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
Whinging feminists in the media
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »"Run by "men" and in the way that favoured some men.
Alas politics had a habit of sending men to work in coal mines, or to fight in wars. And religion kept the lower classes in place, ensuring that those men stayed in the coal mines or the wars as the lowest of the low.
But nah. That was all for the benefit of "men".
#notallmen
We always have to add that don't we? It's always all or most women and always all feminists but when it's about men it's always someone else and not all men.0 -
I can give you the name and you can google her. It won't be in English though. We were school mates in high school. My sister in law does majority of parenting and as a contractor runs medical trials for pharmaceuticals. There are more examples among my friends. It's not my problem you only know women whose only desire is to watch their kids grow (according to you).
Actually, I was pointing out why so many women find it difficult to achieve the higher levels of success. Now, you can, if you wish, continue posting examples of people you supposedly know, but I'll stick to the opinion, that the people in the top roles of most industries are not "normal", being able to work longer hours than others, and stay focused. At the same time, in most cases, most, of those I've encountered who are successful, they have a partner at home to raise the kids. They, themselves, don't have the time to manage most of the raising of those kids, until they're much older and easier to manage as part of their schedule.
And since most women who want to have kids, also want to be mothers... seeing their babies grow up, that cuts into their ability to focus on their highly competitive career.#notallmen
We always have to add that don't we? It's always all or most women and always all feminists but when it's about men it's always someone else and not all men.
You assigned statements to the male gender.
Although I do find the irony of your last statement quite amusing considering the last two pages of your posts.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »And since most women who want to have kids, also want to be mothers... seeing their babies grow up, that cuts into their ability to focus on their careers.
What are you saying there? That difference is that most men who want to have kids don't want to be fathers? They don't want to see their kids grow?
I'm going to bed this is a bit too nonsensical for me.0 -
What are you saying there? That difference is that most men who want to have kids don't want to be fathers? They don't want to see their kids grow?
I'm going to bed this is a bit too nonsensical for me.
Those were the compromises within a traditional society. That men spend their time working on their career to bring in most of the income, whereas women make the compromise for what they want, motherhood vs the top positions.
If women want to be mothers where they see their children grow up, then, they're highly unlikely to be successful in their jobs. Those top positions that people claim women should be represented more in.0 -
I don't think that Turkey's deliberate attempts to provoke the EU through chauvinism tells us anything about the lives of ordinary men and women.
It is a high-profile diplomatic dispute which heralds closer relations between Turkey and Russia.0 -
Advertisement
-
What are you saying there? That difference is that most men who want to have kids don't want to be fathers? They don't want to see their kids grow?
I'm going to bed this is a bit too nonsensical for me.
Do you really disagree that women are more likely then men to put children first over their career?
Who is more likely to seek out and work in part time roles....men or women???
It’s women. So let’s move on to why women do this. It is usually for family reasons.
Working part time will hurt your chances of promotion etc as your not viewed to be dedicated to your role and yet women are more likely to make this decision then men.
Personally I think the option to go part time is great as it keeps your foot in the door to your career while you focus on raising your children. Then once kids are older go back full time. Much harder to give up career completely for a few years and then try to go back at similar level to what you were at.0 -
Do you really disagree that women are more likely then men to put children first over their career?
I disagree with the portrayal of fathers who provide for their families as not caring equally for their children as the children’s mother does. They fulfil different roles which works for themselves as a family, and that’s even before any considerations of the idea that parents of either sex are portrayed as putting their careers before their children if they choose to avail of the services of external parties to provide their children’s education.Who is more likely to seek out and work in part time roles....men or women???
It’s women. So let’s move on to why women do this. It is usually for family reasons.
Working part time will hurt your chances of promotion etc as your not viewed to be dedicated to your role and yet women are more likely to make this decision then men.
Personally I think the option to go part time is great as it keeps your foot in the door to your career while you focus on raising your children. Then once kids are older go back full time. Much harder to give up career completely for a few years and then try to go back at similar level to what you were at.
