How to discover your inner Bombshell

The Sweeper

taconnel you've come close to my point but you've veered off a little. I'm not saying I believe the old ways were better.

I simply believe that the old beliefs haven't gone anywhere at all. They've got a set of new beliefs lumped on top of them, but they're really still there, hiding quietly in the quagmire.

So in the old days, while the pressure was on to be a Stepford wife but not much else, these days that pressure is still quietly there. It's just in the background, alongside all of the other pressures on modern women.

These days we have the careers, the right to bear children or not, and piles of other rights women never had before - but the expectation is still on us to have children, keep house and be stunning.

The expectation will always be on women to have children, because men can't do it even if they tried.

I'm 31 and I've no kids and no plans to have kids, and every time I go to my doctor with tonsillitis or a chest infection, I get the same thing. "I have a sore throat." "Have you thought about having kids?" "...what, is that going to fix my sore throat?"

If you want to see how many of your peers STILL do more housework than their male partners, even when they both work a 40-hour week, just skip over to the PI forum.

Look at it this way - what's changed in terms of what's expected of men in the last 50 years?

Have a full time job (the same, takes 40+ hours a week)
Have a family (the same)
Do more housework (an upgrade, takes a few hours a week)
Be 'manly but sensitive' men (a variation on a theme)

Women:

Have a full time job (an upgrade, takes 40+ hours a week)
Be sexually emancipated (an upgrade)
Be the ideal of female beauty (the same)
Have a family (takes the same amount of time as it used to)
Keep house (takes the same amount of time as it used to unless your bloke does his share)

tallaght01

My 2 cents is that women put more pressure on women to be beautiful than guys do. I prefer hot ladies, and ladies prefer hot guys. Always been thus. But I'm not sure guys put any more pressure on women than women put on us.

Most bitching about womens' appearances that I hear comes from other women. Or it comes from womens' media.

In my job, hospital paediatrics, about 70% of the docs are women, and virtually all of the nurses are women. Most of those who can afford to still take pretty significant meternity leave. A very significant amount go part time after they have their kids, or stop working all together.

I would also argue that in the vast majority of relationships involving two people who work full time, then the housework gets more or less divided. I'll concede that women tend to be more houseproud then men, so tend to be a bit more clean-crazy. But I don't think it's fair nowadays to assume most guys sit on their ass watching TV while their wife/girlfriend runs round doing all the chores.

I also doubt the pressure for sexual liberation was male driven. I had always thought of it as a feminist concept, tbh, where women were more in control of things sexually. I think that's a good thing.

oblivious

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea the biggest hominid braincase so far was a Neandertal, but on average they were about on parity with us. In any case it was organised differently. They weren't as sophisticated culturally so taconnol's suggestion would still be valid. Pedant over and out.....

It’s believed the large brain was because of the large muscle mass compared to modern humans

Reku

tallaght01 wrote: »

Most of those who can afford to still take pretty significant meternity leave.

They now give you time off to read the gas and electric meters? :eek:I never knew! *heads off to arrange time off for this*


Anyway, where I currently work a number of the females seem to follow the philosophy of first you get the engagement, then you get the bun in the oven, then you take half days, sick days and "working from home" days left right and center. There seem to be a number of them working unofficial 4 day weeks through the "working from home" BS. I blame our HR manager though, she took a year for maternity leave and it's still hard to tell if she'll be in any given day so it's a trickle down effect of monkey see monkey do.
So yeah, similar enough to what you're seeing it sounds like Tallaght01.

I would also agree that in many cases women do more housework because men... well we're a bit more comfortable in our mess...:rolleyes: ok, so in general we're slobs compared to the average woman.:o

That said I've yet to see a mess like my sister's room and the bathroom(s) after she's gotten ready for a night out.:p

cuckoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

I also doubt the pressure for sexual liberation was male driven. I had always thought of it as a feminist concept, tbh, where women were more in control of things sexually. I think that's a good thing.

Well, the advent of the pill led to a heck of a lot of free lovin'. And, i use the term 'free' in that there was no threat of iminent fatherhood and responsibility for the male partner.

Yes, women being more in control of their fertility was a good thing for women - but the benefits for men were very tangible too. I think sexual liberation for women has a few more battles to be fought - particularly in the areas of condom use.

Anyway, back to the pretty bombshells. I'm relieved for practical reasons that those modes of dress are no longer prevalent - corsets, heels, stockings and tight fitting clothes are restrictive. They require the wearer to sit and walk a certain way. I like being able to run for a bus, sit cross legged on the floor if i want to and not have to worry about my hair 'do'.

But, i do miss the certain poise that those films tell us people had back then. Nobody spat on the street, the men automatically would walk on the outside of the pavement and womens bathrooms in restaurants, etc, were huge with nice seats in front of well lit mirrors. There was at least a veneer of cìvility that i think we're lacking now.

