty for anything? I am genuinely confused; I have no idea how you could parse my post to create that response.

Also, you don't have to get in line with feminist thought; at the same time, you don't get to dictate how feminism is organised, led, or packaged.

Feathers · 16-02-2012 11:19PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't care if men feel guilty or not. Should I as a white European feel guilty about Slavery? I don't - I do acknowledge the absolute immorality of it. But personally, I am not guilty but I have benefited from it. Slavery fuelled much of the Western economy and helped create this 'First' world I live in. I cannot change what happened - but I can acknowledge it and work to ensure it doesn't happen again. (So no - I do not own, and never will own, any Apple products while they are manufacturing them in China)

I would prefer men see that women are absolutely equal to them because it is true, therefore women and men should have equal rights'.

Women and men do have equal rights?

Regarding slavery, I think it's the fact that the historical angle clouds the debate — we're in a society were women are enfranchised, can stand for election & enjoy the same rights as men. While there may still need to be attitudinal change, a focus on historical guilt angle makes men more likely to dismiss the topic as, as you say, this is completely out of their hands.

You don't care if men feel guilty or not — fine. So what are the aims of the feminism campaign? Presumably, since women have equal rights, it's about changing attitudes & gender stereotypes. This involves engaging men in the discussion, since it's their attitudes that you want to change.

So, yes there is the 'tone fallacy' & you don't care if men feel guilty, but when the one area that is now the most important to achieve change is in attitude, it becomes more important to engage men in the discussion.

amacachi · 16-02-2012 11:20PM

Millicent wrote: »

Females are more dominant in the "caring" side of medicine though--men account for a higher proportion of doctors. The recent CSO findings showed too that in another area where women were MASSIVELY dominant -- teaching -- more men were still principals, despite the smaller proportion of men in teaching roles.

Doesn't it generally go on seniority so surely looking at the split in intake ~40 years ago would give a fairer picture of how the gender split of principals "should" be now? My old secondary school has slightly more female than male teachers, half of the female teachers started in the last 5 years so are unlikely to be principal right now. That said, it happens that the school now has its first female principal.
Same with average pay etc., obviously men earn more on average in the Civil Service for example because whatever it was, 30 years ago, women had to quit when they married so the upper levels of the payscales etc. are male-heavy.

Dudess · 16-02-2012 11:24PM

There's no way men should feel guilty about what other men, past or present, have done to women solely because they're female, and Millicent did not say that. Claiming something as fact because you want it to be true, as opposed to it being true, is a bridge too far...

Millicent · 16-02-2012 11:28PM

amacachi wrote: »

Doesn't it generally go on seniority so surely looking at the split in intake ~40 years ago would give a fairer picture of how the gender split of principals "should" be now? My old secondary school has slightly more female than male teachers, half of the female teachers started in the last 5 years so are unlikely to be principal right now. That said, it happens that the school now has its first female principal.
Same with average pay etc., obviously men earn more on average in the Civil Service for example because whatever it was, 30 years ago, women had to quit when they married so the upper levels of the payscales etc. are male-heavy.

That's probably a part of it actually. However, there is still a massive disparity that can't solely be put down to that.

I erred slightly now I look at it--women are actually 3 per cent more likely to be primary teachers, but still, that's surprising when you see that 85% of women are primary teachers. The actually wording of the CSO study is "school managers" too.

In primary education, 85% of teachers are women. And in second-level education, 63% of teachers are women. Despite this, women are not well represented at senior level positions: ... 53% of primary school managers, and 41% of second-level school managers

And the Civil Service and marriage point is a valid one too. The differences now may be just the recalibration of that system swinging back into place.

However, women can still legally be paid less than a male counterpart because of taking maternity leave. I can understand this from a capitalist point of view, but considering that men haven't the same entitlement to paternity leave, the choice for work women is, don't have children, get back to work quickly after giving birth or accept that you will be paid less and are less likely to be promoted because you did what is natural to humans and had a child. It's almost like they are punished career-wise and financially for having children.

44leto · 16-02-2012 11:28PM

A difficult subject, and I don't think it should be, but an interesting thread. Another aspect of this argument is the vitriol hatred I often hear projected towards female public officials. Although Mary Harney, Mary Coughlin, Mary O Rourke may not have been perceived as the most competent politicians. Anytime I seen a thread mentioning either it always somewhere descended in their physical appearance which is really irrelevant. I seldom heard anyone mention Cowen's appearance.

But its not just here, I heard the same vitriol hatred projected against Maggie thatcher and Hiliary Clinton. I don't know what the german's think about Angela merkel but I have a feeling it would be the same for some sections of the german society.

Is it fair to say "some" men and probably a big proportion of us have not got use to female authority figures. Some of us just don't like it.

smash · 16-02-2012 11:29PM

When this thread is done, can it please be the last of its kind on ah?

B0jangles · 16-02-2012 11:31PM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I see what you did there , by aligning the (plight ) of feminists with blacks in America circa 1961 , you insinuate that not only am I racist but that the treatment. Of women in Ireland is as much of an issue as that of blacks in the USA, and you accuse me of trying to silence debate

Thank you for (wrongly) explaining my intent to me. I was not comparing racism in the US in the '60s to the status of women in modern Ireland, nor was I calling you a racist.

I was pointing out that you are using exactly the same technique to dismiss those who disagree with you as the people described in the article.

Feathers wrote: »

The difference is that sexism exists against men & women within our society. I don't think many white people suffered racism in 1960s America.

I think the Jewish americans who experienced 5 o'clock anti-semitism might disgree with you on that one.

smash wrote: »

When this thread is done, can it please be the last of its kind on ah?

If you don't like it, why not just, y'know, not read it or post in it???

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments