Category: Let's talk
I don't claim to be an extreme feminist by any means, but I really think promoting equality of women is a good thing, but some of us seem to think that we're better than men now, which makes me wonder if some feminists are taking this movement too far. What do you think?
but we are better! lol jk but in what way do you mean?
I believe in equality for men and women, however, I am a Christian, so I believe while men and women are equal, they are complimentary. I've never thought of myself as less of a woman, cause I'm not a football player or minister. I believe that there are other ways for women to assert their strong traits without compromising their femininity. One of my best friends has a chip on her shoulder, cause she thinks her mom didn't get a promotion cause of her sex. However at the time, this person wasn't finished with college yet, and hadn't worked at the same company as long as her male colleagues. Sometimes I think feminism gives women an excuse to complain about problems that are really not gender-related. I believe God created men to be with women, and therefore, women are equal to men. However, I really have a problem with women completely abandoning men or somehow minimizing their importance in society. Of course I believe in equal pay, and voting rights. But I draw the line at female wrestlers and football players. I don't feel I need to conform to traditional male gender roles to be respected by men. The men I know respect me for my unwillingness to compromise my standards, even if they don't always agree with them. I'm not saying women should always play happy homemaker, but think about it, men don't feel the need to take on female gender roles in order to be respected, the opposite should be true for women too.
No, they shouldn't have to, but what if they do? Why do we need to have specific gender roles? Why shouldn't a woman be a wrestler or a boxer if she wants to? Why should a man feel ashamed to be emotional?
What I mean by some women thinking we're better than men is that, well, some of us seem to think that they were dominant for the past few hundred years, and now it's our turn. Sure, it was wrong to have a dominant gender, but the new generation of men today shouldn't have to pay for that. There's nothing wrong for a woman to want a male companion. No, it's not strictly necessary, and independence is a good thing, but to throw someone off just because they're a man? I don't know about that.
Equality is great but the fems today like to get more and more power until oops we're no longer equal. It's just wrong.
Here's another aspect to this, not quite strictly feminism but related:
In the early nineties, 'inclusion' was talked about and several all-male establishments, including a few private clubs, got sued to be gender-inclusive. At the time, I thought 'Hey great, let the women in if they want / can make the grade or whatever, just compete like the rest of us.'
Well that's not really how it works. First, girls organizations have remained all girls. Second, they change how the men's organization works to meet what they want. That's not inclusion. If I want to be part of a professional organization or private club, and I have to fight my way in because I'm blind, that doesn't mean I can go in and change how it works to be there. In fact, if I want to be included, by definition that should mean it's because I have something in common with them. I don't have to change the standards of the organization to meet me, that ain't real inclusion.
I would never have dreamed of saying this in my early to mid twenties, but guess what? Looks like all too often they want to change everything once they're included. The Elks lodges had to change once they started having women. I don't mean changes like now you gotta have a girls bathroom or whatever, but more I guess you could say cultural type changes.
I don't know how we all didn't know this was gonna happen: You know most times when the guys were gonna have a party, or, when the boys were gonna go fish or whatever, everything changed once the girls joined in. It's more than just "Can I Come?" "Sure, come along!" They wanted to add to / change the agenda, bring more stuff, maybe less smoke, etc. Naturally there are always exceptions and women willing to play along.
But for the most part it's true. How many men who are co-opted to go shopping in the mall, want to change it by bringing in some big fat cigars, have us a keg, put up a big-screen TV for a game, and the like. It's the mall, where the women go and buy clothes and stuff / spend hours. Like I said, there's a time I never would have dared say this, but it's true: Mostly if the guys wanta go along with the girls, they be a sport and just do it. If the girls wanta go along and be included with the guys, they want to change the system, make it form fitted for them. There's a hunting lodge out here that had to remove some deer trophies after the women were included, because they started complaining! Now I know some hunter / military women who wouldn't have complained at all, in fact they would've been more like to add to the trophies' number, but in a majority of cases the complaining / changing is what happens. So why would you want to be included in a hunting lodge if you weren't into hunting trophies?
Women will be equal once we guys don't have to change everything when the girls come along. Every man on here knows it happens, and when it doesn't they're mad.
When I was in the vending program I ran a coffee cart in a mostly-male establishment for awhile. The guys told me they were glad there was a guy, because they could get coffee and talk about whatever, without being afraid of offending the girl. Guess what? All this offended stuff makes you extraordinarily unequal, not equal.
Even so with domestic affairs: If she's got the house to herself and you come home, she's not having to change it for ya, you come in and there's maybe candles, her music going, cloth / craft type stuff is out, . you as a guy don't really care, wouldn't even cross your mind to control that / make her change whatever she's doing.
But when she comes home and there's tunes blaring, maybe the cigars are out, a game on, pizza boxes laying around, bottles not quite disposed of yet, maybe tools from whatever you were working on in the garage, maybe it's hot so you got your shirt off, you get the idea, would any man on here deliberately put themselves in that position? I think not: Usually happens cause we lost track of time / didn't put the house back together before she got home.
