NationStates Jolt Archive

In "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World", Linda R. Hirshman talks about how radical feminism became less radical as it started to become an umbrella for a multitude of causes. I read half the book today until I realized that the book was a special order and had to stop reading (I work in a bookstore). As a man who is also slanted towards feminism, I understood a lot about what she was saying. It will be pretty easy for anti-feminists to dismiss some of her arguments but some are not so easy at all to dismiss.



"the 2002 U.S. Census reports that only 46 percent of the women with graduate degrees and children under one work full time, 17 percent part time. Educated women with children up to eighteen are working 59 percent full time and 18 percent part time, increasing in numbers as the children age. On average, then, highly educated women with small children are working full time at about a fifty percent rate.



Perhaps more important, after three decades of increasing their workforce participation, the percentage of highly educated working mothers has stopped going up. The New York Times' part-time home and work columnist, Lisa Belkin, caused a great furor in 2003 when she "sampled" a group of the highly educated stay-at-home mothers she knew and proclaimed there was an "Opt Out Revolution."



"Revolution" is probably overstating it, but something is clearly going on. In 2000, Harvard Business School professor Myra Hart surveyed the women of the classes of 1981, 1986, and 1991 and found that only 38 percent of female Harvard MBAs were working full time. A 2004 survey by the Center for Work-Life Policy of 2,443 women with a graduate degree or very prestigious bachelor's degree revealed that 43 percent of those women with children had taken at least a couple of years out, sometimes more than once, primarily for family reasons.



During the 1990s, I taught a philosophy course in sexual bargaining at a very good college. Each year, after the class reviewed the low financial rewards for child-care work, I asked how the students anticipated combining work with child rearing. At least half the female students described lives of part-time or home-based work. Guys expected their female partners to care for the children. (When I asked the young men how they reconciled that prospect with the manifest low regard the market has for child care, they were mystified. Turning to the women who had spoken before, they said, uniformly, "But she chose it.") (More on that in a moment.) Richard Posner, federal appeals court judge and occasional University of Chicago adjunct professor of law, reports that "everyone associated with [elite law schools] has long known: that a vastly higher percentage of female than of male students will drop out of the workforce to take care of their children.""

...

"Deafened by choice, here's the moral analysis these women never heard: The family—with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks—is a necessary part of life and has obvious emotional and immediate rewards, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust.



The choice is a false one, based on the realities of a half-revolutionized society. Once we recognize that, we can admit that the tools feminism offered women to escape the dilemma have failed. This book is an effort to try a different approach. It is time for a new radicalism. Fortunately, the roots are sound."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2067008&page=2

Feminism is about quality of life and values for women. The idea that it is a choice to be a caregiver when everything around you is guiding you towards that, isn't much of a choice at all.

Actually, it failed because poor marketing killed the brand. It just isn't "cool", and it never will be, bar some brief "ironic" revival decades hence.

And yet, the mainstream would have you believe that not only did feminism 'win', it's gone much too far.

Hardly the case.

Actually, it failed because poor marketing killed the brand. It just isn't "cool", and it never will be, bar some brief "ironic" revival decades hence.
I don't think Feminism can be treated the same way as Pokemon.

Wait, so women can't choose not to have kids and men can't choose to be child care providers? Somehow they're forced into their roles? That's like the fat kid saying it's not his fault he's fat, Mc Donalds is always advertizing.

I don't think Feminism can be treated the same way as Pokemon.
It can. Mention it to the average girl. Watch her roll her eyes.

That's not to say she doesn't benefit from some of the freedoms it has won. But that fact is pushed away. And you must admit, an "uncool" movement can't be expected to generate much support for a follow-up. Much of it is in the hands of the EU labour rights lawyers now.

Wait, so women can't choose not to have kids and men can't choose to be child care providers? Somehow they're forced into their roles? That's like the fat kid saying it's not his fault he's fat, Mc Donalds is always advertizing.
Well, if thats where the parents take the kid, it isn't his fault.

Well, if thats where the parents take the kid, it isn't his fault.
Yeah, but hopefully kids aren't getting married and having babies.

*Eye roll*

People have been saying that "feminism failed" since the time of the suffragettes. The surest proof that feminism is succeeding is that so many people are desperate to tell us how it's failed, because they're hoping if they say it enough times then feminists will just give up.

Oldie but goodie:

If you're female and...

...you can vote, thank a feminist.

...you get paid as much as men doing the same job, thank a feminist.

...you went to college instead of being expected to quit after high school so your brothers could go because "You'll just get married anyway", thank a feminist.

...you can apply for any job, not just "women's work", thank a feminist.

...you can get or give birth control information without going to jail, thank a feminist.

...your doctor, lawyer, pastor judge or legislator is a woman, thank a feminist.

...you play an organized sport, thank a feminist.

...you can wear slacks without being excommunicated from your church or run out of town, thank a feminist.

...your boss isn't allowed to pressure you to sleep with him, thank a feminist.

...you get raped and the trial isn't about your hemline or your previous boyfriends, thank a feminist.

...you start a small business and can get a loan using only your name and credit history, thank a feminist

...you are on trial and are allowed to testify in your own defense, thank a feminist.

...you own property that is solely yours, thank a feminist.

...you have the right to your own salary even if you are married or have a male relative, thank a feminist.

...you get custody of your children following divorce or separation, thank a feminist.

...you get a voice in the raising and care of your children instead of them being completely controlled by the husband/father, thank a feminist.

...your husband beats you and it is illegal and the police stop him instead of lecturing you on better wifely behavior, thank a feminist.

...you are granted a degree after attending college instead of a certificate of completion, thank a feminist.

...you can breastfeed your baby discreetly in a public place and not be arrested, thank a feminist.

...you marry and your civil human rights do not disappear into your husband's rights, thank a feminist.

...you have the right to refuse sex with a diseased husband [or just "husband"], thank a feminist.

...you have the right to keep your medical records confidential from the men in your family, thank a feminist.

...you have the right to read the books you want, thank a feminist.

...you can testify in court about crimes or wrongs your husband has committed, thank a feminist.

...you can choose to be a mother or not a mother in you own time not at the dictates of a husband or rapist, thank a feminist.

...you can look forward to a lifespan of 80 years instead of dying in your 20s from unlimited childbirth, thank a feminist.

...you can see yourself as a full, adult human being instead of a minor who needs to be controlled by a man, thank a feminist.

The point I was making Bottle, is that they won't.

It can. Mention it to the average girl. Watch her roll her eyes.

That's not to say she doesn't benefit from some of the freedoms it has won. But that fact is pushed away. And you must admit, an "uncool" movement can't be expected to generate much support for a follow-up. Much of it is in the hands of the EU labour rights lawyers now.
Imagine this then, you tell an average girl she has three choices:

A. She can marry, stop pursuing her ambitions and raise a family.
B. She can marry, pursue her ambitions and share (either half or less) of the domestic work.
C. She can marry, pursue her ambitions part-time and do the domestic work all of the time.

It's pretty easy to make it a black and white situation with doomsday scenarios of all women taking over completely and all men taking the roles of women. This isn't the idea. We live in an unequal society. To pursue an equal society, radicalism is needed in instances such as this.

I'm anticipating babysitting and preschool during the day until they're old enough to go to school. I'm really thinking of going into teaching, so I shouldn't have to work excessively long hours and if things were to work out like that with my curent bf, he says that he would really want to take paternity leave and do a lot of looking after any potential children, so that's always good. :)

The point I was making Bottle, is that they won't.

Both of you make a good point. I cannot remember her name, but the "feminist" from the 80's that pushed the whole "all sex = rape" meme
, etc. along w/ the other extremist ones associated caused a turning point in the PR.

Edit: Andrea Dworkin.

It can. Mention it to the average girl. Watch her roll her eyes.

That's not to say she doesn't benefit from some of the freedoms it has won. But that fact is pushed away. And you must admit, an "uncool" movement can't be expected to generate much support for a follow-up. Much of it is in the hands of the EU labour rights lawyers now.
You are of course absolutely correct. Feminism currently suffers from a very poor brand image.

A proof of the poor brand image is the occurence rate of statements along the lines of "I think men and women should be equal but I dont believe in feminism". The explanation for peoples' failure to realise the obvious fact that such a statement is always exactly half true is a branding failure on a huge scale.

That bottle needs a cap!!!:headbang: :headbang:

The problem is, often when one thinks of "feminism" one thinks of some man-hater who loudly proclaims that all men are good for is making babies. The movement has been connected with its looney fringe.

It might be just me but it seems like we're talking more about the feminist movement in general rather than what was actually in the first post. I must have made a bad choice in titles.

Both of you make a good point. I cannot remember her name, but the "feminist" from the 80's that pushed the whole "all sex = rape" meme
, etc. along w/ the other extremist ones associated caused a turning point in the PR.

Edit: Andrea Dworkin.
What's it going to take to kill this myth? (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm)

Feminism failed because it is an ideology of hate - no different from white supremacism, homophobia etc. In a world where equality is rightly seen as important, there is no place for beliefs which advocate giving one group of people advantages over another solely based on biological characteristics.

y'all are so young

feminism has "failed" because it has so completely succeeded.

the goals of the feminists of the 60's and 70's have all been met. they are so completely ingrained in our consciousness that they are second nature and thus feminism MUST mean something else besides "equal pay for equal work, the right to get a divorce, the right to a higher education, the right to be the boss instead of the secretary, the right to become a doctor instead of a nurse, the right to be the superintendant instead of the kindergarten teacher"
(not that there is anything wrong with being a secretary, nurse, or teacher except when your ambition is for the higher paid/higher power job)

the right of a woman to become.... an electrical engineer for example...is so obvious that we think that feminism MUST mean trying to put women above men.

it is not a rejection of feminism for a woman to decide to stay home with her young children. its part of her right to make the life choice that is best for her and her family. its not feminist to force all women into the workforce and all children into day care. feminsim is freedom of choice, its going to higher education OR NOT, going to work OR NOT, working hard to reach the top OR NOT. its not pushing all women into the same mold. that is what was done in the 50s when all women were expected to be married, have children and stay home to take care of the home, husband and children.

Feminism failed because it is an ideology of hate - no different from white supremacism, homophobia etc. In a world where equality is rightly seen as important, there is no place for beliefs which advocate giving one group of people advantages over another solely based on biological characteristics.
Feminism is striving toward equality. Can you name a hate based organization that claims that? The KKK?

y'all are so young

feminism has "failed" because it has so completely succeeded.

the goals of the feminists of the 60's and 70's have all been met. they are so completely ingrained in our consciousness that they are second nature and thus feminism MUST mean something else besides "equal pay for equal work, the right to get a divorce, the right to a higher education, the right to be the boss instead of the secretary, the right to become a doctor instead of a nurse, the right to be the superintendant instead of the kindergarten teacher"
(not that there is anything wrong with being a secretary, nurse, or teacher except when your ambition is for the higher paid/higher power job)

the right of a woman to become.... an electrical engineer for example...is so obvious that we think that feminism MUST mean trying to put women above men.

it is not a rejection of feminism for a woman to decide to stay home with her young children. its part of her right to make the life choice that is best for her and her family. its not feminist to force all women into the workforce and all children into day care. feminsim is freedom of choice, its going to higher education OR NOT, going to work OR NOT, working hard to reach the top OR NOT. its not pushing all women into the same mold. that is what was done in the 50s when all women were expected to be married, have children and stay home to take care of the home, husband and children.
Except now, women are getting higher degrees of education, make up more than half of all college graduates and less of that output is seen in the workforce due to the "choice" of being a housewife.

It might be just me but it seems like we're talking more about the feminist movement in general rather than what was actually in the first post. I must have made a bad choice in titles.
Don't feel too bad...the very word 'feminism' makes people go all frothy and discuss how much they hate it, or how bad it is, or how it isn't necessary...the OP is not going to deter that.

What's it going to take to kill this myth? (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm)

But she did say this:"Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent." and ""Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape."

Her views were extreme.

*Eye roll*

People have been saying that "feminism failed" since the time of the suffragettes. The surest proof that feminism is succeeding is that so many people are desperate to tell us how it's failed, because they're hoping if they say it enough times then feminists will just give up.


*perplexed*

The point of the post, I believed, was that "feminism failed" hoping to stir up more radical feminism and do MORE, not give up.

it is not a rejection of feminism for a woman to decide to stay home with her young children. its part of her right to make the life choice that is best for her and her family. its not feminist to force all women into the workforce and all children into day care. feminsim is freedom of choice, its going to higher education OR NOT, going to work OR NOT, working hard to reach the top OR NOT. its not pushing all women into the same mold. that is what was done in the 50s when all women were expected to be married, have children and stay home to take care of the home, husband and children.
Ah, but the point of the OP is that this freedom of choice is still an illusion...that if women don't think they have a choice, or don't give themselves the choice (and if men don't buy into it too), then the choice doesn't really exist at all.

Edit: Point being, we have work still to do.

Feminism is striving toward equality. Can you name a hate based organization that claims that? The KKK?
CAIR?

Except now, women are getting higher degrees of education, make up more than half of all college graduates and less of that output is seen in the workforce due to the "choice" of being a housewife.

so what? how is that a failure of anything whatsoever?

Feminism failed because it is an ideology of hate - no different from white supremacism, homophobia etc. In a world where equality is rightly seen as important, there is no place for beliefs which advocate giving one group of people advantages over another solely based on biological characteristics.
Sorry, you're thinking of 'female supremacy' which is not feminism. It's too bad you've so completely been skewed in your interpretation of gender equity.

Ah, but the point of the OP is that this freedom of choice is still an illusion...that if women don't think they have a choice, or don't give themselves the choice (and if men don't buy into it too), then the choice doesn't really exist at all.

Edit: Point being, we have work still to do.
If women don't think they have a choice or don't give themselves the choice isn't it their own fault?

so what? how is that a failure of anything whatsoever?
And your point would be the same if the roles were reversed? You don't see it as a failure that a majority of people that are educated are the minority in the workforce?

The problem is, often when one thinks of "feminism" one thinks of some man-hater who loudly proclaims that all men are good for is making babies. The movement has been connected with its looney fringe.
Most movements that people want to discredit are.

Except now, women are getting higher degrees of education, make up more than half of all college graduates and less of that output is seen in the workforce due to the "choice" of being a housewife.

Are you advocating removing that "choice" then?

Also, are you advocating we need equal of results, not just equality of opportunity?

If women don't think they have a choice or don't give themselves the choice isn't it their own fault?
No.

If you don't actually see that there is a choice, then you can't MAKE a choice...and that lack of choice does not just exist within the minds of women, as the first post points out.

"Deafened by choice, here's the moral analysis these women never heard: The family—with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks—is a necessary part of life and has obvious emotional and immediate rewards, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust.


The choice is a false one, based on the realities of a half-revolutionized society. Once we recognize that, we can admit that the tools feminism offered women to escape the dilemma have failed.

Feminism is about quality of life and values for women. The idea that it is a choice to be a caregiver when everything around you is guiding you towards that, isn't much of a choice at all.

Perhaps theres still the biological barrier. Women give birth, they have the natural instincts to look after children (breat milk) and not to be ignorantly steriotypical but they just make better parents.

Plus think of the reaction most women would have if a Man wanted to stay at home and the women should work, it works for many but its something I would bet would be more offencive than asking them to have the active role in raising the kids.

Except now, women are getting higher degrees of education, make up more than half of all college graduates and less of that output is seen in the workforce due to the "choice" of being a housewife.

I'm a little curious as to what the problem is with the 'choice' involved. In a society of high divorce rates, women are generally the most likely to take custody of children. Should the solution be to put the onus on men? Someone has to take the role of nurturer afterall. The point of feminism was to offer women a choice, so that if they do not want to have kids, and wish to focus on a career, that option is there. Conversely, they may decide to let Dad stay home to watch the kids, because she has a better career.

However, we're forgetting biology and thousands and thousands of years of ingrained culture. Women have always been the most likely to take care of children, so why is it suddenly 'wrong' that 'not enough' women are seeking career paths instead?

Men and women are different, and the world is a more interesting place for it. And nothing escapes the fact that many women WANT to raise children and stay at home.

Are you advocating removing that "choice" then?

Also, are you advocating we need equal of results, not just equality of opportunity?
I'm not advocating forcing results down the barrel of a gun. I'm saying that there is a problem and that the problem is a social construct.

Perhaps theres still the biological barrier. Women give birth, they have the natural instincts to look after children (breat milk) and not to be ignorantly steriotypical but they just make better parents. Because they are socialised to make better parents. Where men have been able to take on that role, and have gained the confidence to do so, they do just fine.

In tribal society, the mother was not the primary caregiver, the community was. Most often, the grandparents were the ones who minded the children while the robust parents hunted and gathered. Nature means women give birth, and express milk. Nature does not determine who is most fit for childrearing. Society does that.

Plus think of the reaction most women would have if a Man wanted to stay at home and the women should work, it works for many but its something I would bet would be more offencive than asking them to have the active role in raising the kids.
I would be thrilled if I could be the main breadwinner, and my husband would stay home, but he feels that he can't do it. It's terrible...he really would be better at it. Again, this is a social thing.

No.

If you don't actually see that there is a choice, then you can't MAKE a choice...and that lack of choice does not just exist within the minds of women, as the first post points out.
I still don't get it. How can you not see that you have the choice to not have kids or to look for a man who's willing to do the child care instead of you?

And your point would be the same if the roles were reversed? You don't see it as a failure that a majority of people that are educated are the minority in the workforce?
no i dont see it as a failure. i see it as women preparing for their future and dealing with their present.

not everyone is comfortable with having someone else take care of their child 8 to 12 hours a day (depending on how many hours a woman needs to work to get ahead in her field and how far she has to travel for it and for daycare) some families are able to find good childcare, some prefer to arrange their lives so that one parent stays home with the children while they are young (most often the mother but in some families its the father, sometimes another family member yet)

that doesnt mean she will NEVER hold a professional job. it probably means she will never reach the top of her profession, never become president of a fortune 500 company, but thats just part of the reality of life and the choices we all have to make.

im not sure what the reversal of roles would be but i do think it would be wonderful if more fathers sacrificed their careers to stay home with their children (if they were so inclined). too many men spend all their time at work trying to get to the top while their kids are young. it would be better if they held back at work to spend more time with their childrent even if it meant that they would never become the president of a fortune 500 company.

in any case, having to deal with reality doesnt mean that there is any failure of feminism.

I'm a little curious as to what the problem is with the 'choice' involved. In a society of high divorce rates, women are generally the most likely to take custody of children. Should the solution be to put the onus on men? Someone has to take the role of nurturer afterall. The point of feminism was to offer women a choice, so that if they do not want to have kids, and wish to focus on a career, that option is there. Conversely, they may decide to let Dad stay home to watch the kids, because she has a better career.

However, we're forgetting biology and thousands and thousands of years of ingrained culture. Women have always been the most likely to take care of children, so why is it suddenly 'wrong' that 'not enough' women are seeking career paths instead?

Men and women are different, and the world is a more interesting place for it. And nothing escapes the fact that many women WANT to raise children and stay at home.Women have the choice to not have children, and instead focus on their career.

Men have the choice to not have children, and instead focus on their career.
Men also have the choice to have children, leave them with their wife, and focus on their career.

Thousands and thousands of years of ingrained culture does not = the woman takes care of the children. The nuclear family is a recent invention. Thousands of years of ingrained culture in fact had children being raised in a much more extended family, with the burden shared.

I'm a little curious as to what the problem is with the 'choice' involved. In a society of high divorce rates, women are generally the most likely to take custody of children. Should the solution be to put the onus on men? Someone has to take the role of nurturer afterall. The point of feminism was to offer women a choice, so that if they do not want to have kids, and wish to focus on a career, that option is there. Conversely, they may decide to let Dad stay home to watch the kids, because she has a better career.

However, we're forgetting biology and thousands and thousands of years of ingrained culture. Women have always been the most likely to take care of children, so why is it suddenly 'wrong' that 'not enough' women are seeking career paths instead?

Men and women are different, and the world is a more interesting place for it. And nothing escapes the fact that many women WANT to raise children and stay at home.
What percentage WANT to and what percentage stay at home by default? Would you give up your dream career to be a stay at home dad if your wife were able to make more money for the household? If you're female, the question still holds.

Equality (in it's broadest terms) is a naive impossibility. All people are unique, and there are certain aspects of ourselves that set us into groupings or communities. So in this case, we're discussing our sex/gender.

Bottle made some utterly valid points. We cannot make an argument that things were better in the bad old days. But we strive for a somewhat mythical concept of equality that will forever elude us. We are made differently and are driven differently. It cannot be denied that (forgive my somewhat umberella'd examples) there are drives within the feminine to care, to mother, to maintain etc. In the masculine there are the drives to hunt, provide, protect. There is an order in that. Do we really want to try and convince one another that the only reason that the Male has held social supremacy in most civilizations is because he has been largely physically stronger than the female? I trust we can all be a little more grown up than that.

The differences in the sexes are part of what make us work as a society and what makes families work.

Now, I do not, for one moment, suggest that women and men should not be given equal opportunities and equal rewards for the same work, but there are SUCH FUNDAMENTAL errors in seeing family mainenance as being in some way inferior to 'Work' or not work, in itself. And if the tide has turned and some there are men who would rather be house husbands than breadwinners, then perhaps this needs more serious thoughts before people start considering serious commitment.

In my own family, both my parents worked and it would never have been fair to call one parent the breadwinner. That's another system that works.

I suppose what I'm saying is that Feminism over-politicises the natural relationships between men and women. I don't believe it has failed since it really kicked western society into gear and pulled it out of (what seems in hindsight) a truely archaic form of order / oppression. It has had some negative effects too, but I think it's done it's job now, and people ought to be left alone to simply seek that which is just rather than to fight for more and more freedoms where I think we're already all pretty free enough. With Freedoms come responsibility and I think it is a social obligation of both sexes to address that, as I see that as our time's biggest injustice: that a failing is always someone elses responsibility.

As I said - I think there have been some rather ugly consequences of feminism. I think it has been responsible for creating unease between the sexes and fear - akin to the notion of positive discrimination. I think what I'm trying to say will take far more words than I have already used, but I shall just hope to trust my tone and point are clear enough.

Feminism has done it's job. Let's embrace our uniqueness and the natural qulities that come with our gender AND any other groupings, cultures and sub cultures we may fall into.


Kin Wicked




PS
Apologies again for over generalising. I know not every woman is a born mother and carer and not every man is a hunter gatherer. But let's face it - this is a message board on the internet, not a dissertation.

I still don't get it. How can you not see that you have the choice to not have kids or to look for a man who's willing to do the child care instead of you?
You show me the men who are willing to stay home and do the childrearing, and then we'll talk about choice.

in any case, having to deal with reality doesnt mean that there is any failure of feminism.
The reality you've just described is women sacrificing their careers for family, and men not making, or not havnig to make, that same choice.

So how is that equality?

In tribal society, the mother was not the primary caregiver, the community was. Most often, the grandparents were the ones who minded the children while the robust parents hunted and gathered. Nature means women give birth, and express milk. Nature does not determine who is most fit for childrearing. Society does that.

This kind of reminds me of a nationalized health care thread of yours a while ago. At the time, you were arguing that depending on the extended family was not necessarily a viable option in the modern day. Would your solution then be to take the onus off of the parents and have 'society' (i.e. the State) raise our children?

