oh! youre a feminist? how cute!
has the feminist movement set back the plight for male / female equality?
No. The feminist movement opened the doors for entire generations of women.
It depends on whom you are talking about, which feminist, IMO.
If they treat men as the "them" in an Us & Them philosophy, yes, it is harmful.
Feminism =/= Equality.
Feminists think women are BETTER THAN men.
I don't think all feminist do.
Feminism =/= Equality.
Feminists think women are BETTER THAN men.
So, you are a feminist, Ibram, judging by your posts in
where is sex?Feminism =/= Equality.
Feminists think women are BETTER THAN men.
Perhaps. But those strong minded feminists were going up against a strong male chauvinistic attitude back during the heyday of feminism a couple decades ago. Men and women are far more equal today as a result.
As a woman, I am supposed to be a "feminist." I am not. It's one thing for women and men to be given equal pay for equal work ... they should be and the reasons are so obvious as to not require discussion. There are, however, biologically based differences in terms of physical strength, brain functioning, problem solving methodology, and so forth. It has apparently become heresey to point these sorts of things out, as evidenced by the
public flaying of the president of Harvard a year or so ago.Yup. Men and women are different.
Ditto what Wolf said. I'm a woman...but I completely understand that there are some things that men can do that I can't...whether it's because they are physically stronger or that's just the way they were made...there are things that women can do that men can't, like having babies, etc...we'll never be equal. I don't know much about the feminist movement and all that, mostly because I don't care enough to know... my world is still the same.
No. The feminist movement opened the doors for entire generations of women.
I'm not sure it opened any doors as much as it opened some eyes. I don't know any men went scrambling around opening locked doors over a Helen Reddy song. But I do know some men that stopped opening doors after that song.
The feminist movement has been integral to many small victories for women across the world. Just keep in mind that until Greer (a woman whom I hold in fairly deep disdain) started burning bras etc, women had far fewer rights. I don't necessarily condone some of her actions or opinions, however, because I believe it takes the point of view from extremes in any discussion to enable us to find a middle ground, her actions and those of her cronies has helped women across the world.
Obviously the fight for women's rights began long before Greer's time. Probably the most important movement was when women lobbied successfully to be allowed a vote and therefore participation in the political process, and some sense of self determination over the course of their lives in conjunction with the country in which they live.
Do I consider myself a feminist? Nope. I like having gentlemen open doors for me and all those other nice things. I enjoy being a wife to my husband and taking care of the house and kids etc. At the same time though, I enjoy a large degree of autonomy within the household and in my country. As a woman, I believe this is because of the ardent feminists who have paved the way for a better future and greater rights for women world wide.
I don't think this is a detrimental thing for male and female equality. Women and men will always have roles that the majority of people find acceptable. The point of the womens movement is to cater for those of us, both male and female, who want to have the right to do things outside the normal sphere. Sure this causes discomfort for some neanderthals (both male and female) but in my very personal opinion, that's their own problem.
...but I completely understand that there are some things that men can do that I can't...
...like stand on the bed and pee out the window (like me pappy always said)
I'm not sure it opened any doors as much as it opened some eyes. I don't know any men went scrambling around opening locked doors over a Helen Reddy song. But I do know some men that stopped opening doors after that song.
I actually had to be retrained to allow a man to do that. It was difficult.
I have now been retrained to accept graciously having someone pay for meals and movie tickets. It doesn't suck. There is a lot to be said for an old fashioned sort of gentleman.
I have probably told this story here before. I was with some friends for a movie night. We were watching MST3K, and as usual, coming up with better lines than Tom, Crow, and Joel. I think it was War of the Colossal Beast ... whichever movie they spoofed, it was the one with the short about three women going to college to study one of the three acceptable fields for women ... home economics (the other two, of course, being teaching and nursing). A young woman (in her early 20s) was watching it. She found the short beyond absurd, and was insisting that it must have been made up. It was a head-ripping experience for her to find out that it was real.
We've come a long way, baby.
Being an "I can do it myself" kind of person, I must concede that men are better at lifting heavy objects.
I think a man opening the door is just polite, and it's impolite to act as if it's a woman's right and not thank him. No different than how I make sure doors don't slam in the face of people who are behind me or other similar situations.
Modern chivalry is a good thing. Men should open doors and kill the bugs.
... they should be and the reasons are so obvious as to not require discussion.
Yet somehow require legislation...
There are, however, biologically based differences in terms of physical strength, brain functioning, problem solving methodology, and so forth....
Yeah, men are better at everything. We rule! :rolleyes: :p
Spanky: Let's start a club right now. The He-man Woman-haters. I'll be president.
Alfalfa: And I'll be second president, and you can be third president.
Buckwheat: Thanks.
Spanky: Alright, get up and do exactly what I do. Put your hand on your heart, and raise your other hand. We, the He-man Woman-haters club...
Alfalfa and Buckwheat: We, the he-man woman-haters club...
Spanky: ...promise not to fall for this Valentine's business...
Alfalfa and Buckwheat: ...promise not to fall for this Valentine's business...
Spanky: ...because girls are the bunk.
Alfalfa and Buckwheat: ...because girls are the bunk.
Do I consider myself a feminist? Nope. I like having gentlemen open doors for me and all those other nice things. I enjoy being a wife to my husband and taking care of the house and kids etc.
I do consider myself a feminist. I also like it when a man opens a door or pulls out a chair. I do not see chivalry and feminism as mutually exclusive. The opening of doors and the pulling out of chair is is not an indication that men have traditionally seen women as weak and frail and in need of looking after and protecting. The roots of that tradition are in courtly love, whereby a man would swear himself a servant to the woman, the object of his desire. The term for this type of behaviour was gentilesse.
Ditto what Wolf said. I'm a woman...but I completely understand that there are some things that men can do that I can't...whether it's because they are physically stronger or that's just the way they were made...there are things that women can do that men can't, like having babies, etc...we'll never be equal. I don't know much about the feminist movement and all that, mostly because I don't care enough to know... my world is still the same.
I dated a woman who loaded luggage at Orlando airport. This was when I was still in pretty good shape. We worked-out together, she benched the same 250 as I.
She, sometimes, let me pay for all the date and always let me open doors for her (not the car door, unless we were on a date), unless she was in a hurry. She was a beautiful lady and not "butch" at all. Just physical. Though it is the norm, women can do whatever a man can do.
However, I dislike the whole man-hating feminism as well just as much as I dislike objectifying women on a personal level.
The problem with feminism.....as with any movement, is that it was and is made up of people. One person's feminism may not match another's. As with any movement, there was a particularly extreme wing, which also happened to be the most vocal and therefore defined the movement for those who observed from outside.
I am glad we had that extreme wing, shouting and marching, even though I disagree with many of their views. It was necessary; the quiet approach which had prevailed for most of history was taking an awfully long time to have any effect. I would not have the freedoms I now have, had they been quiet and conciliatory.