Or how about the kids: She can take the boy to a finger paint class where they eat veggies for a snack, but if you take the girl with you out wherever you're going, she comes back 'All dirty!' and what she got for lunch / snack was fat greasy food, it being Saturday and you're out and about, you are expected to be glad the boy is enlightened and horizons broadened, but you are the evil terror that didn't 'watch your influence on' the little girl!
Oh, and if said little girl is watching people blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on frivolous trinkets on a TV style show, you're to be sensitive. However, if said little girl is watching an aircraft war show with you and liking it, you'll hear about such phrases as "age appropriate."
Of course we'll hear from the exceptions - man bites dog, and not every woman is like that in every situation, but guys if you dare to think hard on this, you'll know I'm not wrong.
Post 3 and Robozork, I totally agree with both of you.
Too often I hear about women trying to change men, minimize men's positions in the house and society, and how men would be nothing without a woman. This just proves that equality between the sexes is impossible and nonexistent because as soon as the woman gains power or starts getting ahead of the man, she starts putting him down. No equality there! Instead of complimenting him for what he's trying to do or is doing, she constantly nags and criticizes. Then when she does something, no matter how large or small, the compliments are required to pour in or else he's uncaring. Fanfuckingtastic!
Exactly. This is what I mean. There's nothing wrong with wanting more say in society, and in the household, but if we women don't like men to have a bad aditude towards us, what makes it right to have a bad aditude towards them? If a woman can get along fine without a man, a man can certainly get along fine without a woman. Yeah, we have our differences in the way we handle certain situations, and the way we talk, generally, but that doesn't make either way right or wrong.
wonderfully put. In my experience, I find that people continue to do what works for them. If someone grew up knowing that they could kick, scream, cry, and skeem, with garonteed results, it carries over, even in to adult life. I litterally know of couples where the woman wants something a certain way, so she screams, cries and the likes. The guy doesn't want to hear it, and doesn't want the extra undeserved guilt, so he lets her have her way, even when he's very unhappy with the situation. I think that this is what happens, even on the grander scale, where the women come in and want to change a man's situation, but I'll keep my comments to a minimum on that one, since it would open up more cans of worms than I want to deal with. In a lot of instances, if the guy would actually stand up to her, in a nonviolent, but firm sure way, his voice might have a better chance of being heard, and his needs might have a better chance of being met. I think it all stems from the fact that most men have this deep seeded fear of being inadequate or not quite good enough, so allowing the woman to have her way makes him feel, for the moment, as though he's really pleased her and done something good. What's so bad about it though is that resentment slowly begins to build, and eventually, something has to give.
What I'd like to know is why do women think they can kick men around and when we stand up for ourselves we are shuned?
Often even put on trial because "she's just a woman and you're an ass hole." I'm getting sick of it.
If women want to be treated equally, then we need to redefine everything in divorce court. Women want to be treated equally when it suits them, but still want crap like more money, to keep the house, etc when it comes time to split up. Sorry, but if you want to be treated equally, then each person gets half of everything, end of story. Take your maintaining lifestyle crap and shove it. It's beyond hypocritical. If you are just as capable as the man in the relationship, that means you can just as easily get a job. Feminists should be outraged that things like this occur. But they're not because it is self serving to their gender. Just like I've never seen a black person speak out against a posative stereotype. For example, that black men are more well endowed than white men. Or that people like that douchebag AL Shartpen never speak out against crimes against white people by blacks, which do occur by the way, but is way more than willing to point out the opposite. Even when race doesn't seem to be the issue, self serving pompus assholes like him make it one. My point is that this entire equality arguement seems to be bullshit. it's just inequality of a different sort. I wish society were equal, but that is never going to happen. And in a capolistic society, we shouldn't expect such a thing to happen. generally, It's each person out for themselves , see my examples above. That doesn't mean I hope things won't change or that we shouldn't aim for a higher ideal, but that this is the way things are now. The inequality is just shifting off white males on to other groups.
To answer a few questions, Gender roles help people maintain their identity in society. What's one of the first labels a child is given, Male or Female. Now, this referrs to sex, not gender, but I think you get my point. I'm not saying its wrong for males to be emotional, or nurses, or that its wrong for women to be cops. However, as far as the wrestler and boxer comments from earlier, I just think its gross for women to do that, and if you wanna even up the score, I think male gymnastics and ballet dancers are kinda gross too. Not the athletes, but just the idea. Like I said, I do believe in sticking to gender roles. I remember in middle school, I took a gymnastics class, and there was one boy, it kind of freaked all the girls out! I wouldn't even mind women-on-women football and boxing, but I think generally, contact sports like wrestling, football, and boxing are best left single-gender. Gender roles exist, whether or not we want to follow them. Don't even get me started on unisex bathrooms!! Gross!!!
One other thing, I do agree that whoever has primary custody of the children should get more if kids are involved in a divorce. I also feel that the other parent should contribute to the child's life more than through just visitation. Child support, when used right, is a good thing. However, it's not always the case that the female is the best choice for the child's well being.