I understand your reasoning, but it’s a bit more complicated than that even, with being a father considered a considerable advantage and motivation in terms of career aspirations and promotion prospects -
Fathers more likely to be promoted than other men or women, KPMG UK and YSC find0 -
Positive discrimination has been used for African Americans and other groups.
There are arguments for and against.
It would be harsh for a better qualified male to lose our on a job because of History. Whoever lots of women lost out in the past. Just hard to carry the sins of the past.
I suppose it has to be evaluated continually.
Though I did hear because of the me too movement in the states that a lot of companies won't hire women because they fear spurious law suits. Because there was bull**** spun by some women about men. False allegations and a denial of natural justice. In some cases.0 -
Positive discrimination has been used for African Americans and other groups. .
And who led the approach of positive discrimination? The US.. and they're still a remarkably divided nation, with little actual success at achieving equality along any lines, whether that's gender or race.
Positive/reverse discrimination doesn't bring about equality. It simply reinforces divisions, and emphasizes the gaps between groups.0 -
growleaves wrote: »I don't think that Turkey's deliberate attempts to provoke the EU through chauvinism tells us anything about the lives of ordinary men and women.
It is a high-profile diplomatic dispute which heralds closer relations between Turkey and Russia.
I think its always rich that people inject cases from muslim nations into discussions of sexism in the western world
And its usually the same people who defend muslims at every turn0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you really disagree that women are more likely then men to put children first over their career?
Who is more likely to seek out and work in part time roles....men or women???
It’s women. So let’s move on to why women do this. It is usually for family reasons.
Working part time will hurt your chances of promotion etc as your not viewed to be dedicated to your role and yet women are more likely to make this decision then men.
Personally I think the option to go part time is great as it keeps your foot in the door to your career while you focus on raising your children. Then once kids are older go back full time. Much harder to give up career completely for a few years and then try to go back at similar level to what you were at.
No I don't disagree. However the same issues will less likely happen where I am from and a lot less likely happen in Scandinavian countries.
Again you are looking at this from Irish perspective where women were forced to stay at home and shorter maternity leave, poor and expensive childcare options still suffer from consequences of that. None of my school mates would consider being stay at home mother, they would consider it wasting their education. I don't know anyone where I come from with third level education who is working part time. That includes single mothers and very well off women. In fact I don't know of a single mother who is not working. You might think that's wrong and it only increases pressure on women but this idea that women have some sort of hive mind all over the world just doesn't seem accurate to me. There is nothing wrong with being stay at home parent and it's hard work but not every country has the same attitude to it.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »And who led the approach of positive discrimination? The US.. and they're still a remarkably divided nation, with little actual success at achieving equality along any lines, whether that's gender or race.
Positive/reverse discrimination doesn't bring about equality. It simply reinforces divisions, and emphasizes the gaps between groups.
This post has no bearing on reality. America has a lot of ongoing issues around race but to suggest that it has little success in achieving equality is just completely untrue. They've had a black President, have an Asian descended female vice-President and have already had a female candidate win the popular vote in the Presidential race.
That aside, at least one of the people who thanked your post is all over BLM threads saying there is no longer racial division in the US. The only consistency is their position against anything which Fox News has told them is a liberal/socialist/progressive/pc agenda.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »This post has no bearing on reality. America has a lot of ongoing issues around race but to suggest that it has little success in achieving equality is just completely untrue.
So, my post has plenty related to reality... just doesn't match your perspective.
Are they not a deeply divided society, which has continued to become more divided over time?That aside, at least one of the people who thanked your post is all over BLM threads saying there is no longer racial division in the US. The only consistency is their position against anything which Fox News has told them is a liberal/socialist/progressive/pc agenda.
How is that relevant to me? I have no control or influence over those who thank my posts. Such a bizarre thing to attribute to my post.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »So, my post has plenty related to reality... just doesn't match your perspective.
Are they not a deeply divided society, which has continued to become more divided over time?