Black Swan

cuckoo wrote: »

Yes, women being more in control of their fertility was a good thing for women - but the benefits for men were very tangible too.

It was great for men, especially since they did not have to take the pill or any of the risks associated with its use. It's interesting that the male dominated medical research establishment never tried very hard to develop a male pill?

Whispered

cuckoo wrote: »

But, i do miss the certain poise that those films tell us people had back then. Nobody spat on the street, the men automatically would walk on the outside of the pavement and womens bathrooms in restaurants, etc, were huge with nice seats in front of well lit mirrors. There was at least a veneer of cìvility that i think we're lacking now.

Totally agree. For civilised people we are not very civilised are we. Manners are not important anymore (and i'm talking about please and thank you, not "elbows-off-the-table" manners). People seem to have less self respect too.
And the way some women act is just disgraceful (same can be said for men, but seeing as how this thread is about women...). There is nothing worse than 2 women fighting, it's just disgusting looking. And every week in town you are bound to come across some drunk "young wan" having a go at another.

when I was younger (I'm only 24 now mind) my uncle said to me "don't ever let me see you drinking from a pint glass, it's just not lady-like" that stuck with me and to this day I will not drink from a pint glass.

Women acting like men is not necessary - I think in a big rush for feminism some people lost just that - their femininity. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just not my thing. I'm a woman and enjoy being a woman. I like having curves and being the "fairer sex". I like when my fiance opens a door for me or when a man stands back and allows me walk through a door first etc. I do think some women put more effort into their apperance than others, but most of the time it's for themselves, not for the benefit of other people. I do think that most women can run a house and look after babies better than most men (this I believe is down to social conditioning) and I think men do some things better then most women can.

Macha

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

taconnel you've come close to my point but you've veered off a little. I'm not saying I believe the old ways were better.

I simply believe that the old beliefs haven't gone anywhere at all. They've got a set of new beliefs lumped on top of them, but they're really still there, hiding quietly in the quagmire.

Ah right sorry - thought you were alluding to the days of yore like the OP. Good post, I totally agree.

Just on the male pill. It drives me insane that there are umpteen methods of contraceptive that women must take/inflict on themselves while there's only 1 for men. Surely the body/system of the person that will be pregnant for 9 months is more important and should not be upset. I mean sometimes it takes a woman up to a year after taking the pill to get pregnant. Why are we messing up women's bodies and not the mens?

I heard somewhere that progress in the male pill was being hampered by difficulties in finding male volunteers for trials...pfff.. How many millions of women around the world were effective guinea pigs to female contraceptive in the 60s and 70s. Total double standards. The message is it's the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant and the man is just in it for the fun.

Some argue that they wouldn't trust their partner to take it but then the question becomes what are you doing with them in the first place?

helen.ryan - can't you see where this concept of the 'fairer sex' came from and what it represents? I'm female and in my opinion men are the 'fairer' or in today's terminology 'hotter sex'.

Whispered

taconnol wrote: »

helen.ryan - can't you see where this concept of the 'fairer sex' came from and what it represents? I'm female and in my opinion men are the 'fairer' or in today's terminology 'hotter sex'.

Please - Helena will do
Maybe I have a silly romantic notion of what the term actually means but what I took from it is the idea of a big strong man looking after a woman, and before I get in trouble for saying that, who doesn't like a pair of big strong arms to give you a hug when you're in a bad mood? Or deep down who doesn't feel a bit soft when your boyfriend/husband opens doors or compliments you. I think most people do. I took "fairer" to mean "softer" perhaps I'm wrong, but I like it to mean that so I'll keep using it in that context. (just in case I sound like an anti-feminst nut job who believes all women belong in the home, I work full time, we split bills, we share house work etc It's really just on some things I prefer being treated like a "lady" if you know what I mean :cool:)

Macha

Yes I know what you mean. I think 'fairer sex' orginally referred to the idea of women as the more beautiful sex, which is true. If you're a man. But what about women's views? You get into this idea of the male gaze & how the woman's opinion or view is regarded as 'other' or separate to the standard male view.

OK I'll shut up on the feminist theory. Yes I know what you're saying about being treated as a lady. It's all about choice and its your choice - that's the most important thing!

Reku

I'd always thought the "fairer sex" reference was to do with girls being gentler and less aggressive myself.:o
Oh well, have to remember they meant it in terms of attractiveness from now on so.

tallaght01

cuckoo wrote: »

Well, the advent of the pill led to a heck of a lot of free lovin'. And, i use the term 'free' in that there was no threat of iminent fatherhood and responsibility for the male partner.

Yes, women being more in control of their fertility was a good thing for women - but the benefits for men were very tangible too. I think sexual liberation for women has a few more battles to be fought - particularly in the areas of condom use.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It was great for men, especially since they did not have to take the pill or any of the risks associated with its use. It's interesting that the male dominated medical research establishment never tried very hard to develop a male pill?

taconnol wrote: »

Just on the male pill. It drives me insane that there are umpteen methods of contraceptive that women must take/inflict on themselves while there's only 1 for men. Surely the body/system of the person that will be pregnant for 9 months is more important and should not be upset. I mean sometimes it takes a woman up to a year after taking the pill to get pregnant. Why are we messing up women's bodies and not the mens?

