Anti feminist women

LightningBolt

Oh here we go, I'm merely saying that with certain jobs (I'm talking EU Board level here not some Irish company looking for a Financial Director) I believe men may have had more experience at jobs that gave them an advantage due to the fact that in previous years it was very difficult for women to gain that experience. As it is now it's slowly changing and in future I'd hope that public representatives are more evenly balanced in terms of gender profile.

Not once did I say that a woman with the same qualification and experience as a man be less qualified for a job.

As for commanding respect from peers, women are not as well respected in the workforce as they should be. A proportion of men still have the tendency to dismiss women's opinions and not give them the same respect as they would a male colleague. Once we have a society where people are judged on their actions and not on their gender we'll be equal in my eyes.

Does that clear up what I said?

Stheno

LightningBolt wrote: »

Oh here we go, 1
I'm merely saying that with certain jobs (I'm talking EU Board level here not some Irish company looking for a Financial Director) I believe men may have had more experience at jobs that gave them an advantage due to the fact that in previous years it was very difficult for women to gain that experience. As it is now it's slowly changing and in future I'd hope that public representatives are more evenly balanced in terms of gender profile.

2 Not once did I say that a woman with the same qualification and experience as a man be less qualified for a job.

3 As for commanding respect from peers, women are not as well respected in the workforce as they should be. A proportion of men still have the tendency to dismiss women's opinions and not give them the same respect as they would a male colleague. Once we have a society where people are judged on their actions and not on their gender we'll be equal in my eyes.

Does that clear up what I said?

1. I can see the point of your argument and accept that.

2. No you said

Does it boil down to them not being as qualified as their male counterparts

which lead to my question?

3. A proportion of men yes, but not all men given your point, and imo the same applies to women, if not moreso in some cases

Thanks

LightningBolt

Does it boil down to them not being as qualified as their male counterparts

I think we're getting our wires crossed on this one. I was posing that as a question attempting to solve why women weren't as prevalent in these roles. What I meant by that was: is it possible for some positions, that it is plausible women may not have the experience necessary due to previous barriers they faced which prevented them gaining the experience required.

Hope that clears it up.

Stheno

LightningBolt wrote: »

I think we're getting our wires crossed on this one. I was posing that as a question attempting to solve why women weren't as prevalent in these roles. What I meant by that was: is it possible for some positions, that it is plausible women may not have the experience necessary due to previous barriers they faced which prevented them gaining the experience required.

Hope that clears it up.

It does thanks

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Mother of God, you sound like a male colleague of mine who tried to (unsuccessfully) argue recently that men were discriminated against in Irish Society :rolleyes:

Anyway as regards your post, the OP that you quoted is talking about the proportion of female representatives in government, NOT whether or not women have the vote, there's a slight difference there :rolleyes:

Back OT I dislike anti feminist women, it seems in the past few years there has been a backlash/movement emanating from the States which advocates the "traditional" homemaker role for women, I've not read any of the women quoted, but will over the next few days, my problem with it is the lack of choice rather than any gender based role.

At lots of levels men are discrininated against- must be a divorced or seperated guy. Thats when gender equality really hits home.

Women usually dont run on a gender ticket.On an aside I was appalled at the treatment Mary Harney has had -often -from women especially on her appearance moreso then her political skills.

In Ireland we have an in-camera rule in family law courts -which -does leave it open to charges of gender/active woman bias.

There has also been feminazation of professions such as medical & teaching and where gender does affect service delivery and the availability of the services.So there are positives for women. IMHO the workplace adapts to women and not vice versa which makes employing women expensive. Wghere do you stand on that?

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

At lots of levels men are discrininated against- must be a divorced or seperated guy. Thats when gender equality really hits home.

The only level at which men are discriminated against is in family rights, and that's for a specific reason, so that men can enjoy favourable discrimination in every other aspect of society. That's not to belittle the lack of rights for fathers, but don't overegg it cd.

CDfm

LightningBolt wrote: »

Not once did I say that a woman with the same qualification and experience as a man be less qualified for a job.

As for commanding respect from peers, women are not as well respected in the workforce as they should be. A proportion of men still have the tendency to dismiss women's opinions and not give them the same respect as they would a male colleague.

Does that clear up what I said?

But surely until feminism throws of genderism you will have this. JUst going back to the family law issue which has positive discrimination to gender specific roles. Could it be that one flows on from the other that wonen are percieved in this way. Like it feeds the stereotype.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

The only level at which men are discriminated against is in family rights, and that's for a specific reason, so that men can enjoy favourable discrimination in every other aspect of society. That's not to belittle the lack of rights for fathers, but don't overegg it cd.

Thats a huge cost issue in itself.

But dont lets forget that women are discriminated against by women if they have a non traditional lifestyle. Like lesbians or women who are not mothers ever.

dfx-

taconnol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that it is women's fault that men feel guilty for the shocking treatment of women over the last couple thousand years?

A few statistics on the question of whether the pendulum has swung too far, in Europe at least:

-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Economics
-all 27 governers of central banks in the EU are men
-The governing council of the ECB (European Central Bank) is made up a six member executive board, which includes just one woman, and the governors of the central banks of the 15 Euro area countries, who are all men. Overall control of the European financial system therefore has less than 5% female influence

This is before I even go into social indicators. But suuuuree, we're like tootally equal. No, no in fact you're right. We have too many women in key positions and making important decisions at a national and European level.

Edit: Bluewolf - but she didn't actually give up her job - she's just published a book! The hypocrisy is insane.

:mad:

Why I don't like feminism generally is the pursuit of equality and retribution above all else and often summed up by statistics as above and especially the dragging up of the "thousand years" timeframe retribution, which to me is certainly what quoting these statistics are - to redress the imbalance. It reminds me of a post in another thread here where one woman was nasty to a guy and someone (pfb I think) piped up 'it's revenge for the years of what men did'. When someone said in reply "great, men now be punished for what their forefathers did", it was an exceptionally good point.

People should be picked on their ability to do their job, not whether the male 'gender allocation' was taken up, so it must go to a woman to redress the balance. What was the resume of those appointments? Is there anything to suggest the men shouldn't have got these jobs? Were there female competitors? Any basis that they got these jobs solely because they were men? Any basis that female counterparts would do any better because they can add a 'female influence' (wtf)? Why would they? Statistics can be moulded anyway you want. Seems similar to the grotesque South African policies of 'affirmative action' and quotas to me.

Similarly, I don't like 50/50 gender governments like Sweden (when campaigns of 'men are animals' and 'Society of Cutting Up Men' were around supposedly had some place in political debate!)..I don't care what gender a government or what gender a job is as long as it's not selected on the basis of gender, male or female.

CDfm

Willie O'Dea summed it up well when he said that men are treatred as if they are a different species (commenting on his days as a solicitor)

spinandscribble

Silverfish wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian.

I feel focusing on one specific group is being biased.

thank you for defining how i feel about these things.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its a really difficult one. So many feminists have polar opposite opinions on whats feminist and what isn't. Abortion, IVF etc.

One thing though. I actually think Margaret Thatcher could have become PM without the feminist movement! She probably could have been the supreme leader of Iran if she'd been born there

Macha

994 wrote: »

Why should one feel guilty about things that happened before one's birth? Half of my ancestors were female, and half of yours were male, and it's not as if no woman ever exploited a man (cuckoldry, forcing men to go to war, etc.)

No, I'm not saying men should feel guilty - in fact, the total opposite. I just don't think men's guilt should be used as an argument against women's rights movements.

Gia Panicky Moped wrote: »

How does true equality (in the Western world ) not exist?

You're not annoying me - I won't bite your head off. There are many economic, political and social indicators that show that equality does not exist. And laws very often precede attitudes so while men and women may have something approaching legal equality, that doesn't always translate into practice.

CDfm wrote: »

Very genderist of you and I suppose you are taking responsibility for behavior of women everywhere and in previous generations too.

It may come as a surprise to you that Women have the Vote in Ireland - at least I think so.:rolleyes:

Explain how pointing out inequalities is "genderist" of me. I'm not taking responsibility or any other obscure accusation. I'm pointing out some facts.

Having the vote is not the same as holding decision-making positions.

dfx- wrote: »

:mad:

Why I don't like feminism generally is the pursuit of equality and retribution above all else and often summed up by statistics as above and especially the dragging up of the "thousand years" timeframe retribution, which to me is certainly what quoting these statistics are - to redress the imbalance.

Yees..I'm quoting current statistics on the inequalities between men and women as "retribution"... bizarre.

dfx- wrote: »

It reminds me of a post in another thread here where one woman was nasty to a guy and someone (pfb I think) piped up 'it's revenge for the years of what men did'. When someone said in reply "great, men now be punished for what their forefathers did", it was an exceptionally good point.

So you agree, calling it an "exceptionally good point"? The fact that a few people act like that, again, does not negate the need for further work in achieveing equality.

dfx- wrote: »

People should be picked on their ability to do their job, not whether the male 'gender allocation' was taken up, so it must go to a woman to redress the balance. What was the resume of those appointments? Is there anything to suggest the men shouldn't have got these jobs? Were there female competitors? Any basis that they got these jobs solely because they were men? Any basis that female counterparts would do any better because they can add a 'female influence' (wtf)? Why would they? Statistics can be moulded anyway you want. Seems similar to the grotesque South African policies of 'affirmative action' and quotas to me.

Yes, there is ample evidence that many men get the job because they are men and testimony to that comes from men as well. I don't blame the men involved - it's human nature that jobs are given through contacts - I think everyone accepts that most jobs aren't even advertised or very often the recruitment process is more for show as the likely candidate has already been chosen. This from the man who instigated the quota law in Norway:

"I could not see why, after 25-30 years of having an equal ratio of women and men in universities and with having so many educated women with experience, there were so few of them on boards," he said. "From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked. They come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together. They're buddies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/norway-gender-executive-salaries1

dfx- wrote: »

Similarly, I don't like 50/50 gender governments like Sweden (when campaigns of 'men are animals' and 'Society of Cutting Up Men' were around supposedly had some place in political debate!)..I don't care what gender a government or what gender a job is as long as it's not selected on the basis of gender, male or female.

Can you link to some of these "men are animals" campaigns? I have never heard of them.

Edit: OK just googled and those campaigns are horrible! However, I can't find any proof that they are the work of anything other than a lunatic fringe.

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

A few statistics on the question of whether the pendulum has swung too far, in Europe at least:

-Women make up ontly 37% of EU Commissioners
-Over all of the EU, women make up 24% of lower houses of parliament and only 21% of upper houses: effectively meaning that 3/4 of decision makers at national level are men.

Economics
-all 27 governers of central banks in the EU are men
-The governing council of the ECB (European Central Bank) is made up a six member executive board, which includes just one woman, and the governors of the central banks of the 15 Euro area countries, who are all men. Overall control of the European financial system therefore has less than 5% female influence

We need details on how exactly people make it into those positions. Are they voted in or appointed? If voted in what is the gender breakdown of the applicable voting populace. What experience is required to do the rolls? How may women are there with that experience at the moment? Has there been a positive percentage increase at each voting/appointing time? Is this increase in line with the increase of women who through the change in discrimination brought about by the Feminist and Equal Rights movements have been able to advance in exactly these fields? All basic things that i feel need to be covered if you are going to post figures like this if i am honest.

Also, do you think any of the men in the above positions do a bad job simply because they are men?

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

We need details on how exactly people make it into those positions. Are they voted in or appointed? If voted in what is the gender breakdown of the applicable voting populace. What experience is required to do the rolls? How may women are there with that experience at the moment? Has there been a positive percentage increase at each voting/appointing time? Is this increase in line with the increase of women who through the change in discrimination brought about by the Feminist and Equal Rights movements have been able to advance in exactly these fields? All basic things that i feel need to be covered if you are going to post figures like this if i am honest.

EU Commisioners - appointed by member states
Lower Houses - voted in
Upper Houses - a mix of voted in/appointed (I'm generalising across 27 countries)
Governors of Central banks - appointed in Ireland and in all other EU countries afaik
Governing council of ECB - 2 mandatory positions and other 4 are appointed.

So the majority of these important positions are appointed.

On the question of improvements - of course there have been improvements. It doesn't remove from the above figures. I can post accurate statistics if I like and without an obligation to go into such detail as you request above. I'm not saying it's not relevant but you're asking for a large amount of detail that would take me a long time to gather. The statistics are still accurate.

Dragan wrote: »

Also, do you think any of the men in the above positions do a bad job simply because they are men?

Im a bit surprised you even ask me that. It's not about whether they do a bad job or not, it's about everyone having equal opportunity to access these positions.

Edit: this discussion is slightly off-topic. So back on-topic here's a clip of Ann Coulter on the daily show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=124316&title=ann-coulter

and a quote..:

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

On the question of improvements - of course there have been improvements. It doesn't remove from the above figures. I can post accurate statistics if I like and without an obligation to go into such detail as you request above. I'm not saying it's not relevant but you're asking for a large amount of detail that would take me a long time to gather. The statistics are still accurate.

*grins* I know all about Statistics, and i know that a large percentage of the strength of any statistic is in the delivery.

If you didn't want to answer my questions then either ignore the post or just say "i don't want to answer that, go find out for yourself". I am not asking you to justify what you posted beyond the justifications I need to do myself, in my work, or that i would seek from anyone else about anything else.

You know, or at least i hope you know, that i very much value your opinion around subjects like these. It is clear that you have done a huge amount of research and self education here, so if i am asking you a question it is simply because i am hungry to know your opinion, or to learn something from you. I hope my last post didn't seem like i was attacking what you posted, i was simply trying to get to the root of why they are what they are.

If it came across as any other way then i apologise.:o I have a head cold and a million distractions today, so sadly i feel my wording in the last post was less than stellar.

Im a bit surprised you even ask me that. It's not about whether they do a bad job or not, it's about everyone having equal opportunity to access these positions.

I'm just devils advocating...it would be like saying i should have a chance to go for those positions, when i clearly shouldn't. As such, i am just looking to work out the poor of suitable candidates and figure out what the gender split there is. If it's strongly a high male percentage, i have no issue with it.

My issues when then turn to the tier below, that is actually impacting on women and figure out why they are not able to get to that same qualified level. Basically, i would work my way from that level, back to college entry and graduate numbers and feeder positions. I'll do it later if i have the time.

I'm a firm believer in causing change to the area's i feel need it by working on the area's that feed it.

Nevyn

And yet another thread decends into justify feminism when it was about women and men
who do not appericate what feminism has done to change and shape the world we live in
for the better. /shrug

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

And yet another thread decends into justify feminism when it was about women and men
who do not appericate what feminism has done to change and shape the world we live in
for the better. /shrug

Actually, it was just about women, from the title?

To get back on topic, i find the idea that somebody MUST accept and appreciate something just because i do, regardless of the evidence of it's positive benefit on the world and lives of the people who live on it, to be hilarious.

Freedom of thought and speech and your right to view the world your way and formulate and express your own idea's and opinions does not work on the assumption that the ends you will reach will be the same as mine, or even by the same means.

Telling a woman that she MUST be proud of Feminism is the same as any other illogical argument to me. Maybe these people really do believe that their lives, and the lives of others, would be better without it the same way as we really do believe that our lives are better because of it?

Dudess

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

One thing though. I actually think Margaret Thatcher could have become PM without the feminist movement! She probably could have been the supreme leader of Iran if she'd been born there

No she couldn't, for the simple fact that she was a woman. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - a taking for granted of just how inferior women were considered before they got the courage to fight for their rights.
How ignorant do you have to be to be an educated woman who votes and has a successful career yet who is anti feminist? I'm thinking: extremely.

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

*grins* I know all about Statistics, and i know that a large percentage of the strength of any statistic is in the delivery.

Argh Dragan I know about you and statistics!! You'll beat me at it any day.

Dragan wrote: »

If you didn't want to answer my questions then either ignore the post or just say "i don't want to answer that, go find out for yourself". I am not asking you to justify what you posted beyond the justifications I need to do myself, in my work, or that i would seek from anyone else about anything else.

No I don't like when people put forward an opinion and then say "you back it up". It's lazy. And I certainly didn't want to ignore your post because you made some v good points. I just don't have access to a lot of the stuff (that is totally relevant) that you're asking for.

Dragan wrote: »

You know, or at least i hope you know, that i very much value your opinion around subjects like these. It is clear that you have done a huge amount of research and self education here, so if i am asking you a question it is simply because i am hungry to know your opinion, or to learn something from you. I hope my last post didn't seem like i was attacking what you posted, i was simply trying to get to the root of why they are what they are.

What a nice thing to say! Wow. No need to justify your post at all: you made good points.

Personally I think a lot of it is down to the networking thing. Just look at all the dodgy bankers and board members coming out of the woodwork these days and how many of them are on 5 or 6 boards. Ann Heraty, for example, was an Anglo Director, on the board of the Irish Stock Exchange, director of Bord na Mona AND on the board of Forfas!! When it gets up to those sort of echelons, it's all just a little too incestuous and closed to whoever is outside those circles, be they male of female. It just so happens that most of the people in the circle are men and so it reflects badly in the statistics. As Heraty has shown, once you're inside the circle, it doesn't matter much what gender you are.

Dragan wrote: »

My issues when then turn to the tier below, that is actually impacting on women and figure out why they are not able to get to that same qualified level. Basically, i would work my way from that level, back to college entry and graduate numbers and feeder positions. I'll do it later if i have the time.

Sure and that's why it worries me that, as the Norwegian minister pointed out, for maybe 20 years now we have had as many women graduating from university as men but it's still taking a long time for these stats to change. Laws may move forward but we can't legislate people's attitudes or opinions.