Another thing to bear in mind, when considering the main feminist movement, is the anger and frustration felt by many of the people involved. To be denied equality is an unpleasant thing. To be treated as less able, capable, worthwhile and important than another person merely because of an accident of birth is unpleasant. When people become angry and frustrated and sensitized to the unfairness that governs so much of their lives and range of opportunities; when someone discovers that their natural talents, desires, ambitions and proclivities, are not catered to by their proscribed place in society, and then track back a thousand years and find the roots of that unfairness spread through every part of their society and history, it can result in a rather extreme reaction.
Interestingly, many of the same accusations which were levelled at the feminists of the 70s were also levelled at the suffragettes who fought for the vote in Britain. They were accused of being man haters, lesbians, women who were unnatural in that they wanted to take male roles etc etc.Even now, at a political meeting recently, when a speaker read extracts from a book she'd written about some local suffragettes, there were people arguing that they had gone too far and should not have resorted to the tactics they used.
Are women in Britain paid closer to men than they are in the US?
Depends on the industry or sector. Many sectors have extreme disparity. Even with some industries getting a handle on it, there is a massive disparity in the kinds of jobs women do and men do, and the wages commanded by the jobs women do more of, are lower than those commanded by the jobs men tend to do.
i wonder how much of the suppression of women over the years is down to the catholic church?
Some. But in fairness to the Catholic Church (and believe me that's not something you'll hear from me very often) they are far from unique in their approach to womens' roles.
Some. But in fairness to the Catholic Church (and believe me that's not something you'll hear from me very often) they are far from unique in their approach to womens' roles.
yeah sorry, i was being typically Western. ;)
500 or a 1000 years ago every thing was male dominated. Please don't try to lay this on the Catholic church. This planet was originally dominated by the physically strong species and the only way to survive was to be faster , stronger and better. Now that those rules no longer apply - the situation must and has changed. There can be no real equality though. We are after all different.
There can be no real equality though. We are after all different.
Care to explain that?
Care to explain that?
Hmm, I think thats a loaded question. I'll try to rephrase this way - men and women are different - physically, biologically, physiologcally - we are opposites of the same species.
Please do not take my comment to mean that women or men are superior to the other. I was being somewhat fecisious. I believe that women and men - red, white, green or blue - should be paid for the function which they perform - period. Gender should have no basis on the amount someone makes.
500 or a 1000 years ago every thing was male dominated. Please don't try to lay this on the Catholic church. This planet was originally dominated by the physically strong species and the only way to survive was to be faster , stronger and better. Now that those rules no longer apply - the situation must and has changed. There can be no real equality though. We are after all different.
so you agree that a woman shouldnt be allowed to become a priest? how about a female pope? or even a black female pope? Herr Ratzinger would have a heart attck ... with any luck.
Oh my no, I never said anything like that at all - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that this inequality was NOT the fault of the Catholic church - thats all, nothing more.
In fact I think I clearly stated that "since those rules no longer apply that the situation must and has changed." Please don't misconstrue what I meant. If it was unclear I apologize.
Oh my no, I never said anything like that at all - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that this inequality was NOT the fault of the Catholic church - thats all, nothing more.
youre right, i did put words in your mouth. for that i apologise. however, given the history and recent actions of the church, i stand by what i said previously. in christianity, the church has undoubtedly kept women down and erm .... out ... in the kitchen. if thats where a woman [I]chooses[I] to be, thats fine and dandy. if its not, its oppression.
Thats a nice distinction.
Unfortunately, after the fights of the 70s and 80s, we ended up in a situation (I think this has settled down again into something more balanced though) where women who chose to do exactly that felt (and possibly were) looked down on by other women.
I think women are now in a situation where they have to get an education and join the workforce. To me that leaves the most important task of raising their children, our future generations, to hired help. IMHO - that sucks. Thats just my 2 cents though. Typically, but NOT ALWAYS, women are far better at that than their male counterparts.
I think women are now in a situation where they have to get an education and join the workforce.
That's false. They don't
have to do anything. They are now in a situation where they can choose. Much of our society promotes materialism, so people feel they need both parents working to keep up with the Joneses, but if you lower your standard of living, you can survive on one income.
Also, men who stay at home with the children usually do a bang up job.
My brother and his wife share the task pretty much equally. Now that she's a qualified nurse, he's scaled down his working day in order to take account of the girls' needs.
They are very well brought ujp girls and happy. They have a close relationship with both parents. Not every woman who chooses to have a career leaves their children with the help.
I think women are now in a situation where they have to get an education and join the workforce
This got past me on first reading. Get an education? No wonder so many kids are screwed up if their mothers are selfishly educating themselves instead of raising their babies. Women are so much better at raising babies than men, they should leave the education to men.
My ex didn't do a very good job of taking care of our sons when I was working (something he had a problem doing).
I think there IS pressure on women to do everything including having a job, study, raise kids and do the house. This is one of the things the womens movement has to answer for. They said we could do it all, which most of us can. Just not all at the same time in my opinion. It puts far too much pressure on a woman to be everything if she happens to be married to a man who doesn't realize how much 'work' she actually does.
In my opinion (which can be supported by research), these unrealistic expectations have had a huge influence on the rising divorce rate in society today.
Oh I would totally agree. The myth of 'superwoman' has a lot to answer for.
Feminist are just like every other moment. Their intention is good and the majority of the people in the group are good but the extremists ruin it for everyone. I can't help but hate the label "feminist" after some experiences.
I am having difficulties writing today - I meant FEEL they have to - instead of being in a position. . . oh never mind - Ali said it better.
youre right, i did put words in your mouth. for that i apologise. however, given the history and recent actions of the church, i stand by what i said previously. in christianity, the church has undoubtedly kept women down and erm .... out ... in the kitchen. if thats where a woman [I]chooses[I] to be, thats fine and dandy. if its not, its oppression.
What church is that?:confused:
Also, men who stay at home with the children usually do a bang up job.
Thank you. ;)
My girls rock, whether that's my doing or not *shrug*.
Although some feminists really get my goat, they've helped free us all. Pete and I were able to choose to have her work for good pay while I did the kid/house stuff instead of her staying home and trying to stretch my tiny paychecks. Now I
get to see what women used to
have to go through trying to get their careers back on track. The good news is, I'm better prepared to do the work now.
What church is that?:confused:
christian, muslim, jewish etc ... choose one. theyre all pretty much the same., imo.
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1
"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
The severe and shameful oppression of women and their contributions to society has been hidden throughout the world or at best a rarely or untold story. The deaths of accused witches (heretics) is a direct result of this oppression and reached it’s peak from 1200 to 1800A.D. varying in range from 100,000 to 9 million persons but, the percentage of women killed, during this time, is consistent in all references. Eighty percent of the people accused, tortured, and burned during the witch hunts were women! There is a systematic behavior of scholastic and intellectual men who have feared women and her powers dating as far back pre-Paleolithic and Neolithic times. Europe witnessed this massive hunt, torture and killing of women and men who were also viewed as pagan/heretics. The pagans refused to give up their matrilineal culture and practices. Their very lives of planting and harvesting depended on it. The witch hunts became a useful vehicle as an attempt to stamp out the ancient pagan traditions built around the worship of the Goddess and Gods. “If life is inherently evil, the church fathers needed someone to blame; and who better to blame than woman, who creates life from her own body? Living women, also, can be publicly punished, as the iconic and illusory Devil can never be.” 2 Plus the church had a long tradition of taking over the most celebrated pagan holidays and began to call them Christian to gain the support of the people of the land. The church hijacked the yearly pagan celebration of the Sun and made it the celebration of the son now called Christmas.
in christianity, the church has undoubtedly kept women down and erm .... out ... in the kitchen.
