Anti feminist women

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

On your regulation of Banks issue (village idiots) would the presence of women socialised into the same regulatory culture have faired any better?

I doubt it. The people who are there are men but that's for historical reasons. I don't think they are bad bankers because they're men: I think they're bad bankers because they got too comfortable and cosy with their positions.

The cronyism culture excludes anyone who is outside it, including groups other than women. Look at the current situation with barristers in Ireland. You have to work (devil) for a year for free and once fully qualified, you have to rely on your contacts to find work. These rules are designed to keep out the plebs and those without close connections to the bar. It's the same thing: an effort to keep the status quo.

CDfm wrote: »

On entrepeneurs- I know a few - the distinguishing factor IMHO is their attitude towards risk and reward. Would you bet your house on your business being a success. Would you work as a commision only salesperson. Those career paths have no obstacles.

I'm sorry but yes they do. Business is about networks and contacts and business lunchs and who you know, on top of your own abilities as a business person.

CDfm wrote: »

So as much as Floridas study may be valid -it is equally valid to say that my observation is that the careers that have growth in womens participation are "safer" and risk free. Thats my observation so you can question it.

So on the one hand it's discriminatory for me to say that the financial system wouldn't have failed if women had been in charge but it's OK to suggest that women naturally opt for "safe" careers? You can't have your cake and eat it.

You're completely ignoring the social construction around women's job choices, the demands on them to be flexible, put family first, discrimination in recruitment against women of child-bearing age plus the discriminatory employment laws that place almost full responsibility for children onto mothers.

CDfm wrote: »

African-American slavery was almost contemporary with the Irish famine and the Irish and Catholics in the UK were an underclass. I often wonder if this is overhyped.

Discrimination is discrimination and I don't think forgetting about it does anyone any good.

Nevyn

Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I'm sorry but yes they do. Business is about networks and contacts and business lunchs and who you know, on top of your own abilities as a business person.


So on the one hand it's discriminatory for me to say that the financial system wouldn't have failed if women had been in charge but it's OK to suggest that women naturally opt for "safe" careers? You can't have your cake and eat it.

You're completely ignoring the social construction around women's job choices, the demands on them to be flexible, put family first, discrimination in recruitment against women of child-bearing age plus the discriminatory employment laws that place almost full responsibility for children onto mothers.

I am not ignoring anything.

In real life its a fallacy and myth that business gets done at business lunches. You are more likely to do business in a train station or airport if you make it your business to meet the clients.IF you are hungry enough or need the money badly enough you generally will do it.

I have moved into areas and businesses where I knew nobody so there was no network to help me and still made it. I dont play golf or rugby and wasnt at a top school. So I sold products based on price and performance -thats all.

Women are academically brighter then men so shouldnt we put a quota in to get men into careers such as teaching and nursing. THis would force women out of the safe career options and even allow men to participate more in the home and childrearing -which so many want to do.

THe women I know who are successful in these areas never use excuses that society has to change. I know several who have jumped the career ladder because they took risks and adapted to their environment and in some cases were more unscrupulous than their peers.By definition you arre giving women a list of excuses to fall back on so making them afraid to take the risk and try.

Floridas report is on economics - basic economics means that something is demand led or supply led. BY keeping women in a culture espousing welfare dependence etc-you perpetuate the cycle.So you are creating an artificial demand while keeping barriers to supply rigidly in place. Its like driving a car with the brakes on.So I am suggesting that while removing barriers you should also remove supports to force the change to happen.

It always amazes me when I see studies like this that its about removing barriers to the top jobs to benefit the few not forcing thru major structural change to benefit the many. Look at Irish immigration as a case in point and how we faciltated migrant workers when we had a labour force resourse of women we did not mobilise. This has done a great injustice to a generation of women- and whats more you supported it.

A feminist friend of mine recently told me that the biggest changes to womens work were brought about by women in the workplace and especially forcing changes thru with the unions- but the point being the women were already players. The same woman said binmen earn more money than cleaners so thats the line she would go into if she had no option.

IMHO -forget the high intellectual stuff perceptions have to move from Anne Summers Party to the DynoRod lady if you want real change.

K-9

taconnol wrote: »

I'm pointing to statistics that indicate the existence of an imbalance in the sex of appointees to national and EU-level decision making positions, even in a society where the majority of people graduating from third-level education are women. What do you suggest we do?

Generally EU Commissioners are Govt. appointed and 37% isn't actually a bad percentage considering how women are under represented in politics. Why women seem to be under represented is another issue. Is it because of an old boys club in politics or a general reluctance by women to enter politics?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

As long as it used as a chip on the shoulder.

dfx-

taconnol wrote: »

I'm pointing to statistics that indicate the existence of an imbalance in the sex of appointees to national and EU-level decision making positions, even in a society where the majority of people graduating from third-level education are women. What do you suggest we do?

You question why gender equality in decision making positions is important and then have the audacity to call me sexist?

In relation to business, the argument is clear: Richard Florida has shown that tolerant, open societies are highly correlated with economic success as fewer barriers stand in the way of successful entrepreneurs and business people. By blocking the paths to high business for certain groups of people, society is effectively stunting its own potential economic growth. Just look at the inbred group of village idiots that have been running our financial system for the last 20 years.



Jesus, I'm not talking about a cricket match here, nor do I appreciate the snide comparison to a vindictive, murderous, dictatorial, racist regime.

And I'm asking what does the sex of those appointees have to do with whether we should employ a woman or a man next? There is nothing sexist about not introducing gender into appointments which is what I'm arguing for. What's sexist about taking gender out of consideration? The best decision maker gets the job for me, not whether they're male or female and that if 100% are male or 100% are female doesn't bother me in the slightest. The audacity is to suggest that women should now be preferentially picked because all the jobs so far are one particular gender. That is inherently and abhorrently sexist.

Blocking the paths? The richest person I know is female from Amsterdam and married to another who are both extremely successful businesswomen with private jets, run both of their own companies, who progressed, excelled and still do in heavily male-oriented environments. Though one went to elocution lessons to try to take away her native Scouse accent, which she is still unfortunately thankful for. Equality for Scouse Accents! The pathway is there. There is also a political pathway for the likes of Segolene Royal, Angela Merkel and Israel's recent candidate against Benjamin Netanyahu. Again I love the suggestion that because of an equal gender mix, we would've fared better economically in the last 20 years. Yes, it's all down to the gender mix..

CDfm wrote: »

THe women I know who are successful in these areas never use excuses that society has to change. I know several who have jumped the career ladder because they took risks and adapted to their environment and in some cases were more unscrupulous than their peers.By definition you arre giving women a list of excuses to fall back on so making them afraid to take the risk and try.

Floridas report is on economics - basic economics means that something is demand led or supply led. BY keeping women in a culture espousing welfare dependence etc-you perpetuate the cycle.So you are creating an artificial demand while keeping barriers to supply rigidly in place. Its like driving a car with the brakes on.So I am suggesting that while removing barriers you should also remove supports to force the change to happen.

It always amazes me when I see studies like this that its about removing barriers to the top jobs to benefit the few not forcing thru major structural change to benefit the many. Look at Irish immigration as a case in point and how we faciltated migrant workers when we had a labour force resourse of women we did not mobilise. This has done a great injustice to a generation of women- and whats more you supported it.

+1

Neither am I talking about a cricket match showing you have missed the point completely. The quota laws and affirmative action law in the free Republic of South Africa applied to both sport and civil life since 1998 and 1994 respectively is meant to give people who were not given a chance beforehand to develop - rebalance the statistics if you will - and it is failing spectacularly for both the people it tried to help and those it hinders. They have used a racist policy to atone for a racist history. To employ sexist quota laws to atone for a sexist history not a comparison at all?

Perhaps they should forget the past as they are doomed to repeat it..

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

I have moved into areas and businesses where I knew nobody so there was no network to help me and still made it. I dont play golf or rugby and wasnt at a top school. So I sold products based on price and performance -thats all.

Good for you. Seriously. However, your personal experiences do nothing to negate my argument. In fact, I'd argue that you made it despite the barrier of not going to a top school or playing golf/rugby.

CDfm wrote: »

Women are academically brighter then men so shouldnt we put a quota in to get men into careers such as teaching and nursing. THis would force women out of the safe career options and even allow men to participate more in the home and childrearing -which so many want to do.

For that, we need to change the laws that effectively punish both sexes for having kids. Men aren't allowed any paternity leave and women have to do most of the caring.

CDfm wrote: »

THe women I know who are successful in these areas never use excuses that society has to change. I know several who have jumped the career ladder because they took risks and adapted to their environment and in some cases were more unscrupulous than their peers.By definition you arre giving women a list of excuses to fall back on so making them afraid to take the risk and try.

I'm not trying to provide anyone with a list of "excuses" and I really resent you trying to portray my analysis as such. I'm giving reasons for why the stats are the way they are. Your labelling my reasons as excuses insinuates that I'm just trying to justify why women don't do well when there are no particular reasons at all. Whereas you seem to be putting it down to an innate inability for women to take risks - nice.

CDfm wrote: »

Floridas report is on economics - basic economics means that something is demand led or supply led. BY keeping women in a culture espousing welfare dependence etc-you perpetuate the cycle.So you are creating an artificial demand while keeping barriers to supply rigidly in place. Its like driving a car with the brakes on.So I am suggesting that while removing barriers you should also remove supports to force the change to happen.

What? You think only women live in a culture of welfare dependence? You think only women are subject to moral hazard? Do you wish the entire removal of the welfare state? Do you want Joe the Plumber's vision over here?

By the way, you did not address any of the issues that Florida raises.

CDfm wrote: »

It always amazes me when I see studies like this that its about removing barriers to the top jobs to benefit the few not forcing thru major structural change to benefit the many. Look at Irish immigration as a case in point and how we faciltated migrant workers when we had a labour force resourse of women we did not mobilise. This has done a great injustice to a generation of women- and whats more you supported it.

Studies like what? I don't know what you're talking about. It's perfectly reasonable to be able to discuss representation at the top levels as well as employment rights for women at every level. We can juggle more than one ball.

Your comments on immigration are ill-informed. During the Celtic Tiger, our economy created on average 80,000 jobs per year. A large segment were filled by graduates and school leavers, more by women returing to the work force but there was always a large number of jobs that we simply did not have the people to fill. If immigrants hadn't filled them, our economy would have suffered. So no, I totally reject the idea that allowing immigrants to fill jobs has in any way done any injustice to a generation of women: the jobs were there for anyone who wanted them.

We had 5% unemployment, which is very near the minimum needed to allow movement of labour.

CDfm wrote: »

IMHO -forget the high intellectual stuff perceptions have to move from Anne Summers Party to the DynoRod lady if you want real change.

I don't understand what you're saying here - can you explain it? thanks

I'll repy to the rest of you later - gotta go to the gym!

Dudess

DarkJager wrote: »

Everything with womens culture these days likes to paint men as being some sort of idiotic lecherous breed, who only want sex and have absolutely no other human qualitys than to be the butt of a joke "between the girls". Its prevailent in music ("If I were a boy"), its in advertising ("so easy a man could do it"), its ****ing everywhere

I agree - it's something that enrages me too... except please don't refer to it as "women's culture" - that implies all women are "in on" the advertisements (too many to name), television programmes (Desperate Housewives, Sex & The City) and music videos (Katy Perry's Hot and Cold, Britney's Womanizer, Gabriella Cilmi - Sweet About Me, the aforementioned If I Were a Boy) that belittle and ridicule men. I'm certainly not.

anyone who openly comes out and proclaims themselves to be either a chauvinist or a feminist in this day and age can **** right off IMO. It is gender ego tripping and nothing more.

If you consider feminism the female equivalent of chauvinism, then you're rather ignorant on that score. This seems to be part of what's causing the "anti feminism" backlash by professional, educated women - not bloody well knowing what feminism is/having a completely skewed view of it, along with not being educated as to how bad things were for women not terribly long ago.

bluewolf wrote: »

I've seen plenty of threads ages back about men in workplaces surrounded only by female colleagues and not being too pleased.
:rolleyes:

But if they're hot, it's ok...

DarkJager wrote: »

if feminism went the whole way (which thank **** it didn't)

Another comment which appears to demonstrate you don't really know what feminism is. If you think feminism going the whole way means women being "superior" to men rather than merely achieving equality and respect, then seriously, learn what feminism is. Feminism is about the latter and it certainly hasn't gone the whole way.
And yeah, considering how the western world was when men were superior to women, and parts of the world today where it's still the case... yes indeed, thank **** things haven't come to a point where women are the superior ones.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think a lot of the ungratefulness and complacency comes from lack of awareness and lack of education. We do not teach children in school about such topics or the history and cultural changes of the last 50 years, most 20 year olds have no idea that it was illegal in the 70s for married women to stay in work, or that contraception was illegal until the mid 80s and so were condom machines until the mid 90s.

Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

That is true - and it's hardly young people's fault if they weren't taught about it. The "unholy trinity" of Thatcher, Coulter and Palin however are aged 83, 47 and 45 respectively - in the cases of the younger women, damn well old enough to be aware of the women's lib movement. In the case of the eldest woman, one of the first to be able to take advantage of it.

brianthebard wrote: »

Secondly, radical feminism did argue to replace a male hierarchy with a female one, to invert the binary, and also to destroy their femininity by dressing and acting masculine or butch. There are many feminists who have said and acknowledge this, and say that it is the wrong method.

I'm sure plenty do - I certainly would.

That is not to say that all feminists subscribe to this radical viewpoint, but its not surprising that opponents to the movement have used the most extreme version to tarnish the whole collective.

Well it's disheartening that those opponents are so lazy - that they decide to tar all feminists with the irrational radical feminist brush. I don't think that splinter group of feminism is actually feminist (if feminism is about equality and respect) anyway and has done the movement a disservice. It's not focusing on equality and respect, it has its own vengeful axe to grind. If a woman considers her being a "feminist" gives her a right to bully and ridicule men (and indeed there are plenty of such women) then I for one wouldn't consider her a feminist.
The guilt you talk about men experiencing: don't hold all feminists responsible for that, just the radicals. Because again, feminism isn't about making men feel guilty - it's just twisted and warped by those women who take advantage of it to further their own agenda.
But people who consider all feminists to be the above are just ignorant. I get the feeling those anti feminist career women have that notion of feminism in their heads and that's what they want to be disassociated from, which I can understand. But believing that's the only thing feminism is about is utterly moronic.

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.

It's a huge one though - I can understand men's anger.

book smarts wrote: »

Also no man should ever help a woman in distress because she's a woman

I'd help a person in distress because they're... in distress.

K-9 wrote: »

Personally, I think it's because she is so anti abortion that it annoys feminists. I don't like the way pro choice has become nearly an essential part of feminism.

I don't either, but it's not just her pro-life stance. It's her advocating of women staying in the home and becoming traditional (as a preferred way of life to going out working - different story if she just said "women, do what you want to do") - yet look at her life! She doesn't have to say "I'm anti feminist".

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think real feminism has run its course, and that is why, from my point of view, anyone who posits themself as a feminist tends to hold some extreme view or other.

Not me. How can it be your point of view when you don't actually know? As a feminist, I just want to deconstruct the norms we still accept, despite so many advances.

Put another way, successful socially adjusted women that I know tend to eschew feminism, and, in a country where women have as equal rights as men, that is the way it should be.

Well those successful women who eschew feminism don't know what feminism is/was. Again, thinking feminism means man-haters today just because much of what feminists fought for in previous decades has been achieved, is just ignorant.

RealEstateKing

Feminism as it was originally conceived had several parts to it: Some of the ideas are still current today: The idea that women are equal in worth to men, should be allowed work, should have control over the their reproductive systems and so on.

The other side of it was a beleif that traditional sexual arrangements and emphasis on lysocal attractiveness enslaved women - the whole Beauty Industry was seen as an oppressive tool, women surrendering themselves to The Male Gaze and so on, hence the bra-burning and stuff that went on in the seventies.

It is this second part that has almost totally dissappeared: And it was largely at the behest of women themselves that it did: From the 90's on the mainstream culture for women became more focused on youth, beauty, and looking good than it ever has been in any civilisation in history. The sheer bombardment of beauty images has been exponential in its growth since the mid to late 90s.

Plus the mainstreaming of pornography happened as well - so that you now even have women voluntarily attending pole-dancing classes fer chrissakes (Yeah, yeah, its good for staying fit...) and dressing in ways that would have appalled their 70's forebears.

All of which is done under the the rubric of being comfortable with ones sexuality and using ones sexual power- which fails to address the fundamental point - only a small percentage of women have this sexual power at all, the 30 or 40 per cent who are good looking enough, and even then only between the ages of 18 to about 40. Outside of that ordinary plain looking women (i.e. most of them) have hardly any of this power. Yet this has been the absolute driving force of our culture for the past 10 or 15 years.

Look at mens magazines. What do you see on the cover? Pictures of semi-naked attractive young women. Look at womens magazines. What do you see on the cover? Pictures of semi-naked attractive young women. Something is definitely wrong there somewhere.

In that respect women are in a worse position than they were 30 years ago. Hell Im not even that old, and I remember when all the girls I knew wore baggy Nirvana T-shirts and wouldnt even strip to their swimsuits at the beach.

Not saying Im nostalgic for those dreary days of course, but I definitely see a lot more unhappy women in Ireland than I did back in those days, in this respect at least.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Good for you. Seriously. However, your personal experiences do nothing to negate my argument. In fact, I'd argue that you made it despite the barrier of not going to a top school or playing golf/rugby.


For that, we need to change the laws that effectively punish both sexes for having kids. Men aren't allowed any paternity leave and women have to do most of the caring.


I'm not trying to provide anyone with a list of "excuses" and I really resent you trying to portray my analysis as such. I'm giving reasons for why the stats are the way they are. Your labelling my reasons as excuses insinuates that I'm just trying to justify why women don't do well when there are no particular reasons at all. Whereas you seem to be putting it down to an innate inability for women to take risks - nice.


What? You think only women live in a culture of welfare dependence? You think only women are subject to moral hazard? Do you wish the entire removal of the welfare state?

By the way, you did not address any of the issues that Florida raises.


We had 5% unemployment, which is very near the minimum needed to allow movement of labour.


I don't understand what you're saying here - can you explain it? thanks

I'll repy to the rest of you later - gotta go to the gym!

He I didnt really mean to insinuate anything. I often find it difficult with my economics qualifications not to observe what I think are inconsistencies in conclusions in studies of this type. In other words -I feel -that the conclusions may be those of a study but it should not be confused with pure economics.

I am suggesting that the model may be flawed if the author arrived at the study with an inherent bias.

I cited my own experiences as an example -not of economics but of need. I had to work or starve:pac:. You are wrong in your views a monkey could have sold some of the products I sold if they had gone onto building sites a 7 in the morning and collected payments at 2 on a Friday. I am saying all your talk of economic models wont change builders work practices.

Effectively, what I am saying is that when you tinker with a model and apply micro-economics to it eventually your intervention in itself is creates the market conditions which makes the outcome inevitable. Ceteris paribus and all that. So the system you create acts as a disincentive to the conditions you want to achieve.

What I am saying is that if you want entrepenurial women you have to reform the welfare system - I observe that the welfare culture may be a contributory factor. I am using the word "excuse" because I cant think of another one and think inhibitor too sterile. Its not a value judgement.

I dont know what levels you think are acceptable -but the 5% structural employment when you have a complex welfare system already is pretty damn high. It should have been in the range of 0 to 0.5% which is acceptable.

(Common sence should tell you that in a small open economy which Ireland is you cannot afford an expensive welfare system. My other point if you have adopted that model and you have anomalies as a result of it -you should accept them or change your model).

What I am saying if you are going to intervene to create equality in your eyes the level of micro econmomic intervention you need is boggling.

I am not saying that its inate in women not to take risks. I am saying that the welfare system and other cultural beliefs create an economic model making it inevitable that they wont. That is totally different. The participation of women in entrepenurial high risk jobs will be in inverse proportion to the benefit structure of the welfare system and alternative employment. Why work if you get free money or safe money.

IF you want equality women (at the bottom rung of the ladder) without skills or training should be encouraged to work at low skilled higher wage jobs as DynoRod sewerage workers and binmen too. Changing the culture to benefit those will benefit the most and those in lower paid jobs will have the opportunity to earn more money ( a binmam earns more than a cleaner as he deals with hazards and vermin) rather then the few politicians and government officials is a far greater challenge and IMHO a more with worthwhile one.

LightningBolt

taconnol wrote: »

You're completely ignoring the social construction around women's job choices, the demands on them to be flexible, put family first, discrimination in recruitment against women of child-bearing age plus the discriminatory employment laws that place almost full responsibility for children onto mothers.

One could reasonably argue that this law in turn discriminates against fathers when it comes to custody cases. I'm not sure what country it is (maybe France or Sweden) but don't they allow either the father or mother to elect to take the majority of paternity leave whilst still giving a generous amount of leave for the other. Open to correction on that point.