Nevyn

Dragan wrote: »

Actually, it was just about women, from the title?

Well people of both genders who do this annoy the snot out of me from time to time so I try not to discriminate as both men and women I feel have benefited from some the changes feminism has brought about, even if they are unaware of it.

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

No she couldn't, for the simple fact that she was a woman. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - a taking for granted of just how inferior women were considered before women got the courage to fight for their rights.
How ignorant do you have to be to be an educated woman who votes and has a successful career yet who is anti feminist? I'm thinking: extremely.

I agree she caught the public imagination and her star depended on the womans movement media spotligh. It may not have opened doors but unlocked them and she had tremendous ability as a person.

Its a pity anti feminism isnt defined as anti-genderism which is more accurate.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well people of both genders who do this annoy the snot out of me from time to time so I try not to discriminate as both men and women I feel have benefited from some the changes feminism has brought about, even if they are unaware of it.

No doubt about it that women have benefited and that is a good thing.

I think the real thing is that some of the outcomes are not in the words of Lord Denning "fair and just".

Nevyn

And ?
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Nor is social change, yes there has been a lot of changes but not enough tbh
but more then enough that I for one am greatful to the women and men
who brought them about.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

And ?
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Nor is social change, yes there has been a lot of changes but not enough tbh
but more then enough that I for one am greatful to the women and men
who brought them about.

belief in equality gets sidelined with using PC language and political like gender battles.

I swear a bit normally but Im Irish and its what we do.I know lots of women who swear more but when I do how is that anti feminist?

I have a daughter and know I really spoil her but want to have the same opportunities as my son. I also want him to be treated equally as a parent if he has kids.

I imagine you feel the same for your kids.

Imagine any female politician coming out and saying that publicly -she would be tarred and feathered.

cuckoo

Dudess wrote: »

How ignorant do you have to be to be an educated woman who votes and has a successful career yet who is anti feminist? I'm thinking: extremely.

Maybe it's just that the educated, affluent female anti-feminists are the ones with the clouth to get the air time and attention. Or, maybe it's the affluent women who, with the freedom that having a bit of money gives, can choose to ignore gender bias.

It annoys me because these women are blessed in so many ways, access to education, healthcare...clean drinking water! Why are they spending their time trying to pull other women down?

Are they trying to insinuate themselves with what they think is the male power base, by knocking down the feminists? I suspect it may be some form of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.

CDfm wrote: »

I have a daughter and know I really spoil her but want to have the same opportunities as my son. I also want him to be treated equally as a parent if he has kids.

I'm hopefull that the next big shift in employment trends is an acknowledgement of the importance of fatherhood. Increased paternal leave would benefit everyone - men could choose to spend time with their children, children would have time with their fathers....and it would remove the career disparity that occurs when women take time out for family reasons.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Gotta love women "armchair feminists" who go on and on about their feminism and are regularly are glued to SATC and Loose Women on the telly ...

Nevyn

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Gotta love women "armchair feminists" who go on and on about their feminism and are regularly are glued to SATC and Loose Women on the telly ...

I can't say I know anyone like that.

Macha

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Gotta love women "armchair feminists" who go on and on about their feminism and are regularly are glued to SATC and Loose Women on the telly ...

Yes because women who watch those programmes couldn't possibly be serious about wanting equality..

Back on-topic. I don't know whether it's fair to be more annoyed by women who don't appear to want equality than by men who hold similar views.

On a lower level, a few years ago I was waitressing in a pub. Place was packed out and the other waitress decided she couldn't handle it and locked herself in the staffroom. I had to explain to a table of 6 people that they couldn't pay separately unless they came up to the till as I didn't have time to go running back and forth with receipts and change. One of the women piped up "What's wrong with you - do you have your period or something?". Cue silence and everyone else on the table staring at their drinks or shoes. I don't know what it was but I felt something more than anger, it was almost as if, being a woman herself, she had betrayed me. But I don't know if it was fair of me to feel this way.

Anyhoo, I get a similar feeling about people like Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin: betrayal.

Dudess

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Gotta love women "armchair feminists" who go on and on about their feminism and are regularly are glued to SATC and Loose Women on the telly ...

I watch Sex & The City. I presume you're referring to those who believe such programmes have a feminist message when they've anything but? I watch S&TC because it's entertaining (once Carrie and Charlotte are off-screen or not saying much) but I'm aware it's as anti feminist as The Brady Bunch, just presented differently.