What church is that?
christian, muslim, jewish etc ... choose one. theyre all pretty much the same., imo.
You said "in christianity, the church", I want to know which church?:eyebrow:
Again, rather against my better instincts I really have to defend the Church/religion, on this score. Long before Christianity or Islam, Plato had defined woman as incomplete, not a full person like the male.
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1 .
Roman Catholic theologian
"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
Musings of a Jewish philosopher, 200/250 years BC.
This is the basis of the oppression of women?
The severe and shameful oppression of women and their contributions to society has been hidden throughout the world or at best a rarely or untold story. The deaths of accused witches (heretics) is a direct result of this oppression and reached it’s peak from 1200 to 1800A.D. varying in range from 100,000 to 9 million persons but, the percentage of women killed, during this time, is consistent in all references. Eighty percent of the people accused, tortured, and burned during the witch hunts were women!
How were these women accused? Who pointed the finger and called them witches? Women, in most cases. For reasons of their own, most likely catty, insignificant reasons, women hurled accusations at each other providing fuel for the trials.
There is a systematic behavior of scholastic and intellectual men who have feared women and her powers dating as far back pre-Paleolithic and Neolithic times.
True, but this is sociological, not theological.
Europe witnessed this massive hunt, torture and killing of women and men who were also viewed as pagan/heretics. The pagans refused to give up their matrilineal culture and practices. Their very lives of planting and harvesting depended on it. The witch hunts became a useful vehicle as an attempt to stamp out the ancient pagan traditions built around the worship of the Goddess and Gods. “If life is inherently evil, the church fathers needed someone to blame; and who better to blame than woman, who creates life from her own body? Living women, also, can be publicly punished, as the iconic and illusory Devil can never be.” 2 Plus the church had a long tradition of taking over the most celebrated pagan holidays and began to call them Christian to gain the support of the people of the land. The church hijacked the yearly pagan celebration of the Sun and made it the celebration of the son now called Christmas.
You're mixing apples and oranges and plums and grapes. Not every US against THEM, that happened in history is the responsibility of the church just because they were present. We have chaplains in the military but that doesn't make the church responsible for wars we fight. Yes, I know, they started plenty of their own wars..... that doesn't negate my point.
Speaking of war, the battle of the sexes predates all the religions. Men had been fighting the battle of the sexes for thousands of years, because women don't want men to do what they want to do.
Religions, founded by men, were another male dominated organization, but it's funny, women used the church and it's social structure to control men's behavior with ever increasing effectiveness. Women "civilized" the frontiers, smoothed the cultural rough edges and generally made men behave, by way of the church, because it was the only organization they were allowed to join, the only place they were allowed to congregate and conspire. :lol:
How were these women accused? Who pointed the finger and called them witches? Women, in most cases. For reasons of their own, most likely catty, insignificant reasons, women hurled accusations at each other providing fuel for the trials.
Plenty of accusations came from men.
Speaking of war, the battle of the sexes predates all the religions. Men had been fighting the battle of the sexes for thousands of years, because women don't want men to do what they want to do.
And women had been fighting the battle of the sexes because men don't want women to do what they want to do.
but it's funny, women used the church and it's social structure to control men's behavior with ever increasing effectiveness. Women "civilized" the frontiers, smoothed the cultural rough edges and generally made men behave, by way of the church, because it was the only organization they were allowed to join, the only place they were allowed to congregate and conspire.
Depends on which era of Church history you are talking about. In the 8th and 9th centuries an increasing number of women joined holy orders....but they were really only the elite and their level of control was seriously limited. Later, in the 11th and 12th centuries many monastic orders stopped supporting sisterhoods, enacting rules to prevent the founding of any further convents and banning priests and monks from ministering to women.
Much of the softening of those cultural rough edges came from male clerics (such as the Peace of God movement) and women played a very small role in any of it until relatively recently.
I'm talking about the last two centuries as far as culture and civilization for anyone but the wealthy. ;)
I think there are a lot of assumptions and widely held misconceptions being passed off as facts in this thread.
And that, my son, is the basis of the feminist movement.
And that, my son, is the basis of the feminist movement.
Like the pay difference act?
If you show me a company where a man and a women with equal expierence, credentials, and all that get paid different tell me because I haven't seen it. Women tend to take lower paying jobs while males tend to take higher paying jobs so obviously there will be a pay difference.
I know for a fact that this goes on in the UK
Look for,..... the union label. ;)
Roman Catholic theologian
Musings of a Jewish philosopher, 200/250 years BC.
This is the basis of the oppression of women?
How were these women accused? Who pointed the finger and called them witches? Women, in most cases. For reasons of their own, most likely catty, insignificant reasons, women hurled accusations at each other providing fuel for the trials. True, but this is sociological, not theological.You're mixing apples and oranges and plums and grapes. Not every US against THEM, that happened in history is the responsibility of the church just because they were present. We have chaplains in the military but that doesn't make the church responsible for wars we fight. Yes, I know, they started plenty of their own wars..... that doesn't negate my point.
Speaking of war, the battle of the sexes predates all the religions. Men had been fighting the battle of the sexes for thousands of years, because women don't want men to do what they want to do.
Religions, founded by men, were another male dominated organization, but it's funny, women used the church and it's social structure to control men's behavior with ever increasing effectiveness. Women "civilized" the frontiers, smoothed the cultural rough edges and generally made men behave, by way of the church, because it was the only organization they were allowed to join, the only place they were allowed to congregate and conspire. :lol:
all very good points, but still doesnt lessen the impact of oppression and subjugation against women, whether by pre-christianity, or any other organised religion which has survived to today. lets face it, the womens' role in the church has been flower arranging and organising tea parties for fundraising.
are you aware of the lost gospels? e.g., the gospel according to Mary, which, among 20 odd other gospels were omitted from the bible by the council of micea, because it did not want Mary's (and others) words to be part of Jesus' teachings, hence the MEN cast her as a prostitute.
That women of equal/or better background & training are not paid the same, and not promoted the same, as men in the same position shows just how right our mothers have been about the fact that most of us never grew out of being those sad-sick little-boys.
This is why most of my friends are women.
There is one reason and one reason alone for the glass ceiling - fear.
all very good points, but still doesn't lessen the impact of oppression and subjugation against women, whether by pre-christianity, or any other organised religion which has survived to today. lets face it, the womens' role in the church has been flower arranging and organising tea parties for fundraising.
are you aware of the lost gospels? e.g., the gospel according to Mary, which, among 20 odd other gospels were omitted from the bible by the council of micea, because it did not want Mary's (and others) words to be part of Jesus' teachings, hence the MEN cast her as a prostitute.
Yes, I'm sort of aware, but certainly not a scholar on the subject. There have been several good articles (Smithsonian magazine was exceptional) and TV shows on Mary Magdalene and her position in the history purported to be shown in the Bible. A fair amount of publicity on the "lost" (unselected?) gospels spurred by the "Gospel of Judas" as National Geographics most popular story of 2006. This of course was helped by the Da Vinci Code movie.