There are issues, they are most definitely not deeply divided as a nation or a society. If they are, it is more on a state mentality/political ideal as opposed to race/gender.Deleted User wrote: »How is that relevant to me? I have no control or influence over those who thank my posts. Such a bizarre thing to attribute to my post.
It's not all about you.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »There are issues, they are most definitely not deeply divided as a nation or a society. If they are, it is more on a state mentality/political ideal as opposed to race/gender.
Grand. We disagree. Can't be bothered trying to get you to deal with what I wrote as opposed to what you want to talk about.It's not all about you.
It is when you quote me, and make your statement in the same post.0 -
How many men have been thrown out of their homes by the justice system on the word of a woman?
Do you think women don't hit men? And when they do, do you reckon men feel ok reporting it?
Why is only physical violence counted in domestic violence? Is psychological violence & bullying and abuse not a thing because it doesn't leave bruises.
End result, more men homeless, suicidal and their children left fatherless.
When I was 13 my parents were arguing (shouting match as usual. It was very common). Myself and my siblings were in the room.
My mother threw a kitchen knife at my Dad and it went through his cheek. He still has the scar.
He went out to the car and drove to the hospital.
My mum got me to go down to my aunt and get her to call up to the house.
So im sitting in the room and listening to the entire conversation. The two of them planning how to get out of the throwing of the knife trouble that would surely come.
So it went like this. Call the guards first, say he was (I wont say the different things they were going to say he was doing), call the local TD who could arrange the womens refuge. Say you were afraid for your life.
My younger siblings who were crying in the other room, were brought in and TOLD what had happened, so that they would just repeat what they were told when questioned.
I nodded my head and remained silent.
So how it ended up.
Ourselves and my mother spent 2 weeks in the womens refuge.
Everyone telling us how lucky we were that my Dad didnt kill my mother or us.
I only found out years after that during that 2 weeks there were court dates and barring orders etc, and all sorts of stuff said about my Dad to get him out of the house.
We didnt see my Dad again for about 3 months. He wasnt allowed to come near us.
So you can imagine how reputations stuck after that. And not a thing i said to anyone over the many years since, would convince anyone of the truth of what happened that day. And the worst part. My siblings still believe my Dad was hurting my mother and that she had to defend her life. They just remember the fight and the holiday in the womens refuge, and all the talk about what a bad man my Dad was.
Maybe people didnt want to hear that, but your post made me think about it.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »I think its always rich that people inject cases from muslim nations into discussions of sexism in the western world
And its usually the same people who defend muslims at every turn
Charles Michel is Belgian and very much not Muslim. So what's his excuse? That it's more important to protect feelings of Turkish dictator?0 -
When I was 13 my parents were arguing (shouting match as usual. It was very common). Myself and my siblings were in the room.
My mother threw a kitchen knife at my Dad and it went through his cheek. He still has the scar.
He went out to the car and drove to the hospital.
My mum got me to go down to my aunt and get her to call up to the house.
So im sitting in the room and listening to the entire conversation. The two of them planning how to get out of the throwing of the knife trouble that would surely come.
So it went like this. Call the guards first, say he was (I wont say the different things they were going to say he was doing), call the local TD who could arrange the womens refuge. Say you were afraid for your life.
My younger siblings who were crying in the other room, were brought in and TOLD what had happened, so that they would just repeat what they were told when questioned.
I nodded my head and remained silent.
So how it ended up.
Ourselves and my mother spent 2 weeks in the womens refuge.
Everyone telling us how lucky we were that my Dad didnt kill my mother or us.
I only found out years after that during that 2 weeks there were court dates and barring orders etc, and all sorts of stuff said about my Dad to get him out of the house.
We didnt see my Dad again for about 3 months. He wasnt allowed to come near us.
So you can imagine how reputations stuck after that. And not a thing i said to anyone over the many years since, would convince anyone of the truth of what happened that day. And the worst part. My siblings still believe my Dad was hurting my mother and that she had to defend her life. They just remember the fight and the holiday in the womens refuge, and all the talk about what a bad man my Dad was.