To post 10: When he stands up for himself, the woman has to scream, kick, cry... Whatever, to get her point across. She knows that calling him an insensative asshole might just have the affect of making him either feel bad enough, or look bad enough, that he'll let her have her way, thus avoiding any further drama. You must admit, more often than not, it works.
to the poster who thinks it's gross for women to be boxers/wrestlers, I completely disagree. I think it's silly to say that; if a woman wants to do those things, why shouldn't she? the same goes for girls asking guys out: I'm a firm believer that the girl should do the asking if she's truly into him. it sickens me that people are still so caught up in certain things being gender specific, but to each their own. I certainly don't expect things to change, but that doesn't stop me from wishing they would.
As long as a woman can do the job the same as a man, then why not? Some would say the father is to be the heavy handed one where the mother is to be the most understanding, and even claim that is biology. Plenty of us dads are the more laid back, while the mom may be more hyper or intense about things.
I hope the previous poster can see, it's not only men enforce these particular roles, I'd say most modern men aren't that mindful of it. And I mean real men, I'm not talking the pink slippered kind, just regular guy guys, aren't so taken up with who has what role where when. To me that smacks of juvenile insecurity: When we were fifteen years old or thereabouts, weren't we all concerned we weren't manly enough, when the voice cracks and all. Dunno how that translates for girls that are real insecure on the roles thing / have to make a ton of rules to show they are one, but at least for men, you grow up a bit, things settle down, and that insecurity ought to go away. I know I'll never look like a Greek god, even though I work out. But that hasn't made me insecure enough about roles and things since I was around seventeen or so. If the task needs doing and I can, well I just do it. To me when I see either extreme in a preoccupation about roles it just kinda reminds me of puberty / lighting farts in the locker room / calling one another faggot. I guess boys to men is more definite, maybe secure somehow, than girls to women. Or at least we as boys got the benefit of having such passages if you will. I know now, raising a daughter, girls just haven't got access to that stuff.
I mean, how do you really tell a girl to buck up, 'it'll put a little hair on your chest,' that sort of thing, but the girl version. Not just the words, but the concepts don't apply. 'Man up' actually has meanings for us, and boys can move from insecure to secure as men. Maybe that's why the preoccupation on either extreme from women: you all don't get that benefit, and I'm not describing it right. But there's something different when you are looked at as a man and not a boy, not just privilege but more to it, responsibility where people count on you and the like. I think in a modern universe that's what shakes the insecurity about roles and things out of us.
But the feminists ought to figure out if women are insecure about roles, it's not us men: men basically don't care / do their thing and in a modern world that includes everything from working in the garage to changing a baby's diapers, it's all in a day's work. So you all oughta figure out how to make those rights of passage and similar types of things work amongst your own kind, whatever helps you all become secure, just as we have had. I'm in the precarious position of having been a boy, and now a man but raising a daughter: so much we got (not privilege or at the expense of women mind you), that girls don't: there's no 'man up', no 'be a sport', no 'this will make a ... out of you', where a girl could do or buck up to it, and all that with pride.
I dunno ...
I think a lot of us are just set in our ways about gender roles. No offence. I'm not saying it's anybody's fault in particular, but generally, your parents teach you what they were taught, and so on. That being said, a boy who does gymnastics should not be frowned upon, nor should a female boxer. I know it might seem unusual, but we really need to start being open minded about all this. Of course, that doesn't mean the woman should rule the boxing ring, or that the man should rule the gym. This goes back to my original point that I think some of us women are going too far by thinking we should be the leaders now. There's a time for everyone to be a leader, and a follower, regardless of gender. It's just a matter of knowing the difference.
I guess it's not so much male gymnasts and female boxers, but I do agree a lot of it comes down to attitude. For instance, I watched a news story where a bunch of high school kids filmed a bunch of guys stripping for a talent show at school. Things got a lot more risque other than just stripping. A lot of parents were upset, but some weren't. Now, what would have happened if that had been a bunch of girls? Sexual exploitation is wrong, whether it is male or female. These kids were still minors, and nobody stepped in and called an end to their Chippendales-like behavior. Oh wait, the assistant Vice Principal was placed on administrative leave. But, nobody stopped the kids from filming. Frankly, I'm kinda sick of the whole feminism discussion!! Frankly, if feminism works, then why are so many women miserable? Sorry, but aren't there more important things to deal with? Just my final two cents on the subject.
Equality is not entitlement is not exceptionalism.
Women should be allowed the same gender roles, career options, hobbies and habits men are. Likewise, men should be allowed the same as women.
Feminism is the study not only of women in society, but of men in society. How many men - those included in this topic even - do you know might be mildly curious about traditionally feminine habits at some point in their/your life, but are more or less shamed into not trying?
If you cannot stand deer heads, do not go into hunting lodges. If you cannot stand skinned knuckles, do not box. If you cannot stand over-adorned clothing, don't shop for it. But don't piss on someone else's parade because they think differently, no matter which gender they are. That's kind of the point of feminism.