Religions, founded by men, were another male dominated organization, but it's funny, women used the church and it's social structure to control men's behavior with ever increasing effectiveness.
Men had effectively divided and conquered women, keeping them from uniting in an effective defense (or offense), by not allowing women outside each family to congregate. The Church changed that in that women especially in rural/agricultural settings were first allowed to congregate, sometimes for most of the day(Sunday). This afforded the opportunity to compare notes, when the men thought they were swapping recipes and child rearing advice.
Then, when men threatened "be chaste and obedient or you'll not get to heaven" the women turned this around on the men, who were caught in a catch 22 of their own making. Soon Ladies Auxiliaries and clubs were formed, within the church. Yes, ostensibly for flower arranging and fund raising, but a chance for women to get organized, learning how to work together and assert their rights.
The church was male dominated in it's structure and teaching, but under it's blanket of social activities it was a very valuable tool for women seeking to throw off thousands of years of subservience. ;)
Feminism gives me visions of Vagina Monologues and Germaine Greer...*shivers*. I prefer the word emancipation.
The church was male dominated in it's structure and teaching, but under it's blanket of social activities it was a very valuable tool for women seeking to throw off thousands of years of subservience.
The church always used the excuse for keeping the women inside the house that is was too dangerous outside for them.
There is a systematic behavior of scholastic and intellectual men who have feared women and her powers dating as far back pre-Paleolithic and Neolithic times.
I doubt this is provable, especially the "pre-Paleolithic" part. I think whoever told you that can't prove it either, and was talking... stuff.
Really, this language sounds like that burgher in
Cabaret who said to Michael York's character, "It iss an established
fact that zere iss a conspiracy of Jews..." I'd stay suspicious as hell of this, and of much of the rest of the paragraph I took this from.
I doubt this is provable, especially the "pre-Paleolithic" part. I think whoever told you that can't prove it either, and was talking... stuff.
Really, this language sounds like that burgher in Cabaret who said to Michael York's character, "It iss an established fact that zere iss a conspiracy of Jews..." I'd stay suspicious as hell of this, and of much of the rest of the paragraph I took this from.
the quote you quote was taken from the site i linked it to: not my words, although i do agree with what was said.
proof is dodgy ground whether one is a believer or not: you cant prove a negative such as "God does not exist", but there is no evidence whatsoever that he does.
proof is dodgy ground whether one is a believer or not: you cant prove a negative such as "God does not exist", but there is no evidence whatsoever that he does.
Well fortunately for you, the argument that 'scholastic men have historically feared women and their
power' [size=1](X-ray vision, perhaps?)[/size] is
not in fact a negative, and you should be able to show evidence if there is any. If there is not any, it does not mean "you can't prove a negative," it means your premise is bullshit.
Well fortunately for you, the argument that 'scholastic men have historically feared women and their power' [size=1](X-ray vision, perhaps?)[/size] is not in fact a negative, and you should be able to show evidence if there is any. If there is not any, it does not mean "you can't prove a negative," it means your premise is bullshit.
prove it.
I wonder if these were the same scholastic men that came up with the idea that women reading too much would burn out their brains? Or that it simply wasn't sensible to allow women to be involved in politics, medicine or science, because their natural temperament precluded reason?
I wonder if these were the same scholastic men that came up with the idea that women reading too much would burn out their brains? Or that it simply wasn't sensible to allow women to be involved in politics, medicine or science, because their natural temperament precluded reason?
hmm ... we could let you rule everything every 3 weeks or so with a week off?! :p
I just watched "The DaVinci Code" last night. It was peppered with some interesting historical tidbits, especially the "war on women" in the 2nd millenium. It even includes a discussion of the
Malleus Maleficarum, a sort of "Idiots Guide to Witch Hunting".
From Wikipedia
Part of this section explains why women, by their weaker nature and inferior intellect, were supposedly naturally more prone to the lure of Satan than men. The book title itself contains the word maleficarum, the female form of the noun, and the writers (incorrectly) declare that the word femina (woman) is a derivation of fe+minus, faithless.
Since the surviving evidence for even early Paleolithic, let alone any preceding hominid time, is a few rough cobble tools not far removed from natural rock fracture anyway, and that there is no trace of such complex, 20th-century social thought or theory -- id est, nothing to read -- I suspect the conclusion about their social mores is drawn from the air, not the science.
Umm.....2nd millenium isn't paleolithic. Plenty of written sources from the 2nd millenium. Or are you talking about something else?
When you have two distinct groups, there will be competition for power.
When the difference between the two is, one has weapons and the other has boobs, the weapons rule.
Fortunately the boobs have enough power to keep the weapons from getting completely out of hand.
And so it goes. :cool:
What if one group has weapons and boobs?
What if one group has weapons and boobs?
masturbation! ;)
damm' right.... and I intend to keep my gonads.....
Umm.....2nd millenium isn't paleolithic. Plenty of written sources from the 2nd millenium. Or are you talking about something else?
I am; the early Paleolithic -- maybe two million BC.
I see. out of interest, remind me what that was in response to?
Post #60, quoting a little of post #45 which I thought dubious. #45's on p. 3.
Ahhh..Gotcha :) thanks, I did scan for it, but must have skipped over it:P
500 or a 1000 years ago every thing was male dominated.
Nooo no, not everything, back then. NOW, yes, despite feminism--which we desperately needed, by the way:
http://www.office-humour.co.uk/g/i/3796/Blue the date on that is from 1955, when the typical role of a woman was to be the homemaker. Today's dual income society has created a situation where women are not only allowed, but mostly expected to generate and income. For good or bad.
Blue the date on that is from 1955, when the typical role of a woman was to be the homemaker. Today's dual income society has created a situation where women are not only allowed, but mostly expected to generate and income. For good or bad.
If the result is that women aren't expected to be their husband's namby pamby ass-kissing slave, I'd say that's good.
People don't have to be two income families for the most part: people choose it for a number of reasons...a big house, nice cars. Keeping up with the Joneses.
And, some women LIKE to work. :cool:
yesman, you might have misunderstood me--which is understandable, because my punctuation often sucks. I'll try to clarify my point...
a) 500, 1000, and more years ago, there were many societies that were female-dominated.
b) Today, more than the opposite is true. Most societies are male-dominated--look at business, government, religion, law enforcement, military.
c) Yes, the Good Housekeeping feature was dated 1955. Yes, most married women were expected to only be housewives, but there's some extra frightening shit in that article. That's why I said we desperately needed feminism, to get people out of that sado-masochistic circle of hell.
d) So today, women are in the workplace in great numbers, whether it be for single or dual incomes. And they don't have some mainstream magazine telling them they should sit tight when their hubby's out all night, and smile sweetly when his cheatin' drunky-ness comes home in the morning. These were the results of feminism. However, see b).
People don't have to be two income families for the most part: people choose it for a number of reasons...a big house, nice cars. Keeping up with the Joneses.
Well I couldn't do it, I guess that was my fault though for not making enough money to support 5 people. Either way, I have NO PROBLEM with women working if they
want to, but around here anyway, it seems that you really
need two incomes just to get by in relative comfort.
Hence me saying "for the most part." I agree that it's hard to get by these days, but we are creatures of comfort.
When you said "my fault for not making enough money" it made me sad; I have gotten into arguments with people on here before who have implied that by working hard you will make more money, as if people who don't make a lot of money don't work hard. I am a living example that's not true, and I hope you know I meant no offense in my statement about working families. I'm guessing you're a pretty good guy who takes care of his family any way he can. :)
a) 500, 1000, and more years ago, there were many societies that were female-dominated.
Cite? :confused:
Shawnee, No offense taken. I spent too much time working harder instead of smarter. I also learned how unappreciated all my efforts were. Since that realization, I only work one job and make more than when I had three and I no longer have the "unappreciated one" sucking the life outta me :)
Cite? :confused:
Didn't you know? It's feminist conventional wisdom. That there is no documentable evidence of this it's because:
1) Scribes and historians and archeologists are primarily male and have a male-dominant agenda to fulfill.
2) Matriarchal societies did not have an alphabet or keep written records.
The alphabet killed the Goddess, as every good feminist knows.
(am obliquedly PO'd, RE: wolf, RE: citing "the alphabet that killed the Goddess" for evil purposes; i.e. her own)
And, Ahmen:
WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO STRESS INCONTINENCE, EH?
Amongst loads of other questions we nutty women have.
wolf always surprises me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a lunar-driven animal :wolf:
wolf--you goddess-less traitor!
[patience]
now I understand the true, spiritual meaning of the She-Wolf who once sustained Romulus and Remus so as they could become a greet nashonz; for LO:
[patience]
and am, at once, inconsolable, RE: wolfs' surrender; and obvious feminist treachery.
And, hell, didn't I write more than that?
anyhoo---"the alphabet Goddess" is worth a read; no matter what your local Romulus says.
For my part, if you are enough of "something" to be labeled that thing you are a bit nuts and have lost grasp on reality.
I just cannot think of a belief system that I adhere to. Other than atheism and Buddhism, which is really a non-belief other than the belief that we want what is best at our core and nothing more.
I say I am a Libertarian but do not believe in a completely unregulated economic and environment policy.
To be a feminist I would have to think of women as "different" than men. Sure, they function differently in many ways because of physiological differences, but we all have those. Even one man from another. That means nothing in the work place.
Everyone deserves to be paid the same for the same job with the same experience/education... that is just fair, does not make me, or anyone else, an "ist".
The only goddess I ever see is the one in my bed...
Damn rkzenrage, I find myself agreeing with you too much. I find that very scary.
Where I work, women are paid the same. :p
its easy to recognise that there are far less women in high-powered jobs than there are men, and its fair to assume that there are women who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there
Rob you nailed it for me again.
My question is, how many women aren't TRYING to get to those jobs and positions due to stereotyping?
My question is, how many women aren't TRYING to get to those jobs and positions due to stereotyping?
Probably a few, though I suppose many women have resigned themselves to the fact and just try anyway. Kind of a "oh yeah? Watch ME buster!"
Where I work, we have seen the "Old Girls" network (as opposed to the Old Boy's network women lamented for so long.) We're supposed to have come a long way, baby, not fashioned ourselves after male corporate mentality.
But, these are tough women, tougher than I, so I don't begrudge them their accomlishments. I just wish we had kept our "kinder, gentler" ways. :rolleyes:
its fair to assume that there are women who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there
Oh bullshit. I know lots of women who are succeeding in the business world just fine. Yes, there are women out there who are capable of doing the high-powered jobs who are not doing them, just like there are additional men who could be successful in that realm if they wanted to be--but they aren't because they don't
want to be working in those jobs.
Griff, for example, is a very intelligent, level-headed man with a strong air of quiet leadership, but he instead chooses to work with autistic children. Clearly he is being held back.
I was told throughout my educational years that I was refusing to live up to my potential, and instead of going to medical school I thought it would be much more fun to have a job making videogames and then drop out of career-land and have a whole slew of children. Obviously I just wasn't given the chance to get my MBA.
To assume that if they aren't there it must be because they're being held-back is condescending, and projects your values on everyone else. Which is ironic, since I'm sure if asked, you would say there is of course far more to life than being a high-powered business executive. But if other people decide the same, "it's fair to assume" they must be oppressed. Maybe women are just a lot
smarter in general, and that's why they avoid the executive rat race.
Would you say it's fair to assume that the number of women "who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there" is less than two?
Would you say it's fair to assume that the number of women "who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there" is less than two?
Given the population of the US, no, I'd say it's fair to assume there
are at least two women who got unfairly shafted in their legitimate hopes of being high-powered executives. Just like I'd also say it's fair to assume there are at least two women who have been promoted to high-powered executive positions when there were more skilled men who didn't get a fair chance at the job.
If you're going to defend broad statements with even broader statistical probabilities, then why bother making a point at all? I felt it was
fair to assume Phil meant a
relatively large number of women weren't being given chances or were being forced to work much harder for the same opportunities. If I was wrong, then forgive me, and we can all make his type of meaningless arguments together--for example, I'll say it's fair to assume that "there are [at least two] women" who would have been excellent air traffic controllers, but were denied that opportunity because they lost their eyesight in a tragic childhood accident. The air traffic controller industry is so unfair!
Oh bullshit. I know lots of women who are succeeding in the business world just fine. Yes, there are women out there who are capable of doing the high-powered jobs who are not doing them, just like there are additional men who could be successful in that realm if they wanted to be--but they aren't because they don't want to be working in those jobs.
Griff, for example, is a very intelligent, level-headed man with a strong air of quiet leadership, but he instead chooses to work with autistic children. Clearly he is being held back.
I was told throughout my educational years that I was refusing to live up to my potential, and instead of going to medical school I thought it would be much more fun to have a job making videogames and then drop out of career-land and have a whole slew of children. Obviously I just wasn't given the chance to get my MBA.
To assume that if they aren't there it must be because they're being held-back is condescending, and projects your values on everyone else. Which is ironic, since I'm sure if asked, you would say there is of course far more to life than being a high-powered business executive. But if other people decide the same, "it's fair to assume" they must be oppressed. Maybe women are just a lot smarter in general, and that's why they avoid the executive rat race.
now thats what i call wishful thinking.
it is a fact that women ARE held back by the old boy network, the private mens' clubs, the businessMENS associations, etc., so dotn you fuckin dare call me condescending. I spent 8 years working for the rights of Prostitiute women and I've witnessed first hand the prejudices women face when trying to get a foot on the ladder. and if you bothered to read my previous posts, you would realise that I believe in a CHOICE for men and women: stay at home and play home-maker if thats what you want, anyhting else is oppression / suppression.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1983369,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/gendergap/story/0,,1172256,00.html
you just sit there in your kitchen thinking about what food to prepare for the evening .... and little kittens playing with balls of wool, as a woman should. :rolleyes:
I said WHATS A F**KING FEMINIST???:mad:
Dictionary.com
You may also want to look into some Prozac.
I said WHATS A F**KING FEMINIST???:mad:
Belonging to movements and ideas which advocate the rights of women to have equal opportunities to those possessed by men.
I said WHATS A F**KING FEMINIST???:mad:
Right now I'd define it as "someone who is telling you to shut the fuck up, get out a dictionary, and try not to be such an ass the next time you come around here." Idgit. Sheesh, from what hills did you roll out?
it is a fact that women ARE held back by the old boy network, the private mens' clubs, the businessMENS associations, etc., so dotn you fuckin dare call me condescending. I spent 8 years working for the rights of Prostitiute women and I've witnessed first hand the prejudices women face when trying to get a foot on the ladder.
Yes, I'm sure the prostitutes you were helping were being held back because they were
women, and not because of low socioeconomic status, unfortunate circumstances, or working in an illegal profession.
I'm glad you support everyone's right to choose their own future. And for all I know, the "businessmen's" associations in Wales are discriminatory and sexist. But I disagree that it is the same in the US.
Yes, I'm sure the prostitutes you were helping were being held back because they were women, and not because of low socioeconomic status, unfortunate circumstances, or working in an illegal profession.
I'm glad you support everyone's right to choose their own future. And for all I know, the "businessmen's" associations in Wales are discriminatory and sexist. But I disagree that it is the same in the US.
many of the women were educated, nurses, university students, but stereotyping always takes precedence.
i apologise for writing with anger in my previous post, but i get protective about my client group.
prostitution is not illegal in the UK (or Wales)
Didn't you know? It's feminist conventional wisdom. That there is no documentable evidence of this it's because:
1) Scribes and historians and archeologists are primarily male and have a male-dominant agenda to fulfill.
2) Matriarchal societies did not have an alphabet or keep written records. The alphabet killed the Goddess, as every good feminist knows.
That's an interesting answer, but a better answer is, "read more history books," because there is documentation.
Just research Native American, African and Chinese cultures--there's plenty of stuff out there taught in anthropology classes. :rolleyes:
Is it really that hard to believe that many cultures had matriarchal societies?
To a man it probably would be. Don't be too hard on them, they can't help it. ;)
Didn't you know? It's feminist conventional wisdom. That there is no documentable evidence of this it's because:
1) Scribes and historians and archeologists are primarily male and have a male-dominant agenda to fulfill.
2) Matriarchal societies did not have an alphabet or keep written records. The alphabet killed the Goddess, as every good feminist knows.
I don't know about worldwide, but in Western Europe, after the 'fall' of Rome, the pagan cultures were mainly pre-literate, they memorialised their world in sagas and oral traditions. Then the Christianising missionaries introduced the written word (including the development of several alphabets to allow dissemination of holy texts in the vernacular). The problem was not just that the people writing were men......more specifically they were monks and clerics. Unless you stretch way back into the Roman Empire, the only written sources for much of the 'dark ages' and early medieval period in Europe are religious in character, and that religion had what modern tastes would consider to be a strange attitude to women.
Added to that is the fact that such writing recorded only hagiographical, rather than sociological history: the vast majority of men and women were not accounted for by such works. Unless one was a member of the ruling elite, either secular or ecclesiastical, then one was unlikely to ever be mentioned in those texts.
In classical antiquity, writers recorded natural history and observation, military campaigns, plays, comedies, tragedies etc etc. The introduction of the written word with Christianity, was a much more narrow affair. Given that in many areas women were generally, by default, of a lower societal value than men, and that the peasant class (which consitituted the majority of the population) was of a lower social class than the kings/chiefs/lords they lived under, it stands to reason neither would feature heavily in hagiographical texts. (there are of course exceptions)
During the classical period, women were written about as indeed were Goddesses. It wasn't the written word that killed the Goddess....it was the proumulgation of holy texts.
That said, I may well read that book. I am prepared to be proved wrong on this.
Incidentally, just as an aside:
We've talked a lot on these boards about the effect of religion on womens' social roles. We've also talked a good deal about the different types of religion, including that of Islam.
So, here is a quick run down of how Islam responded to women, in its earliest guise.
From the Qur'an, describing the day of judgement:
When the sun shall be darkened, when stars shall be thrown down....when the buried infant shall be asked for what sin she was killed.....a soul shall know what it has produced' (81:1-14)
The buried infant, the victim of infanticide, would normally have been a girl. By banning infanticide, the Qur'an increases the value of girls in the eyes of the faithful and gave girls and women a new dignity. Though it allowed for polygyny, it limited this to four wives at one time and stipulated that they be treated equally (a serious improvement on the status quo)It mandated dowries and offered some females inheritence rights. Even the practice of men and women praying separately was a later addition (8th Century).
Just research Native American, African and Chinese cultures--there's plenty of stuff out there taught in anthropology classes. :rolleyes:
Is it really that hard to believe that many cultures had matriarchal societies?
No, it's neither hard to find or believe. They have reoccurred repeatedly, throughout history, and have but one thing in common....they're all history....they all failed.
All the matriarchal societies have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't sustain themselves, couldn't defend themselves. Sure, they might have been progressive, nurturing, peaceful, utopias....but that doesn't do them a bit of good if they can't fend off aggressive neighbors. Blame the neighbors all you want, it's still the reality of history, none of them strong were enough to survive.:smack:
And the neighbors were aggressive, marauding, egocentric males, so it's really no surprise. :cool:
The more things change...
All I know for sure is that feminists screwed up The Mummers.
Then thank them for me. I've been here (Philly burbs) for 30 years or so and seen the parade live a couple times. Still just isn't my kinda fun.
I'm a feminist. Proud to be, however you want to spin it. I believe that women and men should be valued equally as human beings. And feminism exists because of the vast histories of this not being the case.
I am thankful for the uppity grandmas that got spit on and thrown in jail to give me the vote and allow me to go to college. Oh, and that dared to "plan their parenthood". I am very glad to have been born in the last half of the 20th century in North America, and of moderate white privilege. If you think the concerns of feminists are passe, trivial, then you really haven't been paying attention to Afghanistan, Sudan, France, Pakistan, Thailand, etc., etc.
Let's look at those tough US female fighter pilots again!
Yeah, I'm a feminist.
And the neighbors were aggressive, marauding, egocentric males, so it's really no surprise. :cool:
The more things change...
That's exactly my point. Any government/society that wants a piece of this planet has to be strong enough to hold it. Patriarchal societies usually make that a priority, sometimes at the expense of everything else, whereas Matriarchal societies stress social improvement.
Since social improvement is desirable and strength necessary, the best solution is a balanced society where both sexes have input, both are respected and listened to. But that means nobody gets everything their own way. :grouphug:
To build a country you have to work in stages. First you have to establish a base then you have to improve it. Doing only one will just lead to failure.
No, it's neither hard to find or believe.
Alrighty then. :)
Since social improvement is desirable and strength necessary, the best solution is a balanced society where both sexes have input, both are respected and listened to. But that means nobody gets everything their own way. :grouphug:
:) And there we have it: the Utopian society of which we dream.
I agree Bruce. I just wish strength weren't so necessary. What is in us that makes us want to conquer, own, and control? As we evolve, will we ever lose the primal urges of our ancestors?
No, because the minute we do, someone else will come along who hasn't lost those urges and wipe us out. It is a very effective survival skill to want to conquer, own and control.
Or somebody will want what you've got and take it if they can. You can only have what you can defend. And being the biggest bad-ass on the block doesn't guarantee the bigger bad-ass on the next block won't covet your stuff.
So ladies, get involved in the process of running this country....you are the majority, remember. Grind down, or replace, the politicians until they give you the schools, parks, social programs, or whatever you want. Just never make the mistake, that the boys and their tanks and planes are just big over priced play toys. Defending what you've got, is very serious business and paramount to the utopia you want.
Get real, you're never gonna have it all. But rather than grouse about it, why not see how much you can get by getting involved. You may be surprised. :cool:
No, because the minute we do, someone else will come along who hasn't lost those urges and wipe us out. It is a very effective survival skill to want to conquer, own and control.
I was speaking of mankind in general, not us and them. :)
Or somebody will want what you've got and take it if they can. You can only have what you can defend. And being the biggest bad-ass on the block doesn't guarantee the bigger bad-ass on the next block won't covet your stuff.
So ladies, get involved in the process of running this country....you are the majority, remember. Grind down, or replace, the politicians until they give you the schools, parks, social programs, or whatever you want. Just never make the mistake, that the boys and their tanks and planes are just big over priced play toys. Defending what you've got, is very serious business and paramount to the utopia you want.
Get real, you're never gonna have it all. But rather than grouse about it, why not see how much you can get by getting involved. You may be surprised. :cool:
Wow, I didn't think I was grousing...just thinking and expressing.
Guess I'll slowly back out of this thread. It's obviously dedicated solely to fact and leaves no room for pondering. :right:
What is in us that makes us want to conquer, own, and control? As we evolve, will we ever lose the primal urges of our ancestors?
The Swiss seem to have managed it.
Maybe the conquering part, but I think they're still pretty attached to owning and controlling the land of Switzerland. They certainly wouldn't just politely hand it over without a fuss if someone else wanted it.
Well there's not really anything wrong with wanting to control your own country. It's the conquering urge that causes conflict.
Being small and landlocked may have something to do with their desire to avoid conflict. :cool:
So ladies, get involved in the process of running this country....you are the majority, remember. Grind down, or replace, the politicians until they give you the schools, parks, social programs, or whatever you want. Just never make the mistake, that the boys and their tanks and planes are just big over priced play toys. Defending what you've got, is very serious business and paramount to the utopia you want.
Get real, you're never gonna have it all. But rather than grouse about it, why not see how much you can get by getting involved. You may be surprised. :cool:
Hmm, a little condescending and assumptive...but I still love you. ;)
Do not fear, Bruce. Many women of influence are on the same page with you on the subject of a balanced society--plus we also have plenty of ladies whose agendas fall on either side of the balance. Many women want the toys, too. And it's not just women who strive for utopia.
That's what feminism is about--that women are regular human beings, regardless of intelligence or position.
That has always bothered me... women gripe, but don't vote & don't run.
No room to gripe.
That has always bothered me... women gripe, but don't vote & don't run.
No room to gripe.
Women do vote--campaigns recognize this, and focus many campaign materials specifically on 'women's issues' (whether conservative or liberal). And they run, and win--for example, the number of women in Congress keeps going up with each term.
And c'mon,
everybody gripes.
In the UK, some parties operate all women shortlists, for the simple reason that the local party branches statistically are more likely to choose a male candidate, even where strong female candidates are trying to get selected. The party branches tend to operate (often) along 'traditional' lines, they follow procedures and do things in ways, that they have done for decades, sometimes over a century. The result is that such party branches are ..... less than female friendly. The male members tend to dominate the local party because the female members are usually less interested in shouting and outright hostility in political discussions. Loooooot of dick waving gets done in party political meetings. That's not to say the gals don't engage in the fight too, but the men seem to be better at that side of the game (in my experience). The result is that women often go along to political meetings and get put off before they have a chance to get into it and start joining in. Also in my experience, the female members, whilst enjoying the political discussions, are a little more results oriented: having had the discussion they really get frustrated when it doesn't then go anywhere. Men get frustrated too, but I think the whole not being able to really influence anything at a national party level, puts women off faster than men.
There are other factors which affect women's involvement in politics and parties, those are just a sample. The net result is that political parties have membership which more male than female. For a woman to stand, she first needs to get selected, unless she goes independant and that is a serious disadvantage in most areas of the country. Getting a woman selected in a predominantly male party is so difficult, that even with the current shortlisting practices, at our current rate it would take another 200 years for women to catch men up in parliament, and another 400 years for women to catch up in the conservative benches.
Um, I haven't missed a vote in 10 years...even the little itty bitty local ones. As far as running for office anyone who knows me will tell you I'm not a suitable candidate. I can barely "sell myself" in a job interview. It takes an aptitude that I don't possess. I can support the candidates, that is true, and I do (though I admit I could do more.)
What is in us that makes us want to conquer, own, and control? As we evolve, will we ever lose the primal urges of our ancestors?
The Swiss seem to have managed it.
the Swiss banks do own everything.
Hmm, a little condescending and assumptive...but I still love you. ;)
Do not fear, Bruce. Many women of influence are on the same page with you on the subject of a balanced society--plus we also have plenty of ladies whose agendas fall on either side of the balance. Many women want the toys, too. And it's not just women who strive for utopia.
That's what feminism is about--that women are regular human beings, regardless of intelligence or position.
Condescending, not at all, just showing how history dictates that strength is necessary.
Assumptive? Maybe... there's no sure way for me to know what someone else is thinking. I can only go by what they communicate.
When men get together for a beer, I never hear one say, wishfully, why do we have to fight, why can't we all get along?
But, I do hear women taking pot shots about how if they were in power instead of men, there wouldn't be any wars and all that defense money could be spent on social improvements.
Now these are both gross generalizations, but both statements are the distilled impression I have, gleaned from 60 years of observation.
Feminism = equality, doesn't it?
Flirting and sexual tension aside, I've been for that since it appeared in the sixties. OK, I was aware of the sweet old ladies going to jail so you could vote. And growing up in the 40s and 50s, I saw a lot of cruel patriarchs. But in the 1964 my wife worked for an Insurance Company in Boston that required women to wear nylons and not smoke in, or near, the building.... when men smoked at their desks. That ain't right. So when the movement came to the forefront, it was awfully hard for a reasonable and rational human being to argue with the premise. It's right, it's fair, it's just.
That said, in practice it's not so easy. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal consideration are pretty straight forward. But, I keep running into women that have a different take on the details. Some want equal treatment but want to keep certain privileges, whereas some will punch you for attempting to open a door for them.
If a woman says she is in favor of X and I say I disagree, I favor Y. Then she says why is it you men never understand, never get it? Well, wtf. Why did I bother considering X? Why am I genetically defective because I don't agree?
You see, I'm having trouble determining where feminism draws the line on what the constitutes the difference between opinion and sexist opinion.
If I don't say I disagree because your a woman, why should you make that assumption?
Back to the subject. Women are the majority, if the country is moving in the wrong direction, it's your fault. Oww, unfair? Because women are not all the same and fall on both sides of any debate? Well, the same goes for men, so I don't want to hear, you men, blah, blah, blah. :hide:
I made a complaint to Channel 4 about a month ago. We have 5 "terrestrial" channels in the UK - channels everyone receives on their TV automatically rather than requiring cable or satellite capability. Channel 4 is probably the most intelligent and liberal of the independent (non-BBC) channels and I watch Channel 4 News every night for what I believe to be the least biased TV news.
In a report about Israeli politics, Vice President Tzipi Livni's description included the fact that she was a wife and mother of two. None of the male politicians in the report had their marital status or fatherhood mentioned. It really irritated me, hence the complaint - things don't change unless people raise their voices.
I was reminded of it today while reading a Jeffrey Deaver book. As part of a character's backstory it mentioned that she had decided to go back to college in order to get an additional qualification. It stated that she found it hard, juggling her studies with being a wife and a mother... I know it's fiction (and not even very good fiction) but it made me wonder how many authors would state that a man going back to college found it hard to juggle his studies with being a husband and father...?
And finally - a friend of mine with a 1 year old daughter is looking at going back to work. The first interview she went to, approx 75% of the interview revolved around her status as a mother and the childcare arrangements she had made/ was intending to make. While I accept her absence from the workplace signalled a traditional family set-up, we both agreed that her husband would not have been asked the same questions, even if he had taken the same time off. In fact, although she is Muslim, she did her MA in Houston, where her parents now live and has a higher earning potential than her husband. They are currently considering the idea that her husband will work part time in order to handle childcare.
This is why I still consider myself a feminist - I see there is something wrong and I will protest at what I see is an appropriate level.
Not everyone who is interested in equality wants to go into politics.
good for you SG. and i'll still get the door for you. :)
people dont complain enough... about anything.
Women do vote--campaigns recognize this, and focus many campaign materials specifically on 'women's issues' (whether conservative or liberal). And they run, and win--for example, the number of women in Congress keeps going up with each term.
And c'mon, everybody gripes.
Women vote in far fewer numbers than males. They are the majority, if they voted they would run this nation... but they don't want to.
Fine, gripe, but if you don't vote you've got no reason to.
And finally - a friend of mine with a 1 year old daughter is looking at going back to work. The first interview she went to, approx 75% of the interview revolved around her status as a mother and the childcare arrangements she had made/ was intending to make.
But what kind of maternity leave are employers in the UK expected to pay? I know in some places in Europe it's as much as three years! IMHO, they have a legitimate right to try and balance the likelihood of her having more children. If women in any given country fight to legislate more than 2-3 months of paid maternity leave (which husbands cannot receive in their place,) they have to realistically expect that this will influence their ability to be hired.
SG, what is your family court system over there? If it is anything like ours, it is horribly skewed in favor of mothers, criminalizing fathers from the outset. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are rare. I've seen it damage more than one father-child relationship. I agree with you. It appears that many parts of society have ignored that our lifestyles have moved beyond the 1950's.
That said, in practice it's not so easy. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal consideration are pretty straight forward. But, I keep running into women that have a different take on the details. Some want equal treatment but want to keep certain privileges, whereas some will punch you for attempting to open a door for them.
If a woman says she is in favor of X and I say I disagree, I favor Y. Then she says why is it you men never understand, never get it? Well, wtf. Why did I bother considering X? Why am I genetically defective because I don't agree?
You see, I'm having trouble determining where feminism draws the line on what the constitutes the difference between opinion and sexist opinion.
If I don't say I disagree because your a woman, why should you make that assumption?
I agree the lines are blurred and everything is taken personally now days. I still think there is work to be done on salary parity. Other than that I stopped holding the door for any woman other than my wife, elderly people, or people who looked like they needed help. You want things to be equal, let them be equal, both ways. I have never had a woman hold a door for me other than my mother when I was like 6 years old. No special treatment for people because they are female, minority, gay, or any other reason.
But what kind of maternity leave are employers in the UK expected to pay? I know in some places in Europe it's as much as three years! IMHO, they have a legitimate right to try and balance the likelihood of her having more children. If women in any given country fight to legislate more than 2-3 months of paid maternity leave (which husbands cannot receive in their place,) they have to realistically expect that this will influence their ability to be hired.
SG, what is your family court system over there? If it is anything like ours, it is horribly skewed in favor of mothers, criminalizing fathers from the outset. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are rare. I've seen it damage more than one father-child relationship. I agree with you. It appears that many parts of society have ignored that our lifestyles have moved beyond the 1950's.
Both very good points, and things I hadn't considered.
In the UK a woman gets up to 39 weeks maternity pay, whereas a father only gets two weeks and has to meet more conditions in order to receive paid leave (up to five weeks unpaid from what I can tell - it's complicated). But that aside, it still seems a shame to me that hardworking, qualified, responsible women with good references are judged by their commitments to their family whereas men aren't. It seems only a woman has to prove she won't take time off when her kids all get chicken pox at the same time, no-one would even ask the father.
And yes, the family court system is horribly skewed in favour of mothers over here. It's quite heartbreaking that money comes out of my pay packet every month to support children whose fathers came and went, and yet some men who want to be responsible fathers involved in their children's lives are made to jump through hoops of flame in order to do so. A protest group called Fathers for Justice over here have raised the profile of fathers who want access rights to their children - it's a no brainer really. Do we want fathers to support their kids? Yes. Do we want children growing up with parental influence from both parents? Yes. Shall we make things are little less gender biased in the courts... erm, we'll get back to you.
I'm against sexism in general. I accept there will always be cases of separate but equal because men and women are not the same, but I reserve the right to speak out when I think it's unfair.
Oh and I open the door for anyone coming through behind me and step back to allow anyone coming through who is closer to the door than I am. Regardless of gender.
In the UK a woman gets up to 39 weeks maternity pay, whereas a father only gets two weeks and has to meet more conditions in order to receive paid leave (up to five weeks unpaid from what I can tell - it's complicated).
By comparison, it's 6 weeks paid leave here in the US, 8 weeks if it's a C-section. Some companies offer paternity leave, some don't. Usually it's 1-2 weeks. On the other hand, anyone can have up to a year of unpaid leave through the Family Medical Leave Act--and that counts for any medical or care issue with you or a family member, not just a newborn baby.
Women vote in far fewer numbers than males.
I'm not sure this is accurate. A quick search shows several sources saying more women than men have voted for decades. Here's data from the US Census bureau stating that more women were registered to vote than men, and more women voted in the 2004 election than men:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdfThanks Cloud, now we know who to blame Bush on.
The other day I stopped at a Dairy Queen for the first time in probably 10 years. As I was ordering, a woman walked up to the window so after I paid, I stepped aside for her to order while I was waiting.
She came up short on the money, mumbling "I'll have to come back", while digging through her purse, wallet and coin purse, obviously frustrated and embarrassed. I asked how much she needed and the cashier answered, so I handed her a buck. A buck is not a big deal, I've done it dozens of times for men and women...end of story.
Except this time was the first I remember, that I hesitated for a second wondering if I was going to get the 'independent woman' tirade. Not really afraid of it, just weary.
Little old ladies at the supermarket are great, priceless smile.