Maybe people didnt want to hear that, but your post made me think about it.
Wow thats awful, I am very sorry to read that. The scary thing is that isn't an isolated case.0 -
No I don't disagree. However the same issues will less likely happen where I am from and a lot less likely happen in Scandinavian countries.
Again you are looking at this from Irish perspective where women were forced to stay at home and shorter maternity leave, poor and expensive childcare options still suffer from consequences of that. None of my school mates would consider being stay at home mother, they would consider it wasting their education. I don't know anyone where I come from with third level education who is working part time. That includes single mothers and very well off women. In fact I don't know of a single mother who is not working. You might think that's wrong and it only increases pressure on women but this idea that women have some sort of hive mind all over the world just doesn't seem accurate to me. There is nothing wrong with being stay at home parent and it's hard work but not every country has the same attitude to it.
It depends on circumstances. I know a lot of women who once they had three kids gave up working. We have **** childcare in Ireland. I'm talking educated women but overall you are right most educated women stick with a job in some shape or form.
There is a myth that a golden era of child rearing existed with women happy at home and men working.
It was always difficult to get a house in Ireland bar the boom where you paid inflated prices.
It was always expensive to raise kids but in the past you didn't have the pressures technology brings.
In the 1980s you had 65% tax and interest rates went to 15%.
Nowadays women have more choice but two people working creates its own pressures.
A lot of men get screwed in divorces and end up in a **** flat even though they are willing to do 50/50 on the custody.
No easy solutions0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It depends on circumstances. I know a lot of women who once they had three kids gave up working. We have **** childcare in Ireland. I'm talking educated women but overall you are right most educated women stick with a job in some shape or form.
There is a myth that a golden era of child rearing existed with women happy at home and men working.
It was always difficult to get a house in Ireland bar the boom where you paid inflated prices.
It was always expensive to raise kids but in the past you didn't have the pressures technology brings.
In the 1980s you had 65% tax and interest rates went to 15%.
Nowadays women have more choice but two people working creates its own pressures.
A lot of men get screwed in divorces and end up in a **** flat even though they are willing to do 50/50 on the custody.
No easy solutions
My response was more to the claims that women get all misty eyed watching their children grow and suddenly want to stay at home with their kids. That kind of thing would be fairly foreign to me growing up. (I'm Slovenian and I checked the stats, Slovenia is 3rd after Sweden and Iceland in OECD on Women in Work index and second for share of female employment. About 38% of managerial positions were filled by women in 2018.). there is very little of part time work for either gender (less than 10% for men and about 15% for women). I'm in no way claiming Slovenian women have it better, I'm just explaining what kind of experience and expectations my female Slovenian friends would have. That would be the same for women regardless the level of education.
I don't care what system people prefer. After all I work part time so our kids have some sort of normality because husband works long hours. That is not because I had this immense desire to spend time with kids and my husband doesn't want to but he is the money making part of the family business and it makes sense for me to take over with kids. I'm perfectly happy with the position I'm in, I just refuse to accept that it is some kind of natural order.0 -
-
My response was more to the claims that women get all misty eyed watching their children grow and suddenly want to stay at home with their kids.[/B]
I would agree that it's not some kind of natural order. We are all influenced somewhat by our cultural and social experiences.. but there's nothing that people can't avoid or change if they want to.
The point I was making about the desire to see their babies, and later children, grow up was in relation to the time needed, in most industries, for people to reach to top levels of their careers. Many women, not all, as they reach the standard age of reaching management (early 30s) find that they want to start a family. Which is perfectly reasonable. The point is that this is the stage where most people establish themselves as material for upper management positions, and most of the studies that relate to women leaving management or professional level positions, tend to show them leaving just past 30, and then returning after 3-4 years to continue their careers (depending on how many children they decided to have). The thing about upper management is that it's time intensive, with people often needing to bring their work home with them, or the need to travel extensively as part of their positions. Which is particularly true if there's some element of sales in acquiring higher quality customers as proof of their eligibility to become a director or partner.