I agree with many others here. Men and women often have differing characteristics, but they should still be equal. Too many women these days are forgetting that with equal rites comes equal responsibility. They want the priveleges of equality, without having to do the ssame work, or give up certain things: such a Scott was talking about in his original post. too often, men get the shaft in our society because we're switching toward female power. Yes, males dominated society for years, and women were treated like property. In some areas of the world, this is still the case, and it personally sickens me. But that's a whole other deal: getting into differing cultures, etc. I'll stick to the feminist movement as it is in America.
the past is the past, and just because society used to be dominated by men doesn't mean it has to switch totally the other way round: as some feminists seem to think. Hence the word, equality. Today, what most guys consider chivalry, I consider annoying as hell, because it harkens back to the days when the woman was simply a trophy. Men and women should both do things to help each other as humans, not cuz one person is considered weaker.
The case that annoyed the hell out of me the most was years ago, when a woman fought to get into the Marines. And then she couldn't cut it, and if I remember right, wanted the Marines to change their training standards for her. I was pissed off about that, even then. It made all women look bad, especially those wishing to go into the military.
OK, rant over for now.
What bothers me is not feminism as it was, but this new age feminism that tells us that men are all jerks and women and women alone have the power to change the world. I can't understand that philosophy.
I believe as a human being the goals of an earlier era of feminism were much more reasonable than they are now. I don't have a problem with women wanting more opportunities outside of the home, but I believe there are some opportunities men are better equipped to handle, like supervision and management in large corporate environments. Like it or not, even in this day and age, women still shoulder more of the work of child care, and supervisory/management jobs take well over 40 hours a week of one's time. Childless women tend to do better at these jobs than those with families. I know because when I was with SBCL in Florida, of the three moms who held supervisory jobs, the two divorced moms...one of whom didn't realize how much of her time these positions would take up...stepped down to lower paying, 40 hours a week jobs. The married mom, even with on site child care, felt like a gerbil on a wheel constantly running around and resigned altogether. I have found male supervisors more pleasant and able to make decisions more on a logical basis as well.
Also I think it is totally unrealistic to say males and females are equal, except that they should be treated with equal dignity as human beings. Having a daughter myself, I can say that she and her little preschool girlfriends, when they attempt to move across a set of bars on the playground, yell for help on the first bar, while a little boy close to their age has virtually tackled those bars from end to end. Men naturally have more upper body strength than women, so jobs that require that, including many in military service, are more naturally suited for men. They are also naturally willing, from the toddler years, to take more risks at a higher level than women...which can be good, for example, in business, but can be bad, as Dr Jan Garavaglia, Orange County, FL's Chief Medical Examiner, will state she gets more male patients on her table from the age of 1 thru 45 than female due to accidental death.
I was listening to John and Jeff's radio program one night, and a fireman called in talking about his fire department's weakening the physical exam requirement to get more women into the F D. That personally ticks me off. Like it or not, a man is more likely to be able to lift an average size adult and get them out of a dangerous situation than a woman. I worked with a man who told me once the army opened some positions up to women, it actually took more people to do those jobs, for example, field medic. Two guys transport a man from the field into an ambulance, it takes two people, one guy on each end. The man I worked with told me due to women having less upper body strenghth than men, that same job required FOUR PEOPLE, two on each end. And it isn't just women who have taken advantage of lower standards, but people with certain physical problems who shouldn't be doing that sort of work. For example, my neighbor is on a waiting list to be a full time firefighter. My neighbor has both asthma and Type 1 Diabetes. Huh?! I was talking to a fireman who told me of the rigorous training in 90+ degree heat in full gear, an exercise in a fire, even inhalation of toxic gas that reduced the trainees to nausea. I'm asthmatic and can't even be around my husband when he is smoking a cigarette. Inhalation of noxious gas?! And what if this man's glucosed dropped or spiked during a major fire? This lowering of requirements for military/paramilitary jobs to make 'em more diverse really isn't doing anyone any favors.
Which is why I was saying in my previous post that standards should not be lowered for things like military, fire departments, etc. If a person can't cut it, no matter the gender, etc, then they shouldn't be in. But if they can cut it, then they should be allowed the job, etc, just as anyone else would.
And, your post also reminds me of one of the very many reasons I am never having kids!
Weakening the standards for strength-based jobs is stuck, reckless and patronizing. A woman can still be an effective part of the military or the fire department or what have you, but in a different role. Just like not all men are the grunts out on the battlefield.
Exactly.
Although I understand that men and women have their own distinct biological differences, I believe that they should be given equal opportunities whatever that opportunity might be. While men are typically stronger than women, this does not necessarily mean that a woman cannot do something in the same way as a man. There are some women who are stronger than some men just as there are some women who are taller than some men. What applies to one person may or may not apply to every person.
As far as the example about the girl getting stuck on the monkey bars, is she stuck because she really is not strong enough to make it to the other side, or could there be other factors that may explain her behavior? It is not uncommon for members in society to teach women and young girls to act in helpless ways as a way to bring attention to themselves. I am not saying this is the case in the example that you cite, but gender roles are more about how we learn to be male or female than it is about human biology.