What percentage WANT to and what percentage stay at home by default? Would you give up your dream career to be a stay at home dad if your wife were able to make more money for the household? If you're female, the question still holds.

Alright, then what's the solution? Government arbitration? Make the kids choose between mom and dad?

You show me the men who are willing to stay home and do the childrearing, and then we'll talk about choice.
What do you want, a list of them? There are stay at home dads. Sure they're a minority, but still they exist. And if neither parent wants to stay at home with the kids, maybe they should choose to be childless. Nobody puts a gun to the woman's head and tells her to raise kids. If the either the woman or the man dedcides that having kids is worth taking a break from the career, so be it. Just because more women decide to do so doesn't necessarily indicate coercion. It could be that women desire children more than men and are willing to make greater sacrifices to raise them.

I'm not advocating forcing results down the barrel of a gun. I'm saying that there is a problem and that the problem is a social construct.


What is the problem?

It sounds as though you are saying the problem is the results?

Women have real choices in most Western cultures today, is that not enough? Do we need to see equal results?

This kind of reminds me of a nationalized health care thread of yours a while ago. At the time, you were arguing that depending on the extended family was not necessarily a viable option in the modern day. Would your solution then be to take the onus off of the parents and have 'society' (i.e. the State) raise our children?

That was a daycare thread.

I was arguing that daycares are necessary, because the extended family option is not necessarily viable, considering how families have moved apart (usually seeking work or education). Sorry, daycares, state funded or not, still do not equal the state raising our children. In a two parent home where the mother cares for the children while the father works...do you claim that the mother alone is raising the children? Or the parents? A daycare does not take children 24/7 and mould them. Parenting is more than just the person who sees them the most.

I myself have no issue with having my children in a dayhome while the two of us work.

I'd prefer him to stay home, if I had that option.

But the choice for most women really isn't there. Either you remain childless and have a career, or you have children, and have a spotty career. Men don't generally have to deal with that choice...children or not, they get to focus on their career.

Alright, then what's the solution? Government arbitration? Make the kids choose between mom and dad?
Don't be silly. The only possible change has to be social. More men have to be willing to be the primary caregiver, and be confident that they can do it...and more women have to let them.

What do you want, a list of them? There are stay at home dads. Sure they're a minority, but still they exist. And if neither parent wants to stay at home with the kids, maybe they should choose to be childless. Nobody puts a gun to the woman's head and tells her to raise kids. If the either the woman or the man dedcides that having kids is worth taking a break from the career, so be it. Just because more women decide to do so doesn't necessarily indicate coercion. It could be that women desire children more than men and are willing to make greater sacrifices to raise them.
I don't believe that somehow men care less about children than women do.

Women have the choice to not have children, and instead focus on their career.

Men have the choice to not have children, and instead focus on their career.
Men also have the choice to have children, leave them with their wife, and focus on their career.

Thousands and thousands of years of ingrained culture does not = the woman takes care of the children. The nuclear family is a recent invention. Thousands of years of ingrained culture in fact had children being raised in a much more extended family, with the burden shared.

Women also have the choice to have children, and leave them with their husband. That's the case with my younger brother. Women can use their education and training (which the OP pointed out was more commonplace with women than men) to obtain a better career than their husband, and it becomes a choice between the two parents. Many women choose to raise their children, and I don't see a problem with that, or the need for society to arbitrarily set the 'percentages' to be equal.

Your reference to the nuclear family: I wouldn't exactly call it a new innovation. For societies that didn't live communally, nuclear families were the norm. Acient Rome was ruled by the 'paterfamilias', and I'm certain predating cultures were similiar. And I'm aware that in communal cultures that there was much more community involvement in rearing children, but men generally did the hunting, and women the gathering and child rearing. (I realize there are exceptions).

Actually, it failed because poor marketing killed the brand. It just isn't "cool", and it never will be, bar some brief "ironic" revival decades hence.
Yes, some anti-feminist forces put out the stereotype of the "ugly feminist", bearded, man-hating, etc. and it stuck. People seem to think that all feminism is radical feminism.

I don't believe that somehow men care less about children than women do.
Why is it so hard to believe? After all, from a biological standpoint the female body is much more invested in child production and early care. Infants can't eat the meat that the cave-father brought back, they need mom's tit. Why wouldn't evolution wire in a stronger affection and affinity for the offspring into the parent who's responsible for bringing it into the world and keeping it alive at least until it's weaned?

Sinuhue, there is a TG for you.

I don't believe that somehow men care less about children than women do.

Men care about children, in particular, they care about their own children, BUT, I would say that in general, more women care about HAVING children than men care about having children.

Regardless though, there's a natural biological pause a woman will take in her career if the couple is having children, it seems fairly natural that would skew the results even if it is a brief as she can tolerate it.

That was a daycare thread.

I was arguing that daycares are necessary, because the extended family option is not necessarily viable, considering how families have moved apart (usually seeking work or education). Sorry, daycares, state funded or not, still do not equal the state raising our children. In a two parent home where the mother cares for the children while the father works...do you claim that the mother alone is raising the children? Or the parents? A daycare does not take children 24/7 and mould them. Parenting is more than just the person who sees them the most.

I myself have no issue with having my children in a dayhome while the two of us work.

I'd prefer him to stay home, if I had that option.

But the choice for most women really isn't there. Either you remain childless and have a career, or you have children, and have a spotty career. Men don't generally have to deal with that choice...children or not, they get to focus on their career.

My point was that you had referenced society as a traditional caregiver, and that you had previously mentioned that it was a dieing option. Which leaves us with the choice: Mom or Dad?

I realize that there must be many women who feel 'obligated' to watch the kids while the husband becomes the breadwinner. But that's a decision for each individual family to pursue isn't it? How do we create social change otherwise?

Women have real choices in most Western cultures today, is that not enough? Do we need to see equal results?
The problem is, too many people seem to believe the answer is 'yes'.

Take my profession, electrical engineering. There is no legal or educational barrier for women to enter the profession. There is no culture of intolerance within the profession. Indeed, there are numerous incentives not available to men (yes, really, I saw some really sexist advertising at university). And yet women stubbornly make up only 10% of the graduate intake.

Who knows what the reasons are - most people, females at the forefront, dismiss it as a boring, cold, impersonal career that does not attract them because of what it is. But does society really suffer? Does it matter whether it was a man or a woman who did the wiring in your building? Is there a negative social impact from all the people who draw circuit diagrams, having balls?

I don't think it matters. But every time the subject comes up for discussion, even within the institution and trade associations, it is described as "a problem". It's not. The door is open. That's the only thing that matters. Who cares if no-one walks in?

But no, in politics, in the police, in so many other professions, and it's spreading, people seem to think quotas will fix it. :rolleyes:

so what? how is that a failure of anything whatsoever?

We have gotten to the point where most people think that women can go into whatever career they want, as well as choosing (if they want) to be a housewife.

However, the idea of "women's work" still exists in the household. The majority (both men and women) still think that taking care of the children and doing housework should be the role of the woman. They still think that, if anyone should take off work to take care of the children, it shoudl be the woman. Thus, the usual choice a woman has is to be a housewife, to have a career, or to do the work of both.

The choice should be there for all human beings, male or female - to choose any career, to choose to be a homemaker, to choose to work and take care of the home and children. Women should not be overwhelmingly expected to take care of the children - to take off work to do so. We should see an equal number of men and women doing this.

Sinuhue, there is a TG for you.
Every day, a reason to hate the name I chose. :rolleyes:

It's bad enough my IRC keeps chirping...but here too...

The reality you've just described is women sacrificing their careers for family, and men not making, or not havnig to make, that same choice.

So how is that equality?
how many women do you personally know TODAY who are staying home to raise the kids out of anything other than personal choice? what family today couldnt use the extra income of mom working? what MAN is so controlling that he would rather take the whole financial burden himself and "force" his wife to be a stay at home mother?

the women referred to in the OP may well be making a financially stupid move--staying home with the kids instead of working her way up the ladder in a well paid job. in the case of a divorce they will have to start well down the ladder and all the effort they put into advancing their husbands career will be completely wasted.

they are not so stupid as to not know they are making that choice and that it might not work out financially but you cant work 16 hours a day as an ambitious jr executive and be a full time mom. (neither can you put in 16 hours a day and be a full time DAD.) a choice has to be made. having someone else take care of your kids, even when its their own father is NOT the same as doing it yourself. its not going to make a huge difference to the kids if its mom, dad, grammy or a well run daycare center. thats not really the point. the point is that some women PREFER to do it themselves even if it does mean that they sacrifice their career to some extend. some women PREFER to have another well qualfied person care for their children while they persue that career.

its not a failure of feminism or of society that you cant do both.

no i dont see it as a failure. i see it as women preparing for their future and dealing with their present.

I don't see it as a failure either. But the fact that women overwhelmingly are the ones faced with this choice - while men tend to be socialized so that they do not even consider it and women are socialized not to expec them to - is evidence to me that the work of feminism is not done.

im not sure what the reversal of roles would be but i do think it would be wonderful if more fathers sacrificed their careers to stay home with their children (if they were so inclined).

Exactly. So why is this option still seen mostly as a "woman's option", while men generally don't even consider it?

My point was that you had referenced society as a traditional caregiver, and that you had previously mentioned that it was a dieing option. Which leaves us with the choice: Mom or Dad? No, not society...family...extended family usually. And the Romans, by the way, were not strictly nuclear in familiar structure...they also 'outsourced' ( http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n3_v26/ai_13797289) the child-rearing as we do now.

Ashmoria...turning to a daycare is becoming more and more difficult as need rises and supply declines. When a parent needs to stay home, it's usually the mom. The point in the OP is that the choice is a false one...that socialisation still determines that the woman do the bulk of the child-rearing. So saying, 'she wanted to' is not necessarily the whole story. If 'she' believes that is really the only option, there is no choice...the decision has been made.


I realize that there must be many women who feel 'obligated' to watch the kids while the husband becomes the breadwinner. But that's a decision for each individual family to pursue isn't it? How do we create social change otherwise?By valuing the unpaid work of child-rearers, and making sure both male and female children understand that it is a viable option for either sex.

Every day, a reason to hate the name I chose. :rolleyes:

It's bad enough my IRC keeps chirping...but here too...
Oh now, you make it sound as if you would object were you to be presented to me as a gift.:p

I'm quite envious of Tactical Graces' choice of name, actually.

But she did say this:"Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent." and ""Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape."

Her views were extreme.The whole quote, please.

"Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."

As to the second quote, she's describing an extreme attitude. She says so in the very part you quote--"which at its extreme would be called rape." She's saying that the most extreme examples become rape, not that most examples of sex, even sex that puts women in the subordinate position, is rape.

Take my profession, electrical engineering. There is no legal or educational barrier for women to enter the profession. There is no culture of intolerance within the profession. Indeed, there are numerous incentives not available to men (yes, really, I saw some really sexist advertising at university). And yet women stubbornly make up only 10% of the graduate intake.

Who knows what the reasons are - most people, females at the forefront, dismiss it as a boring, cold, impersonal career that does not attract them because of what it is.

And this probably has quite a bit to do with the still prevalent (in many places anyways) idea that math and science are "boy's stuff". That girls aren't supposed to be good at or interested in these things. The converse, of course, is the idea that sociology, art, etc. are "girl's stuff" - that a guy who finds these things interesting must be "gay".

This is the reason that the members of SWE (society of women engineers) - both male and female - at my alma mater would go to schools and do science presentations, help kids with science projects, math homework, etc. The idea was to be a clear demonstration that there is nothing wrong with a girl being interested in these things - that if she is interested in them, she can and should work at them.


how many women do you personally know TODAY who are staying home to raise the kids out of anything other than personal choice?

How many women do you know who are staying home to raise the kids and had, among their choices, "He'll stay at home and raise the kids while I work."

its not a failure of feminism or of society that you cant do both.

No. The problem is that society, in general, only offers the either/or option to women. Men who choose to stay at home are seen as strange - as "pussywhipped" or some other euphimsm. Most men, no matter how much they want children, don't even consider the option, while most women who want to have children do consider it, regardless of what they decide.

Why is that?

Oh now, you make it sound as if you would object were you to be presented to me as a gift.:p
I am not an object. :cool:

I don't see it as a failure either. But the fact that women overwhelmingly are the ones faced with this choice - while men tend to be socialized so that they do not even consider it and women are socialized not to expec them to - is evidence to me that the work of feminism is not done.



Exactly. So why is this option still seen mostly as a "woman's option", while men generally don't even consider it?
men have come a long way. im pretty sure that my father would have let one of his babies sit in a dirty diaper for a week rather than change it himself.

modern fathers are real parents. they are hands on caretakers of their own children. its not uncommon at all for a husband and wife to work different shifts so that only minimal outside child care is ever needed.

i just dont find it ODD that a woman wants to be with her children especially when they are young. its no more wrong to decide to stay home than it is to decide to have a full time job. equality will never be a guarantee against having to make the tough choices in life.

The problem is "feminism" simply just turned into "masculineism" and made it appear that wemon wanted to turn into men or make them look manly, and not make it about equality.

And the Romans, by the way, were not strictly nuclear in familiar structure...they also 'outsourced' ( http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n3_v26/ai_13797289) the child-rearing as we do now.

Thanks for the link! :) (Where did you dig that one up from so fast?) Although I don't believe a vast array of live-in servants was an option for every Roman, and I'm relatively certain most of the wet-nurses were female.
Having a 'pedagogue' isn't really an option for most families, then or now.

By valuing the unpaid work of child-rearers, and making sure both male and female children understand that it is a viable option for either sex.

Agreed, but it will take individual families to wrestle with these choices, so that they become more common and children grow up seeing it as more commonplace. I don't imagine most people (thinking people at any rate) undervalue the importance of child-rearing; it seems to be the impetus for statying at home vs. working.

And this probably has quite a bit to do with the still prevalent (in many places anyways) idea that math and science are "boy's stuff". That girls aren't supposed to be good at or interested in these things. The converse, of course, is the idea that sociology, art, etc. are "girl's stuff" - that a guy who finds these things interesting must be "gay".

This is the reason that the members of SWE (society of women engineers) - both male and female - at my alma mater would go to schools and do science presentations, help kids with science projects, math homework, etc. The idea was to be a clear demonstration that there is nothing wrong with a girl being interested in these things - that if she is interested in them, she can and should work at them.



How many women do you know who are staying home to raise the kids and had, among their choices, "He'll stay at home and raise the kids while I work."



No. The problem is that society, in general, only offers the either/or option to women. Men who choose to stay at home are seen as strange - as "pussywhipped" or some other euphimsm. Most men, no matter how much they want children, don't even consider the option, while most women who want to have children do consider it, regardless of what they decide.

Why is that?
This is the heart of the problem. It's in the home itself that the glass ceiling makes its appearance.

I am not an object. :cool:
Or you don't object?

[/hijack]

And thanks Sinuhue for sharing a better knowledge of this than I have and understanding the point of the post.

i just dont find it ODD that a woman wants to be with her children especially when they are young. its no more wrong to decide to stay home than it is to decide to have a full time job. equality will never be a guarantee against having to make the tough choices in life.
It's not ODD, Ashmoria, but because it is still decidedly slanted towards women, it has to make you question WHY. It's not about making women feel bad for wanting to be mothers, or to care for their children. It's about making sure that men aren't shamed into not having the same opportunity to care for their children, and letting women know that if they are the ones that want to pursue their career to the fullest, being childless is not the only option.

The reality you've just described is women sacrificing their careers for family, and men not making, or not havnig to make, that same choice.

So how is that equality?
men sacrifice their families for their careers. they dont get a ration of shit for it from society but that is the flat out truth.

a man who works 12-16 hours a day in order to make it to the top of his field is a terrible father who loses the time with his kids and a good measure of their affection.

No. The problem is that society, in general, only offers the either/or option to women. Men who choose to stay at home are seen as strange - as "pussywhipped" or some other euphimsm. Most men, no matter how much they want children, don't even consider the option, while most women who want to have children do consider it, regardless of what they decide.

Why is that?

Sadly I don't have much time now - but I thought I'd share a ancedote from my own life which may shed some light on your question "why". I was fortunate enough to take a few months off (somewhat by choice, somewhat not) when my oldest was 18 months. I was the 'house husband'. Nobody thought I was whooped or anything else and I enjoyed it immensely. One day, when my wife arrived home from work my son ran to the door to greet her. On the way he tripped and bonked his noggin. He cried, turned around, and ran to me for comfort. His mother looked like someone had just slugged her. She was all too happy after that to work only part time while I returned to employment, and soon after she quit alltogether.

In spite of what the OP said - childcare is NOT a marginalized industry. My wife and I are both willing to pay a high price (she is a licensed professional) for our children to be raised full time by a parent. I also would very strongly argue that women do not have have less choice than men, and it is a complete insult to suggest that a woman who spends her time raising her children instead of climbing a corporate ladder is a wasted resource.

And this probably has quite a bit to do with the still prevalent (in many places anyways) idea that math and science are "boy's stuff". That girls aren't supposed to be good at or interested in these things. The converse, of course, is the idea that sociology, art, etc. are "girl's stuff" - that a guy who finds these things interesting must be "gay".
Not really an issue at the school I attended. Girls performed as well in maths and sciences as boys. Nationally, better. Boys were as likely to choose sociology and art as girls. I chose English as an A-Level and did my project on sociolinguistics. How gay is that? Half the class were guys. I then did an engineering degree.

Those attitudes are long dead, and a cursory examination of the annually-published league tables confirms this.

The question of why men and women tend to have different choices of career remains open. Perhaps the answer lies in emotional involvement, interaction in what you are doing. Perhaps women tend to want something more fulfilling, and men can detach themselves more readily. I don't know. Maybe this line of thinking is itself outmoded. But I am quite sure that no damage is inflicted on society by engineers being male, so long as the posts are open to females too, should some choose to apply.

The big issue I have is with the idea that an observed difference necessarily implies deficiency. A problem to be addressed.

men have come a long way. im pretty sure that my father would have let one of his babies sit in a dirty diaper for a week rather than change it himself.


I wouldn't even put it that way. I would say "society has come a long way." But we aren't there yet.

Although I don't know your mom, I would guess that she never would have expected your father to change a diaper, any more than he would have put that expectation on himself.

modern fathers are real parents. they are hands on caretakers of their own children. its not uncommon at all for a husband and wife to work different shifts so that only minimal outside child care is ever needed.

Indeed. But the idea that, if someone is to take care of the children full-time, it should be the mother, is still pretty prevalent. It is still overwhelmingly common for a woman to take time off work to take care a sick child, while a man will not. And so on. The discrepancies are getting smaller, but they are still there.

i just dont find it ODD that a woman wants to be with her children especially when they are young.

I don't either. I do, however, find it rather odd that women seem to want to do this more often than men, even when they both wanted the children and love them now.

its no more wrong to decide to stay home than it is to decide to have a full time job. equality will never be a guarantee against having to make the tough choices in life.

Of course it isn't wrong. And those choices will always be there. They should simply be there - and equally so - for all parents, not *just* the women.

Not really an issue at the school I attended.

Good. But that hardly means it is not an issue anywhere.

Those attitudes are long dead, and a cursory examination of the annually-published league tables confirms this.

If they were truly "long dead", I wouldn't encounter them, now would I?

Thanks for the link! :) (Where did you dig that one up from so fast?) Although I don't believe a vast array of live-in servants was an option for every Roman, and I'm relatively certain most of the wet-nurses were female.
Having a 'pedagogue' isn't really an option for most families, then or now. Thanks...had it waiting actually, from a comparative conference on aboriginal family structures ;)

I simply wanted to challenge the belief that mothers are the ones who have always looked after their children, and they alone. It hasn't really been that way. In terms of hunter-gatherer societies, no, the women did not gather and rear the children...quite often the child-rearing was left to the grandparents, so the parents could work to their fullest to support the community. It is STILL that way among my people. Mom may tell you to do something, but you know your grandmother will find the willow to switch you with if you don't do it...


Agreed, but it will take individual families to wrestle with these choices, so that they become more common and children grow up seeing it as more commonplace. I don't imagine most people (thinking people at any rate) undervalue the importance of child-rearing; it seems to be the impetus for statying at home vs. working.
It's not just the child-rearing, it's all the work associated with staying at home that I really believe IS undervalued...and it only makes sense that it would be...even in 'thinking' couples. Work for pay brings in a tangible, measurable reward. Work for no pay, in the home, brings tangible rewards but are much less measurable. It helps when the 'breadwinning' partner has a chance to experience the domestic duties to get a real feel for what kind of effort is needed, and how valuable those duties are. In many way, women are at fault for not allowing that kind of access...especially the older generations who do not want their 'domain' to be violated. It is their source of power, the domestic sphere, and they don't let men in. So there needs to be give and take on both sides. The breadwinner comes home, tired, cranky perhaps, feeling that the other partner doesn't understand the stresses of the workplace, and the domestic partner feels the same. Once both sides value each other's work equally, then they can pass that value on to their children. If they DON'T understand it (and that includes the domestic partner not valuing his or her own work), then it's not a value that is really taught.

men sacrifice their families for their careers. they dont get a ration of shit for it from society but that is the flat out truth.

a man who works 12-16 hours a day in order to make it to the top of his field is a terrible father who loses the time with his kids and a good measure of their affection.
Yes.

And that should change.

But that isn't your point. You're throwing this out as some sort of counterpoint to an argument I haven't made...that being that women deserve more recognition but men do not.

If they were truly "long dead", I wouldn't encounter them, now would I?
Perhaps you only think you do, because you assume you will? ;)

Those attitudes are long dead, and a cursory examination of the annually-published league tables confirms this.

But all of the stats in the world don't refute the numerous incidents of students telling me "that job is for boys, and that job is for girls". Clearly, some people are still being socialised to believe that some jobs depend on your gender, and not your skills.

But all of the stats in the world don't refute the numerous incidents of students telling me "that job is for boys, and that job is for girls". Clearly, some people are still being socialised to believe that some jobs depend on your gender, and not your skills.
I passed through the entire UK state school and higher education system without hearing that statement once. I can of course, only offer my personal observations.

How many women do you know who are staying home to raise the kids and had, among their choices, "He'll stay at home and raise the kids while I work."

so you think those women are the victims of their own false dichotomy rather than women who make the choice that seems best to them?

personally, i give women full credit for being adults. i think they chose to have children and chose to delay their careers while they stay at home with their kids.

i dont think they fell into some kind of bizarre thought trap where the only choice is "do i stay home or does he?"


No. The problem is that society, in general, only offers the either/or option to women. Men who choose to stay at home are seen as strange - as "pussywhipped" or some other euphimsm. Most men, no matter how much they want children, don't even consider the option, while most women who want to have children do consider it, regardless of what they decide.

Why is that?

it is sad that more men who would stay home feel that they can't because of societal pressure. im not sure that the number would go way up if it was seen as a perfectly acceptable choice (remembering that many parents work different shifts and that the father spends as much time with his children as the mother does)

i dont see that, except for that first year of a childs life, a woman is expected to be a stay at home mom at all. the large majority of mothers of school aged children hold a job.

Perhaps you only think you do, because you assume you will? ;)

You're absolutely right. The reason that people have been shocked by my career choice as a woman was because I expected it. The reason that young girls have told me that "math and science is for boys" is because I expected it. The fact that I have heard men called homosexual for no other reason than their interest in literature/art/etc. is because I expected it.

Yes, I control the world around me just by my expectations. Or maybe, just maybe, I expect things because of the world around me.