CDfm

LightningBolt wrote: »

One could reasonably argue that this law in turn discriminates against fathers when it comes to custody cases. I'm not sure what country it is (maybe France or Sweden) but don't they allow either the father or mother to elect to take the majority of paternity leave whilst still giving a generous amount of leave for the other. Open to correction on that point.

Thats true. Also there are jobs which allow fathers to participate fully as carers and homemakers. I work from home and have done for years. Lots of IT workers work remotely, shift workers on night shifts , bar staff and hotel workers, postmen, guards and teachers all arrange their times arround childcare arrangements and thats just the men.

Andrew Clover writes a househusband column for the Sunday Times and this suggests that women in higher income roles can have that option with a willing partner.

Im not saying that all is planned for now -but - if you think of it society has changed to allow all of this. Maybe the stereotype Taconnal suggests is illusory in modern times.

Macha

LightningBolt wrote: »

One could reasonably argue that this law in turn discriminates against fathers when it comes to custody cases. I'm not sure what country it is (maybe France or Sweden) but don't they allow either the father or mother to elect to take the majority of paternity leave whilst still giving a generous amount of leave for the other. Open to correction on that point.

Oh sure, fathers are openly discriminated against in family law in Ireland. In Norway, the parents get 1 year at 80% pay or 10 months at full pay. The father has to take minimum 1 month of that or the time is forfeited. As a result, employers don't look at women of child-bearing age so suspiciously (as in "Is she about to get pregnant and cost me feck-loads of money?" or at least they consider both parents more equally in this area.

Good post CDfm, you cleared up a lot of things. However, I don't see Florida's study as flawed. He actually went against the general Saskia line of cities attracting both financial and human capital, effectively reversing the idea. He's not arguing pure economics but also sociology. Economics is not an exact science.

5% unemployment is considered very low, especially when you know that 2% of that is long-term unemployed (an issue for another thread). 3% unemployment is very close to the minimum needed to allow movement in the labour market. Also, if it went even lower, employees would effectively be able to dictate to employers ridiculous terms of employment: a simple case of supply vs demand.

Common sense tells me that our over-reliance on exports and FDI meant that yes, we couldn't afford to put up our taxes and so couldn't afford a comprehensive welfare system. Whatever welfare policies you adopt, you are going to meddle with your macro-economic model. That's life. I don't think the options are either to put up or change the model. The model and markets work for us, not the other way around.

I don't agree with your idea that our welfare system is skewed to favour women. I think our laws place the responsibility of child care in the hands of women and payments like child benefit are the very minimum requirement. We don't have enough creche places - it's support like this that will encourage women to take more risks, not pulling the rug out from under them in the hope of detering moral hazard. I'm not 100% familiar with every detail of the welfare system so if you could tell me where else the system is skewed to protect women, I'd be grateful.

And finally, this whole discussion of women at the top started because I presented some statistics on a national and european level of decision makers. I am in no way suggesting that helping women further down is less of a priority - those were the most relevlant stats I had in my head at the time, that's all.

RealEstateKing: I thought this image was quite relevant to your post. It was sent into Postsecret:



Ooh and just found this article on why men are expected to pay more in relationships - an interesting read, and the comments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/13/white-day-money-dating-equality

I particularly like this part

The word on the dating scene suggests it's a significantly more expensive game for the blokes. "I'd always offer to pay my way, but I'd actually think it a bit lame if the man didn't get the first meal," says a single 32-year-old advertising executive, who didn't want to give her name for fear of not getting any more free dates.

Dragan

"But", she says, "once we go through labour, that says it all, we're worth every penny."

I found that comment to be a laugh taco! Interesting read.

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

I found that comment to be a laugh taco! Interesting read.

I know...*facepalm*

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

I know...*facepalm*

It's kind of funny that she would reduce the role of a woman to basically being a baby maker that could be bought.

Spanner!:)

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Good post CDfm, you cleared up a lot of things. However, I don't see Florida's study as flawed. He actually went against the general Saskia line of cities attracting both financial and human capital, effectively reversing the idea. He's not arguing pure economics but also sociology. Economics is not an exact science.

5% unemployment is considered very low, especially when you know that 2% of that is long-term unemployed (an issue for another thread). 3% unemployment is very close to the minimum needed to allow movement in the labour market. Also, if it went even lower, employees would effectively be able to dictate to employers ridiculous terms of employment: a simple case of supply vs demand.

Common sense tells me that our over-reliance on exports and FDI meant that yes, we couldn't afford to put up our taxes and so couldn't afford a comprehensive welfare system. Whatever welfare policies you adopt, you are going to meddle with your macro-economic model. That's life. I don't think the options are either to put up or change the model. The model and markets work for us, not the other way around.

I don't agree with your idea that our welfare system is skewed to favour women. I think our laws place the responsibility of child care in the hands of women and payments like child benefit are the very minimum requirement. We don't have enough creche places - it's support like this that will encourage women to take more risks, not pulling the rug out from under them in the hope of detering moral hazard. I'm not 100% familiar with every detail of the welfare system so if you could tell me where else the system is skewed to protect women, I'd be grateful.

And finally, this whole discussion of women at the top started because I presented some statistics on a national and european level of decision makers.

Thanks Taconnal - I really liked reading your stuff so I gave it serious thought.

I work in marketing and having worked in research the research often gets distorted to suit the agenda of whoever is paying.That really surprises me :pac:

Economics is not an exact science but is very precise so long as you dont ask the model to do to much. Thats why I dont like complex models as they obscure to much and mask distortions.