However, as it was mentioned in the first post, I do not believe equality is about thinking that women are somehow better than men. Both men and women play important roles, and to say one is better than the other only promotes the notions of inferiority and seniority which leads to discrimination. When I think of equality, I think of being equal to someone, not better than or less than someone. And while it may be difficult to say that everyone should be treated equally despite our vast differences, I believe everyone should at least be given the same opportunity.
If men can be business managers then why can’t women? In most cases, they are already managing a business as more women ten to own and operate small businesses than men. Since women have the tendency to think more collectively than men, it has been said that women can manage businesses just as effectively as men since they are thinking more about the company as a whole rather than their own individual needs. In fact, I even heard the argument that if more women were in charge of our financial institutions, then our economic melt down might have been as severe as it has turned out to be.
I like the fact that boys and men participate in ballet and gymnastics. The late actor Patrick Swayze was big in both disciplines before he got into acting. In some societies, like China, Russia, and Japan mens' gymnastics is more respected in the U S and these are very powerful teams. Former football great Lynn Swan used ballet to improve his game.
Who participates in what sport or hobby doesn't much concern me. What I dislike about the modern feminist movement is that it teaches that men aren't needed. My four year old likes the Nick tv show iCarly. I feel quite the opposite as on this show, not even one of the characters has their father in their lives. Older brother Spencer is Carly's guardian, Freddie has a neurotic nurse single mother, and Sam has a single mother who dates new men every time you turn around. It is never explained why all of these fathers are out of the picture. I realize some men get themselves booted out of these households due to their behavior, but to teach that this is the norm?! I used to live in a state with a high % of single mothers, and, working in the medical field, see some of the havoc these arrangements brought to the kids once their moms started dating. Sometimes I would see eye swabs and even spinal taps on newborn infants for sexually transmitted diseases. It seems feminists want people to believe marriage and family are totally unneeded.
In the state I live now, medical insurers, believe it or not, must cover infertility as a medical condition. This means, although some states have limits on infertility coverage, that in my state of residence it doesn't matter whether someone is part of a married couple or a single woman who is afraid of the bacteria on a sponge but not afraid to make a baby with an unknown donor (my neighbor), these services must be covered. If this doesn't teach that men are regarded as totally unneeded, I don't know what does.
Perhaps these modern day feminists rejected biology classes as hogwash. Perhaps they felt it is sexist. Well, isn't saying that us men are not needed sexist?
Just because the people out front are the loudest doesn't mean they're right or consistent with the views of the great majority. Most of the men-bashers aren't really feminists as one would define them by dictionary or philosophical terms, they're just...angry.
I love the observation on modern day feminists rejecting biology classes as hogwash. True, so, true. And yes it is very sexist to teach that men are unnecessary, except maybe as anonymous sperm donors. A most repulsive concept if ever there was one, but anyway, I truly believe some of these so-called feminists, on some level, seek to destroy even those they claim to want to help...women. I think they operate to promote the agenda of really only a very small minority of women.
For example, the concept of unfettered abortion rights, in some countries, like parts of China and India, has lead to a big shortage of girls by comparison to boys. What should have been helpful ultrasound machines from the U S, in certain Indian states, has even lead to an expression of "Better x number of rupees (for an ultrasound or abortion) today than, say, x+1000 rupees for a dowry tomorrow." Numbers not exact, and with Hindus dowries go to the groom's family from the bride's, so in adulthood girls are considered less valuable than boys, thus aborted. Indian "feminists" say nothing about the carnage of girls out of fear of stepping on a woman's so-called "freedom to choose." Now I personally don't know anyone's feelings on the controversial topic of abortion, so I'm strictly going to state my own and say I believe in restrictions on it and leave it at that. Large numbers of males with low numbers of females are going to make for more males available to me militarized for every cause, from Communism and militant Hinduism (Hindutva), to jihad, although ironically the discrepancy of girls to boys does not exist in India's one Muslim majority province, Kashmir.
Massachusetts' unlimited coverage for infertility reduces men to anonymous sperm donors in the case of single women who want babies of their own. Strangely enough at my job, I had some paperwork coming from an IVF clinic on two males seeking to have a baby through a surrogate. Isn't it also wrong to allow women to be reduced to egg donors and incubators for people who aren't willing to adopt as it is to reduce the men to anonymous sperm donors? And these people never think of the child, like "Hey might my child not like to know BOTH parents? Not just a mom and a donor i d number? Hey, what if he/she has an unresponsive anemia or leukemia where you're talking a bone marrow transplant, or a problem which requires a tissue or organ transplant?" Like it or not these transplants favor biological relatives, and if no one from the mom's side is a match, how do you explain the lack of a dad or any of his family? "Oh, gee, he just as an anonymous donor i d, I really don't know who or where he is?" Just to satisfy a minority of women who really only are thinking about themselves...sick sick sick...
Cat, don't you think the argument that if women ran our financial institutions then we would be better off is also sexist? I really don't think the well-being of a business or economy is based on gender. It should be based on how someone thinks, regardless of sex.