But all of the stats in the world don't refute the numerous incidents of students telling me "that job is for boys, and that job is for girls". Clearly, some people are still being socialised to believe that some jobs depend on your gender, and not your skills.
What if it's not all socialization? What if males and females just tend to be drawn, on average, to jobs with different types of work?

I passed through the entire UK state school and higher education system without hearing that statement once. I can of course, only offer my personal observations.
As can I.

Bozzy mentioned the crushed look on his wife's face when his child ran to him for comfort instead of her. I think in many ways, this 'distance' between the child and the 'working parent' needs to be better understood and not taken to heart too much. Of COURSE the child is going to turn to where he or she usually turns. But it can be hurtful to the parent that sees their child pull away in favour of the other. I wonder if this is part of the reason that men have traditionally disassociated themselves from their children more than mothers...because the men were traditionally the breadwinners, and not the nurturers, and the distance between them and their children cemented in their mind their unfitness as a nurturer?

I know my husband had trouble with this, but we talked about it a lot, and got it out in the open, and he found other ways to bond with the children.

Then again, I also think that the parent to whom the child turns needs to avoid that little rush of 'triumph' that comes when they are chosen over the more absent partner. This is also damaging.

I am not an object. :cool:
No, you're a Culture vessel, though which variety I can't recall at the moment... gave me a bit of a start when I read Excession.

What if it's not all socialization? What if males and females just tend to be drawn, on average, to jobs with different types of work?
Who is to say, and how do you prove it either way?

My kid wanted to be a baseball player, and then some idiot told her that baseball was for boys. I refute that every chance I get...but she insists it's true. I finally got her to start playing, and to get over that notion...but that assertation of "this is for boys, not for girls" was incredibly powerful.

Thanks...had it waiting actually, from a comparative conference on aboriginal family structures ;)

Damn... I haven't had to pull out information on Ancient Roman society for my job recently... a 'comparitive conference' in my workplace is people working for me saying 'I don't think we can get this done' and me saying 'You sure can, make it happen'. No Romans.

I simply wanted to challenge the belief that mothers are the ones who have always looked after their children, and they alone. It hasn't really been that way. In terms of hunter-gatherer societies, no, the women did not gather and rear the children...quite often the child-rearing was left to the grandparents, so the parents could work to their fullest to support the community. It is STILL that way among my people. Mom may tell you to do something, but you know your grandmother will find the willow to switch you with if you don't do it...

I'm thinking your grandmother 'switched' you into shape to be a successful debator. I've got nothin...

Tip of the cap to you! I'm leaving the field of battle...

And this probably has quite a bit to do with the still prevalent (in many places anyways) idea that math and science are "boy's stuff". That girls aren't supposed to be good at or interested in these things. The converse, of course, is the idea that sociology, art, etc. are "girl's stuff" - that a guy who finds these things interesting must be "gay".

....
There's some interesting exceptions to this general rule, at least here in the UK, The broader based disciplines within maths and science, eg Life Sciences, Materials Science and Statistics, have always had a better track record on achieving a balanced intake. To the extent that in some areas female students outnumber males, especially those around life sciences.

Recent UK statistics here (http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/subject0405.htm).

I passed through the entire UK state school and higher education system without hearing that statement once. I can of course, only offer my personal observations.

And the UK is an accurate picture of the entire world?


so you think those women are the victims of their own false dichotomy rather than women who make the choice that seems best to them?

If the choice of the man staying home isn't even presented, how can the women consider that choice? The choice then becomes, "I stay home with my children or we find other childcare." The choice *should* be, "I stay home with my children, my husband stays home with my children, or we find other childcare."

And no, I don't think it is the woman's false dichotomy. I think it is society's.

personally, i give women full credit for being adults. i think they chose to have children and chose to delay their careers while they stay at home with their kids.

I agree. But the full range of choices weren't really there for them. Both men and women are socialized to think that a woman's choice is career, children, or work-you-freaking-butt-off and still use childcare. A man's choice is, well, career. The point is that a woman should be presented with all possible options - as should a man. Each family should have the clear choice of one parent {either parent} staying home with the children, or finding other childcare.

The problem is not that women do not have a choice in the matter. It is that, with the way most of our society is socialized, women have only two choices, while both men and women should have 3. The choice should be for the woman to stay home, the man to stay home, or neither to stay home. It should not be only a choice between the woman staying home and both parents working.

i dont think they fell into some kind of bizarre thought trap where the only choice is "do i stay home or does he?"

No, the thought trap is, "Do I stay home or do I work?" The option of a man staying home usually doesn't even come into the equation - and that is the problem.

it is sad that more men who would stay home feel that they can't because of societal pressure. im not sure that the number would go way up if it was seen as a perfectly acceptable choice (remembering that many parents work different shifts and that the father spends as much time with his children as the mother does)

I think that the number of men who stayed home while women worked would go up. The overall number of couples who chose to have either parent stay home might not increase, but I do think that the ratio of male homemakers to female homemakers would even out.

Yes, I control the world around me just by my expectations.
Expectations can act as a filter.

What if it's not all socialization? What if males and females just tend to be drawn, on average, to jobs with different types of work?
I have a feeling you have a T-Shirt that says, "Devils Advocate: And proud of it, man."

There's some interesting exceptions to this general rule, at least here in the UK, The broader based disciplines within maths and science, eg Life Sciences, Materials Science and Statistics, have always had a better track record on achieving a balanced intake. To the extent that in some areas female students outnumber males, especially those around life sciences.

Recent UK statistics here (http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/subject0405.htm).
It's certainly true that in many fields, women are equaling men, or overtaking them at the educational level, but you'll find that women still fall behind in the career sense, and often because they 'take time out' to have children. All the 'extra' education in the world doesn't offset that.

To me, it boils down to this. Women and men should have the choice. Women sort of have the choice, but I really don't think that most men do, for various reasons. If men don't have the choice to raise children and let the woman work, then really, what kind of choice is left to the woman? It limits them both.

I'm all for daycares, but they are often not that great, or are too expensive, or are just not suitable to a child's needs.

Whatever arrangements are made, I just want to get over this idea that the house is the 'woman's realm' by default, because it hurts women AND men.

What if it's not all socialization? What if males and females just tend to be drawn, on average, to jobs with different types of work?

Then it wouldn't be "that job is for boys and this job is for girls." It would be, "I don't want to do that job. I do want to do this job."


There's some interesting exceptions to this general rule, at least here in the UK, The broader based disciplines within maths and science, eg Life Sciences, Materials Science and Statistics, have always had a better track record on achieving a balanced intake. To the extent that in some areas female students outnumber males, especially those around life sciences.

Indeed.

Who is to say, and how do you prove it either way?

My kid wanted to be a baseball player, and then some idiot told her that baseball was for boys. I refute that every chance I get...but she insists it's true. I finally got her to start playing, and to get over that notion...but that assertation of "this is for boys, not for girls" was incredibly powerful.
It's tough to prove, but it's worth looking into. If some jobs just naturally draw more men than women, or vice versa, we could stop wasting time on frustrated efforts to force people into positions they dont' want.

And the UK is an accurate picture of the entire world?
I never said it was. I was offering my personal experience, and making it clear it is relevant to the UK only. I can't exactly comment on the experience in Poland.

Yes.

And that should change.

But that isn't your point. You're throwing this out as some sort of counterpoint to an argument I haven't made...that being that women deserve more recognition but men do not.
my point is that when you have kids, you have to sacrifice. that goes for men as well as women

few women are willing to do THAT kind of sacrifice of their families in order to make it to the top of their professions.

AND ITS WRONG FOR THEM TO DO SO.

its wrong for a mother, and it is equally wrong for a father.

a good parent would hold back their career for the benefit of their family. that, of course, doesnt mean that someone has to quit their job totally in order to be a full time parent. it does mean that they cant possibly be a good parent and work 12-16 hours a day every day day in and day out. it means they have to make the best choice not just for themselves and their careers but for the whole family.

It's tough to prove, but it's worth looking into. If some jobs just naturally draw more men than women, or vice versa, we could stop wasting time on frustrated efforts to force people into positions they dont' want.
I don't think that would be a good way to go about things anyway. Forcing people to do things is not helping anyone make a choice.

It's tough to prove, but it's worth looking into. If some jobs just naturally draw more men than women, or vice versa, we could stop wasting time on frustrated efforts to force people into positions they dont' want.
I don't believe that is happening. I'm certainly not going to become an electrician just to kick my gender stereotype...just as my husband is not going to become a secretary.

I think what IS happening, is that people are being actively encouraged to pursue their interests...especially those who have interests that buck the traditional system.

I have a feeling you have a T-Shirt that says, "Devils Advocate: And proud of it, man."
I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm just trying to keep an open mind. Some people seem to think these differences all boil down to nurture, but there isn't enough evidence to pick nurture over nature. Until such evidence is available, we should keep in mind that attempts to force equal representation in all trades by males and females may actually be going against our natural inclinations and may end up making us less happy.

No, you're a Culture vessel, though which variety I can't recall at the moment... gave me a bit of a start when I read Excession.
General Contact Unit, although strictly speaking the name is more consistent with Rapid Offensive Unit Minds.

my point is that when you have kids, you have to sacrifice. that goes for men as well as women

few women are willing to do THAT kind of sacrifice of their families in order to make it to the top of their professions.

AND ITS WRONG FOR THEM TO DO SO.

its wrong for a mother, and it is equally wrong for a father.

a good parent would hold back their career for the benefit of their family. that, of course, doesnt mean that someone has to quit their job totally in order to be a full time parent. it does mean that they cant possibly be a good parent and work 12-16 hours a day every day day in and day out. it means they have to make the best choice not just for themselves and their careers but for the whole family.
There is no pressure on men to make as grave a sacrifice for their family as there is on women. Do you believe that pressure to sacrifice should be only on one gender and not the other? Do you believe that if there is more pressure one gender over another, that nothing should be done to alleviate that pressure?

my point is that when you have kids, you have to sacrifice. that goes for men as well as women


I agree. Now if we could convince men to stop working themselves to death, alienating themselves from their family, and realise that being a father is worth so much more than the money you bring in working those extra hours...then maybe we can find some balance.

Expectations can act as a filter.

A child has few expectations, and I was told as a child - by more than one person - that there were certain roles that men and women shoudl fit. That I shouldn't be so interested in math and science because those fields were "for boys". When I wanted to be a doctor, it was suggested to me that I should instead be interested in nursing. Luckily, I had my mother to dispel such ideas - as well as many of my teachers.

A friend of mine actually had quite an interesting conversation once with her grandmother:
Grandmother: "You should study nursing, so you can meet and marry a doctor?"
Friend: "Grandma, why don't I just become a doctor myself?"
Grandmother: "Hmmm, yes, that would be a good way to meet a doctor, too."

You may live in an area where such ideas are less common - and they are becoming increasingly uncommon here. But they do still exist. Simply saying, "Oh, those ideas are outdated," won't change the fact that they still effect society.

I never said it was. I was offering my personal experience, and making it clear it is relevant to the UK only. I can't exactly comment on the experience in Poland.

Then you can hardly say that these attitudes are a thing of the past. They may not be prevalent where you are, but that does not mean they do not hold sway elsewhere.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm just trying to keep an open mind. Some people seem to think these differences all boil down to nurture, but there isn't enough evidence to pick nurture over nature. Until such evidence is available, we should keep in mind that attempts to force equal representation in all trades by males and females may actually be going against our natural inclinations and may end up making us less happy.
My belief that you own the t-shirt remains.

And I agree with you as far as this goes. I wouldn't want to be part of any pressure that makes someone do something which they don't want to do. Women have a choice when they go to college. They do choose what they want to pursue. And then, nine times out of ten, they fail to pursue their goal once a child enters the picture.

Then you can hardly say that these attitudes are a thing of the past. They may not be prevalent where you are, but that does not mean they do not hold sway elsewhere.
When in fact, I think it's fair to say that in the majority of the world, these attitudes of 'this for boys, this for girls' are extremely prevalent and powerful.

My belief that you own the t-shirt remains.

And I agree with you as far as this goes. I wouldn't want to be part of any pressure that makes someone do something which they don't want to do. Women have a choice when they go to college. They do choose what they want to pursue. And then, nine times out of ten, they fail to pursue their goal once a child enters the picture.
So they simply fail to pursue their goal...must be all the hormones of pregnancy? It is much more than an internal decision.

I agree. Now if we could convince men to stop working themselves to death, alienating themselves from their family, and realise that being a father is worth so much more than the money you bring in working those extra hours...then maybe we can find some balance.
A corollary to that would be to allow women who want to have children but DON'T want to be the main caregiver, to have that option. Right now, it generally means daycare, not having their partner do the job. But as it stands, that woman is seen as selfish, and foolish for having children if she doesn't want to 'raise' them. The man in a similar situation is NOT seen that way.

Then you can hardly say that these attitudes are a thing of the past. They may not be prevalent where you are, but that does not mean they do not hold sway elsewhere.
Well, clearly the nomadic tribespeople of Namibia may have their own take on gender politics, but since feminism has for the most part been a Western free-market-area phenomenon, I'll stick to debating it on that territory. ;)

So they simply fail to pursue their goal...must be all the hormones of pregnancy? It is much more than an internal decision.
Before you ask (because I must leave soon), what I mean by that is any decision related to family is not made in the vacuum of a single parent's mind (even if the parent is in fact single ;D). External factors such as earning power compared to a partner, the availability of childcare, the wishes of the partner (to have her stay home, or not) etc. What you want is not always what is possible.

So they simply fail to pursue their goal...must be all the hormones of pregnancy? It is much more than an internal decision.
Is it? Do we know that for a fact?

When in fact, I think it's fair to say that in the majority of the world, these attitudes of 'this for boys, this for girls' are extremely prevalent and powerful.


I know this isnt about jobs/careers, but made me think of todays visit to my daughters Dentist...

and at this particular dentist ofice, they give the kids toys after the appt. They got lei's and pinwheels today. This little boy, maybe 5 or 6 years old came out from his checkup and had on a pink lei. His father stomped over to him and smacked him on the side of the head(hard) and jerked the lei off his neck saying "get that damn pink crap off you boy!" Pink is fer girls!"
The child looked so sad......and afraid.



Point being, I thought about the little boy on the drive home and hoped he wouldnt grow up with that mentality. Or with that demeanor.

Well, clearly the nomadic tribespeople of Namibia may have their own take on gender politics, but since feminism has for the most part been a Western free-market-area phenomenon, I'll stick to debating it on that territory. ;)
I'm sorry, I take offense to that! There are established feminist movements outside of the Western free-market system, but they aren't necessarily comparable to such feminism. Fourth world feminism in particular (the fourth world referring to colonised people within developed or developing worlds) sometimes has serious conflict with 'traditional Western' feminism...oh I'll stop now...it's really fascinating though to compare feminist traditions in various settings...since for many 'women of colour', racism is a primary issue, ahead of sexism, and historically, white feminists have not recognised or validated that...as seen by the fact that suffragettes often did not want 'coloured' women to get the vote...wait, I said I'd stop and I shall!

Is it? Do we know that for a fact?
Yes.

Your external circumstances are always going to affect your internal decisions, regardless of what situation we are discussing.

Unless you believe that we don't actually exist outside of our minds...:)

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm just trying to keep an open mind. Some people seem to think these differences all boil down to nurture, but there isn't enough evidence to pick nurture over nature. Until such evidence is available, we should keep in mind that attempts to force equal representation in all trades by males and females may actually be going against our natural inclinations and may end up making us less happy.

The idea isn't to force equal representation. The idea is to ensure that those who are inclined to go into a certain trade have every opportunity to do so - are not discouraged from it just because of any given innate trait.

As soon as young girls stop feigning disinterest in math because "only boys are supposed to like math" and little boys stop pretending not to like to read or write because it's "gay" or "unmanly", then we can see if there is still a discrepancy. But as long as the social conditioning is evident, we can assume that it is having some effect.


Well, clearly the nomadic tribespeople of Namibia may have their own take on gender politics, but since feminism has for the most part been a Western free-market-area phenomenon, I'll stick to debating it on that territory.

The UK isn't an accurate picture of all of the Western world either. I live in the good ole' US of A, and I've seen all sorts of things to contradict the idea that enforced gender roles are "a thing of the past."

Yes.

Your external circumstances are always going to affect your internal decisions, regardless of what situation we are discussing.

Unless you believe that we don't actually exist outside of our minds...:)
I thought you were trying to say that women are coerced into taking on the child rearing by culture or something. Certainly we all take into account various factors when making any decision.

I'm sorry, I take offense to that! There are established feminist movements outside of the Western free-market system, but they aren't necessarily comparable to such feminism. Fourth world feminism in particular (the fourth world referring to colonised people within developed or developing worlds) sometimes has serious conflict with 'traditional Western' feminism...oh I'll stop now...it's really fascinating though to compare feminist traditions in various settings...since for many 'women of colour', racism is a primary issue, ahead of sexism, and historically, white feminists have not recognised or validated that...as seen by the fact that suffragettes often did not want 'coloured' women to get the vote...wait, I said I'd stop and I shall!
Perhaps, but I know nothing of this and don't really see anything wrong in acknowledging such limits. Hence my original surprise at the retort "And the UK is an accurate picture of the entire world?" - hardly, it's just that unlike most people on these forums I try not to speak on things outside of my frame of reference, and make relevant boundaries known.

There is no pressure on men to make as grave a sacrifice for their family as there is on women. Do you believe that pressure to sacrifice should be only on one gender and not the other? Do you believe that if there is more pressure one gender over another, that nothing should be done to alleviate that pressure?
whoa do you have it wrong

a woman sacrifices her career for her family.

a man sacrifices his family for his career

in MOST families, they do a little bit of both. most women work but dont go as far as they would if they never married and never had children

most men take care of their own children but not as much as they would if they werent expected to be the primary breadwinner

neither is the parent they dreamed they would be nor do they reach the full extent of their career ambitions.

will it ever work out to be totally equal? not on an individual basis. people make their own best decision based on their own circumstances.

<snip>
PS
Apologies again for over generalising. I know not every woman is a born mother and carer and not every man is a hunter gatherer. But let's face it - this is a message board on the internet, not a dissertation.
Apologies for snipping your whole post except for this small disclaimer, but it contains a detail that I'd like to underscore for the general discussion.

The bolded phrase contains an error. In hunter-gatherer societies, hunting and gathering are two different jobs. Traditionally, men do most of the hunting and women do most of the gathering. Naturally, there is overlap, but that is the general demarcation. Hunting, especially of large game, is difficult and often requires the hunter to be away from home for periods of time. Gathering is much easier and safer, but it is also labor intensive and time consuming. In food-poor environments, it can take up the greater part of a day.

So if the men are off hunting and the women are all gathering, who is taking care of small children in hunter-gatherer societies? Exactly as Sinuhue points out -- the grandparents, other adults, older children -- in other words, people other than the parents.

I would also like to point out that, while they are rare today, hunter-gatherer societies are the most ancient form of social organization. Their pattern of working adults with extended family and/or community childcare support systems continued through most of the pre-industrial agricultural age, as well, since before mechanization, agricultural work was even more demanding than hunting and gathering. The pattern did not really change for most human beings (outside of aristocracy) until the Industrial Revolution and the concomittant rise of a middle class -- i.e. a social stratum between the economic extremes of "everyone has to work" and "nobody has to work."

So what does this have to do with the present discussion? It simply points out that, in fact, the most traditional family arrangement in the world may very well be to have two working parents using outsourced daycare.

The so-called "nuclear family" in which the child-producing parents are the sole adults in the household and solely responsible for child-rearing, and in which there is sufficient affluence (defining "affluence" a bit broadly) to allow one adult to stay home and rely solely on the income/productivity of the other adult, is in fact, a luxurious lifestyle that existed extremely rarely (if at all) before the Industrial Revolution.

I'm happy for women who have the financial freedom to stay home and take care of their kids if that's what they want to do, but I just can't make myself care much about the emotionalism that seems to be attached to that choice. I see it as a luxurious privilege, and I think it is unfair to hold it up as a model that everyone has to follow in order to be considered "proper."

whoa do you have it wrong

a woman sacrifices her career for her family.

a man sacrifices his family for his career

in MOST families, they do a little bit of both. most women work but dont go as far as they would if they never married and never had children

most men take care of their own children but not as much as they would if they werent expected to be the primary breadwinner

neither is the parent they dreamed they would be nor do they reach the full extent of their career ambitions.

will it ever work out to be totally equal? not on an individual basis. people make their own best decision based on their own circumstances.
And nothing should be done about the huge disparity?

And nothing should be done about the huge disparity?
If it's a micro social contract between two people in love, who cares?

Not all differences must be symptoms of a deficiency.

I agree. Now if we could convince men to stop working themselves to death, alienating themselves from their family, and realise that being a father is worth so much more than the money you bring in working those extra hours...then maybe we can find some balance.
And if you could likewise persuade industrial and corporate employers to agree with that view...

In many cases, particularly in the US, let's face it, there is an unofficial penalty for having children, and increasingly this penalty is being applied to men as well as women. In corporate business, especially, I am starting to hear men complaining of a "glass ceiling," too, whereby they get shifted off a promotion track, just on the assumption that they won't be willing to work 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, now that they have kids.

The complaining men are also very surprised, of course.

in MOST families, they do a little bit of both.

Indeed. But also in most families, a woman does more sacrificing of her career, and a man does more sacrificing of his family.

When the children are sick and cannot go to school or daycare, who usually takes off work to care for them? The woman. And this may lead, directly or indirectly, to a slowed career advancement.

Who is more likely to work insane hours and hardly ever see the children? The man. And this can lead to his children being more distant from him.

Who is more likely to try to take care of the household - cooking, cleaning, etc. while also trying to take care of the children and hold down a full-time job? This description is much more likely to fall upon a woman than a man, as these things are often still seen as being the woman's job - even if she also works a full time job - something that used to be in the realm of the man's domain.

Some families are doing things much more equitably, but the "norm" is still for the woman to take on the bulk of the housework and childcare while also trying to hold down a full-time job. In those families who do choose to have a stay-at-home parent, that parent is nearly always the woman.

will it ever work out to be totally equal? not on an individual basis. people make their own best decision based on their own circumstances.

And they should. But if they are socialized from the start to think that women are or should be the primary nurturer while men should be the primary breadwinner, how prominently do you think the choice of a male homemaker will figure in their minds, even if it would be best for their family? How prominently do you think the choice of a female primary breadwinner will figure, even if it would be best for the family? And even if chosen, would they be happy with such a decision if they had been raised to believe their roles should be reversed?

And look at this:

"Marriage has kicked her into the highest bracket. With federal, state and Social Security taxes, she's now losing about half of every dollar she earns — starting with the very first one. You've got to really love your work to do it for half price.

The Census Bureau recently said that both spouses now work in 51 percent of married couples with wives of childbearing age — the first time that number has surpassed 50 percent since the bureau started tracking it. More wives would work if our progressive income tax structure didn't sock second earners with high marginal rates."

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/02/business/02SCEN.html?ex=1150948800&en=e01b3ea29c82f4ab&ei=5070

When in fact, I think it's fair to say that in the majority of the world, these attitudes of 'this for boys, this for girls' are extremely prevalent and powerful.
I agree. Feminism may be thought of (incorrectly, imo; couldn't be more incorrect, imo) as finished in North America and Western Europe, but it is fighting like mad in South America and Africa, and only just beginning in Asia and Eastern Europe.

If it's a micro social contract between two people in love, who cares?

But is it? If it were simply a matter of two people making the decision for themselves, with all options equally open, would we not expect to see less of a discrepancy?

How many families do you know who have considered having one parent stay home and take care of the children? In how many of those families has the man been considered as the person to do so?

I can tell you from my own experience that I have yet to see a single family in which the man has even been considered as a possible stay-at-home parent, while I have seen many women faced with the choice of "Work or take care of my children?"

If it's a micro social contract between two people in love, who cares?

Not all differences must be symptoms of a deficiency.
So, in each case it was a matter of love? Women spend tens of thousands of dollars in education and then sacrifice it all for love in so many instances?

It's certainly true that in many fields, women are equaling men, or overtaking them at the educational level, but you'll find that women still fall behind in the career sense, and often because they 'take time out' to have children. All the 'extra' education in the world doesn't offset that.

To me, it boils down to this. Women and men should have the choice. Women sort of have the choice, but I really don't think that most men do, for various reasons. If men don't have the choice to raise children and let the woman work, then really, what kind of choice is left to the woman? It limits them both.

I'm all for daycares, but they are often not that great, or are too expensive, or are just not suitable to a child's needs.

Whatever arrangements are made, I just want to get over this idea that the house is the 'woman's realm' by default, because it hurts women AND men.
I would agree with all of this.

My wife and I came across an unexpected hurdle in our family life, though. Our daughter, when very young, reacted to our lack of guidance on gender roles by defining her own parameters as a girl, and going very girly indeed. Always wore frocks, heavily favoured pink, idolised princesses and played with dolls the whole time. She even went to the extent of inventing an imaginary mummy (as other children have imaginary friends), who always wore frocks, had long hair and did lots of housewife-type things (ie, was a polar opposite to my wife). Which was quite sobering for us both.

I'm happy to say she's now grown out of the girly phase: she wouldn't be seen dead in a dress outside of a formal occasion, prefers blue, and uses her dolls for anatomical demonstrations.

so, to bring it back to the original topic....

does anyone think that feminism has FAILED?

my point is that when you have kids, you have to sacrifice. that goes for men as well as women

few women are willing to do THAT kind of sacrifice of their families in order to make it to the top of their professions.

AND ITS WRONG FOR THEM TO DO SO.

its wrong for a mother, and it is equally wrong for a father.

a good parent would hold back their career for the benefit of their family. that, of course, doesnt mean that someone has to quit their job totally in order to be a full time parent. it does mean that they cant possibly be a good parent and work 12-16 hours a day every day day in and day out. it means they have to make the best choice not just for themselves and their careers but for the whole family.

My dad works on the other side of the world. He'll be gone for six to eight weeks at a time, and then come home briefly for one or two. He works his ass off to provide for my mother, myself, and my other 5 siblings. He works from 7-9 almost every day, and barely knows the meaning of the word vacation. Don't you dare tell me that he isn't a good father just because of how many hours he works. He spends every spare moment he can get with his children, and considering that when he's home he's considerably jet-lagged, that takes a great deal of effort.

So, in each case it was a matter of love? Women spend tens of thousands of dollars in education and then sacrifice it all for love in so many instances?
Sounds more plausible than coercion, in the West at least.

How many families do you know who have considered having one parent stay home and take care of the children? In how many of those families has the man been considered as the person to do so?
A few, and usually it is the man, although the norm seems to be both parents in work and a division of responsibility.

In my own family, this was the arrangement, until my mother decided to give up her career, partly because she wasn't really that good at it, and my father was world class in his. She also turned out to be a stunning failure as a parent, with the result that my father got all the "kid running back to him for comfort" moments, in spite of a punishing long hours international schedule that saw him out of the country for a substantial slice of every year. My sister and mother subsequently disowned each other.

What a way of evading the stereotypical life.

Seems to me family life is more complicated than economic pressures and conventional gender roles forcing women to stay at home, and men sacrificing relationships for work.

so, to bring it back to the original topic....

does anyone think that feminism has FAILED?

Nope. It's a work in progress.

so, to bring it back to the original topic....

does anyone think that feminism has FAILED?

It would seem that the argument isn't really that feminism has failed - simply that it still has more work to do. Even the OP seemed to be suggesting that.

My dad works on the other side of the world. He'll be gone for six to eight weeks at a time, and then come home briefly for one or two. He works his ass off to provide for my mother, myself, and my other 5 siblings. He works from 7-9 almost every day, and barely knows the meaning of the word vacation. Don't you dare tell me that he isn't a good father just because of how many hours he works. He spends every spare moment he can get with his children, and considering that when he's home he's considerably jet-lagged, that takes a great deal of effort.
only if you can convince me that its his ONLY choice of work.

money isnt the end-all and be-all of a good father. if he CHOOSES to do a job that keeps him away from his family he is not a good father.

only if you can convince me that its his ONLY choice of work.

money isnt the end-all and be-all of a good father. if he CHOOSES to do a job that keeps him away from his family he is not a good father.

You know, at 50+ years old it isn't exactly easy to start over and get a new job. He started out working for a local company, which was then bought out. At first it was the occaisional trip overseas, but over the course of the years it became more and more. It was a gradual process. He is by no means a bad father, and he's always been there when I needed him. He calls nightly and sends pictures by email. He makes it home for major holidays and birthdays (considering there are 8 of us including him, that's quite a bit of traveling).

only if you can convince me that its his ONLY choice of work.

money isnt the end-all and be-all of a good father. if he CHOOSES to do a job that keeps him away from his family he is not a good father.
Ouch!!

Is anyone here a father who regrets missing out on their kids younger years?

Ouch!!
is it so hurtful to suggest that a father is worth more in person than as a paycheck?

not that i have any interest in dissing tehees dad. i dont know him, his history or his circumstances.

so, to bring it back to the original topic....

does anyone think that feminism has FAILED?
I don't think so, I just don't think it's finished. And it isn't in the forefront of our minds anymore, so I think there has been a little bit of a drift back into patriarchal social systems (which has also been influenced in large part by the current political climate).

I also think that feminism needs to focus more on mens issues...no I don't see that as contradictory despite the common connotation of feminism with women's issues alone. The fact is, men's issues and women's issues affect both sexes, and all genders. I don't think we can extoll the virtues of being a stay home dad to women alone...the men need to hear this, and other things, too.

only if you can convince me that its his ONLY choice of work.

money isnt the end-all and be-all of a good father. if he CHOOSES to do a job that keeps him away from his family he is not a good father.
That's quite the judgement you're making there. Just as money isn't the be-all end-all of a good father, neither is constant 'thereness'.

so, to bring it back to the original topic....

does anyone think that feminism has FAILED?
No. I think that feminism is not finished yet.

So, feminism has failed because women are choosing to stay home with their children?!

I thought the whole point of feminism was that we as women were supposed to be allowed to do whatever we wanted (within reason) suddenly if a woman chooses to take care of her children, she is what? a bad woman?

I don't understand.

No. I think that feminism is not finished yet.
Neither do I. And all the better for it. Both men and women deserve the power to live their lives to their accord.

So, feminism has failed because women are choosing to stay home with their children?!

No, and no one said that - not even the original article.

The problem is that it is pretty much *only* women who make that choice. There is still a social stigma suggesting that, if anyone stays home with the children, it should automatically be the woman. Men rarely consider it, and women rarely expect them to.

I thought the whole point of feminism was that we as women were supposed to be allowed to do

The point of feminism is that men and women should not be pushed into anything because of an unnecessary gender role. At the moment, it is generally only women who make the choice of whether to stay home with the children or continue working. That choice should be equally open to both men and women. It should not default to women.

Ah, but the point of the OP is that this freedom of choice is still an illusion...that if women don't think they have a choice, or don't give themselves the choice (and if men don't buy into it too), then the choice doesn't really exist at all.

Edit: Point being, we have work still to do.
What would you say if I said tha freedom of choice is limited by personal factors?

No, and no one said that - not even the original article.


Maybe not explicitly, but it did state that staying at home to raise children doesn't allow a human to fully flourish the way a human can flourish working for the government.
I still find that an odd assertion and somewhat insulting to those that are choosing to NOT fully flourish as a human.

Additionally, the orginal article is pointing out the lack of equal results as indicative of a 'problem' that we need to find the root cause of and fix.


The problem is that it is pretty much *only* women who make that choice. There is still a social stigma suggesting that, if anyone stays home with the children, it should automatically be the woman. Men rarely consider it, and women rarely expect them to.

The point of feminism is that men and women should not be pushed into anything because of an unnecessary gender role. At the moment, it is generally only women who make the choice of whether to stay home with the children or continue working. That choice should be equally open to both men and women. It should not default to women.


There is some natural biology you're arguing against here, it's not just an 'unnecessary gender role'

Every parent cannot choose to be the pregnant parent.
The parent that is pregant will necessarily take time out from their career in order to give birth.
The parent that carries the child to term, suffers through childbirth and nurses the child will naturally bond earlier with the child and deal with more separation anxiety than the parent that has not yet had bonding experiences to the same degree and has not paused their career yet.

Given the natural bias to one parent caring for the child as opposed to the other, significant imbalances in who continues to stay home should be intuitive and not seen to represent a problem of some sort.

I'm amazed at how many people who don't study sociology believe that they have the answer to why feminism "failed."


Feminism didn't fail. As a movement it certainly has arrived at a low point or perhaps a lull in the tide of support, but it has accomplished much.



One of the biggest reasons why Feminism "failed" was because it was in ideological opposition to the hegemonic ideal. Men have for thousands of years been dominant politically, militarily, and socially. This power has been institutionalized into various social norms. Norms are very powerful ideological motivators for human behavior and trying to change them is very difficult.


Sociology has a lot to say on the topic of feminism, but "too much success" "message of hate" or whatever other popular culture reasons one can find certainly isn't amongst it.

NT

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashmoria
so, to bring it back to the original topic....

does anyone think that feminism has FAILED?


I don't think so, I just don't think it's finished. And it isn't in the forefront of our minds anymore, so I think there has been a little bit of a drift back into patriarchal social systems (which has also been influenced in large part by the current political climate).

I also think that feminism needs to focus more on mens issues...no I don't see that as contradictory despite the common connotation of feminism with women's issues alone. The fact is, men's issues and women's issues affect both sexes, and all genders. I don't think we can extoll the virtues of being a stay home dad to women alone...the men need to hear this, and other things, too.

I actually do believe it has finished(well here in the UK anyway), as more and more young women have realised that the original feminism idea of "having it all like men do" is not only a lie as men never had it all, its not possible, and have begun to go back to the "traditional" way's of being a housewife.According to a major poll carried out around a year ago(which was in the news for all of 5 minutes).

Young women felt that although its great they do have more oppertunities than there grandmothers etc, they dont see that its impossible to have children AND a fulltime career.

I do agree with Sinuhue that men can care for there kids aswell but it comes down to choice on who can bring more money in to the household, and i know people say money doesn't mean a thing, but it does in reality when having children.

But all of the stats in the world don't refute the numerous incidents of students telling me "that job is for boys, and that job is for girls". Clearly, some people are still being socialised to believe that some jobs depend on your gender, and not your skills.

Find better company. Anyway no matter how silly something appears I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who believes it feverently. I'm throwing my chip in with TG, I have never encounted this attitude (I am a New Zealander), although my physics lab has a rather silly poster in it titled "Women are going places in electronics".

Maybe not explicitly, but it did state that staying at home to raise children doesn't allow a human to fully flourish the way a human can flourish working for the government.

It does? I didn't read anything like that.

Additionally, the orginal article is pointing out the lack of equal results as indicative of a 'problem' that we need to find the root cause of and fix.

It is. There are nourishing women and there are women less suited to that role. Same goes for men. There is no reason that it should always be the woman who stays home - if anyone does at all.

There is some natural biology you're arguing against here, it's not just an 'unnecessary gender role'

No. There isn't. There is nothing inherent in male or female biology that makes one a better parent than the other.

Every parent cannot choose to be the pregnant parent.
The parent that is pregant will necessarily take time out from their career in order to give birth.

Not necessarily. I know many women who took no time off at all for pregnancy or birth. Unless there are complications with the pregnancy or your job is a rather dangerous one, there really is no reason to take time off before birth, and time after birth, while certainly a good idea, is an equally good idea for *both* parents.

The parent that carries the child to term, suffers through childbirth and nurses the child will naturally bond earlier with the child and deal with more separation anxiety than the parent that has not yet had bonding experiences to the same degree and has not paused their career yet.

Not necessarily true. Many women don't bond right away with their children, while men may do so. It isn't as uncommon as you seem to think.

I do agree with Sinuhue that men can care for there kids aswell but it comes down to choice on who can bring more money in to the household, and i know people say money doesn't mean a thing, but it does in reality when having children.
That's the problematic assumption--why can men bring more money into a household? Because the assumption is that the man is the primary wageearner, and that a woman is either secondary or, if single, doesn't have the same responsibilities as a man with a family. Which is all crap--that sot of deliberation shouldn't come into the mix when talking about salaries--you get paid for the job you do, not for the responsibilities you have at home. Feminism has been a part of changing that attitude.

And your point would be the same if the roles were reversed? You don't see it as a failure that (women*) a majority of people that are educated are the minority in the workforce?
That's where I stopped reading. If somebody already commented on that, sorry. This being said, the question could be asked this way:

"Don't you see it as a failure of our society that more men than women are unable to have a university education? Don't you think it's discriminative against men? Or is it okay and we can ignore it just because they're men, not women? Some years ago, it was the feminists' desire that women receive an equal education with the men. For the sake of equality, shouldn't they (if they're impartial), militate for the men to receive an education equal with that which women receive?" :rolleyes:

* It's my addition, to clarify the original statement taken out of context.

Not necessarily true. Many women don't bond right away with their children, while men may do so. It isn't as uncommon as you seem to think.
But it is generally true. Which is what the discussion is about, since I believe everybody's talking about general trends, not specific situations.

Don't you see it as a failure of our society that more men than women are unable to have a university education?

What evidence do you have that more men are unable to have a university education? As soon as you can bring evidence of this, then we can discuss it. If it were true, it would be a problem.

But it is generally true. Which is what the discussion is about, since I believe everybody's talking about general trends, not specific situations.

Actually, we are talking about the pressures that society places upon people, whether they meet the "general trend" or not. In truth, it is impossible to tell how much of the supposed "biological differences" in parenting between men and women are actually biological and how much is pure socialization. We will not be able to tell until society stops telling men and women that women are supposed to be the nurturers and men are supposed to be the primary breadwinners. If there is a biological difference causing more women to want to be nurturers and more men to want to be primary breadwinners, then that will come out when the societal pressures are removed.

The problem is not a woman who is very nurturing choosing, among all her options, to sacrifice her career to be a nurturer. The problem is not a man choosing, among all his options, to be a primary breadwinner. The problem is a society that says that men and women are supposed to meet these roles, whether they are well-suited for them or not. We *are* talking about specific situations, as the entire problem is that the supposed "general trends" are pushed onto everyone through socialization, whether they meet those stereotypes or not.

No, and no one said that - not even the original article.

The problem is that it is pretty much *only* women who make that choice. There is still a social stigma suggesting that, if anyone stays home with the children, it should automatically be the woman. Men rarely consider it, and women rarely expect them to.
so, shouldn't we be fighting to make it more acceptable for men to choose to stay home, instead of less acceptable for women to make that choice?

so, shouldn't we be fighting to make it more acceptable for men to choose to stay home, instead of less acceptable for women to make that choice?

That's the whole point, actually. No one is suggesting that it should be unacceptable for *anyone* to put off their career to stay home with their children. The only problem that has been brought up is that it is pretty much only women who do so. Men generally don't even consider the option, and women don't expect them to even consider it.

It does? I didn't read anything like that.


Here:
"Deafened by choice, here's the moral analysis these women never heard: The family—with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks—is a necessary part of life and has obvious emotional and immediate rewards, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.



It is. There are nourishing women and there are women less suited to that role. Same goes for men. There is no reason that it should always be the woman who stays home - if anyone does at all.


I agree fully, but to expect that the numbers will be equal is not realistic, that is my point.


No. There isn't. There is nothing inherent in male or female biology that makes one a better parent than the other.


It's not about being a "better" parent.


Not necessarily. I know many women who took no time off at all for pregnancy or birth. Unless there are complications with the pregnancy or your job is a rather dangerous one, there really is no reason to take time off before birth, and time after birth, while certainly a good idea, is an equally good idea for *both* parents.


These many women were lucky enough to give birth on the weekend and showed up for work on Monday???
And you consider that realistic?

After the birth, any time the male parent takes off is to be with the child/family. Usually, the female parent has some physical recovery to endure making it a more equally good idea for the female to take time off.

This rejection of the biological differences between the sexes only serves to make the equality argument appear irrational when there is no need for it to be so regarded.



Not necessarily true. Many women don't bond right away with their children, while men may do so. It isn't as uncommon as you seem to think.

There are no guarantees, no absolutes in human relationships, but there is an obvious trend given the different early experiences the male parent and female parent have with the child.

That's the whole point, actually. No one is suggesting that it should be unacceptable for *anyone* to put off their career to stay home with their children. The only problem that has been brought up is that it is pretty much only women who do so. Men generally don't even consider the option, and women don't expect them to even consider it.
I may be PMS'ing but I came away from the article with the following things

*taking care of children is substandard work, that women are forced into, and any woman who would choose to raise her own child is obviously doing so because of pressure from the world

*women who don't "work" can't grow and be functioning people


I really have to go back and re-read to get you the specific quotes that led me to these conclusions though.

Actually, it failed because poor marketing killed the brand. It just isn't "cool", and it never will be, bar some brief "ironic" revival decades hence.
Kinda like the hippie anti-war protester that spits on veterans and calls them baby-killers. It's making a strong comeback.

Kinda like the hippie anti-war protester that spits on veterans and calls them baby-killers. It's making a strong comeback.
Whoa. Where the fuck did that come from? :eek:

If there is a biological difference causing more women to want to be nurturers and more men to want to be primary breadwinners, then that will come out when the societal pressures are removed.



One might argue that feminism has already achieved the removal of those societal pressures, or has at least taken very significant steps forward in their removal, and yet the differences remain.

Perhaps those biological differences are the cause the societal pressures in the first place.

There can be no doubt that regardless of societal pressures or biology, some individuals will buck their supposed trends and they should have the freedom to do so, but it's a huge leap beyond equality of opportunity to equality of results.

There can be no doubt that regardless of societal pressures or biology, some individuals will buck their supposed trends and they should have the freedom to do so, but it's a huge leap beyond equality of opportunity to equality of results.
I agree. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are different things. You can have the former, but if poorly understood additional dynamics are involved, I doubt you will ever see the latter.

I may be PMS'ing but I came away from the article with the following things

*taking care of children is substandard work, that women are forced into, and any woman who would choose to raise her own child is obviously doing so because of pressure from the world

*women who don't "work" can't grow and be functioning people


I really have to go back and re-read to get you the specific quotes that led me to these conclusions though.

that was certainly the impression i got from the OP. that it was a terrible thing that ivy league educated women would end up as stay at home moms.

its such a shortsighted point of view. few of those women are going to stay at home forever and never get any employment use out of their degrees. most (really probably all) of them are going to stay home until their kids reach a certain age then go back into the workforce.

there are just somethings you cant decide until the time comes and staying home with your kids is one of them. some women who thought they would be career women all through their kids formative years have decided that they neeeded to be at home. some women who thought they would be a stay at home mom have found that they just cant stand the day to day drudgery of it.

we'll know we have hit some milestone when mothers and fathers fight over who GETS to stay home with the kids. until then its not a failure of anything for a woman to decide that the best choice for her is to stay at home with her children.

while the OP was a bit off, the rest of the posters seemed to understand that its a more complicated situation than can be solved by setting up more day care centers so that no woman need leave the workforce to raise her children.

Here:

Ah. See, I didn't read that as making a definitive statement about what is and is not flourishing. Rather, I saw it as making a statement about societal attitudes towards what people are and are not flourishing.

I agree fully, but to expect that the numbers will be equal is not realistic, that is my point.

Equal? No, probably not, although they might be. It's rather hard to tell without ever having had a society that delineated "men's work" and "women's work". Less drastically skewed? Absolutely.

It's not about being a "better" parent.

To a point, it is. The whole idea behind the woman=nurturer, man=breadwinner delineation is the that women are better parents - that they have parenting skills (nurturing) a man does not.

These many women were lucky enough to give birth on the weekend and showed up for work on Monday???

These women gave birth and then went to work the next day. At most, a day of work was missed. Often not even that. I know more than one woman who worked, went into labor and gave birth, then went back to work.

And you consider that realistic?

Yes, actually, I do. In a pregnancy without complications, there is generally no reason that a woman cannot be up on her feet and working right up until birth, and then after a good night's sleep after birth. A woman who has to have a C-section will obviously need a little more recovery time, but even then, the *necessary* recovery time is probably on the order of a week.

After the birth, any time the male parent takes off is to be with the child/family. Usually, the female parent has some physical recovery to endure making it a more equally good idea for the female to take time off.

Immediately after birth, if at all possible, *both* parents should take off for bonding time. This is why many feminists (*gasp*) support both maternity and paternity leave

This rejection of the biological differences between the sexes only serves to make the equality argument appear irrational when there is no need for it to be so regarded.

I'm not rejecting any biological differences. I never claimed that a man can carry a child or produce breastmilk, did I? Of course, to claim that every woman - or even most women - who give birth will need long recovery times is pretty ludicrous.

There are no guarantees, no absolutes in human relationships, but there is an obvious trend given the different early experiences the male parent and female parent have with the child.

The only early experience a female parent can have with the child that a male parent cannot is breastfeeding. There is no biological reason that a man should not have just as much bonding time with his child as a woman.

we'll know we have hit some milestone when mothers and fathers fight over who GETS to stay home with the kids. until then its not a failure of anything for a woman to decide that the best choice for her is to stay at home with her children.

Oh, like me. I've gotten custody of my children from two previous divorces, because the court evaluators thought I made a much better parent.

And with my current wife, I share the "staying home". Had to find the right job to do it - and I do travel abroad from time to time - but it works out about even.

One might argue that feminism has already achieved the removal of those societal pressures,

If that were true, then no young girls would be pushed away from "men's jobs" and no young boys would be pushed away from "women's jobs". Men who do decide to be homemakers would not be labeled as "pussywhipped" or other euphemisms. Hell, if societal pressures towards gender roles were removed, the issues our countries have with sexuality wouldn't be a problem.

or has at least taken very significant steps forward in their removal, and yet the differences remain.

We have made progress, but we are far from done.

Perhaps those biological differences are the cause the societal pressures in the first place.

Are you suggesting that no men are nurturers and no women would be better off as primary breadwinners?

If you are not suggesting this, then your comment is illogical. There should be no societal pressure to meet a stereotype - to be the average [insert trait here]. Societal pressures come from assumptions about a person based on a group they belong to - assumptions that may or may not apply.

There can be no doubt that regardless of societal pressures or biology, some individuals will buck their supposed trends and they should have the freedom to do so,

Not only the freedom to do so, but the freedom from being pressured not to do so.

Sounds more plausible than coercion, in the West at least.


A few, and usually it is the man, although the norm seems to be both parents in work and a division of responsibility.

In my own family, this was the arrangement, until my mother decided to give up her career, partly because she wasn't really that good at it, and my father was world class in his. She also turned out to be a stunning failure as a parent, with the result that my father got all the "kid running back to him for comfort" moments, in spite of a punishing long hours international schedule that saw him out of the country for a substantial slice of every year. My sister and mother subsequently disowned each other.

What a way of evading the stereotypical life.

Seems to me family life is more complicated than economic pressures and conventional gender roles forcing women to stay at home, and men sacrificing relationships for work.
Personal details are always more complicated and it's not beyond me that I'm generalizing. But just because you feel your family wasn't effected by economic pressures and conventional gender roles doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on the population as a whole.

Ah. See, I didn't read that as making a definitive statement about what is and is not flourishing. Rather, I saw it as making a statement about societal attitudes towards what people are and are not flourishing.


The author is clearly making a definitive value statement.


Equal? No, probably not, although they might be. It's rather hard to tell without ever having had a society that delineated "men's work" and "women's work". Less drastically skewed? Absolutely.


You still focus on the results, on how drastically it is skewed. Since we have no idea how skewed it "should" be by anyone's definitions, there's no evidence that this so-called drastic skewing is even an actual problem.

Additionally, there's an automatic assumption that the skewing is in the favour of males and that leads to a conclusion that the traditional role of child rearing is less valued than the traditional role of bread winning. There is no cry going out to get a man in the "less flourishing environment" at home, unless of course it is to allow the woman to take a government job and fully flourish as a human.


To a point, it is. The whole idea behind the woman=nurturer, man=breadwinner delineation is the that women are better parents - that they have parenting skills (nurturing) a man does not.


I completely reject that line of thought.
You are equating parenting with nurturing. There are other parental roles beyond nurturer.
Better nurturer doesn't automatically mean better parent.


These women gave birth and then went to work the next day. At most, a day of work was missed. Often not even that. I know more than one woman who worked, went into labor and gave birth, then went back to work.


Your anecdotal evidence aside, that does not reflect the common reality.
If it did, we ought to do away with maternity leave entirely and allow those that need more time to use their sick leave if they have it.



Immediately after birth, if at all possible, *both* parents should take off for bonding time. This is why many feminists (*gasp*) support both maternity and paternity leave


Sure, I'm all in favour of both parents having more time with a new born child. *double gasp*
That doesn't change the reality that it is relational luxury for the male to take it and a virtual physical necessity for the female due to common issues as simple exhaustion, episiotomy, post partum depression, etc. let alone any actual complications.



I'm not rejecting any biological differences. I never claimed that a man can carry a child or produce breastmilk, did I? Of course, to claim that every woman - or even most women - who give birth will need long recovery times is pretty ludicrous.


You say you are not rejecting them, but you refuse to take them into account when discussing the issue.
I haven't said "long", and I'm not sure what you consider to be a "long" recovery time.



The only early experience a female parent can have with the child that a male parent cannot is breastfeeding. There is no biological reason that a man should not have just as much bonding time with his child as a woman.

Pregnancy, the birth process, and breastfeeding are intensely bonding experiences that a male cannot have.
It is entirely rational to expect that the female will have bonded earlier and to a greater extent because of these obvious differences in biology.
That doesn't even touch on whether there are differences in the psycholgical profile of male or female parents.

that was certainly the impression i got from the OP. that it was a terrible thing that ivy league educated women would end up as stay at home moms.

its such a shortsighted point of view. few of those women are going to stay at home forever and never get any employment use out of their degrees. most (really probably all) of them are going to stay home until their kids reach a certain age then go back into the workforce.

there are just somethings you cant decide until the time comes and staying home with your kids is one of them. some women who thought they would be career women all through their kids formative years have decided that they neeeded to be at home. some women who thought they would be a stay at home mom have found that they just cant stand the day to day drudgery of it.

we'll know we have hit some milestone when mothers and fathers fight over who GETS to stay home with the kids. until then its not a failure of anything for a woman to decide that the best choice for her is to stay at home with her children.

while the OP was a bit off, the rest of the posters seemed to understand that its a more complicated situation than can be solved by setting up more day care centers so that no woman need leave the workforce to raise her children.
The author of the book is angry, that's pretty clear. But that is not to say that she doesn't make some good points. If it is always a choice for a mother to stay at home with little outside influence guiding her to that choice, there really is no problem. But there is outside influences and they are very strong.

As a man, this is what I see as what I need to do in my own relationship: Talk about it intelligently with my girlfriend. She is the one going to college and will soon be going to graduate school. This means I'm going to have to take more responsibility at home. Even with a job, the pressure on me is going to be much less than what is on her. In the future, if I open my own business, the roles may reverse depending on whatever factors end up occurring. The trend though, is not to have a discussion. To simply slip into the cookie cutter roles and follow the path of least resistance. This is what the numbers are showing are happening.

I also don't agree that you can go get an education, take time off for a good 15 to 20 years and then slip right into what you were educated for. Not to say that it doesn't happen but the odds will not be on your side.

I think that many people are taking this personally. As if it were an attack on maternal instinct or a call for a complete reversal of roles which would place us just where we started only with the opposite gender coming out on top. I don't see it this way at all. I just see that the social norms have to change to accomodate and accept different types of life choices. So that the mother who does go out to work and leaves the child at home with the father, is not considered to be "a bad mother".

If that were true, then no young girls would be pushed away from "men's jobs" and no young boys would be pushed away from "women's jobs".

Society will never ever be that homogenous. Flat Earth Society anyone?


Hell, if societal pressures towards gender roles were removed, the issues our countries have with sexuality wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not clear what sexuality problem you are referring to.


Are you suggesting that no men are nurturers and no women would be better off as primary breadwinners?


Absolutely not, that would be a ludicrous to suggest such a black and white world.



If you are not suggesting this, then your comment is illogical. There should be no societal pressure to meet a stereotype - to be the average [insert trait here]. Societal pressures come from assumptions about a person based on a group they belong to - assumptions that may or may not apply.


No, it's not illogical.
Women face societal pressure to bear children all the time.
It's not society's fault that the pressure is drastically skewed to women, it's the biological difference.



Not only the freedom to do so, but the freedom from being pressured not to do so.

That's a nice dream, but we are all faced with a myriad of pressures, many conflicting pressures even.
The pressure has dramtically changed over time already, although you seem to have different personal experiences with it than many of the posters in this thread.

The author is clearly making a definitive value statement.

If it were all that clear, I wouldn't have read it differently. Keep in mind that these were excerpts from a book. There's no telling what other context surrounded them.

You still focus on the results, on how drastically it is skewed. Since we have no idea how skewed it "should" be by anyone's definitions, there's no evidence that this so-called drastic skewing is even an actual problem.

We know that people are pushed into roles that they are not personally fit to meet, based on societal pressures. You fail to see that the skewing is not the problem - the societal pressure is the problem.

Additionally, there's an automatic assumption that the skewing is in the favour of males and that leads to a conclusion that the traditional role of child rearing is less valued than the traditional role of bread winning.

There is? I, for one, think it is awfully insulting to men to suggest that they cannot be homemakers - that they cannot be nurturers, or even that they should not.

There is no cry going out to get a man in the "less flourishing environment" at home, unless of course it is to allow the woman to take a government job and fully flourish as a human.

The entire discussion has been about having both men and women to have equal choices in the matter - that a man who wishes to be a homemaker not be pressured out of it and a woman who wishes to be a homemaker not be pressured out of it - that a man who wishes to pursue a career not be pressured out of it and a woman who wishes to pursue a career not be pressured out of it.

If you have read any of this thread, you would know that the entire discussion has been about making both roles available to *anyone*.

I completely reject that line of thought.
You are equating parenting with nurturing. There are other parental roles beyond nurturer.
Better nurturer doesn't automatically mean better parent.

Parenting is a form of nurturing. If you are not nurturing your children, you are not parenting them.

Your anecdotal evidence aside, that does not reflect the common reality.

You really think women in the past were on their backs for weeks after a pregnancy? The reality is that most women, if necessary, could be back to work the day after they give birth.

If it did, we ought to do away with maternity leave entirely and allow those that need more time to use their sick leave if they have it.

The idea of maternity leave is not "recovery time" for the mother. It is bonding time for the mother and child. This is exactly the reason that paternity leave should be allowed equally.

That doesn't change the reality that it is relational luxury for the male to take it and a virtual physical necessity for the female due to common issues as simple exhaustion, episiotomy, post partum depression, etc. let alone any actual complications.

A woman is exhausted from birth for 6 weeks?

You say you are not rejecting them, but you refuse to take them into account when discussing the issue.

I have not refused to take any biological differences into account. Name one that I have refused?

Pregnancy, the birth process, and breastfeeding are intensely bonding experiences that a male cannot have.

You said bonding with a child - something that can only occur after birth. Pregnancy can certainly help a woman form an emotional bond with her child, but there is no reason that a man anticipating that child will not form just as emotional a response. And men often are a part of the birth process. Men, unlike women, are likely to get to see the child actually being born, and are often the first parent to actually hold the child. Fathers are often given the option of cutting the umbilical cord. A woman gives birth, but you can hardly say that a man could not be part of the process.

Society will never ever be that homogenous. Flat Earth Society anyone?

I'm not talking about a "homogenous" society. In fact, I am talking about just the opposite. I am talking about a society where human beings can actually be *gasp* individuals instead of stereotypical members of a given group.

I'm not clear what sexuality problem you are referring to.

The fact that so many people have a problem with homosexuality is a clear result of societal pressures towards certain gender roles. Men MUST be attracted to women and be "manly". Women MUST be attracted to men and shouldn't be "masculine". Never mind that actual individuals don't necessarily fit into the neat little "average" molds.

Absolutely not, that would be a ludicrous to suggest such a black and white world.

Then biological differences cannot cause the societal pressures. Only stereotyping based on averages can do so. And there is no reason that any human being should be forced to fit the "average" mold of their ethnicity/gender/age/sex/nationality/etc.

No, it's not illogical.
Women face societal pressure to bear children all the time.
It's not society's fault that the pressure is drastically skewed to women, it's the biological difference.

Way to go. You found one of the very few things that women actually can do and men cannot do because of a basic biological difference. We aren't talking about those things which are actually drawn from clear biological differences. We are talking about things like,

"Men are most often stronger than women, so construction is 'men's work' and women, no matter how strong or interested they are in it, need not apply. If she wants to do it, she must be a 'dyke'"

"Women are most often more nurturing than men, so daycare is 'women's work' and men, no matter how nurturing they may be and how much they may love working with children, need not apply. Any man who wishes to do so must either be gay, a child molester, or both" And so on....

That's a nice dream, but we are all faced with a myriad of pressures, many conflicting pressures even.

And many of them are entirely unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason that a little girl who wants to be a doctor should be pushed towards nursing instead. There is absolutely no reason that a man who wants to be a kindergarten teacher should be viewed as a child molester. There is absolutely no reason that a woman who is less nurturing than her husband should feel that, if one of them is to stay home, it *has* to be her. And so on....

The pressure has dramtically changed over time already, although you seem to have different personal experiences with it than many of the posters in this thread.

Maybe that's what living in the Southern USA will do to you.

If it were all that clear, I wouldn't have read it differently. Keep in mind that these were excerpts from a book. There's no telling what other context surrounded them.


If there's additional context in the book, it can't be judged because it wasn't presented.
The quoted portion was clear. It's possible for anyone to read a clear statement differently because we all read with certain expectations.


We know that people are pushed into roles that they are not personally fit to meet, based on societal pressures. You fail to see that the skewing is not the problem - the societal pressure is the problem.


But you are assuming the pressure exists because of the skewing. Or, at least the author quoted in the OP is making that assumption.


If you have read any of this thread, you would know that the entire discussion has been about making both roles available to *anyone*.


Both roles ARE available to anyone. I don't believe that is in dispute.
The OP seemed to be concerned with the fact that we aren't achieving equal numbers and your concern seems to be that there is excessive societal pressure to stick with traditional gender roles.


Parenting is a form of nurturing. If you are not nurturing your children, you are not parenting them.


Nurturing is one aspect of parenting. Parenting should always include nurturing, but there are other aspects including correction, motivation and instruction.


You really think women in the past were on their backs for weeks after a pregnancy? The reality is that most women, if necessary, could be back to work the day after they give birth.


Can you support that assertion? Also, I never said anything about being on their backs.


The idea of maternity leave is not "recovery time" for the mother. It is bonding time for the mother and child. This is exactly the reason that paternity leave should be allowed equally.


Since I know that my grandmother's generation never heard of bonding and my mother's generation never considered it during their childbearing years only to wring their hands over lost bonding as their children grew, I find that a difficult assertion to accept unless you can support it.

For now, I'll stick with maternity leave was there to allow women to physically and emotionally recover from child birth and to give them time to care for and nurse infants until care could be passed to someone else.


A woman is exhausted from birth for 6 weeks?


I don't recall mentioning 6 weeks. What are you referring to?



I have not refused to take any biological differences into account. Name one that I have refused?


Sure. Pregancy.


You said bonding with a child - something that can only occur after birth. Pregnancy can certainly help a woman form an emotional bond with her child, but there is no reason that a man anticipating that child will not form just as emotional a response. And men often are a part of the birth process. Men, unlike women, are likely to get to see the child actually being born, and are often the first parent to actually hold the child. Fathers are often given the option of cutting the umbilical cord. A woman gives birth, but you can hardly say that a man could not be part of the process.


Bonding can and does occur during pregnancy.
A man won't form just as emotional response for the very simple reason that he is NOT pregnant.
A man is not part of the birth process, he can witness it, he can coach her and offer moral support. It very much like the difference between PLAYING a sport and being a FAN of a sport.

Again, this is a good example of trying to deny the obvious biological difference and the impact it can have in order to equate two unequal situations.


I'm not talking about a "homogenous" society. In fact, I am talking about just the opposite. I am talking about a society where human beings can actually be *gasp* individuals instead of stereotypical members of a given group.


The homogeny I'm referring to is a homogeny of attitude required to eliminate societal pressures. Individuals will *double gasp* have different attitudes regarding gender roles.


The fact that so many people have a problem with homosexuality is a clear result of societal pressures towards certain gender roles. Men MUST be attracted to women and be "manly". Women MUST be attracted to men and shouldn't be "masculine". Never mind that actual individuals don't necessarily fit into the neat little "average" molds.


Oh. Well, I'm not intertested in expanding this discussion to homosexuality issues. Perhaps someone else will care to further that.


Then biological differences cannot cause the societal pressures. Only stereotyping based on averages can do so. And there is no reason that any human being should be forced to fit the "average" mold of their ethnicity/gender/age/sex/nationality/etc.


OK, let's clear this part up.
If, because of biological differences, females find themselves already in a nurturing role, for example, the first time an infant latches onto the breast minutes after being born on her at minimum one day off from her job and if because of biological differences, 80% of females are superior to men in a nurturing role or if 80% of females PREFER a nurturing role regardless of relative skill because of biological programming, then it seems reasonable to presume that societal pressures are not arising because females are oppressed and denied opportunites to fliurish as humans in government jobs.

If in fact, there are no biological factors, and women are coerced into nurturing roles for... fill in the blank reason... then there is an injustice to fight.

But, feminism has already granted those 20% (my made up numbers used strictly to illustrate a point) the OPPORTUNITY to pursue their own path. That's wonderful.
If feminism is now going to insist that 50% of females and 50% of males must be making the same decisions in order for equalitry to be real, then I say horse feathers.


Way to go. You found one of the very few things that women actually can do and men cannot do because of a basic biological difference. We aren't talking about those things which are actually drawn from clear biological differences.

But we are. We're talking, at least in part, about having and raising children. It involves a basic biological difference.


We are talking about things like,

"Men are most often stronger than women, so construction is 'men's work' and women, no matter how strong or interested they are in it, need not apply. If she wants to do it, she must be a 'dyke'"

"Women are most often more nurturing than men, so daycare is 'women's work' and men, no matter how nurturing they may be and how much they may love working with children, need not apply. Any man who wishes to do so must either be gay, a child molester, or both" And so on....


But we aren't talking about things like that, at least not until you bring them up now. The OP was not about WHICH careers women go into, but whether they go into/stay with careers at all.

Also, those attitudes are antiquated and laughable in the life and times I live, I don't know anyone that gives them any credible support anymoreso than white supremists are credible.

You seem to want a fight that has already been won in my lifetime.



Maybe that's what living in the Southern USA will do to you.

Perhaps you have a regional battle to still win then. Best of luck, your experiences seem so out of touch with mine

If there's additional context in the book, it can't be judged because it wasn't presented.

Other portions of the book were presented. It seems fairly obvious that the author's problem is not with staying at home to take care of the children - but with the fact that pretty much only women do it.

The quoted portion was clear.

Yes, it was. But the conclusions you drew from it obviously did not come directly from the statement - suggesting that the meaning of it is not as clear as you would suggest. You admit as much here:

It's possible for anyone to read a clear statement differently because we all read with certain expectations.

But you are assuming the pressure exists because of the skewing. Or, at least the author quoted in the OP is making that assumption.

No. I think you are a little confused. The idea is that the pressure helps cause the skewing, not that it exists because of it.

Both roles ARE available to anyone.

Not when men and women are socialized to believe that the only person who should take one of them is the woman. If men are socialized such that they don't even consider it - and women consider it but never expect me to do so, then both roles aren't really open to everyone.

You are basically taking a society in which men and women are told that their gender roles must necessarily fit a certain mold, and then saying, "Oh, but you *can* be those other things....really....I mean it.....*wink, wink, nudge, nudge*."

The OP seemed to be concerned with the fact that we aren't achieving equal numbers and your concern seems to be that there is excessive societal pressure to stick with traditional gender roles.

I don't think anyone is worried about "equal numbers".

Nurturing is one aspect of parenting. Parenting should always include nurturing, but there are other aspects including correction, motivation and instruction.

All of those things fall under nurturing. One cannot nurture a child without correcting, motivating, and instructing that child.

Can you support that assertion?

Look at human history. Look at biology in general. Pregnancy and birth are not meant to be debilitating. If they were, our species would not have survived long.

Since I know that my grandmother's generation never heard of bonding and my mother's generation never considered it during their childbearing years only to wring their hands over lost bonding as their children grew, I find that a difficult assertion to accept unless you can support it.

Your grandmother's generation probably never heard of maternity leave either - it is a relatively new idea, just now becoming truly common.

And when you look at the laws requiring companies to grant maternity leave, do you know what the reasoning behind them is? It is that women need time to bond with their children - to be with their children in those early days.

For now, I'll stick with maternity leave was there to allow women to physically and emotionally recover from child birth and to give them time to care for and nurse infants until care could be passed to someone else.

You are aware that caring for and nursing their own infants (a job that can be done by someone else from the moment that infant is born) is *gasp* bonding with them, right?

I don't recall mentioning 6 weeks. What are you referring to?

6 weeks is the most common (and often legally mandated) length of time allotted for maternity leave. If the purpose of maternity leave was recovery after pregnancy, those who designed it must have been expecting some pretty harrowing pregnancies.

Sure. Pregancy.

I haven't ignored pregnancy at all. You, on the other hand, have ignored the emotional ties that a father can form to the unborn.

Bonding can and does occur during pregnancy.

Not with a child, however. A child only exists after birth - so bonding with a child cannot occur until then.

A mother can form a very strong emotional attachment to a fetus during pregnancy - and most do. Of course, most fathers who are anticipating the birth of children also form a very strong emotional attachment to the fetus.

As for what the fetus gains, it hears the voices of both parents - often the father's voice more clearly due to its deeper tone and the fact that the father will often speak directly towards the womb. Often, a neonate will respond to the voices of both the mother and the father, while showing little to no recognition for other voices.

A man won't form just as emotional response for the very simple reason that he is NOT pregnant.

You think a man has to be physically attached to a fetus to have an emotional response to it?

I have seen men kiss their wives goodbye/goodnight and then give an extra kiss to the fetus (the belly). I have seen men mourn a miscarriage or abortion as if they had lost a born child. Don't tell me that men don't form strong emotional attachments to the unborn.

A man is not part of the birth process, he can witness it, he can coach her and offer moral support.

The coaching and moral support are a pretty big part of it. And he ususally gets to cut the umbilical cord and is often the first to hold the child, as I pointed out before.

It very much like the difference between PLAYING a sport and being a FAN of a sport.

Is the doctor a part of the birth process?

Again, this is a good example of trying to deny the obvious biological difference and the impact it can have in order to equate two unequal situations.

I'm not denying any obvious biological differences. I'm just not assigning effects to them that are not dependent upon them.

The homogeny I'm referring to is a homogeny of attitude required to eliminate societal pressures.

Once again, the word homogeny makes no sense in this context. It *is* a homogeny of attitude that CAUSES societal pressures. If everyone were allowed to have their own attitudes - and a multitude of attitudes were present, social pressure could not develop.

Individuals will *double gasp* have different attitudes regarding gender roles.

Indeed. And this would mean a lack of societal pressures, because individuals would each have their own attitudes.

OK, let's clear this part up.
If, because of biological differences, females find themselves already in a nurturing role, for example, the first time an infant latches onto the breast minutes after being born on her at minimum one day off from her job and if because of biological differences, 80% of females are superior to men in a nurturing role or if 80% of females PREFER a nurturing role regardless of relative skill because of biological programming, then it seems reasonable to presume that societal pressures are not arising because females are oppressed and denied opportunites to fliurish as humans in government jobs.

Once again, you have things bass-ackwards. No one is saying that social pressures are arising because females are "oppressed" or "denied opportunities". The problem is that both men AND women are denied the right to be individuals because of social pressures.

This isn't hard to understand.

But, feminism has already granted those 20% (my made up numbers used strictly to illustrate a point) the OPPORTUNITY to pursue their own path. That's wonderful.

Yeah, if they want to be seen as uncaring mothers and have mates that are seen as "pussywhipped."

But we are. We're talking, at least in part, about having and raising children. It involves a basic biological difference.

Having children involves a basica biological difference - women bear them, men do not. The only biological difference inherent in raising them is that only one can breastfeed. Of course, the other can still feed the child, even breastmilk, he simply cannot actually breastfeed.

But we aren't talking about things like that, at least not until you bring them up now.

These things are all related. The gender roles that society tries to enforce are all connected. It is rather difficult to talk about one without mentioning them all.

Also, those attitudes are antiquated and laughable in the life and times I live, I don't know anyone that gives them any credible support anymoreso than white supremists are credible.

I do. I see it all the time. Numerous people in this thread have mentioned it. Little boys smacked for wearing pink leis, little girls told that they cannot play the sport they wish to play because it is for boys, young men assuming that their wives will stay home to take care of the children without ever even considering that role for themselves, girls told to become nurses to marry doctors, etc., etc., etc.

Feminism has not failed. You cannot look back at the difference between now and the 1900s with womens rights and say that it has. Feminism has suceeded to such a degree, most people don't see that there is still a fight to be had. Part of this is because all that's left is a thin veil of discrimination (The glass cieling) and these cultural phantoms. people of each gender are trained from childhood in specific ways, and while girls are now raised with the idea that they can either raise a family or not, define sucess how they want to, for the most part, men are not. Men are still raised as they always have been, with the idea that their only value is in their work. Men who would stay home and raise children, and not pursue ambition in the business world, are seen as either meek or lazy.
On top of this, much of society still expects women to be the child rearers. So the average woman sees this social expectiation on one side, and on the other sees that any men in her life will likely be ill situated to take up the slack. And lets not even bring in the idea of "maternal instinct" into this.
So the problem is no longer just with the way society treats women. It is now also with the way society treats men.

I passed through the entire UK state school and higher education system without hearing that statement once. I can of course, only offer my personal observations.
There are many places where gender does influence what jobs the community will permit you to take.

Try growing up in northern Canada, as Sinuhue and I have. When you live in mining or oil patch communities (or logging or farming or other primary resource sectors), you'll find very quickly that women are not very welcome in the traditionally masculine jobs. While I, a female, could quickly get a job driving a pilot truck, or holding a road construction sign, it is virtually impossible for a man to get the same job. Men interested in such positions are considered lazy and without ambition, while women are sought after for the jobs, particularly if they are attractive, because men will pay attention to them. My brother runs a pilot truck company has said point blank that he would never hire a man to drive pilot because no one would hire his trucks after that.

On the other hand, I, as a female, would find it very difficult to get a job as a rough neck, driller, derrick hand, heavy equipment operator, or even a truck driver (although some women have broken into heavy equipment operator and truck driving fields, they have to prove themselves over and over again). Women are considered 'not strong enough' or conversely 'not stupid enough' to take those jobs. Also, living in close confines with rowdy roughnecks is considered undesireable. They convieniently forget that the camp cook is usually a woman, and apparently it's okay for her to live in those same close confines.

Ironically, the few women who do get involved with the oil patch often end up being the boss. No one will hire them, so they have to create their own businesses and hire men to do the field work.

Feminism has not failed. You cannot look back at the difference between now and the 1900s with womens rights and say that it has. Feminism has suceeded to such a degree, most people don't see that there is still a fight to be had. Part of this is because all that's left is a thin veil of discrimination (The glass cieling) and these cultural phantoms. people of each gender are trained from childhood in specific ways, and while girls are now raised with the idea that they can either raise a family or not, define sucess how they want to, for the most part, men are not. Men are still raised as they always have been, with the idea that their only value is in their work. Men who would stay home and raise children, and not pursue ambition in the business world, are seen as either meek or lazy.
On top of this, much of society still expects women to be the child rearers. So the average woman sees this social expectiation on one side, and on the other sees that any men in her life will likely be ill situated to take up the slack. And lets not even bring in the idea of "maternal instinct" into this.
So the problem is no longer just with the way society treats women. It is now also with the way society treats men.
I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Feminism has not failed.

No, but the complaints you bring up show that its work is not yet done.

people of each gender are trained from childhood in specific ways, and while girls are now raised with the idea that they can either raise a family or not, define sucess how they want to, for the most part, men are not. Men are still raised as they always have been, with the idea that their only value is in their work. Men who would stay home and raise children, and not pursue ambition in the business world, are seen as either meek or lazy.
On top of this, much of society still expects women to be the child rearers. So the average woman sees this social expectiation on one side, and on the other sees that any men in her life will likely be ill situated to take up the slack. And lets not even bring in the idea of "maternal instinct" into this.
So the problem is no longer just with the way society treats women. It is now also with the way society treats men.

The problem was always with both. The more obvious problems were with the way society treated women. These days, with most of the more obvious problems out of the way, in order to work towards equity, we have to look at the gender roles that both men and women are pushed into - and fight that pushing.

No, but the complaints you bring up show that its work is not yet done.



The problem was always with both. The more obvious problems were with the way society treated women. These days, with most of the more obvious problems out of the way, in order to work towards equity, we have to look at the gender roles that both men and women are pushed into - and fight that pushing.
We need better names for these things. I see the same problems happening when Global Warming topics come up. Climate Change is a much better name for that.

It's certainly true that in many fields, women are equaling men, or overtaking them at the educational level, but you'll find that women still fall behind in the career sense, and often because they 'take time out' to have children. All the 'extra' education in the world doesn't offset that.


There is also the 'primary' career circumstances. The household often makes decisions based on the primary career during the early years - most often when there is young children in the house and the mans work position is favored. (as I discussed earlier) As the man's career becomes the primary income and the womans becomes secondary then household decisions tend to support the primary income. For example - if the man gets a promoition which requires a move the household is more likely to move in support of the primary income. The woman thereby has to give up her secondary income job and loses any seniority she had and take a new job in the new location and work her way up again. It makes sense, however, for the household because of the improved income based on the raise from the primary earner.

I agree. Now if we could convince men to stop working themselves to death, alienating themselves from their family, and realise that being a father is worth so much more than the money you bring in working those extra hours...then maybe we can find some balance.


Here's a slippery question for you - what do you feel a father bring to a family relationship which a mother does not already provide?

It's certainly true that in many fields, women are equaling men, or overtaking them at the educational level, but you'll find that women still fall behind in the career sense, and often because they 'take time out' to have children. All the 'extra' education in the world doesn't offset that.

Indeed. But also in most families, a woman does more sacrificing of her career, and a man does more sacrificing of his family.

You're saying that a career is more important than children? More enjoyable?

And the UK is an accurate picture of the entire world?

I never experienced anything like that in Australia either.

Sociology has a lot to say on the topic of feminism, but "too much success" "message of hate" or whatever other popular culture reasons one can find certainly isn't amongst it.

Feminism has gotten to the point in the western sphere that it is working on deconstructing social norms (and is steaming along steadily in this goal). These affect both men and women negatively in some areas and positively in others. For some reason however, feminism chooses to ignore straight white men maintaining that the coal miner who works 10 hours a day due to his shitty wages is somehow a privelidged patriarchy pass holder, and that the female corporate CEO is opressed because a women in a bikini is featured in an advertisement.

I sometimes wonder whether feminism will stop after an equality balance is hit, or whether the power of this pressure group will be too much to stop once it's goals have been achieved.

To answer your question, feminism has not failed. It has removed legal and formal barriers (apart from into the military - though it has made up for this with reverse-discrimination in other areas) and is now working on deconstructing social ones. While I respect the work by done feminism, it isn't really an egalitarian organisation.

Here's a slippery question for you - what do you feel a father bring to a family relationship which a mother does not already provide?

That's an interesting question. If feminism removes all concepts of gender so we're just left with the concept of a biological sex (male and female), wouldn't one parent be sufficient emotionally aswell as as a role model?

You're saying that a career is more important than children? More enjoyable?



I never experienced anything like that in Australia either.



Feminism has gotten to the point in the western sphere that it is working on deconstructing social norms (and is steaming along steadily in this goal). These affect both men and women negatively in some areas and positively in others. For some reason however, feminism chooses to ignore straight white men maintaining that the coal miner who works 10 hours a day due to his shitty wages is somehow a privelidged patriarchy pass holder, and that the female corporate CEO is opressed because a women in a bikini is featured in an advertisement.

I sometimes wonder whether feminism will stop after an equality balance is hit, or whether the power of this pressure group will be too much to stop once it's goals have been achieved.

To answer your question, feminism has not failed. It has removed legal and formal barriers (apart from into the military - though it has made up for this with reverse-discrimination in other areas) and is now working on deconstructing social ones. While I respect the work by done feminism, it isn't really an egalitarian organisation.
True feminism is an egalitarian organization. You're thinking of something else.

That's an interesting question. If feminism removes all concepts of gender so we're just left with the concept of a biological sex (male and female), wouldn't one parent be sufficient emotionally aswell as as a role model?
Some single parents do manage this balancing act.

True feminism is an egalitarian organization. You're thinking of something else.

No, true feminism is seeking to get women the same rights as men.

No, true feminism is seeking to get women the same rights as men.
Material egalitarianism stresses equality with respect to material possessions.
Moral egalitarianism stresses equality in moral worth.
Legal egalitarianism stresses equality under the law.
Luck egalitarianism holds that inequalities in well being should only result from the free choices of individuals and not from their unchosen circumstances.
Political egalitarianism stresses equality in political power.
Gender egalitarianism refers to equality of the genders.
Racial egalitarianism stresses the biological equality of the races.
Opportunity egalitarianism stresses equality in economic and social opportunity.

Yeah. I know.

Feminism is about quality of life and values for women. The idea that it is a choice to be a caregiver when everything around you is guiding you towards that, isn't much of a choice at all.

Good post. It's not at all what I was expecting by the title of this thread. I think you have made a clear case that it is not feminism that has failed, but society.

My dad didn't want my mom to work, and truth be known, she didn't want to work either, even though she cited my father as the reason. Anyway, I grew up in a 1950's style "traditional" family. (Well except for the fact that they drank like fish and fought like mongeese, but that's another thread.)

Having come of age in the 70's, we were the first generation of women who were more or less expected to get an education and go to work. So that's what I did. But no one was telling us to be engineers at that time. We were steered toward support careers such as nursing, accounting, and business administration (oh, NOW I get it....this is the new name for SECRETARIAL SCHOOL).

My daughter's generation is being steered toward the sciences and engineering degrees. In fact, during her career life, the number of women in these fields may well pass that of men. Here is why: so much time and money has been spent on the advancement of women that we have forgotten about our sons. We have just assumed that they would go about it easily just like their fathers did, never giving a thought to how uneven the playing field was becoming. Their generation may well be a generation of stay-at-home dads. The pendulum has to swing, of course. Awareness is key.

It can. Mention it to the average girl. Watch her roll her eyes.

That's not to say she doesn't benefit from some of the freedoms it has won. But that fact is pushed away. And you must admit, an "uncool" movement can't be expected to generate much support for a follow-up. Much of it is in the hands of the EU labour rights lawyers now.

LOL. Well part of this, of course, is because the 20-somethings weren't around when we HAD to wear pantyhose to work and be obediant toward men (any man) in the work place. What they see of feminism is what is the most visable about where the movement is now, in its old age, a movement of old lesbians and hippy chicks (lets just admit right now that the housewives never were a part of it). Just because the rest of us aren't still out on the corner burning our bras (which we realized we needed if we wanted to stay perky) doesn't mean that we aren't each fighting our own personal battles of equal pay for equal skill or sharing the workplace but not getting any help in the nursery. Boundaries are still quietly being pushed, issues at home and at work are still being raised albeit on a more personal individual level and many 20-somethings simply take these things for granted because its all they have ever known.

We say to them, "In my day we had to stop what we were doing to fill a male co-worker's coffee cup or face a complaint that we were not doing our (suposedly equal) job." They say to us, "Yeah, whatever mom. You're dumb."

LOL

I'm anticipating babysitting and preschool during the day until they're old enough to go to school. I'm really thinking of going into teaching, so I shouldn't have to work excessively long hours and if things were to work out like that with my curent bf, he says that he would really want to take paternity leave and do a lot of looking after any potential children, so that's always good. :)

Yeah, I know what guys call paternity leave....18 holes a day and 3 hours on the 19th. LOL

You really need to spend some time on a teacher's board. It's not a well paying career. On the other hand, childcare costs are on the rise and affordable insurance for licensees sky-rockets. (My insurance man succeeded in convincing me that starting a babysitting agency, which is sorely needed in our community, is almost impossible because of the liability issues.) The break even point, after taxes, is probably child care for two kids before the expense exceeds the take home. I found this to be the case 11 years ago and I am sure its worse now.

If I had it to do all over again, I would have stayed home with both of them and been a better mother rather than a stressed out working mom. The few women I know that have done this find other ways to have social lives. Mom's clubs, civic clubs, girls night out, etc. Its really expensive to have kids. Regardless of whether you work and pay child care or stay home and live on a single income, its a lifestyle change. And credit cards merely exacerbate the problems. If you have kids and one income is not above $50,000 a year, prepare to be broke. Real broke. Way fucking broke. Driving an old beater, broke down on the highway broke.

It might be just me but it seems like we're talking more about the feminist movement in general rather than what was actually in the first post. I must have made a bad choice in titles.

you did kinda lol

Feminism failed because it is an ideology of hate - no different from white supremacism, homophobia etc. In a world where equality is rightly seen as important, there is no place for beliefs which advocate giving one group of people advantages over another solely based on biological characteristics.

What??? Huh???

y'all are so young

feminism has "failed" because it has so completely succeeded.

the goals of the feminists of the 60's and 70's have all been met. they are so completely ingrained in our consciousness that they are second nature and thus feminism MUST mean something else besides "equal pay for equal work, the right to get a divorce, the right to a higher education, the right to be the boss instead of the secretary, the right to become a doctor instead of a nurse, the right to be the superintendant instead of the kindergarten teacher"
(not that there is anything wrong with being a secretary, nurse, or teacher except when your ambition is for the higher paid/higher power job)

the right of a woman to become.... an electrical engineer for example...is so obvious that we think that feminism MUST mean trying to put women above men.

it is not a rejection of feminism for a woman to decide to stay home with her young children. its part of her right to make the life choice that is best for her and her family. its not feminist to force all women into the workforce and all children into day care. feminsim is freedom of choice, its going to higher education OR NOT, going to work OR NOT, working hard to reach the top OR NOT. its not pushing all women into the same mold. that is what was done in the 50s when all women were expected to be married, have children and stay home to take care of the home, husband and children.

You said it so well, I quoted the whole thing. Right on sista! =D

:confused: Except now, women are getting higher degrees of education, make up more than half of all college graduates and less of that output is seen in the workforce due to the "choice" of being a housewife.

Except for the number of education dollars exceeding the number of career income dollars, I see nothing wrong with this. There is no such thing as too much education. In fact, except for limited funds, I see no reason to stop taking classes...ever.

Realistically, I know that once you are out of work for a period of time (or self-employed, which means the same thing to the worker drone Human Resource people), you have to start all over again at the bottom, regardless of how many degrees you have.

I was a self-employed retailer for 11 years. When I went back out to find a job, after a natural disaster closed the store for me, I found the jobs open to me limited to those few employers willing to take a chance on renegade. It also meant very low wages, unfortunately. I don't think any of this was about me being an older female. I think it was more about what they viewed as over 10 years of not having to answer to anyone. Like a horse out to pasture for 10 years, would I then accept the saddle?

So anyway, if a gal does decide to take time off to raise kids....beware. Without continued employment, your degrees are worthless.

Perhaps theres still the biological barrier. Women give birth, they have the natural instincts to look after children (breat milk) and not to be ignorantly steriotypical but they just make better parents.

Plus think of the reaction most women would have if a Man wanted to stay at home and the women should work, it works for many but its something I would bet would be more offencive than asking them to have the active role in raising the kids.

You obviously haven't met my sister. My nephews would have been better off being raised by hyenas....

However, we're forgetting biology and thousands and thousands of years of ingrained culture. Women have always been the most likely to take care of children, so why is it suddenly 'wrong' that 'not enough' women are seeking career paths instead?

I think this would be easier for you to understand if you were a 50 year old woman, but let me try to draw you a picture.

In the 40's & 50's, women felt themselves in the shadow. We experienced ourselves as part of men's support structure. We didn't experience that as being a reciprocal relationship. We got up, made him his breakfast, ironed his shirt, made his lunch, sent him off to work, spent all day keeping the house and children clean, had dinner ready when he got home, did the dishes while he watched TV, bathed and put the kids to bed, while he continued to watch TV and collapsed exhausted at the end of the day. Rinse & Repeat.

We only saw women on TV in this role. We never saw female politicians, news anchors, doctors, lawyers or experts in any field. We lead a shadow life.

It was this feeling of being nothing more than a maid or a slave to a man who we thought was living the high life because he seemed important, he had a job, he had opinions, he could admire other men in sports, on TV, and in politics.

It was this longing to be recognized as important (and believe me, being a housewife may have been expected, but glorified it wasn't), to have a say in this world (Women were to be seen and not heard), to have female heros in politics and sciences. To see women who were authorities, to dream of being one of those women with authority, this was the life blood of the early days of feminism. "Just please let us find ourselves. Just let us have what you have."

Ok, so a couple generations have passed and we realized that the rat race wasn't all we imagined it was. We fought to improve the rat race for ourselves. What else could we do? We were already in it deep by the 80's. We fought sexual harrassment, and dress codes, and even the right to join combat. On and on we trudged, alongside the guys, where we met our husbands and friends for life, toe to toe or as close to it as we could.

And then we raised a generation of daughters that much to our surprize said, "Fuck that. That's just nuts. I hated the fact that I grew up in daycare and after-school programs. I hate the fact that my mother never cooked and we had fast food five nights a week. I hate the fact that bathroom never gets cleaned and my brothers sit on their asses and do nothing. I hate the fact that both of my parents are too exhausted to do anything fun. Someone has got to fix this shit. I am going to make sure my kids never have to grow up in this crazy work-a-holic family lifestyle. I am either 1) Not going to have kids. I am going to be an engineer and hire myself a pool boy. or 2) Stay home and raise a family with lots and lots of attention and care.

And there you have it. Young women have split into two groups. The workies and the mommies. What was set out to be gained has been gained. But this time we have women represented in politics, in sports, as experts in every field imaginable, and maybe now is time to relax back into the role of the Great Mother, not a shadow role, but an important one (because it is no longer taken for granted). Maybe now. Finally. We can relax and nurse our babies while other women are out there fighting the rat race.

:confused:

Except for the number of education dollars exceeding the number of career income dollars, I see nothing wrong with this. There is no such thing as too much education. In fact, except for limited funds, I see no reason to stop taking classes...ever.

Realistically, I know that once you are out of work for a period of time (or self-employed, which means the same thing to the worker drone Human Resource people), you have to start all over again at the bottom, regardless of how many degrees you have.

I was a self-employed retailer for 11 years. When I went back out to find a job, after a natural disaster closed the store for me, I found the jobs open to me limited to those few employers willing to take a chance on renegade. It also meant very low wages, unfortunately. I don't think any of this was about me being an older female. I think it was more about what they viewed as over 10 years of not having to answer to anyone. Like a horse out to pasture for 10 years, would I then accept the saddle?

So anyway, if a gal does decide to take time off to raise kids....beware. Without continued employment, your degrees are worthless.
Your last sentence is basically what I mean. The people being taught the most are having the least presence in the workforce, especially when it comes to the higher paying jobs and the higher jobs in government. The author says at one point in the book, can you imagine the Supreme Court making a decision on abortion without one female justice?

You show me the men who are willing to stay home and do the childrearing, and then we'll talk about choice.

LOL. OK, maybe not many, but some do it quite well. I have known quite a few. I know one guy that married a gal with 4 kids and took over as the house husband. We all know he is the exception.

My husband and I shared duties for the 11 years that we owned a retail store. In some ways he was better at it than me, in other ways not. The kids loved it when he went full time house-husband. He was the big kid, they were the little kids. They had a blast. However, I still had to come home after working a 10 hour day and clean because their comfort level of filth was higher than mine.

All in all, I would say it worked out as well as to be expected, and no resentment remains over either of our dillusions of how it would be and compared to how it actually was. It was a learning experience, for sure. Now our youngest is 11 and the kids help with the house, so its all good. Having done both, I think the housekeeping parent has the better end of the stick. Truly. Not shittin ya.

There's one major assumption in the original article that I have an issue with - who says being a stay-at-home mom "allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing"?

I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing with that, I'm asking where's the evidence? How are we defining human flourishing here, and what exactly is the work space doing to be provide this that domestic life isn't? The author of that article seems to be treating it like something that's self-evident.

I'm a girl who's choosing not to be a stay at home mom, because I know I'd be terrible at it. But I'm pretty sure a lot of people would get more out of domestic life than they would get out of the rat race.

I do agree with the article that deciding who's going to stay home with the kids based purely on gender is a bad idea, sure; but if someone wants to stay home with the kids, it shouldn't be looked on as the lesser option.

The problem is, too many people seem to believe the answer is 'yes'.

Take my profession, electrical engineering. There is no legal or educational barrier for women to enter the profession. There is no culture of intolerance within the profession. Indeed, there are numerous incentives not available to men (yes, really, I saw some really sexist advertising at university). And yet women stubbornly make up only 10% of the graduate intake.

Who knows what the reasons are - most people, females at the forefront, dismiss it as a boring, cold, impersonal career that does not attract them because of what it is. But does society really suffer? Does it matter whether it was a man or a woman who did the wiring in your building? Is there a negative social impact from all the people who draw circuit diagrams, having balls?

I don't think it matters. But every time the subject comes up for discussion, even within the institution and trade associations, it is described as "a problem". It's not. The door is open. That's the only thing that matters. Who cares if no-one walks in?

But no, in politics, in the police, in so many other professions, and it's spreading, people seem to think quotas will fix it. :rolleyes:

We live in a college town and many of our friends are connected to the univeristy. We love that. That's why we are here. Anyway, the number of dollars used to recruit women to the engineering and sciences fields DOES, at this time, outweigh the number of dollars used to recruit students in general. It's because of this lack of interest on the part of women that they are a minority in these fields. Exactly as you describe.

When my daughter was in junior high she went to a weekend Engineering and Sciences camp for girls only that was hosted by the University. They got to stay in the dorms and visit all kinds of studios and labs to get a flavor for college life, particularly these specific fields. When we asked my daughter the following year if she wished to repeat the experience, she declined. Just now I asked her for her impressions of that experience now four years later. She said, "It made me realize that I did NOT want to be an engineer." LOL

So what are you going to do? LOL

I have strongly encouraged her to stay away from arts or social science programs as they result in low paying jobs. She is interested in photography (good freelance potential, but otherwise a hobby), theater (never consider this a career unless you just like starving), and graphic design. Perhaps that is a field that would pay back its education costs. Who knows? Not me.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have learned a trade instead of pursuing two social science degrees and an accounting degree. Not to say the accounting degree hasn't kept food on the table...just not much else. Unless you have your masters in social science, you might as well have a degree in Gin Rummy. I'd say I have blown upwards of $100K on my education over the years. I supreme amount when you compare it to my income level over the last 25 years. I'd been better off saving that money for my kid's educations.

Your last sentence is basically what I mean. The people being taught the most are having the least presence in the workforce, especially when it comes to the higher paying jobs and the higher jobs in government. The author says at one point in the book, can you imagine the Supreme Court making a decision on abortion without one female justice?


Exactly. Abortion never even got out of the sewing circles until women got involved in politics.

I don't see it as a failure either. But the fact that women overwhelmingly are the ones faced with this choice - while men tend to be socialized so that they do not even consider it and women are socialized not to expec them to - is evidence to me that the work of feminism is not done.

Exactly. So why is this option still seen mostly as a "woman's option", while men generally don't even consider it?

This socializing is done by the generation that came before them. With each generation there is change. I think we really need to stop looking back and focus on looking forward. What is the message that we are giving our own children? I think all we have to do is ask them. I told my lazy son that he was never going to find an American wife to put up with his shit. That he might as well realize that he is going to have to import a wife from the third world who will think picking up his dirty underwear is a dream compared to what her fate could have been. LOL

(You don't have to tell me who created that monster...I am fully aware...LOL)

There's one major assumption in the original article that I have an issue with - who says being a stay-at-home mom "allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing"?

I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing with that, I'm asking where's the evidence? How are we defining human flourishing here, and what exactly is the work space doing to be provide this that domestic life isn't? The author of that article seems to be treating it like something that's self-evident.

I'm a girl who's choosing not to be a stay at home mom, because I know I'd be terrible at it. But I'm pretty sure a lot of people would get more out of domestic life than they would get out of the rat race.

I do agree with the article that deciding who's going to stay home with the kids based purely on gender is a bad idea, sure; but if someone wants to stay home with the kids, it shouldn't be looked on as the lesser option.
I have a bit of an issue with that myself in the book. She's not perfect. I get the feeling that she's trying to stir up feelings.

One of the other things this thread makes me think about is how, without realizing it, I defer to my husband on most major decisions. Why? Several reasons. The first being, its habit. My mom did it. I do it. Its habit. But I did kind of grow up believing that the man ruled the roost. Another reason is because my husband understands this to be his right, as the man, to be "THE DECIDER" (to quote George W. Bush...LOL), and god help us if he doesn't get the last word. Another reason is just to have less stuff on my plate. I don't make the decision, I don't accept responciblity if it fucks everything up. Less stress for me.

In retrospect, I don't necessarily believe that "its' a man's world" so much as I find it easier to pick and choose my battles. Many times I have deferred decisions to him that later turned out to be poor ones and have kicked myself for it. But other times I have disagreed with him on matters of importance and they have become overblown points of contention with him stubbornly sticking to his position out of pride. Jesus. That is so seldom worth it. Who wants to watch that big baby throw a fit?

So what I find is that I feign disinterest, he has to think the matter through more carefully (because its not a matter of simply picking the position opposite of mine), he takes full responcibility for that decision, it blows up in his face, then he asks for help, and then I say...."nope, this is YOUR deal". LOL

And that may sound mean, but you have to understand that whenever I have an issue that requires a decision, if I ask his opinion at all, it will be whatever the opposite of mine would be, regardless of circumstance. He just has to be right all the time...even if he's wrong.

I think he has been socialized to take this stance. I don't think anyone would argue that he's an asshole, just like my dad was. He's a control freak, just like my dad was. His tantrums leave everyone scrambling for cover, just like my dad's did. And in some freakishly cave-woman like way, I find that attractive. :fluffle:

men sacrifice their families for their careers. they dont get a ration of shit for it from society but that is the flat out truth.

a man who works 12-16 hours a day in order to make it to the top of his field is a terrible father who loses the time with his kids and a good measure of their affection.

Yep. And then they wonder why no one comes to see them when they are old....

One of the other things this thread makes me think about is how, without realizing it, I defer to my husband on most major decisions. Why? Several reasons. The first being, its habit. My mom did it. I do it. Its habit. But I did kind of grow up believing that the man ruled the roost. Another reason is because my husband understands this to be his right, as the man, to be "THE DECIDER" (to quote George W. Bush...LOL), and god help us if he doesn't get the last word. Another reason is just to have less stuff on my plate. I don't make the decision, I don't accept responciblity if it fucks everything up. Less stress for me.

In retrospect, I don't necessarily believe that "its' a man's world" so much as I find it easier to pick and choose my battles. Many times I have deferred decisions to him that later turned out to be poor ones and have kicked myself for it. But other times I have disagreed with him on matters of importance and they have become overblown points of contention with him stubbornly sticking to his position out of pride. Jesus. That is so seldom worth it. Who wants to watch that big baby throw a fit?

So what I find is that I feign disinterest, he has to think the matter through more carefully (because its not a matter of simply picking the position opposite of mine), he takes full responcibility for that decision, it blows up in his face, then he asks for help, and then I say...."nope, this is YOUR deal". LOL

And that may sound mean, but you have to understand that whenever I have an issue that requires a decision, if I ask his opinion at all, it will be whatever the opposite of mine would be, regardless of circumstance. He just has to be right all the time...even if he's wrong.

I think he has been socialized to take this stance. I don't think anyone would argue that he's an asshole, just like my dad was. He's a control freak, just like my dad was. His tantrums leave everyone scrambling for cover, just like my dad's did. And in some freakishly cave-woman like way, I find that attractive. :fluffle:
You should really check out the book. Let your husband know as well, that there is a citing in the book showing a statistic that the more men help around the house, the more they get laid. :)

In "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World", Linda R. Hirshman talks about how radical feminism became less radical as it started to become an umbrella for a multitude of causes. I read half the book today until I realized that the book was a special order and had to stop reading (I work in a bookstore). As a man who is also slanted towards feminism, I understood a lot about what she was saying. It will be pretty easy for anti-feminists to dismiss some of her arguments but some are not so easy at all to dismiss.

"the 2002 U.S. Census reports that only 46 percent of the women with graduate degrees and children under one work full time, 17 percent part time. Educated women with children up to eighteen are working 59 percent full time and 18 percent part time, increasing in numbers as the children age. On average, then, highly educated women with small children are working full time at about a fifty percent rate.

Perhaps more important, after three decades of increasing their workforce participation, the percentage of highly educated working mothers has stopped going up. The New York Times' part-time home and work columnist, Lisa Belkin, caused a great furor in 2003 when she "sampled" a group of the highly educated stay-at-home mothers she knew and proclaimed there was an "Opt Out Revolution."

"Revolution" is probably overstating it, but something is clearly going on. In 2000, Harvard Business School professor Myra Hart surveyed the women of the classes of 1981, 1986, and 1991 and found that only 38 percent of female Harvard MBAs were working full time. A 2004 survey by the Center for Work-Life Policy of 2,443 women with a graduate degree or very prestigious bachelor's degree revealed that 43 percent of those women with children had taken at least a couple of years out, sometimes more than once, primarily for family reasons.

During the 1990s, I taught a philosophy course in sexual bargaining at a very good college. Each year, after the class reviewed the low financial rewards for child-care work, I asked how the students anticipated combining work with child rearing. At least half the female students described lives of part-time or home-based work. Guys expected their female partners to care for the children. (When I asked the young men how they reconciled that prospect with the manifest low regard the market has for child care, they were mystified. Turning to the women who had spoken before, they said, uniformly, "But she chose it.") (More on that in a moment.) Richard Posner, federal appeals court judge and occasional University of Chicago adjunct professor of law, reports that "everyone associated with [elite law schools] has long known: that a vastly higher percentage of female than of male students will drop out of the workforce to take care of their children.""

...

"Deafened by choice, here's the moral analysis these women never heard: The family—with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks—is a necessary part of life and has obvious emotional and immediate rewards, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust.



The choice is a false one, based on the realities of a half-revolutionized society. Once we recognize that, we can admit that the tools feminism offered women to escape the dilemma have failed. This book is an effort to try a different approach. It is time for a new radicalism. Fortunately, the roots are sound."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2067008&page=2

Feminism is about quality of life and values for women. The idea that it is a choice to be a caregiver when everything around you is guiding you towards that, isn't much of a choice at all.

I'm surprised that this went for 14 pages and no one pointed out the obvious: this isn't feminism or about feminism. It's capitalist propaganda masquerading as feminism. ". . .but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government" is the kind of statement that only a naked capitalist could make, because it assumes that the only way of creating value in one's life is by participating in the market. Since the home is not a part of the market, home life must equal less value. The idea that feminism was really all about ensuring that men and women would both be equally exploited by the labor market is only slightly less galling than the fact that none of the self-professed feminists on the board have pointed it out. I'm willing to bet you could generate quality electrical power from Bouvoir's spinning corpse right now.

I'm surprised that this went for 14 pages and no one pointed out the obvious: this isn't feminism or about feminism. It's capitalist propaganda masquerading as feminism. ". . .but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government" is the kind of statement that only a naked capitalist could make, because it assumes that the only way of creating value in one's life is by participating in the market. Since the home is not a part of the market, home life must equal less value. The idea that feminism was really all about ensuring that men and women would both be equally exploited by the labor market is only slightly less galling than the fact that none of the self-professed feminists on the board have pointed it out. I'm willing to bet you could generate quality electrical power from Bouvoir's spinning corpse right now.
We live in a place where money is power. Maybe you live on a commune. Good for you.

We live in a place where money is power. Maybe you live on a commune. Good for you.

Money is power only in the absence of the people striving to be powerful on their own. I shouldn't have to point out to you the number of times people power has overwhelmed money power in this nation's history.

In any case, ad hominem's get you nowhere toward disproving the main thrust of my claim. The initial post isn't about feminism, but about capitalism, and whether you agree or disagree about whether capitalism is or ought to be the preferred form of economic organization in this country, it doesn't change the facts of the matter about that post. So stop changing the subject.

Money is power only in the absence of the people striving to be powerful on their own. I shouldn't have to point out to you the number of times people power has overwhelmed money power in this nation's history.

In any case, ad hominem's get you nowhere toward disproving the main thrust of my claim. The initial post isn't about feminism, but about capitalism, and whether you agree or disagree about whether capitalism is or ought to be the preferred form of economic organization in this country, it doesn't change the facts of the matter about that post. So stop changing the subject.
I wasn't changing the subject. You seem to think that in a marriage one person wielding power over another doesn't, in many many cases, involve money. A husband comes home with the excuse, "I've been working all day to put food on the table" and then does not put any time into the housework. The wife does all the house work and is not able to pursue her career, (whether it be stockbroker or labor of love), and accepts this excuse. This is the tremendous over simplification of the problem.
My point on the commune is what type of power are you involved in? Because if you're making money, you are involved in power. If you live on a commune, you have a different situation going on. If you have some other arrangement, I'd like to hear it.

I wasn't changing the subject. You seem to think that in a marriage one person wielding power over another doesn't, in many many cases, involve money. A husband comes home with the excuse, "I've been working all day to put food on the table" and then does not put any time into the housework. The wife does all the house work and is not able to pursue her career, (whether it be stockbroker or labor of love), and accepts this excuse. This is the tremendous over simplification of the problem.
My point on the commune is what type of power are you involved in? Because if you're making money, you are involved in power. If you live on a commune, you have a different situation going on. If you have some other arrangement, I'd like to hear it.

I am still not quite clear what the point of your post is, much less how it conflicts with my account.

That being said, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're claiming that because women enter the marketplace at lower rates than men, and the marketplace by definition confers monetary power on the husband, then husbands will by and large have a power advantage in the aggregate over wives.

To that I have to say not so. Monetary power is merely one kind of power exerted in a relationship, and not always the largest one. In point of fact, it's rarely the big one in my experience. There's also soft power, legal power, sexual power, and so on and so forth, and in those areas the woman usually comes out even if not ahead. I've also learned from experience that only a fool of a man tries to pull rank on a housewife, especially a housewife with an MBA (which is what we are talking about), with his superior income. So really, I see your point merely as rehashing something I'm seeing as deeply untrue in the first place: I don't see it as true that the only power or value is money power or value. Traditionally, it was part of the project of feminism to prove my point, not the reverse. As such, I see this whole argument as being waged by people at best only claiming to be feminists.

I must confess that I have only read about half of this thread, and I hate to post before reading the whole thing. But, it is 15 pages long and It is extremely late, if I read the whole thing I will not get any sleep tonight. That said:


The family—with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks—is a necessary part of life and has obvious emotional and immediate rewards, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.


This is ridiculous. How dare anyone tell me that I can not be fullfilled in the choices I have made. I have absolutely no desire to join the work force. I get plenty of "social interaction". Just because I am home with my kids all day doesn't mean I am a recluse or intellectually stunted.

Personally, I don't understand how someone can choose to have children and then prefer to leave them all day. You can never get those moments back. I think the ones to be pitied are the fathers who are expected to give up those moments.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to women in the workplace. I just don't get mothers in the workplace. And I certainly don't need a more radical effort to put me there. From my experience, girls are actively discouraged from choosing to be homemakers. It is looked on as somehow less. I feel blessed to be able to stay home and care for my family. Maybe these intelligent women just figured out that the choice they were being offered was not worth what they would be giving up. It would have saved me a lot of stress and frustration, if someone had said that it was okay to want to be a wife and mother. Instead it was assumed that, since I was bright, I would naturally go into a career.

I am still not quite clear what the point of your post is, much less how it conflicts with my account.

That being said, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're claiming that because women enter the marketplace at lower rates than men, and the marketplace by definition confers monetary power on the husband, then husbands will by and large have a power advantage in the aggregate over wives.

To that I have to say not so. Monetary power is merely one kind of power exerted in a relationship, and not always the largest one. In point of fact, it's rarely the big one in my experience. There's also soft power, legal power, sexual power, and so on and so forth, and in those areas the woman usually comes out even if not ahead. I've also learned from experience that only a fool of a man tries to pull rank on a housewife, especially a housewife with an MBA (which is what we are talking about), with his superior income. So really, I see your point merely as rehashing something I'm seeing as deeply untrue in the first place: I don't see it as true that the only power or value is money power or value. Traditionally, it was part of the project of feminism to prove my point, not the reverse. As such, I see this whole argument as being waged by people at best only claiming to be feminists.
I get what you are saying. And money is a large part of the book. Money power isn't the only power involved. But there are choices being made which are forced choices based on stereotypical gender roles. This is also the main point of the book. If all women traded places with all men, we would simply have a swapping which wouldn't solve anything, it would only serve to place one gender above the other in a mirror image. This is not what she is calling for.

There is a personal loss involved for highly educated women who do not have goals to pursue beyond simple tasks in the home. There is also a sense of loss in accomplishment among many women who feel they must depend on their husband. Take the woman who wrote the book about the benefits of giving up a career to become a stay at home mom, some 40 years ago. Then fairly recently this very same woman ends up divorced and living off of food stamps. She wrote a piece for the Times. I'm sorry I cannot give you more information, but it is listed in the book and I do not have it in front of me.

There is also an importance in having women at high levels of government as many of the laws, especially now in this time of re-examinations of feminist causes such as Roe V. Wade, a woman's voice is desperately needed. Education should never be wasted and those women who do have something to say and something to return to society should be given every opportunity and support both in the forms of law and the psychology of the society as a whole.

Perhaps, the original intent of feminism has already been met but that is not to say that women are now without problems and that there is nothing to be addressed.

You show me the men who are willing to stay home and do the childrearing, and then we'll talk about choice.
*raises hand*

But the choice for most women really isn't there. Either you remain childless and have a career, or you have children, and have a spotty career. Men don't generally have to deal with that choice...children or not, they get to focus on their career.
Get to? Try have to. These gender roles cut both ways. Women are the nurturers whether they want to or not, and men are the bread winners whether we want to or not.

The system is crap, but the reason we haven't fixed it is because the feminist movement is too focused on the "male=evil" dogma of its extreme "leadership" to pay attention to the fact that if you want to free women from their gender roles, you have to do the same thing for men.
There is no pressure on men to make as grave a sacrifice for their family as there is on women. Do you believe that pressure to sacrifice should be only on one gender and not the other? Do you believe that if there is more pressure one gender over another, that nothing should be done to alleviate that pressure?
And here is another example of exactly what I was talking about. There is pressure on men. The pressure to "sacrifice for their family". They sacrifice for their family by not being there for them so that their family can have food, shelter, and other material neccessities and conveniences. If they don't work their 12-16 hour days seven days a week to provide materially for their families, they're viewed as failures as fathers. Just as women are viewed as failures as mothers if they chose to have careers instead of being stay at home moms.

It's pressure applied in the oposite direction as it is to women, but since feminists generally only worry about pressure applied to women, they fail to address the source of the problem in this particular feminist issue, the fact that men experience pressure too.
I know this isnt about jobs/careers, but made me think of todays visit to my daughters Dentist...

and at this particular dentist ofice, they give the kids toys after the appt. They got lei's and pinwheels today. This little boy, maybe 5 or 6 years old came out from his checkup and had on a pink lei. His father stomped over to him and smacked him on the side of the head(hard) and jerked the lei off his neck saying "get that damn pink crap off you boy!" Pink is fer girls!"
The child looked so sad......and afraid.



Point being, I thought about the little boy on the drive home and hoped he wouldnt grow up with that mentality. Or with that demeanor.
That's horrible!
What evidence do you have that more men are unable to have a university education? As soon as you can bring evidence of this, then we can discuss it. If it were true, it would be a problem.

I beleive that would be the same evidence that suggests that women aren't able to have their husbands rear the children. Namely a difference in results.

I'd like to point out that in this case, there's actuallly a difference in oportunity. Those incentives you guys keep talking about to encourage women to go into the sciences and whatnot. Some of them come in the form of scholorships, which pay for part of your education based soely on what's between your legs. Equality of oportunity? Both the oportunity and the effects seem skewed toward women.

Do we have a problem?

I think he has been socialized to take this stance. I don't think anyone would argue that he's an asshole, just like my dad was. He's a control freak, just like my dad was. His tantrums leave everyone scrambling for cover, just like my dad's did. And in some freakishly cave-woman like way, I find that attractive.
You should go post in the "Why do good guys finish last" thread. I think your point of view would be of some interest there.

It seems to me as if the modern family and concept of manhood and womanhood is so distorted the society may not survive. This is a time when most children's parents end up divorced, a time when most mothers abandon the home for the sake of money, and when the very basic principals and definition of marriage is being destroyed. Is it really a coincidence that in a recent gallup poll 81% of Americans believe that the sense of morality in our country is decreasing with time?

Is it really a coincidence that in a recent gallup poll 81% of Americans believe that the sense of morality in our country is decreasing with time?

80% of Americans in our country know more Simpsons than rights they have. I don't trust us.

80% of Americans in our country know more Simpsons than rights they have. I don't trust us.

That is simply not true. You can't source that. I can source all of my data. Do me a favor and don't cheapen yourself with wise cracks.

That is simply not true. You can't source that. I can source all of my data. Do me a favor and don't cheapen yourself with wise cracks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4761294.tm

P.S. Sorry, 75% or something, the results are nonetheless depressing.

Get to? Try have to. These gender roles cut both ways. Women are the nurturers whether they want to or not, and men are the bread winners whether we want to or not.

The system is crap, but the reason we haven't fixed it is because the feminist movement is too focused on the "male=evil" dogma of its extreme "leadership" to pay attention to the fact that if you want to free women from their gender roles, you have to do the same thing for men.

And here is another example of exactly what I was talking about. There is pressure on men. The pressure to "sacrifice for their family". They sacrifice for their family by not being there for them so that their family can have food, shelter, and other material neccessities and conveniences. If they don't work their 12-16 hour days seven days a week to provide materially for their families, they're viewed as failures as fathers. Just as women are viewed as failures as mothers if they chose to have careers instead of being stay at home moms.

It's pressure applied in the oposite direction as it is to women, but since feminists generally only worry about pressure applied to women, they fail to address the source of the problem in this particular feminist issue, the fact that men experience pressure too.

...

I'd like to point out that in this case, there's actuallly a difference in oportunity. Those incentives you guys keep talking about to encourage women to go into the sciences and whatnot. Some of them come in the form of scholorships, which pay for part of your education based soely on what's between your legs. Equality of oportunity? Both the oportunity and the effects seem skewed toward women.

You seem to be picking and choosing your excerpts sans context to support your idea that feminists are anti-men. I'm quite certain that several people in this thread have stated multiple times that they think men should not be pressured out of being stay-at-home dads or pressured into pursuing careers at the expense of their families. To assert that "teh evil feminists don't care about men" is foolish; to use out-of-context quotations from people who have explicitly contradicted that premise in their own attitudes is rude as well as foolish. Of course societal pressures cut both ways. It is no better to have men told that they can't be nurses or kindergarten teachers than to have women told they can't be engineers or physicists; it is no better to pressure a woman to stay at home than to pressure a man not to. Duh. Why on earth are you attacking people who have completely agreed with you?

Well, your link does not work. In any event....feminism fails because of one simple fact: women have babies.

Enough said.

Well, your link does not work. In any event....feminism fails because of one simple fact: women have babies.

Enough said.

...Not sure how that conclusion is worked out.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-33,RNWE:en&q=know+simpsons+first+amendment

You seem to be picking and choosing your excerpts sans context to support your idea that feminists are anti-men.

I quoted their entire posts in most cases. I fail to see how much more context I'm expected to provide in an online discussion.

My point is that feminism originated as a way to empower the opressed females. That is going to lead to a female-centered view of the movement. My main point was that the feminist movement has largely ignored men's issues because they didn't matter to their movement. I suggested that this was a mistake and cited reasons why.

I'm quite certain that several people in this thread have stated multiple times that they think men should not be pressured out of being stay-at-home dads or pressured into pursuing careers at the expense of their families.

And I'm not allowed to express agreement with those ideas why?

To assert that "teh evil feminists don't care about men" is foolish; to use out-of-context quotations from people who have explicitly contradicted that premise in their own attitudes is rude as well as foolish.

Again, how much context am I expected to include? A person's entire post history in this thread? These things were said. I didn't make them up.

And did I say feminists were evil? No. I said that the feminist movement had adopted the men=evil viewpoint and that this was holding them back from accomplishing their goals. That isn't the same thing.

Of course societal pressures cut both ways. It is no better to have men told that they can't be nurses or kindergarten teachers than to have women told they can't be engineers or physicists; it is no better to pressure a woman to stay at home than to pressure a man not to. Duh.

Apparently it isn't as obvious as all that, because the social pressures on women are being corrected by the feminist movement, but the pressures on men are not. (I've personally been told by self-proclaimed feminists on this forum that if I want to campaign for men's rights, I should go start my own movement, and that I should shut up about the inequalities men face because of the misuses of the feminist movement.)

Why on earth are you attacking people who have completely agreed with you?
Attacking? If I'm agreeing, strongly, with what they are saying, how is that attacking them?

Do you have any real complaints about the poitns I raised, or are you just upset that I criticised feminism as not being perfect?

I quoted their entire posts in most cases. I fail to see how much more context I'm expected to provide in an online discussion.

When you have apparently read deeply enough into the thread to see the posters you quoted quite specifically saying "these societal pressures cause problems for men as much as for women," quoting them saying something else and then complaining about how feminists like them don't care whether societal pressures cause problems for men is a little intellectually dishonest, and rather unfair to those posters.

And did I say feminists were evil? No. I said that the feminist movement had adopted the men=evil viewpoint and that this was holding them back from accomplishing their goals. That isn't the same thing.

True, mischaracterizing the entire feminist movement on the basis of a few idiots who want men to be second-class citizens isn't exactly the same as calling feminists evil. It is, however, silly. Feminism, by its very definition, does not and cannot involve the belief that someone's gender makes them inferior or "evil." Anyone who discriminates solely on the basis of gender is not a feminist, because one can't simultaneously believe in the equality of the genders and believe that one gender is more "evil" than the other. Pretty simple, really.


Apparently it isn't as obvious as all that, because the social pressures on women are being corrected by the feminist movement, but the pressures on men are not. (I've personally been told by self-proclaimed feminists on this forum that if I want to campaign for men's rights, I should go start my own movement, and that I should shut up about the inequalities men face because of the misuses of the feminist movement.)

Many feminists I know have involved themselves very seriously in attempting to deal with social pressures on men. I'm not sure where you've come up with the idea that this is being ignored, especially since you just finished reading a thread in which several feminists specifically stated their desire to correct those pressures. As for what other posters on this forum have told you, I can only take your word for it, not having read those comments myself. I admit that I have a hard time believing that men are suffering too many horrible injustices as a result of a movement espousing equality, but you're welcome to enlighten me if I'm simply uninformed.


Do you have any real complaints about the poitns I raised, or are you just upset that I criticised feminism as not being perfect?

Ooookay. I'm not aware of any "perfect" ideology, and certainly no ideology that even comes close to being perfect in practice. Hence why, y'know, there are still the societal pressures that this entire thread is about. However, mischaracterizing feminists-at-large and specific feminists on this forum is not a particularly valid mode of criticism.

I've been reading through this thread and I think a distinction needs to be made. The ideoligy of feminism is equality of the sexes. That is undeniable. The idea is that there should be equality throughout life, with women having the same chances men had.

Now then there is the feminist movement. That is comprised of the women who are promoting what they call feminism. However here comes the problem. As someone earlier said (I'm sorry I can't remember who), the original goals of the feminist movement have been achieved. Women can vote, own property, defend themselves in a court of law etc. We take these for granted today, and they are a remarkable expression of the power of an idea to change the world. Again, that is undeniable.

The problem comes with a large number of women in the feminist movement who want more. It is a natural human reaction to be constantly looking for better, the idea that if I just manage to do X my life will be so much better. I believe this is what is driving a number of 'feminists' (I put it in inverted commas because they are not true followers of the ideology behind feminism), the feeling that their life would be perfect if they just got X right. If rape laws were stronger, if women had a longer maternity leave, if women could refuse a husband the right to see their children; it would make the world a better place. And the thing is that all of those are perfectly reasonable requests, it seems like stupidity to refuse them, until you see them from the other point of view. The man who's jailed because the girl he had a one night stand with got pissed off with him and said it was rape, the boss who's company is failing because so many managers are leaving for six months, and he cannot replace them and has to keep paying their salary while they are gone. And the perfectly nice husband who had a nasty devorce and now cannot see his children.

The fact is in my opinion a number of 'feminists' (by no means all of them, just a vocal minority) have got it fixed into their heads that all the problems in the world are because men have superiority, that men are brutish louts that are one step away from rapists. This was an unfortunate side effect of the feminist ideal, when the feminist movement had got all it wanted a number of women had just got so used to the idea they were second class, that they fight against the very ideal of equality they once upheld because they think, in a nutshell, that life is unfair.


Just my $0.02

I've been reading through this thread and I think a distinction needs to be made. The ideoligy of feminism is equality of the sexes. That is undeniable. The idea is that there should be equality throughout life, with women having the same chances men had.

Now then there is the feminist movement. That is comprised of the women who are promoting what they call feminism. However here comes the problem. As someone earlier said (I'm sorry I can't remember who), the original goals of the feminist movement have been achieved. Women can vote, own property, defend themselves in a court of law etc. We take these for granted today, and they are a remarkable expression of the power of an idea to change the world. Again, that is undeniable.

The problem comes with a large number of women in the feminist movement who want more. It is a natural human reaction to be constantly looking for better, the idea that if I just manage to do X my life will be so much better. I believe this is what is driving a number of 'feminists' (I put it in inverted commas because they are not true followers of the ideology behind feminism), the feeling that their life would be perfect if they just got X right. If rape laws were stronger, if women had a longer maternity leave, if women could refuse a husband the right to see their children; it would make the world a better place. And the thing is that all of those are perfectly reasonable requests, it seems like stupidity to refuse them, until you see them from the other point of view. The man who's jailed because the girl he had a one night stand with got pissed off with him and said it was rape, the boss who's company is failing because so many managers are leaving for six months, and he cannot replace them and has to keep paying their salary while they are gone. And the perfectly nice husband who had a nasty devorce and now cannot see his children.

The fact is in my opinion a number of 'feminists' (by no means all of them, just a vocal minority) have got it fixed into their heads that all the problems in the world are because men have superiority, that men are brutish louts that are one step away from rapists. This was an unfortunate side effect of the feminist ideal, when the feminist movement had got all it wanted a number of women had just got so used to the idea they were second class, that they fight against the very ideal of equality they once upheld because they think, in a nutshell, that life is unfair.


Just my $0.02


That is very well said. I think you make a great point.

I'm surprised that this went for 14 pages and no one pointed out the obvious: this isn't feminism or about feminism. It's capitalist propaganda masquerading as feminism. ". . .but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government" is the kind of statement that only a naked capitalist could make, because it assumes that the only way of creating value in one's life is by participating in the market. Since the home is not a part of the market, home life must equal less value. The idea that feminism was really all about ensuring that men and women would both be equally exploited by the labor market is only slightly less galling than the fact that none of the self-professed feminists on the board have pointed it out. I'm willing to bet you could generate quality electrical power from Bouvoir's spinning corpse right now.

Wow. Have you missed some MAJOR points. Women wanted to share control. We wanted to earn our own money and not give our husbands any say as to how we spent it. For that we were ready to work. We wanted to run our own companies, be CEO's and be a powerful presence. For that we went to work. You think we fought to work at Walmart? No sirreebob. We fought to be YOUR BOSS. You think a male capitalist thought up the feminist movement? Where did you get THAT one?

I am still not quite clear what the point of your post is, much less how it conflicts with my account.

That being said, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're claiming that because women enter the marketplace at lower rates than men, and the marketplace by definition confers monetary power on the husband, then husbands will by and large have a power advantage in the aggregate over wives.

To that I have to say not so. Monetary power is merely one kind of power exerted in a relationship, and not always the largest one. In point of fact, it's rarely the big one in my experience. There's also soft power, legal power, sexual power, and so on and so forth, and in those areas the woman usually comes out even if not ahead. I've also learned from experience that only a fool of a man tries to pull rank on a housewife, especially a housewife with an MBA (which is what we are talking about), with his superior income. So really, I see your point merely as rehashing something I'm seeing as deeply untrue in the first place: I don't see it as true that the only power or value is money power or value. Traditionally, it was part of the project of feminism to prove my point, not the reverse. As such, I see this whole argument as being waged by people at best only claiming to be feminists.

Well its hard to go to Dillards and buy a new outfit with food and sex. My dad, a millionaire, expected my mother to run a large home on $100/week. On this, he assumed he could eat like a king and have all this laundry done, carpets cleaned and suits steamed. She had to beg for money, not just for nail polish, but for groceries. This was in the 70's & 80's.

On equality:

How about an exercise in logic?

Women are different then men. It follows, that the rights of women should be different then the rights of men. Equal, but different. This is best symbolized by the Yn and Yan, where the halves are equal, but of different colour.

Actually, I think, that modern feminists should not be fighting for the right to get paid equally for work, but for the right not to work at all - raising children is not all roses, to say the least, I would compare one day of it to a day in coal mine, in fact.

That's an interesting question. If feminism removes all concepts of gender so we're just left with the concept of a biological sex (male and female), wouldn't one parent be sufficient emotionally aswell as as a role model?

The idea isn't to "remove all concepts of gender". The idea is to allow human beings to be individuals, instead of trying to push them into the stereotypical gender roles that society things they "should" meet. But one role model isn't really enough for a child. One parent can be, so long as there are other role models. But even with two parents, there should be other role models in the child's life. And a child will benefit from knowing both families - both parents - from which he came.

The difference is that it won't be "mommy teaching about what girls do" and "daddy teaching about what boys do." Mommy and Daddy will teach their child how to be a good person and how to get along in life. And the child can be more like mommy or more like daddy, depending on the child's feelings, not on whether or not he has a penis or she has a vagina.


Ok, so a couple generations have passed and we realized that the rat race wasn't all we imagined it was. We fought to improve the rat race for ourselves. What else could we do? We were already in it deep by the 80's. We fought sexual harrassment, and dress codes, and even the right to join combat. On and on we trudged, alongside the guys, where we met our husbands and friends for life, toe to toe or as close to it as we could.

Let's be honest. It hasn't been until the current generation that the idea of men truly helping with the housework has come in. Women who worked have been expected to be housewives and working women. These women were supposed to work full time jobs, while simultaneously being the only ones to clean the house, cook meals, wash the dishes, do the laundry, etc.

And I *do* say "Fuck that!" to that. But it isn't the working part that bothers me - it's the working twice as hard. Luckily, I have a fiance who is willing to pull his weight.

Get to? Try have to. These gender roles cut both ways. Women are the nurturers whether they want to or not, and men are the bread winners whether we want to or not.

And that is *exactly* the problem. And it is *exactly* what feminists are trying to work on.

The system is crap, but the reason we haven't fixed it is because the feminist movement is too focused on the "male=evil" dogma of its extreme "leadership" to pay attention to the fact that if you want to free women from their gender roles, you have to do the same thing for men.

The part of the "feminist movement" with any idea that male=evil is an extreme fringe group. It is hardly the majority. Most of us are well aware that any stereotypical gender role limits the opportunities of both men and women, and thus they all must be challenged.

I beleive that would be the same evidence that suggests that women aren't able to have their husbands rear the children. Namely a difference in results.

But where, pray tell, are men being encouraged not to seek higher education? Where are men unable to get scholarships?

I'd like to point out that in this case, there's actuallly a difference in oportunity. Those incentives you guys keep talking about to encourage women to go into the sciences and whatnot. Some of them come in the form of scholorships, which pay for part of your education based soely on what's between your legs. Equality of oportunity? Both the oportunity and the effects seem skewed toward women.

Interesting. I am a woman in a science and engineering field. I never once saw any opportunity for me to get a scholarship "based solely on whta's between" my legs. Even the SWE scholarship I got one year was offered equally to male and female members of SWE. The only programs we had to encourage female science and math students actually involved male and female students - although most of the college students who participated were female, in order to demosntrate that women can and do have success in these fields. I have never been offered anything based solely on my sex, and I wouldn't have accepted it if that had happened.

Wow. Have you missed some MAJOR points. Women wanted to share control. We wanted to earn our own money and not give our husbands any say as to how we spent it. For that we were ready to work. We wanted to run our own companies, be CEO's and be a powerful presence. For that we went to work. You think we fought to work at Walmart? No sirreebob. We fought to be YOUR BOSS. You think a male capitalist thought up the feminist movement? Where did you get THAT one?

Um, actually I think its you who missed the point. I wasn't arguing that capitalism is responsible for the feminist movement. I was arguing that this particular piece of "feminist" literature is in fact capitalist literature; in other words, my point was that this wasn't feminism at all. That is precisely why I had such a problem with the piece, because it actually suggests, directly contrary to what feminism argues in the first place, that the only value to be found in the world is the value of selling your labor in the marketplace. No feminist would ever, ever agree to that assertion, so by making that assertion, we can in fact confidently say that this woman is trying to pass off feminism as something it's not.

I was, in short, trying to defend feminism, not deride it.

On equality:

How about an exercise in logic?

Women are different then men. It follows, that the rights of women should be different then the rights of men. Equal, but different. This is best symbolized by the Yn and Yan, where the halves are equal, but of different colour.

Actually, I think, that modern feminists should not be fighting for the right to get paid equally for work, but for the right not to work at all - raising children is not all roses, to say the least, I would compare one day of it to a day in coal mine, in fact.
Ah. I see how that leaves women a clearly defined choice. I also see how that obviously puts the man (who, of course, has the better education and job) in his rightly place as breadwinner.

*raises hand*

Get to? Try have to. These gender roles cut both ways. Women are the nurturers whether they want to or not, and men are the bread winners whether we want to or not.

The system is crap, but the reason we haven't fixed it is because the feminist movement is too focused on the "male=evil" dogma of its extreme "leadership" to pay attention to the fact that if you want to free women from their gender roles, you have to do the same thing for men.

And here is another example of exactly what I was talking about. There is pressure on men. The pressure to "sacrifice for their family". They sacrifice for their family by not being there for them so that their family can have food, shelter, and other material neccessities and conveniences. If they don't work their 12-16 hour days seven days a week to provide materially for their families, they're viewed as failures as fathers. Just as women are viewed as failures as mothers if they chose to have careers instead of being stay at home moms.

It's pressure applied in the oposite direction as it is to women, but since feminists generally only worry about pressure applied to women, they fail to address the source of the problem in this particular feminist issue, the fact that men experience pressure too.

.
You do realize that I'm a man, right? One of the points of me even being on Nation States talking about this is to fight against the stereotype you're bringing up. I'm agreeing with you basically but I just wanted to be clear.

Women are different then men. It follows, that the rights of women should be different then the rights of men. Equal, but different.

Only if those differences in rights are based on basic biological differences. For instance, women may have access to free prenatal care (and do, in some states) without men having a similar access, as men cannot become pregnant and their health is not going to directly affect the health of a future child. This is due to a basic biological difference - women can get pregnant and men cannot.

However, most of the types of discrimination we've been talking about are not based in biological differences. They are based in stereotypes that a given man or woman may or may not meet. Thus, they are unacceptable.

Only if those differences in rights are based on basic biological differences. For instance, women may have access to free prenatal care (and do, in some states) without men having a similar access, as men cannot become pregnant and their health is not going to directly affect the health of a future child. This is due to a basic biological difference - women can get pregnant and men cannot.

However, most of the types of discrimination we've been talking about are not based in biological differences. They are based in stereotypes that a given man or woman may or may not meet. Thus, they are unacceptable.
It'd be nice for me if it were true, though, that I were biologically unable to do the dishes and make the bed.

And that is *exactly* the problem. And it is *exactly* what feminists are trying to work on.

Perhaps this is true, but I don't hear much about it.

The part of the "feminist movement" with any idea that male=evil is an extreme fringe group. It is hardly the majority. Most of us are well aware that any stereotypical gender role limits the opportunities of both men and women, and thus they all must be challenged.

Trouble is that the "extreme fringe group" is the louder voice. I don't usually hear many feminists showing up to shout them down when they push their exclusively female-supremisist agenda, so I assume that this silence equals approval. Maybe that's unfair, but that is kind of how it looks.

But where, pray tell, are men being encouraged not to seek higher education? Where are men unable to get scholarships?



Interesting. I am a woman in a science and engineering field. I never once saw any opportunity for me to get a scholarship "based solely on whta's between" my legs. Even the SWE scholarship I got one year was offered equally to male and female members of SWE. The only programs we had to encourage female science and math students actually involved male and female students - although most of the college students who participated were female, in order to demosntrate that women can and do have success in these fields. I have never been offered anything based solely on my sex, and I wouldn't have accepted it if that had happened.
Perhaps not soely, but regardless of other qualifications a person has to meet in terms of need or academic acheavement, the fact is that certain scholorships are "women only".

If you're going to deny that these scholorships exist, then I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, since we're clearly living on different planets.
You do realize that I'm a man, right?

Didn't know. Didn't really care.

One of the points of me even being on Nation States talking about this is to fight against the stereotype you're bringing up. I'm agreeing with you basically but I just wanted to be clear.
And I respect that. I just don't feel that the feminist movement is paying enough attention to "men's issues". Some members of the movement really don't seem to understand that straight jacketing men in their roles by neccessity straight jackets women too. Neither gender can truly be free while the other is still having their lives dictated by social convention.

Women need healthcare, so the right to government-run healthcare is a feminist issue. So, we are still dealing with feminism, just in different issues.

Perhaps this is true, but I don't hear much about it.

It's all around you, although it isn't always called feminism.

Trouble is that the "extreme fringe group" is the louder voice.

The extreme fringe group of *every* group is the louder voice. Take any ideology or any religion or any political standpoint and the loudest voice you will hear is going to be on the extreme end of it. You can always be pretty much guarranteed that the majority don't agree with it.

I don't usually hear many feminists showing up to shout them down when they push their exclusively female-supremisist agenda, so I assume that this silence equals approval. Maybe that's unfair, but that is kind of how it looks.

It isn't just unfair - it's blatantly stupid. First of all, there isn't silence. Any time someone starts saying something outrageous and whatever they are saying reaches the public, there is quite a bit of noise made about it. The only exceptions are those who are so crazy that any reasonable person just thinks, "Damn, they're crazy." It's kind of like Fred Phelps and his wife. As a Christian, I don't feel the need to condemn their attitudes at every turn, because anyone who isn't specifically looking to hate Christians is going to know that what they have to say has nothing at all to do with the majority of Christians.

Perhaps not soely, but regardless of other qualifications a person has to meet in terms of need or academic acheavement, the fact is that certain scholorships are "women only".

If you're going to deny that these scholorships exist, then I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, since we're clearly living on different planets.

I'm sure they do. But they are also few and far between. I applied for enough scholarships over the course of my education that I lost count. Not a single one was "women only." I never even came across an application for a "women only" scholarship, although I did come across a "gay male living in a small, rural town," scholarship (no kidding). The closest was a scholarship from the Society of Women Engineers, but that scholarship (and the membership of the society) wasn't "women only." Throughout the course of my science and engineering education (which is still ongoing), there wasn't a single thing offered to me on the basis of my sex - not one - nor was anything like that offered to anyone I know.

To tell you the truth, I honestly can't think of any "women's only" scholarship I've heard of that didn't come from an endowment from an all-girls school.

So while they might exist, they are far from ubiquitous. And, when it comes right down to it, you can find scholarships for any group, be it athletes, certain religions, children of military, homosexuals living in a small rural town, etc., etc., etc. I just have yet to see any instance in which women had greater access to any form of education than men because of this, any more than children of military members have a greater access to education.

To Desperat measures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeglindia
On equality:

How about an exercise in logic?

Women are different then men. It follows, that the rights of women should be different then the rights of men. Equal, but different. This is best symbolized by the Yn and Yan, where the halves are equal, but of different colour.

Actually, I think, that modern feminists should not be fighting for the right to get paid equally for work, but for the right not to work at all - raising children is not all roses, to say the least, I would compare one day of it to a day in coal mine, in fact.

Ah. I see how that leaves women a clearly defined choice. I also see how that obviously puts the man (who, of course, has the better education and job) in his rightly place as breadwinner



You see it wrong. The women can do whatever they like. But it is obvious, if you apply some common sense, that it is more difficult for a women to be the breadwinner than for a man, because, well, women get pregnant and give birth to kids. The situation when the woman has to work late into pregnancy and right after birth that is simply not normal, it shouldn't be. IMHO, the society that is interested in reproducing itself should care for women who give birth and raise children, and should think about them, and not about supplying workforce for the business.
I think that the situation when a human being (be it man or woman) prefers his family and the continuation of itself to work for somebody else (and most of us work for somebody else) is abnormal. And people who are prepared to do it willingly should be given free tickets to psychologists, and this includes feminists of the kind who say that women should "realize themselves" in work. Who the hell will care about such kind of "realization" after you die? On the contrary, leaving children after you is a wholly another kind of things.
Now returning to the differences between sexes in light of the abovesaid. The prime biological role of man in nature (including all species that have sexes) is not that of the breadwinner, but that of the risk taker. This makes the men gene testers, they are more exposed to adverse conditions, and the weak die. Women, on the contrary, are protected at all times and keep all the genetical material of the species, albeit most of it in dormant shape.
Now, in human society breadbringing has always been a risk. And it remains now. The woman who gives birth practically on the working place, and returns to it a few days after work, does nothing but supply medical companies with future profits. I can do comparisons from my own experience, also I am not a medic - children of mothers who care for them for at least a year after birth and stop working at least four month before are much more healthy and quiter. It is natural for a woman to care for her child, and if we break the rule, we have to face the consequences like stuffing hyperactive children with prosac and making them later pay for psychologists bills. Excuse me, but I think this is wrong.
Now, if you read this far, I think you are starting to get my point. It is obviously natural for women not to be breathbringers, at least not all the time. But their role in the society is as important as men's. Hence, they must enjoy equal rights. But, their rights should be tilted towards easing their burden as mothers, and not towards their burden as workers. Because by doing the latter, you actually ease the burden of the employers, and not that of the women. The concrete implementation of that principle is much more complicated than the plain equalisation of rights for both sexes, of course, but from my experience simple decisions for complex problems are usually wrong.

snip
I'm much too tired but even if I weren't, I don't think I'd understand the bulk of what you just said.

Well, pleasant dreams, then ;)

You see it wrong. The women can do whatever they like. But it is obvious, if you apply some common sense, that it is more difficult for a women to be the breadwinner than for a man, because, well, women get pregnant and give birth to kids.

Not all women do this. And it doesn't necessarily make it harder for her to be the breadwinner, especially in an age where maternity (and paternity) leave is increasingly common.

The situation when the woman has to work late into pregnancy and right after birth that is simply not normal, it shouldn't be.

Not normal? Seriously, do you think more primitive cultures kept pregnant women from working? Have you studied tribal cultures? In truth, stopping working to just relax or what-have-you would probably make the woman more unhealthy, as she might be more sedentary while still eating more.

I think that the situation when a human being (be it man or woman) prefers his family and the continuation of itself to work for somebody else (and most of us work for somebody else) is abnormal.

Huh?

Now returning to the differences between sexes in light of the abovesaid. The prime biological role of man in nature (including all species that have sexes) is not that of the breadwinner, but that of the risk taker.

This is absolutely untrue. How many species have you studied that you would make such a broad (and largely incorrect) statement? There are quite a few species in which the female takes more risks than the male. In lions, the females hunt. In many species, animals are solitary and both male and female must take the same risks to survive.

The woman who gives birth practically on the working place, and returns to it a few days after work, does nothing but supply medical companies with future profits.

How so? If she can do this, she is obviously healthy, and had a healthy pregnancy.

It is natural for a woman to care for her child,

And it is equally natural for a man to care for his child.

Now, if you read this far, I think you are starting to get my point. It is obviously natural for women not to be breathbringers, at least not all the time.

Your "obvious" point required a lack of knowledge of biology and a bunch of nonesense. Thus, I don't think it is "obvious" ta all.

But their role in the society is as important as men's.

What right do you have to put either of them in a specific role?

But, their rights should be tilted towards easing their burden as mothers, and not towards their burden as workers.

What if they don't want to have children?

Let's be honest. It hasn't been until the current generation that the idea of men truly helping with the housework has come in. Women who worked have been expected to be housewives and working women. These women were supposed to work full time jobs, while simultaneously being the only ones to clean the house, cook meals, wash the dishes, do the laundry, etc.

And I *do* say "Fuck that!" to that. But it isn't the working part that bothers me - it's the working twice as hard. Luckily, I have a fiance who is willing to pull his weight.



Not normal? Seriously, do you think more primitive cultures kept pregnant women from working? Have you studied tribal cultures?


I'm not sure you're aware of it, but you seem to slide your arguments around modern times and primitive cultures whenever it best suits your points.

The concept of "housework" doesn't even exist in primitive or tribal cultures, yet you say it is only the current generation that recognises the need to share it.


In truth, stopping working to just relax or what-have-you would probably make the woman more unhealthy, as she might be more sedentary while still eating more.


To just relax?
Did you really just say that?

You actually believe that mothers of newborns are just relaxing in a sedentary lifestyle and overeating???

I'm not even a mother/woman and I find that offensive. My wife on the other hand has a long string of expletives for you.

To just relax?
Did you really just say that?

You actually believe that mothers of newborns are just relaxing in a sedentary lifestyle and overeating???

I'm not even a mother/woman and I find that offensive. My wife on the other hand has a long string of expletives for you.

I get the impression you missed the context of this. The poster Dempublicents was responding to seemed to believe that returning to work shortly after giving birth would cause some sort of serious health issue. I'm pretty sure Dem's point was along the lines of "If anything was going to cause a health issue, it would be trying to spend the entirety of a maternity leave 'recovering' from giving birth instead of getting back up and doing things, whatever those things may be."

I'm sure she'll correct me if I've misinterpreted her, but I'm 99% certain she wasn't trying to say that mothers are lazy. :)

I get the impression you missed the context of this. The poster Dempublicents was responding to seemed to believe that returning to work shortly after giving birth would cause some sort of serious health issue. I'm pretty sure Dem's point was along the lines of "If anything was going to cause a health issue, it would be trying to spend the entirety of a maternity leave 'recovering' from giving birth instead of getting back up and doing things, whatever those things may be."

I'm sure she'll correct me if I've misinterpreted her, but I'm 99% certain she wasn't trying to say that mothers are lazy. :)
This entire thread seems to be an excercise in misunderstanding.

This entire thread seems to be an excercise in misunderstanding.

You know, that could describe half the threads on this forum, really. People seem to like to get angry, and whether or not there's actually anything to be angry about is irrelevant.