Economics and sociology are a bit uneasy in this mix( Its like atheism and christianity). Marxist sociologists sometimes adapt & use the Marxist economic approach (Marx was an economist and a very good one too) and this gets blurred when you mix it with social & political theory. It gets far too removed from pure economics & how the market functions and reacts.

I do think the Irish figures on structural unemployment were underestimated because of the complex welfare system makes them so. I would like to see the real figures of people the state pay income to, disability,housing etc for. That actually would be a good read.

BTW - so nobody thinks Ive become PC - is that you in the pic:D

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

I don't either, but it's not just her pro-life stance. It's her advocating of women staying in the home and becoming traditional (as a preferred way of life to going out working - different story if she just said "women, do what you want to do") - yet look at her life! She doesn't have to say "I'm anti feminist".

I don't remember her saying anything like that from the election coverage. I remember her being slated for her conservative stance on abortion, her pro gun stance and her daughter getting pregnant.

I wonder did she actually say anything like that or is it just a perception of her?

Finner

DarkJager wrote: »

I just have to ask, do you not feel feminism is a bit "patethic" in this modern age? Its completely unneccesary now, as women are pretty much equal to men in terms of rights (and maybe a bit further if you want to look at how the rights split in a divorce for example). I don't see any "chauvinists" around beating their chests and proclaiming their superiority, so whats make women think they still need to do the same?

I think that you're completely wrong! For starters there are still plenty of people (I'm not saying just men but women also) who think of women and men in a certain stereotypical way. I also think there are still plenty of women who don't get paid as much as men in the same position, who don't get considered for promotions and who have to work harder to forge their way in the world of work.

Take a look at this article for one thing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/worklifebalance.discriminationatwork


There are only a handful of women in powerful positions in the world. I feel like the recent presidential candidate race in the U.S.A. brought up this issue again.

I recently met a girl, who was working on a project with her friend to do with feminism. It really made me think again about what it means to be a feminist. I used to think feminism was a dirty word but by talking to her about the project and about feminismhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=59361844. I think after that I would be proud to call myself a feminist. It just means that I take pride in being a woman and don't agree with women being discriminated against. That doesn't mean that I hate men and think they're evil, or that I want to go out and burn all my bras and not shave! I believe in equality among the sexes but I still think that we need to value and embrace differences in the sexes also.

The two girls drove across America and interviewed women (and some men) about their opinions on life, the female sex and feminism and there are some really interesting points made on the blog. Here's the link and there's a book coming out in the future sometime...

http://girldrive.blogspot.com/

994

taconnol wrote: »

I'm pointing to statistics that indicate the existence of an imbalance in the sex of appointees to national and EU-level decision making positions, even in a society where the majority of people graduating from third-level education are women. What do you suggest we do?

But why not bring in quotas for university admission while you're at it - especially when exams are taken at an age when girls have a temporary advantage in terms of maturity?

CDfm

994 wrote: »

But why not bring in quotas for university admission while you're at it - especially when exams are taken at an age when girls have a temporary advantage in terms of maturity?

the thing is that when you introduce quotas then they become the norm.

why not quotas for 50% male primary teachers and nurses then.

what when quotas distort or are a nonsense. Say in the Army do we have a Womens SAS -the Amazonian Women Regiment.

Say the police -are we safer because the height and fitness/strenght requirements are gone.

Do quotas improve service delivery :What about doctors - well we have loads of qualified women and have paid for their training - but can you ever get a doctor at night when your child is sick and when you do its usually a man- are the women doctors trained to be doctors or homemakers.

Macha

994 wrote: »

But why not bring in quotas for university admission while you're at it - especially when exams are taken at an age when girls have a temporary advantage in terms of maturity?

Because 60% of our university graduates are women yet despite that we still have fewer women in decision-making positions at national and EU level as well as in corporate circles. You have to ask yourself, what is the end function of university? To get a good education, of course, but really to get a good job afterwards. As they stand, the stats show that despite doing well in 3rd level education, something is going wrong for some women in the workplace. How can you argue that there is grounds for bringing in quotas for university admissions? The knock-on impact in the workforce would push women back even further.

Look, I'm just playing devils advocate on quotas. I don't really like them myself, as I find them forced, artificial and papering over the real issues underneath. If the problem is men's networking, then encourage female or mixed-gender networking. If boys aren't doing well in school, address that instead of just trying to make the figures look good.

If, after you've tried all that and the problem is still there, well then quotas can be looked at but I would consider them a total last resort.

CDfm wrote: »

I work in marketing and having worked in research the research often gets distorted to suit the agenda of whoever is paying.That really surprises me :pac:

Sure, science is not free of values.

CDfm wrote: »

Economics is not an exact science but is very precise so long as you dont ask the model to do to much. Thats why I dont like complex models as they obscure to much and mask distortions.

This is the thing: life is complex. We are complex, often irrational creatures. If you don't take that into consideration, the economic models aren't worth squat. Take Smith's "invisible hand" that says each individual looking out for herself will result in a greater good for all. However, the assumptions of that economic model are 1) perfect information and 2) perfectly rational information. Tell me a time when both of those things exist!!

CDfm wrote: »

I do think the Irish figures on structural unemployment were underestimated because of the complex welfare system makes them so. I would like to see the real figures of people the state pay income to, disability,housing etc for. That actually would be a good read.

CSO might have them. Ill look around.