No, I don’t believe that advocating for the inclusion of more women in a profession that is dominated by men to be sexist. I think women should be given an equal chance to participate in society. You’re right, the best person should get the job no matter what there sex may be. But how many times are women denied professional business jobs simply because they are women? And how many men have been denied nursing and teaching jobs simply because they are men? Perhaps if we lived in a perfect world then no one would ever be denied an opportunity based on their sex, but unfortunately, we don’t exactly live in a perfect world.
Spongebob, I totally agree with you. It's the belief that men are no longer necessary that bothers me, and probably a lot of other people. Some people I know would not like me saying this, arguing that these women have fought for our freedom from men, but freedom shouldn't mean eliminating men from our lives altogether. That's just as sexist as saying the world doesn't need women.
Okay, so this cluster of angry, man-bashing women...what makes them so angry?
Also, I have not witnessed a woman not getting a job today simply because she is a woman.
Do you think any employer is going to admit that they didn't hire her because of that?
Of course not but doesn't that seem a bit outlandish in the 21st century? Can you give me an example of a woman not getting a job because she's a woman?
My mother is a female carpenter. One of her boss's friends wanted to hire a male carpenter. Yes, he specified "male". The boss went ahead and recommended her anyway, and when she showed up at the job, she was sent away because he claimed she was not what he was looking for. He asked for a male carpenter.
Well I happen to know many women who build houses and such. That beeing said, let's face it, carpinters are mostly men...I don't think her boss was sexist by wanting a male for the job. Sorry, you may not like this, but, with a woman on such a job, one has to worry about things such as law suits from sexual harrasment claims and her boss could have been protecting himself from that. Is it fare? Certainly not, but it is good business sense.
I hate to use the words possible liability...but it's something to factor in? Again, is it fare? No and it was not the bestt way to handle another human beeing but I'll bet that was his thought process. Now, her boss may harbor sexist views; that remains to be seen.
Oh yes, the behavior of that boss was most definitely sexist. And I don't simply say that because I am a woman.
Margorp, I submit that your logic could be applied to blind people as well. Many employers view simply having us on their property as a possible liability, too. I have been told as much outright. Employers have to worry about lawsuits of discrimination if we are treated differently by our co-workers, or a boss, etc. and, most jobs in this world are held by sighted people. Most engineers, mathematicians, scientists, and so forth, are sighted. For years blind people have been discouraged from pursuing these fields. Thankfully that is changing. so, just because the job market is predominately made up of sighted people, does that mean then that we as blind people should not pursue employment? Or just because a given profession has not had many blind people in it, should we not pursue it, just because most are sighted? If we apply your views, then no, we as blind people should not seek employment, and particularly not in the professions I have listed above. Yet, I have read your posts on Odicy's board about pity from the sighted, where you are with all the rest of us about wanting equal treatment.
So, is that fair that we are often excluded from the job market, and certain jobs in particular? No, not at all, and from reading your other board posts, you would be the first to cry discrimination, and to want to fight that. Yet you expect women to take such treatment, to read your post and not recognize the sexism and discrimination in it, and for the reaction of that boss to be called good business sense? Using your line of thinking, it may not be fair for an employer not to want to hire a blind person, but it does make good business sense.
Mind, these are not my views, I'm just following your logic to its next step.
Nobody is safe from law sutes these days. That being said, nobody should have to worry about it every time they step out of their house either. Either way, it's sexist. If the boss was worried about sexual harassment claims, does that mean he was planning to sexually harass her? And if he wasn't planning to do such things, she wouldn't be able to make such claims, and he would have nothing to worry about, so logically, that one doesn't make sense either.
Now, hang on...I knew this would happen! Yes, my logic could apply to the blind. Is it fare? Is it right? No! I was meerly pointing out that jumping to the conclution that he is sexist is probably not the best route.
I have gone to many job interviews where the person took one look at me and said "oh, I see..." but I din't kick and scream and tell them they are prejudice. I just try to live my life. And as far as my other posts:
I only take action if little/no care is taken for accessibility and so on.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here: if the woman carpenter wanted to work somewhere she was explicitly told they were looking for a male one, why would she wanna work there in the first place? not to burst anyone's bubble, but I sure as hell wouldn't wanna be anywhere I'm not wanted. also, why jump to conclusions? maybe the guy had other reasons...we'll never know, though.
even as it relates to blindness, I don't assume everyone has a negative perception of it, just cause lots of people do. so, why, then, is it right to do so in this case?
On one hand, I can see your point. If she wasn't wanted, it probably wouldn't have been a very pleasant experience either way, but it's really the thought that counts, and if his only expectation was that the carpenter was male, what reasons could he possibly have had that weren't sexist?
Several. The problem is, you can't mention them without seeming sexist.
Fighter of love and life:
Thank you, you hit the nail on the head.
I can think of one obvious reason she would have gone to apply anyway: the economy. I am fortunate to still be employed in my profession, but am well aware of peers, some of them family, who are not and have not been for eighteen months or so. Don't know how hard it is on carpenters, but many building trades are slowing down. People take jobs that others say "Why did he," or "Why did she," ... listen to that new song "No Rest for the Wicked" if you're still not convinced.