The original start of this discussion, was about successful people usually needing to have a partner who was willing to take second seat, so that the other person could focus on their career... and since, in the past, women have generally sought to be the primary parent, I thought it was because they wanted to see their children grow up, which would have prevented them from dedicating adequate time/attention to their careers, to the extent that would be needed for upper positions.
It wasn't any attempt to suggest any kind of natural order. I know many women, who are very successful in their careers, and who never married or had children. The "natural order" would have been that women would want to have children ahead of wanting to have a career. These women didn't. (for all manner of reasons).. and have been very successful in doing so.0 -
And I know women who married and had kids and still reached high managerial positions. It's just less likely they are in English speaking countries. Some women want both. It depends where they live how attainable that is.0
-
And I know women who married and had kids and still reached high managerial positions. It's just less likely they are in English speaking countries. Some women want both. It depends where they live how attainable that is.
It also depends on what you consider high to be, the industry those companies were involved in, and whether they were state owned or private. It's quite common to reach upper level positions in state owned enterprises but have little actual authority, which is especially true in nations which were previously under the communist model. (Since State run enterprises were so common, and even after being released, retained the same system of being there to employ rather than to truly be profitable)
You've made references to Slovenia as being a good example, and yet, they have their own issues with equality, and the distribution of authority between the genders.0 -
And I know women who married and had kids and still reached high managerial positions. It's just less likely they are in English speaking countries. Some women want both. It depends where they live how attainable that is.
I have worked for a few multinationals. Lower and middle management can often be dominated by women (depending on the department). But senior management aka the true decision makers are typically 80-90% male in my industry. Slovenia is obviously different and there are probably social and cultural reasons for this. You don’t have to give up work to disadvantage yourself careerwise. Some companies don’t look favourably on you when you leave work early because your child is sick or take time off suddenly because your childminder is sick. I have worked with men who don’t use up their annual leave entitlement every year as this was viewed as favourable by managers. When my son was young so much of my annual leave was used up because of his asthma. Some companies definitely have a culture of looking favourable on those who spend longest at their desks and this is definitely a barrier to those with families.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »You've made references to Slovenia as being a good example, and yet, they have their own issues with equality, and the distribution of authority between the genders.
I did not say it's a good example for general equality, I said it's an example for where women would not consider working part time and taking time off to raise the family. I didn't claim it is better or worse because it brings other pressures I just pointed out that what you seem to think is universal very much differentiates from country to country. You even accused me of inventing examples because they don't match what you think are women's experiences and expectations everywhere. Slovenia is far from perfect and I certainly wouldn't like here to have a prime minister like the one in whose cabinet my school mate is working. My point was that what women (or men) want is very much limited by other circumstances, political economic, religious and societal where they live. I am the first woman in my family in three generations who is not working full time.0 -
I did not say it's a good example for general equality, I said it's an example for where women would not consider working part time and taking time off to raise the family. I didn't claim it is better or worse because it brings other pressures I just pointed out that what you seem to think is universal very much differentiates from country to country.
Oh, I'm very well aware that there are differences depending on the country in question. I've worked internationally in Finance, Management consulting, and Education.
I'm also aware that all is not what it seems. Take China or South Korea for example, where you'll often find women in the top management positions. These are token positions where the women are there to be seen, but the important decisions are mostly done by men in upper or parallel departments. Position, without authority. You can find the same in many of the former Communist countries, where there was an emphasis on employing the population, so managers are often female, but have little real power within their own departments.
That's not to say that women don't achieve great heights, and have real power of their own. They do. My ex (Chinese) was like that, but generally speaking there are tertiary reasons for that happening. In her case, it was having an influential family behind her, although thats not to say she wouldn't have succeeded in any industry. Incredibly intelligent woman.You even accused me of inventing examples because they don't match what you think are women's experiences and expectations everywhere.
