Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti feminist women
Options
Comments
-
brianthebard wrote: »There are only 7 teachers in the school?
Its 3 out of 7 teachers -some teachers teach multiple subjects0 -
Fairly sure the recuitment was fair wrt the number of applicants from each faith, it was the fact that Catholics wouldn't apply due to fear of other so-called Catholics targetting them.
Fairly sure you're wrong there, mate!
Getting back to Dudess's original point, when I meet anti-feminist women I gratefully ask if I can use their vote, since they don't want it. Usually shuts 'em up!
The argument about maternity leave: most of my son's teachers were male; they suffered plenty of illness due to hangovers, heart problems and unhealthy lifestyle (and women do tend to have a more healthy lifestyle in terms of smoking, exercise, proper food, etc).
I wouldn't personally think of the Leaving Cert as the be-all and end-all of education, by the way. Education, to me, is a matter of drawing out a full and rounded person who is capable of living well in this world, and using all his or her talents to the fullest.0 -
Getting back to Dudess's original point, when I meet anti-feminist women I gratefully ask if I can use their vote, since they don't want it. Usually shuts 'em up!
This point always gets me. In Ireland we have always had universal suffrage.
You didnt have universal male suffrage unitil a few years befire but you never see when men got the vote being trotted out.
I believe in the UK a version came in in 1884 but was still property based with 40% of males excluded. It was 1918 that universal male voting was law followed by universal suffrage in 1928.So the anomaly existed only for 10 years between universal male suffrage and universal suffrage.The argument about maternity leave: most of my son's teachers were male; they suffered plenty of illness due to hangovers, heart problems and unhealthy lifestyle
now that is a teeny bit gender stereotyping here -tut tut0 -
This point always gets me. In Ireland we have always had universal suffrage.
One of my son's teachers (his principal, in fact) was deeply proud of the fact that his grandmother had been arrested for breaking all the windows of a British government building in Dublin during the fight for women's suffrage.
And no, the comment about male teachers' time off for hangovers, heart attacks, etc, wasn't gender stereotyping but experience.
Though if you want gender stereotyping, go to the facts: many women do get pregnant a couple of times in their lives; many men do suffer the effects of less healthy lifestyle. Not so much stereotyping as recognition of known effects!
This doesn't mean that you or I will necessarily either get pregnant or get hangovers - the meaning of gender stereotyping is that a given myth - "women love shoes" - is applied to every random woman - "Michelle Obama is a woman; when she comes to Ireland we should present her with shoes".0 -
One of my son's teachers (his principal, in fact) was deeply proud of the fact that his grandmother had been arrested for breaking all the windows of a British government building in Dublin during the fight for women's suffrage.
Our posts on the facts of this conflict. You didnt have uninversal male suffrage until 1918 in Ireland. 3 years before independence.And no, the comment about male teachers' time off for hangovers, heart attacks, etc, wasn't gender stereotyping but experience.
Though if you want gender stereotyping, go to the facts: many women do get pregnant a couple of times in their lives; many men do suffer the effects of less healthy lifestyle. Not so much stereotyping as recognition of known effects!
You make a good case for more spending on male healtcare. As women outlive men by 6 years or so why do women get the pension at 60 and men at 65 - isnt there a case to reverse this?
.This doesn't mean that you or I will necessarily either get pregnant or get hangovers - the meaning of gender stereotyping is that a given myth - "women love shoes" - is applied to every random woman - "Michelle Obama is a woman; when she comes to Ireland we should present her with shoes"
I love shoes too. But whereis your data on male teacher alcoholism to back up your argument?0 -
Advertisement
-
I love shoes too. But whereis your data on male teacher alcoholism to back up your argument?
Walk into any pub or offy. You'll find it full of males.
But this is thread creep. Back to the question of anti-feminist women.
Feminism has granted to women the right to work and earn (though equal wages are still a dream), and also the right to be ditsy and silly if they feel it is to their advantage.
It often seems like an advantage to a weakling to use that weakness as a weapon, rather than gaining personal strength. Their choice; I don't mind!0 -
It was 4 - maths french Irish and another (forget which).
now im not being anti-woman but its raising the point about the effect of feministion of certain professions can affect service delivery and of course is included as cost in the economy.
So a positive initiative has a financial cost and a service delivery cost.
How is it not anti woman to suggest they provide a service that is more costly, inefficient and disruptive?That's what you've been saying.
and four is not a huge number out of a whole school.0 -
Walk into any pub or offy. You'll find it full of males.
But are they teachers as you have suggested -where is your evidence that male teachers are alchoholic or that there is a greater percentage of male alchoholic teachers than female alchoholic teachers.
.But this is thread creep. Back to the question of anti-feminist women.
Feminism has granted to women the right to work and earn (though equal wages are still a dream), and also the right to be ditsy and silly if they feel it is to their advantage
So how do women teachers on maternity leave get paid.
On factual information women appear to get paid the same for equal jobs.
There seem to be anomalies and criticisms about the statistics used. If you compare a woman cleaner to a binman and complain that a binman or sewerage/drains worker earns more. Then is the issue do you raise womens pay as a correction mechanism or do you try increase job mobility for women.brianthebard wrote: »How is it not anti woman to suggest they provide a service that is more costly, inefficient and disruptive?That's what you've been saying.
and four is not a huge number out of a whole school.
I don't know how that was representative of the whole school.You are attributing to me views that I don't have. I posted on economic issues so I am pointing out that maternity issues add to the labour cost. When has it been anti-feminist to discuss factual information.
If I use the term inefficient I use it in an economic sense. Honestly, I posted because I thought the her take on Florida was interesting and I wanted to point out that I found the economic theory behind the book dodgy. FFS whats wrong with disagreeing with assumptions used in an economic model. I enjoyed the exchange with Taconnal.
My mother was a teacher and in the 60s women primary teachers had to hire their own substitutes. So I have an interest asking this to see what progress has been made.
Now if the school system has experienced massive change through the feminisation of teachers as a work force and its reliance on the current system how do you know that that information cant lead to questions and observations on how a similar problem is dealt with in other countriesn on how the system could change or adapt to be female friendly.
You also dont see the point that it is good to discuss factually correct data as a method to eliminate myths.My anecdotal evidence on my sons JC is one thing -but is it bourne out throughout the whole system. I would like to know if its a big issue or a statistically insignificant one.0 -
I understood you were talking in economic terms, and I also understood that suggesting women are less efficient is discrimination. How do you not see that? You talk about women taking maternity leave from schools as if they were doing it on purpose to harm the child's education, if a male teacher took leave because he had a medical condition would you feel the same way?I don't know how that was representative of the whole school.You are attributing to me views that I don't have. I posted on economic issues so I am pointing out that maternity issues add to the labour cost. When has it been anti-feminist to discuss factual information.
If I use the term inefficient I use it in an economic sense.
In the 60s women had to leave the workplace after getting married or pregnant. I would hope people don't put forward examples of what happened in the 60s to women in the workplace as a good model to follow. Why do you think they had to hire their own substitutes and why do you think this is a good thing?My mother was a teacher and in the 60s women primary teachers had to hire their own substitutes. So I have an interest asking this to see what progress has been made.Now if the school system has experienced massive change through the feminisation of teachers as a work force and its reliance on the current system how do you know that that information cant lead to questions and observations on how a similar problem is dealt with in other countriesn on how the system could change or adapt to be female friendly.
You also dont see the point that it is good to discuss factually correct data as a method to eliminate myths.My anecdotal evidence on my sons JC is one thing -but is it bourne out throughout the whole system. I would like to know if its a big issue or a statistically insignificant one.
if men were given paternity leave and both parents were required to take a certain amount of time off then it would end or massively reduce gender discrimination. Where is your factually correct data? What data have you even provided?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13660
A quote from our constitution, Art. 41.2.:
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.
In custody/guardianship/access/maintenance applications, and applications under s.11 of the guardianship of infants act, there is no requirement that women should have more responsibility for childcare. Indeed, if the father is unwilling to take responsibility, the mother can bring the father to court and the court can make orders placing the responsibility on the father (subject of course to the welfare of the child).
The articles of the constitution do not affect the rights/duties/responsibilities as between the parents, but only as between the state and its laws. If in practice more women end up with more of the responsibility for child rearing, it is a social issue and nothing to do with the law.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13660
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.
Ok then, give me an example of how the laws in this country are skewed so that women bear more responsibility as regards childrearing.
One issue you might take is that in unmarried couples the natural father is not automatically responsible for the child. However, this is a matter of procedure and the mother can bring an application for joint guardianship/custody/access/maintenance.
The example given by taconnol, that paternal leave is not as firmly established as maternity leave is not an example of the laws being skewed so that women bear more responsibility as regards childrearing, it is that women get more rights as, from a practical point of view, they need them. What she is talking about instead is the culture whereby fathers tend not to take time off to raise their children, but that's a social issue and not a construct of the law.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I understood you were talking in economic terms, and I also understood that suggesting women are less efficient is discrimination. How do you not see that? You talk about women taking maternity leave from schools as if they were doing it on purpose to harm the child's education, if a male teacher took leave because he had a medical condition would you feel the same way?
What I see Brian is that you cant see the wood for the trees. Its grossly unfair to me to suggest that I am against maternity leave or women teachers( I like the fact that my daughter has modern young teachers) and its fairly neanderthal to suggest having children is a medical condition -its having a baby ands its biological and its not a disease. Kids are great and I have 2.
I have never said anything of the sort that women taking maternity leave was bad. I have a different view. Any high powered career woman or woman whose job is time demanding be in a good position marrying a male teacher because it increases childcare options.
I also have the view that schools have teachers who are given posts of responsibility and are paid increments for extra responsibility - so if these people are not doing their job of managing the delivery of education. So if thats a management failure in schools affecting the delivery of continuity then why not address that.
You seem to believe that given a huge change that the teaching profession shouldn't adapt to this change. I think they have an obligation to manage transition during maternity leave better than they do.
I wont identify my sons school but its placing in the Sunday Times List went down during the "maternity year" but close your eyes and look at maternity leave in isolation. The parents posting here will know what I am on about.In the 60s women had to leave the workplace after getting married or pregnant. I would hope people don't put forward examples of what happened in the 60s to women in the workplace as a good model to follow. Why do you think they had to hire their own substitutes and why do you think this is a good thing?
I am saying it was a simpler economic model during the system. If you adopt a comparative system you can see whether or not the system changes have improved or given benefits.
So if you are going to adapt a system to improve conditions for men and women in the workplace you should at least be straight up about what you want -and -if there is a negative cost fess up and acknowledge it.
What is wrong with comparing factual data if it eliminates a myth? I cant understand why people are reluctant to do a straight cost benefit analysis.
[/QUOTE]if men were given paternity leave and both parents were required to take a certain amount of time off then it would end or massively reduce gender discrimination. Where is your factually correct data? What data have you even provided?
I have no doubt that this discussion is academic to you. For lots of people out there in the current recession these issues are a huge issue. You might reduce worker discrimination but only in the industries where they have jobs to go to. You could reform the workplace legislation and introduce it as a mandatory obligation on an employer in a high volume low profit business only to have the factories in that sector move to a low cost economy. Then all you are left with is unemployed workers,a lovely theory and unused/unusable legislation.
Its not all about theory - this is reality.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »How is it not anti woman to suggest they provide a service that is more costly, inefficient and disruptive?That's what you've been saying.
and four is not a huge number out of a whole school.
It is not anti-woman that the system might be improved upon.
Can you persuade me these issues are a myth.
In the current recession with the social fund running out - is it fair to divert spending from womens equality issues away from the disavantaged and to teachers. How can you justify that especially with the limited resourses in the recession and all the payrises and advantages a woman teacher enjoys over say a woman cleaner in Ballymun.sorry love cant help ya- but we spend all the womens equality budget on the teachers0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
CDfm, you've just opened up yet another can of worms about the necessity of women to be beautiful/attractive as well as whatever else they are in our society. I totally agree.I am sure if the werent paid they would care.
Come on. Ignore the law? That's your answer?So change the constitution or ignore the law. It didnt stop the Womens Movement before.
Why shouldn't Ireland change? Your argument that it will damage us economically is a perfect argument for us to reverse the Marriage Bar. Perhaps we should also go back to the 20-hour work days of the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution as that would also be better for our producitivty and economy. Are you in favour of these measures?If you force that change on Ireland a small open economy you will add to its labour cost and who benefits. In theory this works if the whole world adopts the practice but if its just Ireland then you might as well promote Scotland or Poland as an investment location.
I'm aware of this and yes you're right. A very good point.tallaght01 wrote: »That's a bit of a misrepresentation.
Most of the big balls in the EU and heads of central banks etc would have graduated uni a LONG time ago.
Why shuold maternity leave matter that much? Many women are happy taking 6 months. I don't see why 6 months of absence shoud have such a incredibly large impact on women across the board, particularly if paternity leave is introduced.tallaght01 wrote: »But things will change as society naturally progresses. Though, for really big jobs, mat leave is still going to affect women's progression up the ladder.
Are you in favour of quotas? For me, it isn't just a question of progress but the pace of progress. Worrying studies from the UK suggest that on current rates of advancement, it will still be 30 years at least for women to gain equality in employment. IMO, it's just taking too long:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/24/gender.discriminationatwork
This is not just "a matter of procedure"!!! It takes TWO people to make a baby. Why are natural fathers not automatically responsible for children when the natural mother is?? This is exactly what I'm taking about.johnnyskeleton wrote: »One issue you might take is that in unmarried couples the natural father is not automatically responsible for the child. However, this is a matter of procedure and the mother can bring an application for joint guardianship/custody/access/maintenance.
"Not as firmly established"?? Paternal leave has no legal basis in this country. Maternal leave does. How you can look at this situation and not see it as an example of the laws being skewed is just beyond me. Really.johnnyskeleton wrote: »The example given by taconnol, that paternal leave is not as firmly established as maternity leave is not an example of the laws being skewed so that women bear more responsibility as regards childrearing, it is that women get more rights as, from a practical point of view, they need them. What she is talking about instead is the culture whereby fathers tend not to take time off to raise their children, but that's a social issue and not a construct of the law.
Why do women need more rights than men? There are two people having a baby, not one. If the state really didn't want to interfere in the division of responsibilities between parents,as you suggest, they would assign a certain number of months of parental leave to a couple and let them decide who takes what time off.
I also added social issues such as studies revealing that women do more housework than men, even when both are working full time BUT that does not take away from the fact that the laws in Ireland place responsibilty for children at the feet of mothers, moreso than fathers. There are other social issues like the difficulties that some stay-at-home fathers face by other people questioning their masculinity or role as a father. As this father says:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0313/1224242790189.html“I come from a large family of brothers who would be traditional. It was a hard sell in the beginning when I told them I was giving up work to take care of the kids but now they are used to it . .0 -
Why shuold maternity leave matter that much? Many women are happy taking 6 months. I don't see why 6 months of absence shoud have such a incredibly large impact on women across the board, particularly if paternity leave is introduced.
Are you in favour of quotas? For me, it isn't just a question of progress but the pace of progress. Worrying studies from the UK suggest that on current rates of advancement, it will still be 30 years at least for women to gain equality in employment. IMO, it's just taking too long:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/24/gender.discriminationatwork
Problem arises with multiple babies. In medicine, the jobs come in 6 month blocks. So, if you want anymore than 6 months, then you're into a year. many doctors in particular want to breastfeed up to a year. This is impossible when you're doing shifts up to 72 hours long, and doing a 24 hour shift every 3rd or 4th day.
So, if a doctor has 4 kids it's usually at least 4 years away. That's a long time to let your skills become rusty. It's also a long time living a normal life. I don't blame women for not wanting to go back to slave labour after being off for a long time.
With other professional jobs, presumably it's just a case of you being a few years behind your classmates.
Women, rightly or wrongly, do tend to often go part time after having babies. That reduces opportunities too. They also seem to have a lot more responsibility for kids at times. For example, we had a bit of an emergency at work last friday evening. The guys all stayed back until 8pm, as did the one single woman. The 3 married ladies all refused to stay because of childcare concerns etc.
I say fair play to them, though. Like I said before, it's just work.0 -
I'm abandoning this thread, which seems to have stopped being about anti-feminist women. If it creeps back on topic, someone tell me.0
-
CDfm, you've just opened up yet another can of worms about the necessity of women to be beautiful/attractive as well as whatever else they are in our society. I totally agree.
Glad you do- I cant see the attraction of looking at models that look like teenage boys myself.Come on. Ignore the law? That's your answer?
Thats a toughie. I think our constitution is largely ignored in fact.Why shouldn't Ireland change? Your argument that it will damage us economically is a perfect argument for us to reverse the Marriage Bar. Perhaps we should also go back to the 20-hour work days of the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution as that would also be better for our producitivty and economy. Are you in favour of these measures?
I do think when we introduce measures we shouldnt take our eye off the economics.Especially now. I do think the next 3 years will see big changes to welfare programmes. Its such a shame we cant cost and plan the women project to maximize results.The current system is schitzophrenic.
I am not argueing for the marriage bar but saying that the measures taken are obscure and nobody knows if they are effective or providing value for money.
Why all the secrecy about how much it costs and the benefits?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
You're missing my point, which was the emphasis on how they look full stop, whether it's what you like or what anyone likes. They are two naturally slim women and do need to meet with approval on your personal preferences. In other words: stop judging.Glad you do- I cant see the attraction of looking at models that look like teenage boys myself.
Proof?Thats a toughie. I think our constitution is largely ignored in fact.
luckat - I don't blame you.
tallaght01 - I think there are bigger issues at play there with work practices for doctors, particularly junior doctors. I have heard from a friend that Ireland prefers to pay the fine for not being compliant with the EU Working Time Directive so that medical professionals can be forced to work ridiculous hours. I personally don't want to be dealt with by a doctor who has been working for 40 hours non-stop.
The guys in your story - did they have kids?0 -
You're missing my point, which was the emphasis on how they look full stop, whether it's what you like or what anyone likes. They are two naturally slim women and do need to meet with approval on your personal preferences. In other words: stop judging
Yes - but I believe they are that thin naturally in the same way I believe Beyonces protestations that she eats McDonalds and knows how to pig out.:)
I prefer women to be what they are.0 -
I'm abandoning this thread, which seems to have stopped being about anti-feminist women. If it creeps back on topic, someone tell me.
deafening silence on the myth of alcholic male teachers.
I used to buy into a lot of feminist arguments and found that some didnt make sense - such as the myth of universal male suffrage/voting which only happened in 1918 followed by womens suffrage in Ireland (1921) ad the UK(1928) - a 3 and 10 year Gap.
I know some anti-feminist women who cant believe they have been lied to. So I suspect that putting a spin on feminism does it no favours.
I feel that the Florida issue did make a lot of dodgy economic assumptions. Then you will get that if people are sycophants and wont challenge theories or assumptions made and conclusion drawn from such studies.No wonder feminism is getting a bad rap cos when people challenge the accuracy of theories they get a backlash or get accused of being anti women.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
You really don't get it, do you? It's not about what you prefer or believe their natural bodies to be.Yes - but I believe they are that thin naturally in the same way I believe Beyonces protestations that she eats McDonalds and knows how to pig out.:)
I prefer women to be what they are.
Where's the myth? In 1884, 60% of men had the right to vote. The change in 1918 was so that all men over 21 could vote AND women over the age of 30. It wasn't until 1921 that there was universal women's suffrage in Ireland.I used to buy into a lot of feminist arguments and found that some didnt make sense - such as the myth of universal male suffrage/voting which only happened in 1918 followed by womens suffrage in Ireland (1921) ad the UK(1928) - a 3 and 10 year Gap.
Lied to by who? and lied to about what? You haven't made anything clear at all.I know some anti-feminist women who cant believe they have been lied to. So I suspect that putting a spin on feminism does it no favours.I feel that the Florida issue did make a lot of dodgy economic assumptions. Then you will get that if people are sycophants and wont challenge theories or assumptions made and conclusion drawn from such studies.No wonder feminism is getting a bad rap cos when people challenge the accuracy of theories they get a backlash or get accused of being anti women.
WHERE are Florida's dodgy economic assumptions? You haven't explained your position at all, just said that you don't like complex models. It isn't a model, it's a socio-economic theory. If you're going to critique it, do it properly instead of throwing out half-assed criticisms with zero justifying to back it up.
At this stage you're just dragging this discussion around in the circles. You don't properly answer people's points and provide proof of your arguments. You will be accused of displaying anti-women opinions if you make statements like "women do not contribute to society" without backing it up, something that you have failed to do. You're being pulled up by posters because of this.
So you can stop the pity party - there's no "backlash" and it's disingenuous for you to make such an accusation.0 -
tallaght01 - I think there are bigger issues at play there with work practices for doctors, particularly junior doctors. I have heard from a friend that Ireland prefers to pay the fine for not being compliant with the EU Working Time Directive so that medical professionals can be forced to work ridiculous hours. I personally don't want to be dealt with by a doctor who has been working for 40 hours non-stop.
The guys in your story - did they have kids?
You're right. The HSE have decided they will just pay the fines to the EU, and continue to let pregnant women work 56 hours straight. That is the truth, and should have feminists up in arms.
The guys in my story did have kids. It's an interesting point actually.
There were 4 guys involved. All had kids except me. But us men happened to be the more senior people on the team, and had older kids who could have coped on their own. But their wives just sorted it.
The women were more junior and ad younger kids, but didn't seem to think of calling husbands etc.
If I had kids I would have done everything possible to not have to leave work. We were dealing with some serious badness. I know my boss respects the fact that I can be called in when I need to be, and I stay back and do the long hours when the bad stuff hits the fan. I stayed late that friday, and I was the only one in work on the saturday, when I wasn't even rostered.
The women I work with don't have that attitude at all.
But, having said that......I do well at work, and will hump up the ladder a lot quicker than they will. But I think I would much rather have what they have.
This is kind of my underlying point. And I think it relates well to Dudess' original post. A lot of women don't like feminists because feminists want women to be in that office with me, challenging for the consultant position that I'll probably be the one to get.
But, they know where they want to be at 8pm on a friday night. And I think they're right.0 -
tallaght01 wrote: »This is kind of my underlying point. And I think it relates well to Dudess' original post. A lot of women don't like feminists because feminists want women to be in that office with me, challenging for the consultant position that I'll probably be the one to get.
Some feminists not all, anything which limits the choices for women in my opinion is anti feminist.
And you are right that women that want to do better in their career could do so if they had a wife, to take over the running of the household and the bigger part of the child care responsibility and to host dinner parties and be on their arm looking presentable and talking their spouse up ect.
There are some of the traditional advantages a wife provides there are
as I see it very few men who are husbands/partner who are willing or
capable or aware of what it means to support their wife/partner in that way.
Women are still the ones cleaning the toilet and having to take time of when
little Roísín is sick unless they can pay another woman to do it for them.
Which is no difference in who things were back in Victorian times we hae to exploit other women to have what we want, be it the child care worker/minder on crappy pay or the cleaner who comes to the house
both of which are open to abuses of black economy.0 -
There are some of the traditional advantages a wife provides there are
as I see it very few men who are husbands/partner who are willing or
capable or aware of what it means to support their wife/partner in that way.
.
I think that's pretty unfair.
I can only speak anecdotally, as I suspect you are, but all my married friends are equals in the relationship. I would say their wives tend to be the ones who rush home from work if the kids are ill etc, but not because they have to. I think it's a kind of mother's instinct for want of a better description.
If I was ever lucky enough to get hitched, I think I would be like my other married friends. I've never sat back and let girlfriends clean up after me. I've always been highly supportive of girlfriends' careers.
I think it's a complex societal interplay that, nowadays, has much less to do with unsupportive men.
I also think, anecdotally, that feminists do look down on housewives. A close friend happens to be married to a lecturer in feminism studies, and as a result I socaialise a bit within the card-carrying academic feminism community. They constantly use the phrase "just a housewife" when talking to me about the evolution of women's rights.
Well, I'm glad my ma was "just a housewife". She quit her job as a trainee accountant when I arrived. But i'd rather have a ma than a Big Five CEO.0 -
tallaght01 wrote: »I think that's pretty unfair.
But for a lot of people it's true it's what they are living with,
yes there are some guy out there who do thankfully pull thier weight equally at home,
my brother in law is on and there is a new generation of guys who
were not ruined by irish mammys syndrome but that change has been slow.tallaght01 wrote: »I can only speak anecdotally, as I suspect you are, but all my married friends are equals in the relationship. I would say their wives tend to be the ones who rush home from work if the kids are ill etc, but not because they have to. I think it's a kind of mother's instinct for want of a better description.
And father's don't have those type of instincts ?tallaght01 wrote: »I also think, anecdotally, that feminists do look down on housewives. A close friend happens to be married to a lecturer in feminism studies, and as a result I socaialise a bit within the card-carrying academic feminism community. They constantly use the phrase "just a housewife" when talking to me about the evolution of women's rights.
Then I would be challenging them saying they are limiting my choices
and under valuing the work that women do which does not play into
the gross national product but is the glue that helps keep communities
together. So they are not feminists.
I find there is a big difference in academic and grassroots feminism.
I am not a housewife ( I am not married ) I am just a stay at home
Mammy with two kids and a cat. I am a feminist and I do my bit for informing
and empowering women ( and parents ). Being just a stay at home
mammy enables me to do this and be active in my local community and
volunteer in my kid's primary school.
I was a WRO in college, studied electronic engineering had landed a job
in the industry before I sat my final exams and when in the job was due
to go to the USA for 6 months training new a new process when we discovered
we were pregnant and after we had our second I left work
to make sure that my children have the best home environment
and upbringing they can have imho.tallaght01 wrote: »Well, I'm glad my ma was "just a housewife". She quit her job as a trainee accountant when I arrived. But i'd rather have a ma than a Big Five CEO.
I hope that my children feel that way when they are grown up and I try not
to wish away the years until I am back working outside of the home.0 -
But for a lot of people it's true it's what they are living with,
yes there are some guy out there who do thankfully pull thier weight equally at home,
my brother in law is on and there is a new generation of guys who
were not ruined by irish mammys syndrome but that change has been slow.
And father's don't have those type of instincts ?
Then I would be challenging them saying they are limiting my choices
and under valuing the work that women do which does not play into
the gross national product but is the glue that helps keep communities
together. So they are not feminists.
I find there is a big difference in academic and grassroots feminism.
I am not a housewife ( I am not married ) I am just a stay at home
Mammy with two kids and a cat. I am a feminist and I do my bit for informing
and empowering women ( and parents ). Being just a stay at home
mammy enables me to do this and be active in my local community and
volunteer in my kid's primary school.
I was a WRO in college, studied electronic engineering had landed a job
in the industry before I sat my final exams and when in the job was due
to go to the USA for 6 months training new a new process when we discovered
we were pregnant and after we had our second I left work
to make sure that my children have the best home environment
and upbringing they can have imho.
I hope that my children feel that way when they are grown up and I try not
to wish away the years until I am back working outside of the home.
I think we're talking in anecdote here. It's hard to gauge how supportive men are of their partners careers nowadays, but I just don't see the younger generation being unsupportive of their wives. Maybe I live a sheltered existence, but I don't think that's a realistic portrayal of how things are. I'm happy to accept I could be wrong, though. But it's a qualitative concept, and so is hard to measure.
With regard to "instinct" women definitely take a more proactive role with their kids health. I say this partially anecdotally again, but also as an experienced paediatrician. Women bring their kids to the doctor all the time. But it's mostly unnecessary. Men tend to delay, if left to their own devices, and present sometimes later than they should. Obviously that's a generalisation. But, most paeds would tell you the same.
But, what it means is that men run home from work less, and that's the context in which the point was made. It's nothing to do with how much we love our kids. It's about access to healthcare etc (for example, women have had their pregnancies medicalised, and have come to accept healthcare as a normal part of their life before they give birth. So when the kids are born, they are more comfortable in a healthcare setting that their 20 something usually healthy male partners.
You can make the point that my friends are not feminists. I would disagree for a number of reasons. But the unfortunate reality is that they are all senior university lecturers, and most have at least one book to their name. They're the ones teaching the students, and getting their opinions out there.
Out of interest, and as a complete aside....Tacconal (sp?) have you got a background in feminist academia? You sound like you do. If so, I could do with that kind of input on a thread in the biology+medicine forum, if you have the time, of the inclination :P
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59422031#post594220310 -
I think you have me down as being anti-feminist when I am not and you are a bit phobic about the questions I ask when you should not be.You really don't get it, do you? It's not about what you prefer or believe their natural bodies to be.
I kinda do having a 15 yo teenage daughter & its a bit gauche of you to imply anything.Where's the myth? In 1884, 60% of men had the right to vote. The change in 1918 was so that all men over 21 could vote AND women over the age of 30. It wasn't until 1921 that there was universal women's suffrage in Ireland
Ahem - the 60% figure was in the British Isles and based on property and wealth not something that your Irish Emigrant Classes had much of and I think your analysis is overly simplistic here. There are loads of people female and male who would question your use of statistics here- there are others posting here who would really take you apart for using statistics that way;).Lied to by who? and lied to about what? You haven't made anything clear at all.
The real question should be why are women disaffected with and disenchanted with feminism?
The Feminism you seem to look at is a safe middle class variety- you know lets argue about Maternity Leave for Women teachers. Its hardly about improving the social or economic mobility of the women in Ballymun. I ask questions because I don't know the answers.
So I wonder if these women are unhappy at not being delivered from the welfare trap and would love to be in your shoes. The welfare programmes in Ireland are criticised some say correctly for perpetuating the cycle and you dont explain why its not so?
I don't know how much all these Government initiatives for Women cost in total and who they are targeted to -but now I would love to know how much and where it is spent?WHERE are Florida's dodgy economic assumptions? You haven't explained your position at all, just said that you don't like complex models. It isn't a model, it's a socio-economic theory. If you're going to critique it, do it properly instead of throwing out half-assed criticisms with zero justifying to back it up.
Richard Florida's economics is very simplistic and for those whon are not familiar with his work -he defined the term the Creative Classes to describe a certain class of people(included in this class are academics, media, engineers, poets, etc) - he studies included Dublin during the boom years and he uses indices like the "gay index" - his critics describe his work as wooly and more feel good politics than economics. Anything written by Florida uses very short term data which is out of date as soon as its published.
I can understand its appeal during the boom years and its media popularity( especially in Ireland)-but it describes conditions in a prosperous economy-where money is spent on buildings, public works,theatre and the arts.Everyone loves being part of the demographic the Creative Classes (LOL).(ffs go to the National Museum and a 12 year old will tell you that gold artifacts dug up by archaelogists are from periods of peace and prosperity).
I would love to see a comparative study on unemployment rates in the Creative Classes today. Thats is how quickly Florida's work has dated & its probably a coffee table book in Bono's house.
Not everyone in economics and marketing accepted Florida's classification -surprisingly the book became a bestseller and very popular with academics and those in the media as they were included in the composition of the Creative Class.
I was being very kind about Richard Florida's book -but -economics it aint.At this stage you're just dragging this discussion around in the circles. You don't properly answer people's points and provide proof of your arguments. You will be accused of displaying anti-women opinions if you make statements like "women do not contribute to society" without backing it up, something that you have failed to do. You're being pulled up by posters because of this.
I am not making the point that women do not contribute to society and you are aware that I am not.
I am asking questions as to why you are getting a growth in anti-feminist writting from women who would have appeared to have benefited from feminism? Thats what the thread is about.
In the same way that Tony Blairs government had a policy of promoting state schools -he sent his kids to a private school. So as a parent with the maternity issue flagged up- a question for study could be- will women send there children to schools with predominantly male teachers as a purchasing decision for the least interuption. Reading Tallaght01's post you would forgive any woman as a parent going to a hospital paediatric ward insisting on a male Doctor for her child.That's what I mean by consumer buying decisions - and I wonder if any women will agree with me?
I think it was you who posted about when working as a waitress at your annoyance at a professional woman for asking you for seperate bills for a party of six and how you made them queue at the till and how she should have understood because you were a fellow woman. I don't think you understand what was wrong with that post. I picked up on it instantly & I am surprised that many business & professional women posting here have not pointed it out.So you can stop the pity party - there's no "backlash" and it's disingenuous for you to make such an accusation.
I think when women posting question putting their sons in secondary schools where the teachers are female and, post a preference and reasoned argument for schools where the teachers are predominantly male and, where parents want male doctors for their children that is something worth discussing rather than the quota's questions or because "I am a woman" imprecise questions that you like.
I would like to see you answer the hard questions as I percieve them as having more value.0 -
I see the anti-feminist women thing as kind of like the revisionist Irish who Jacuzzi in their self-hatred.
It's common for the first few generations of descendents of a colonised class to loathe themselves and their native culture, and to idolise their ancestors' oppressors and those who licked up to those oppressors.0 -
Yeah, those Irish people who yearn for when Ireland was poor and repressed by the church etc.
And I've also heard of homophobic gay people.0 -
Advertisement
-
tallaght01 wrote: »But, what it means is that men run home from work less, and that's the context in which the point was made. It's nothing to do with how much we love our kids. It's about access to healthcare etc (for example, women have had their pregnancies medicalised, and have come to accept healthcare as a normal part of their life before they give birth. So when the kids are born, they are more comfortable in a healthcare setting that their 20 something usually healthy male partners.
I think that trend with women starts earlier as our fertility is medicalised,
the most common form of contraception for women the oral contraceptive
pill requires a woman to see a dr at least twice a year if not more,
where a a guy in his 20s can go in some cases for years with out needing to see a dr never mind on a regular bases.tallaght01 wrote: »But the unfortunate reality is that they are all senior university lecturers, and most have at least one book to their name. They're the ones teaching the students, and getting their opinions out there.
Ah see lots of people can write books, and there are some gods awful ones out there ( sure Ann Coulter wrote one ) but I as a just a stay at home parent seek to instill certain values in my kids before they get to college and
also some critical thinking skills. Just cos it is in a book don't make it the be all and end all on a topic.
Women's studies in country is still in it's infancy compared to other countries
and there are times I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
We certainly don't have the the same level of awareness of feminist activist
that other countries have.0
Advertisement