CDfm wrote: »

BTW - so nobody thinks Ive become PC - is that you in the pic:D

Hah, no. I know the picture is a false choice as there are many shades in between but it asks some interesting questions on Western assumptions of progress and the values placed on women's bodies in two cultures at opposite ends of the scale.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Because 60% of our university graduates are women yet despite that we still have fewer women in decision-making positions at national and EU level as well as in corporate circles. You have to ask yourself, what is the end function of university?

Look, I'm just playing devils advocate on quotas. I don't really like them myself, as I find them forced, artificial and papering over the real issues underneath. If the problem is men's networking, then encourage female or mixed-gender networking. If boys aren't doing well in school, address that instead of just trying to make the figures look good.

If, after you've tried all that and the problem is still there, well then quotas can be looked at but I would consider them a total last resort.

Sure, science is not free of values.


This is the thing: life is complex. We are complex, often irrational creatures. If you don't take that into consideration, the economic models aren't worth squat. Take Smith's "invisible hand" that says each individual looking out for herself will result in a greater good for all. However, the assumptions of that economic model are 1) perfect information and 2) perfectly rational information. Tell me a time when both of those things exist!!


CSO might have them. Ill look around.


Hah, no. I know the picture is a false choice as there are many shades in between but it asks some interesting questions on Western assumptions of progress and the values placed on women's bodies in two cultures at opposite ends of the scale.

Provocative questions. 60% women graduates mmm. Are they providing a return on our investment. Women doctors and GPs are not. So should we change from a grant/subsidised aided system to a loan system.

( I think our education funding is wrong and that instead of grands and subsidies you had a loan system it would be a better sytem)

Positive discrimination for men entering medicine would increase increase the number GPs doing night calls. So that would be a supply lead system and could also have a benefit in service delivery in the health service and no doubt also faciltate social class mobilty since doctors tend to come from higher income classes. A loan system would facilitate class mobility.

The other issue I would see is female apprentices -what is the participation. Why such a Third Level university bias when trades actually have an entrepeneurial culture? So I would view education as being to create a trained workforce as a resourse and not educate for its own sake. An educated country of dreamers and poets is just that.

I disagree with you on networking by the way - in business - we transact on a cash nexus where there is a percieved economic or other benefit (tangable or intangible).

On science -to be worthwhile it should be factual and value free. I have a colleague who hates the fact that real market research doesnt turn out to have the results she want's .(she has a sociology degree LOL:D:D). However imprecise sociology is economics should not be.

We are complex creatures - a woman will die/kill to save her child but would she work long unsociable hours to give the child a better standard of living and education.In the welfare culture model the financial delivery mechanism may have moved from male father/husband to state. The mechanism has changed but has the woman is still a "consumer" of resourses and not a contributor. So support structures do perpetuate and dont eliminate this dependency IMO.

BTW - a world of Kate Moss - UGH. No thanks. Calista Flockhart doesnt look beautiful she looks hungry.Degas paintings are of real natural women and are a real treat - my woman GP had a print of one in her surgery.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

Are they providing a return on our investment. Women doctors and GPs are not.

That is such a short-sighted way of looking at the issue. Do you know who will be paying your state pension when you're old and grey? The next generation. We need at 2.1 birth rate simply to replace the older generation and falling birth rates are a disaster for everyone. We should be encouraging women to have children for the long-term economic benefits, not punishing them for it by questioning how much tax they're going to provide for us in the short-term.

You cannot skew the laws so that women end up with most responsibility for children, (not to mention the social aspects like the fact that women do far more housework in general than men, even when both are working full time), not give fathers any paternal leave, fail to provide creche places, fail to implement more flexible work practices and then complain when women exit the workforce.

As a woman interviewed inthis (recommended) article from the Irish Times about stay-at-home fathers explains:

Really the only thing Howard cannot do is breastfeed him

I fail to understand how people can view the education of women who end up looking at families as a "waste". For a start, they may only look after their families for a few years. Moreover, many women end up back in the workforce when they and their partner had not planned for it. Quite recently, many women have become the main breadwinner in their families for the first time again as their husband's have lost their jobs and any potential for getting a job in the hear future. How can we deny these people an education based on their sex?

CDfm wrote: »

( I think our education funding is wrong and that instead of grands and subsidies you had a loan system it would be a better sytem)

You're opening up a whole other can of worms that would be best suited for another thread in another forum.

CDfm wrote: »

Positive discrimination for men entering medicine would increase increase the number GPs doing night calls. So that would be a supply lead system and could also have a benefit in service delivery in the health service and no doubt also faciltate social class mobilty since doctors tend to come from higher income classes.

The implementation of measures outlined above would do the exact same thing, without discriminating against anyone.

CDfm wrote: »

A loan system would facilitate class mobility.

There is no proof that a loan system would facilitate this at all. Australia, the US, even the UK: these are all examples of countries where loans systems for universities have failed to facilitate class mobility. In fact, the system of loans is under review in Australia and has been described by their Minister for Education as "at best complex and at worst anomalous, inconsistent and irrational"

CDfm wrote: »

The other issue I would see is female apprentices -what is the participation. Why such a Third Level university bias when trades actually have an entrepeneurial culture? So I would view education as being to create a trained workforce as a resourse and not educate for its own sake. An educated country of dreamers and poets is just that.

I agree that universities need to strengthen ties with the work force. Very often a lot of innovation is going on in universities and the leap is not made to the business level.

There are huge benefits to having a more educated population, including a reduction of poverty, improved health (resulting in less strain on the HSE), reduced levels of smoking, lower levels of incarceration, higher levels of volunteerism, higher voting levels and higher levels of blood donation.

Basically, I think you're looking at all this in very narrow, short-sighted, simplified terms. The knock-on effects of encouraging women to have children, to enter the work force isn't as simple as how many medical graduates eventually become doctors. Models need to be complex because these issues are complex!

CDfm wrote: »

I disagree with you on networking by the way - in business - we transact on a cash nexus where there is a percieved economic or other benefit (tangable or intangible).

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree. Almost every single job I have gotten has been through a contact. I have attended numerous conferences and I know that the main reason people go is not to listen to the speakers but to network afterwards. There may be 4 potential suppliers, each with equally economically beneficial or attractive offers. I guarantee you the client will go with the person she knows or feels some sort of personal relationship with.

CDfm wrote: »

On science -to be worthwhile it should be factual and value free. I have a colleague who hates the fact that real market research doesnt turn out to have the results she want's .(she has a sociology degree LOL:D:D). However imprecise sociology is economics should not be.

Economics is an imprecise science and any attempt for it to be labeled as otherwise is misguided. It is a guide, and equations and models are useful but not comparable to the laws of physics.

Similarly, science cannot be value free. It just can't. The best that any researcher can do is acknowledge this and attempt to minimise bias as much as possible.

CDfm wrote: »

We are complex creatures - a woman will die/kill to save her child but would she work long unsociable hours to give the child a better standard of living and education.In the welfare culture model the financial delivery mechanism may have moved from male father/husband to state. The mechanism has changed but has the woman is still a "consumer" of resourses and not a contributor. So support structures do perpetuate and dont eliminate this dependency IMO.

Can't believe you wrote the above. Truly disappointing.

CDfm wrote: »

BTW - a world of Kate Moss - UGH. No thanks. Calista Flockhart doesnt look beautiful she looks hungry.Degas paintings are of real natural women and are a real treat - my woman GP had a print of one in her surgery.

Um...I think there are two issues:
1) the unhealthy, unattainable ideal of women's beauty
2) the over analysis of women's bodies in general.

IMO, no 2) is much more damaging than no 1). Basically, Kate and Calista probably don't give a **** what you think about their bodies.

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote: »

Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

But the future is an unknown country...

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

You cannot skew the laws so that women end up with most responsibility for children, (not to mention the social aspects like the fact that women do far more housework in general than men, even when both are working full time), not give fathers any paternal leave, fail to provide creche places, fail to implement more flexible work practices and then complain when women exit the workforce.

To criticise the laws, my dear taconnol, you must first understand them.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To criticise the laws, my dear taconnol, you must first understand them.

Perhaps you'd like to contribute something more to this conversation than a snide, condescending, obtuse remark?

Sangre

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to contribute something more to this conversation than a snide, condescending, obtuse remark?

There is no law that states that women should end up with most of the responsibility for children; we have debated whether fathers should have the right to paternal leave (& also whether they should be forced to have it) before; and I agree with you that the lack of childcare facilities is a serious failing of the government over the last few years.

However, the social ills you see are not a fault of the law, and so you must look at it from another point of view. I know a lot of women who have fought to be successful, independent and also mothers, and the last thing they would want is a handout or some other kind of help. They say I did this myself and I'm proud of it.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is no law that states that women should end up with most of the responsibility for children; we have debated whether fathers should have the right to paternal leave (& also whether they should be forced to have it) before; and I agree with you that the lack of childcare facilities is a serious failing of the government over the last few years.

A quote from our constitution, Art. 41.2.:

1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Do not tell me that in a country with the above articles in its constitution that the laws do not place more responsibility for childcare at the feet of the mother.

The Irish government has been pulled up again and again by the UN about this part of the consitution and their pathetic response is that it is treated as gender neutral and therefore is not discriminatory. What they fail to explain is why, if it is gender neutral, they can't pull their thumbs out of their asses and change the wording on it.

In 2000, the UN Human Rights Committee concluded that:

While noting the many advances that have been made in regard to the participation of women in all aspects of political, social and economic life, the Committee is concerned at the continuing inequalities faced by women in Ireland, which are reflected in the under-representation of women in certain occupations and in political life and in the generally lower salaries paid to women as compared with men. The Committee is also concerned that the references to women made in article 41 (para. 2) of the Constitution could perpetuate traditional attitudes toward the role of women.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, the social ills you see are not a fault of the law, and so you must look at it from another point of view. I know a lot of women who have fought to be successful, independent and also mothers, and the last thing they would want is a handout or some other kind of help. They say I did this myself and I'm proud of it.

No, see you're using circular logic and anecdotal evidence as arguments and neither of those hold much water with me.

First, you state that the social ills are not the fault of the law, but fail to provide any evidence to the contrary. Then you say QED, it must be something else: circular logic. Then you use the examples of some women you know who succeeded so therefore QED laws are not discriminatory against women? Sorry, you'll have to do better.

The simple fact of the matter is that as long as men do not have paternal leave resembling that of mothers, employers will shy away from women of child-bearing age. Research in the UK found that up to 70% of recruitment agencies were asked not to hire women of child-bearing age.

Sangre

Irish family laws are quite clearly based and have evolved from the belief women belong in the home. Even a rudimentary grasp of family and constitutional law would reveal this, something I'm sure you have johnnyskelton.