Amen, Robo. That, and she could have done it to make a point. I mean, if someone said in their posting, "only sighted people," I'd probably apply, just to raise hell, and make a point as to how discriminatory that employer is being. Well, given that we're talking about gender, I'd do the same thing had I been that woman, too. Her applying could have been a way of calling this guy out on what a discriminating jerk he was being.
But if it were you, and you aplied, he might not hire you if he is sexist, so what would it prove? Find an imployer who will hire you.
Because, like she said, it's to make a point. Women are supposed to be equal these days. Keep in mind I said "equal", not superior. No employer, male or female, should be above that expectation.
And equality is great and the way it should be.
sure we should be equal...but we aren't. I stick to what I said previously; it wouldn't have mattered how adamantly she made her point. it's obvious he wasn't willing to take it, so it would've been a waste of time in my opinion.
I actually think trying to bring in more female people to financial institutions is a very worthwhile experiment. Men, by enlarge, failed, and we know their mind set tends to be different. In Iceland one bank was established and run with profit throughout the crisis, with women being in all management positions and with a different workers policy, more emphasis on shorter work days and general well being of the employees. Of course they could just have been lucky, but we all know men and women, in general, have different characteristics when it comes to decissions, and it follows that perhaps a better gender balance might translate to smarter decissions for the company.
What I do not like in Iceland, which is probably the most feminist country in the world, is that they are requiring equal number of male and female executives, by law, which leads to hiring someone just to fill a gender quota, not for their talents or knowledge or match to that particular position, and I think that is biased, in this case towards men.
Also, with regards to sports, if a women could run and fight just as well as a man she should be included on a mixed gender team. However men are physically stronger and faster so forceably including girls on a boys football team would slow down the team and make the sport different, which is wrong.
I ad a talk with my manager after I had worked for a bank in the U.S. for some time asking him about hiring in general. He said something I had never thought of. He said may be a certain stereotype, say Chinese guys, may always have the best grades, best numerical research etc, but people have found if you do not hire a mix of people the work place gets monotonous and unenjoyable and workers tend to leave. He said there is a great art to mixing personalities, genders and so on to create an all inclusive work place. Yes, they may even hire a blind person more to create a certain type of atmosphere or for corporate numbers, but it gives the applicant the chance to prove that he or she is more than just an HR charity number, and I think it is the best thing we can do.
Finally, I think gender equality fight is a bit misguided. I think what really should be happening is both men and women should be fighting for more equality and understanding for family matters. My sister works for an unnamed U.S. company and they have taken a whole week of vacation from her because of the hours spent on errands such as picking up a sick child, taking him to the doctor etc. Of course his dad could have done some of that, but he happens to work even further away. Also, and I will not be popular for saying this, but it falls often more naturally to the mother to do some of these things but I think either parent should have rights to take care of their child and to have understanding regarding those situations, rather than being deducted pay and looked over for opportunities and thus punished for wanting to have a family.
This hurts women more than it hurts men, certainly, and perhaps this should be a right more tied to women, to give them a more equal chance in that area.
It sounds like Margorp and Chelsea are saying that we should just live with the way things are because that's how they are. Maybe I'm wrong? The feminist movement promotes not taking "no" for an answer on the basis of gender. In this respect, I completely agree with the movement. If I have made myself clear that I don't intend on taking "no" for an answer just because I am a woman, my time has not been wasted.
The part of the movement I disagree with is the fact that some women are taking it a step further. Instead of saying that we should not fail to include women because they are women, they are saying that we should include women just because they are women, whether the man is more suited to the position or not.
that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we should look at this whole equality thing? Are we exactly equal? No! We are told it is wrong to hit women and yet men are often slapped. Okay, that was a poor example but I think it sheds some light on what I am saying.
That I agree with. No, we are not equal. Some of us seem to have turned the tables a little too much, but just as we, as individuals, know that it is no more right to slap men than it is to slap women, we should also know that this is also true when talking about employment, and other areas of life.
ditto to margorp's last post.
and another thing, the law seems more sympathetic towards women. Why is this?
Well, exactly. This is where I think things have gone too far. I don't know how we can prove that, but I do agree with you, at least when it comes to some cases.
Perhaps we will really never fully get along the way we'd like. Perhaps deep down we will harbor feelings of bitterness and so on. Boy I hope not!
I think that's what causes some of the equality issues we face.
I don't think things will ever change, but it's great that we're talking about it.
Because talking is the first step. Talking leads to understanding.
I agree. Change does not happen all at once, especially social change. Too many people want to hang onto the old ways because it's all they know or they've decided things will never change. That's why things can move so slowly. But as long as you keep talking about the issues and getting people's ideas and encouraging others to discuss them instead of sweeping them under the rug, it's a start.
yes, I definitely agree.
It takes people talking about change, and believing it will happen for it to happen. Can you imagine what would have happened if Martin Luther didn't nail the ninety-five theses to the church, and therefore beginning the Renaissance? We might still be controlled by the Roman Catholic Church. There's nothing wrong with the religion, but I certainly wouldn't want it to control my life. The same applies to the feminist movement.
I'll admit though, a lot of it has to do with the attitude of the women. I think society will be more willing to change if some of these women would stop being so pushy about their attitudes towards men in general. Consider the following example to better understand what I mean:
If you want/need a day off work, do you think you'll get success by telling your boss that you need a day off your crappy job? Probably not. You'll probably be more likely to succeed if you include the fact that you respect your boss, and your job when you ask, and that you'll be understanding if he/she cannot grant you this day off, but that you would really appreciate it if they could.
Applying this to the feminist movement, do you think men are going to be willing to change their views if women are saying we don't need them in our lives? I doubt it.
Well the catholics are trying to win control back but that's a whole other topic!
ehem, but yeah, talking, not yelling and screaming, gets things done.
Also no one group gains control. What I mean is that one man is not a representation of all men, all men do not experience privilege. Also this tomfoolery about "identify with" does precisely what it's intended to do: absolutely nothing. It only makes the supposed identifier feel like they're doing something. In fact, it comes across a lot more like the cheeky "If I have to do / experience / have x, then you should too." In short, for some people if their house was on fire, they'd prefer you burn yours down too, instead of getting hoses and helping put out the fire they're having. All you get in the end is wanton destruction and ruin.
ah but people must often learn the hard way unfortunately.
Why does there need to be such a large gap between men and women? We are all humans, which means we have much more in common than not. Would it not be better to exsentuate similarities versus differences?
Exactly. I totally agree. I think what people are saying here is that it's not likely to happen any time in the near future, but of course, equality will never happen if we continue to believe it won't.
in my opinion, the entire basis of feminism is mistaken. Equality is a great goal but the whole premise is manufactured. Respect is the important thing. If society celebrated honored and encouraged the gender differences, then there would be no need for the feminine mystique
Each of us has our own strengths and weaknesses. In the ideal world, we should be allowed and encouraged to express these. I have no interest in or aptitude for boxing. If that's what a woman wants to do, then she should be allowed to persue her dream. The fact that I feel uncomfortable with her choice is my problem
For both women and blind people standards should not be weakened. if either group feels she can do a traditionally male dominated job, then she should be allowed the opportunity to fail or succeed.
i am old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960s. if the position of home maker were revered more, than women would have not needed feminism. Men were treated as kings. They had the luxury of coming home to peace and quiet because they had a hard day. Nothing was said about mom's stress and tension. Dealing with little kids is not easy. Men got their slippers, cocktails, and dinner. They thought everything was fine. The man showed little interest in his wife's day or accomplishments. Although this was not the case in my home, I had many dinners with friends and this is what i witnessed.
When I was a girl, we were told "in order to be attractive to a guy, let him win at a game." and "as long as you make him thing that whatever you want is his idea, then you will get what you need." Excuse me? No wonder women felt devalued.
My step mom said it used to make her so angry at office parties at her husband's job. The men would say "what do you do honey?" She would say she was a home maker and they would practically turn up their noses.
Raising the future generation is the most important job anyone undertakes. Whether Dad or Mom does it, if the sacrifice is made so that one parent can stay at home then their efforts should be praised.
I grew up in a unique home. My dad taught my mom how to cook. She had a profession and took time off to raise us. Instead of sitting on the front porch and whining about her husband as did many of our neighbors, she made her and our days count by taking us to the library, doing crafts with us, and exploring and expanding our worlds.
sister dawn was correct as was robezerk. rights must be paired with responsibilities. If we want the pie we have to do the work of baking it.
spongebob, kids tv shows today try to mirror the society we live in. unfortunately, many children are being raised by one parent. Many of the boys from these homes have no male model and don't know how to be dads. In future generations this will prove to be a very serious social issue.
Convoluted conundrum, you are right on with your remarks as to females saving the economy. The reason we are in a financial mess is because those in authority had character flaws. Simple straight forward inability to distinguish between lies and truths was and is their problem. that has nothing to do with their gender.
ocean dream, if the presence or absence of a penis was so important for the hiring of a carpenter, a woman would not want to be hired by this company. Obviously things like quality of work and integrity were not considered important.
as for the equality in child divorces that was mentioned somewhere in this huge mess, that is falacious. Tyypically when a man leaves his income goes up dramatically. A woman's goes down a whole lot too.
another area that is not mentioned is that husbands and wives are expected to perform tasks they have no business doing. Due to insecurity many men and women are forced to endure things they don't enjoy or which make them very uncomfortable. I am a ham radio operator, which is traditionally a male dominated hoby. My husband is participates. There are many times when he and his buds go out and do stuff. I would be welcome, but they need a chance to talk dirty and drink beer. Likewise I have many female friends. I don't expeect him to come shopping or listen to us talk about children and cramps. there are many times when we do stuff as couples and in large groups. each of us needs to have our space.
Agreed. And about the ham radio operator:
I wonder why mostly men do this? I know women that have ham radios and it seems to me that that community is verry open to the idea. Of course I'm not in that so I could be wrong. The fact is, we need to have more respect for each other as human beeings.
Thank you Turricane. That saves me a very long-winded, and possibly non-sensical post.
Yup I think she hit the nail on the head.