I heard somewhere that progress in the male pill was being hampered by difficulties in finding male volunteers for trials...pfff.. How many millions of women around the world were effective guinea pigs to female contraceptive in the 60s and 70s. Total double standards. The message is it's the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant and the man is just in it for the fun.

.

I never argued that female sexual liberation didn't have benefits for men. It does benefit some guys.No doubt. I'm arguing that it came from a desire by women to be liberated. Not neccesarily from men wanting them all to be on the pill.

As regards the male pill, the sad reality is that:

A) It is much easier to formulate a female pill. There is already a natural process in female physiology that makes them only cyclically fertile. It is much easier to manipulate a hormonal cycle than to try and destroy sperm, while not destroyin other body cells.

The drug comapnies want maximum return for minimum input. I think it's a simple as that, and not a male conspiracy.

If you're the one who risks becoming pregnant, I'm sure you'd be happy not to be depending on someone else for birth control. I know I would, if I could get pregnant!

Macha

Is it really easier to formulate a female pill? Really? As much as scientists would like to think that their professions are value-less, I find it interesting that there is a female pill, no male pill and that male viagra was created much earlier than female viagra (and there was a whole lot more hoo-haa about it as well)

Just on the getting pregnant thing. If I were single & just having a good time I would definitely want to be in charge of my fertility but when I'm in a steady relationship, that responsibility is shared between 2 people-the woman and the man. I hate taking the pill. It makes me moody, makes me put on weight, etc. But is there a comparable alternative for my boyfriend so that maybe we could share those side-effects and maybe give my body a bit of a break now and then? No. and that sucks.

tallaght01

taconnol wrote: »

Is it really easier to formulate a female pill? Really? As much as scientists would like to think that their professions are value-less, I find it interesting that there is a female pill, no male pill and that male viagra was created much earlier than female viagra (and there was a whole lot more hoo-haa about it as well)

Just on the getting pregnant thing. If I were single & just having a good time I would definitely want to be in charge of my fertility but when I'm in a steady relationship, that responsibility is shared between 2 people-the woman and the man. I hate taking the pill. It makes me moody, makes me put on weight, etc. But is there a comparable alternative for my boyfriend so that maybe we could share those side-effects and maybe give my body a bit of a break now and then? No. and that sucks.

It's wayyyyy easier to formulate a female pill.

Look, the drug companies don't care about the sociology of female sexual liberation. They care about hard cash.

How would you make a male pill? Disable sperm? How do you disable sperm without disabling other cells in the body? If anyone can come up with an answer they'd be very very rich, as there would be huge follow-on potential in the world of, say, chemotherapy, too.

Viagra is a different kettle of fish. Women don't get erections!!!

I doubt we're going to see a male pill anytime soon. As for a "female viagra"...well, it's unlikely to be actually viagra. it would probably be designed to increase libido, which is something male viagra doesn't do. I imagine it will be yet more tinkering with hormones, but I don't know for sure. But if there's a buck to be made by increasing female libido, then it'll probably happen.

Would the ladies in here take a drug that increased their libido, out of curiosity? ( I ask this, as I imagine that's the kind of thing a "female viagra" would do.....not that I've heard anyhting about female viagra.)

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

Would the ladies in here take a drug that increased their libido, out of curiosity? ( I ask this, as I imagine that's the kind of thing a "female viagra" would do.....not that I've heard anyhting about female viagra.)

Dear gods know, that would be that last thing I would need.

Macha

Just seen you're a mod for the Biology forum So I'll accept your points on the pill!

Female viagra - doesn't it exist already?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=444518&in_page_id=1774

Ps - I wouldn't take it but I think it should be available for women who want it, just like not all men want Viagra but it's an option for them.

tallaght01

I have never seen that stuff. But it ain't no female viagra. Viagra is a drug called sildenafil. This female version simply isn't the same drug. it's just a drug to increase your libido. It's more hormonal manipulation.

Viagra shouldn't increase your libido, it should just enable improved blood flow to the penis..hence why there is unlikely to ever be a female viagra

BTW....being a mod of a forum doesn't mean a person has any expertise in that area. I think that is often very obvious throughout boards. You should always treat anything I, or anyone in an anonymous setting like this, says with a healthy scepticism

EDIT: the drug you're talking about is only available for post menopausal women as far as I know. hat's because it has hormonal effects...and post menopausal women are presumably more likely to have hormonal reasons for their lack of libido than younger reasons, for whom a myriad of issues may be the problem. So it probably wouldn't work on younger women.And viagra isn't recommended for all men...only those with proper erectile dysfuncion, and a healthy cardiovascular system.