Accused. Such a suggestive word. I questioned your claim about knowing someone from the description you provided. We're on the internet. People can make up whatever they want. There wasn't any kind of accusation involved, especially one relating to what I think about women's experiences and expectations. The only thing I said that could even remotely be any kind of accusation related to your example of a highly successful friend. Even then, it was hardly any kind of accusation.Slovenia is far from perfect and I certainly wouldn't like here to have a prime minister like the one in whose cabinet my school mate is working. My point was that what women (or men) want is very much limited by other circumstances, political economic, religious and societal where they live. I am the first woman in my family in three generations who is not working full time.
Grand. I have no issue with anything you've said there. My sister is the first in my family to be able to work part-time. My parents certainly were never able to. We are indeed limited, somewhat, by external circumstances, but at the same time, we also have the freedom to choose what area we end up working in, and more importantly where we invest our time. It mightn't appear like a choice at the time, but there usually is a choice being made.
When I left college, I took the first job I could find, and it bracketed me into a particular industry, with a rather low glass ceiling for salaries. For a rather long time, I stayed put because I felt limited by it, and thought it wasn't worth starting at the bottom again in another area. Eventually, I did make the move, struggle through the obstacles, and succeeded in something with a greater degree of expansion for success and salaries. And then, I figured out that I hated what I was doing, and moved to a completely different industry, in a vert different culture. There are usually options available.. the problem is that we consider them too difficult or expensive to avail of.0 -
So we came to conclusion that women are still dismissed and discriminated at work and men holding on to the power. I think you made perfect argument for why feminism is needed.0
-
Advertisement
-
So we came to conclusion that women are still dismissed and discriminated at work and men holding on to the power. I think you made perfect argument for why feminism is needed.
Nope. You have that opinion. I don't.
People are dismissed and discriminated at work. In the western world, there are so many laws and regulations, in addition to the social pressure regarding equality, that it would be rare any outright discrimination would occur, unless, the women are unwilling to avail of the protections that society/law has provided them. If you're unwilling to stand up for your rights, then, you're often going to be taken advantage of. Implementing more laws, and regulations won't change that, nor will quotas (except that those women will be taken advantage of, by other women, which I suppose to some is an improvement).
I've had the experience of being passed over for promotions, where both men/women were given roles which I'd been working hard to gain. It happened because I wasn't proactive enough, willing to negotiate but also willing to walk away if I felt I wasn't valued enough. That's a problem for people all around the world... both genders. The difference is that men don't have some kind of movement to shout discrimination when it happens.
This expectation by feminists that there should be parity 50/50 (or more) women in every industry is ridiculous, and divisive. In many industries there are simply more men working in the area than women, and yet, the lack of women in top positions is considered a sign of discrimination, regardless of the proportion of genders involved. There's little appreciation of the numbers of men who fail to achieve the upper positions, simply because they're so focused on gender as a factor. It's not about competition and dedication to a career, but the expectation that women should be represented in the statistics regardless of what is needed to achieve those positions. And when it's an industry like HR, where women already dominate, there's no concern at all.
Do we need Feminism? We need to have feminism as it was originally created. The first and second wave feminism that sought actual equality. Not this modern feminism that has unfair and aggressive agendas that pushes us further away from practical and realistic equality.
Regardless of what argument I make, you will see the need for feminism, because you consider women as being discriminated against.
Let me put it this way. Earlier I made the point that "men" don't represent the interests of other men. A group of men in upper positions is not going to make it easier for me to attain better positions for myself... because those on the top are generally extremely competitive, and expect others to go through the same hoops they did to get there. You responded with dismissing it and jumping to the #notallmen argument, completely ignoring the point I made. Which is rather indicative of your need for "men" to be the enemy that is constantly holding women down.
So.. no.. I don't agree with you. Modern feminism isn't about equality, and I'd like to see a fair system of equality, where people compete for positions, based on their skills/experience/qualifications, not using their gender as a benchmark for deciding whether someone should have this position or not.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement