Feminism and gender roles

[autumnnight]

I can't believe people are still arguing against feminism.

 

I don't think most people are arguing against the original incarnation of feminism. I think what many people detest (including a lot of women) is the newer, louder, angrier reincarnation of feminism that, sadly, seems to be the loudest and most obnoxious version these days.

 

As a woman, what offends ME most about this neo-version is not just how many of them seem to feel about men (though that is kind of amusingly pathetic)....it is the disdain with which they view a large portion of other WOMEN - disdain wrapped in a false perception of superiority.

 

Feminists who disdain women are an oxymoron....heavy on the moron.

[truncated]

 

If you're a woman who chooses to give up her work/career to be a SAHM, that's great!

 

 

This is something I have a real problem with, base don my own life experience ( and please don't ell me it doesn't happen, because it most certainly does)

 

As a stay at home parent, do you know how many times women have looked down on me because I chose to stay at home and raise my family? I've been the subject of snickers and patronizing attitudes from them, and , as I said before, been treated as if I am some sort of uneducated,ultra religious fundamentalist because I had three children and stayed at home, supporting my husband while he works. The truth of the matter is that I am well educated and non-religious.

 

This is an attitude I have a problem with. These types of "feminists' who equate a woman choosing to have a family and stay at home as being somehow inferior to them.

 

In my opinion, they can go and suck an egg. After all, isn't the point of feminism to provide women ( and men too, I would like to think) with the right to make a choice, and my choice is to have adopted a more traditional gender role.

 

Another issue I have is in certain jobs, the rules are different for women. Example, in the military ( not speaking about the US military) the basic fitness requirements for women are different than men. They are much more lax. Why is this permissible? They do the same job, earn the same pay, both can take on combat roles, yet the females do not have to meet the same standard as the males. This actually hurtful to them, as it can mean they are not as ready and able to survive should they find themselves in a war zone.

 

Another point...while I am not dating ( and hope to never have to ever again), reading this thread about men and women in the dating world confuses me. Why is it wrong for a man to offer to pay for a woman? I would have assumed that this was simply being polite, and if the man paid for dinner, maybe the woman could pay for the movie tickets ( or whatever else they might do..like I said , it's been a long time since I dated) . How is that setting a tone where the man is dominant? If that ends up being the case, then the woman can simply tell the man to eff off and she can go home.

 

Also, ( and maybe I am misunderstanding this part) why is it wrong for a man to have a problem continuing the relationship if he finds out a woman he is dating has been promiscuous? If I was dating a man and found out he was sleeping around with any woman who would have him, I don't think I would want to date him either. It doesn't make him a bad person, just not a good match for me.

 

I think my isn't that women and men should be treated equally, it's the idea that everyone needs to adopt the same attitudes in their personal life that I have a problem with. I just don't see how this sort of thing can be forced.

 

( I know, I probably just sounded foolish and ticked off everyone)

[autumnnight]

Not to mention that a stay at home mom isn't necessarily "giving up" something...perhaps to her, raising her children is the MOST IMPORTANT work there is to do.

[truncated]

Not to mention that a stay at home mom isn't necessarily "giving up" something...perhaps to her, raising her children is the MOST IMPORTANT work there is to do.

 

It is to me, but I understand that for someone else, having a challenging career that they love might be what's important to her or him.

 

To each their own.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

I know testosterone is the hormone for aggressiveness but is it also the hormone for confidence, self-esteem?

[Rejected Rosebud]

The first 10 or so pages was straight out gender bashing and people using the worst possible examples of both genders as the hammer. For most, that is their experience so it's understandable why they think and feel the way they do. It had zero to do eith love / respect / understanding and was 100% about protecting oneself, keeping score, spiking the football or agendas.

I think you might have been referring to a different thread?? I just checked and the first 10 pages or so are mainly devoted to some people demonizing feminism / feminists, and other people defending feminism / feminists, and alot of arguing about the definition of feminism. With a few other things thrown in.

[readynow]

Thank God for feminism because it allows me the right to vote, work wherever I want, marry and divorce whom I want to etc but can I be feminist and at the same time, acknowledge that men and women (mostly) have different gender roles? Men and women are made different with different hormones shaping our tendencies. It's only natural that we have different roles, isn't it?

 

Last week, my little man had a school summer ball and they had paired the kids up in girl/boy fashion. We were to give the kids £1 to buy sweets and popcorn etc I gave him an extra £1 so that he could pay for his partner's sweets. Was I wrong to have done that? With what i'm reading here, her mom now probably thinks I have set feminism back a few days

 

I think it's right for a man to pay on dates and for a woman to purchase groceries and cook on the alternate date. He can chose to cook too and she can choose to pay on a date. We're both spending money on each other. That shouldn't hurt the cause one bit. To be honest though, the only times I've ever paid on dates is when I was sure there was no romantic future with said man.

[Maleficent]

 

Last week, my little man had a school summer ball and they had paired the kids up in girl/boy fashion. We were to give the kids £1 to buy sweets and popcorn etc I gave him an extra £1 so that he could pay for his partner's sweets. Was I wrong to have done that? With what i'm reading here, her mom now probably thinks I have set feminism back a few days

 

For me personally, feminism is more about giving people a choice..

 

60-70 years ago, men had to pay for dates because women did not work. They had to rely on their husbands for money.

Now that feminism has allowed women to work, men can choose not to pay for their date's dinner because she most likely works for a living, too.

 

Women can choose to stay at home with the kids but they can also choose not too. 60-70 years ago, there was no choice. Women stayed home to raise the kids and if they wanted to work, they could be nurses, teachers or secretaries.

[BlackOpsZombieGirl]

I don't come here to complain, I come here to discuss issues. My life is going swimmingly well, so I have nothing to complain about.

 

Reality is, for the most part, men are still expected to pay for things. That has been my side in this entire, I hesitate to even call it a discussion at this point. You say I defend my double standards well, yet the feminists here universally ignore the fact that men are basically expected to pay for things, even though women now earn a wage.

 

I agree with this part of your post, Enigma. Which is why I *ALWAYS* pay my own way with EVERY date that I go on with a guy. This way, he doesn't think that I'm a 'feminist'; he doesn't think that I'm trying to take advantage of him; and he won't expect me to 'give him something/anything' because I paid MY OWN WAY. It's a win-win for everyone.

 

 

When I notice a man acting in a way that leads me to believe that he's a misogynist, I'll call him on it ON THE SPOT; that's just how I am. However, if he's being respectful towards me and is being a decent guy in general, then all is good.

 

 

 

.

[Maleficent]

This way, he doesn't think that I'm a 'feminist'

 

Feminism is the reason you are able to work and pay your own way. I'm not sure how paying your own way would make someone think you aren't a feminist?

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

Oh well, Elliot Hulse video the power of doing things you hate is a great motivator

[edgygirl]

What???

 

So do you mean you think because some women want to take time off work and have kids all women should pay for that?

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

This is the first post I read on this thread, and I can already tell what the "level" is.

 

Would you then force employers to hire women, and pay them an "equal wage" even though they are more likely to take off more time from work? It's good that you acknowledge that women are more likely to take time off from work, because that is precisely why men earn more, we are at work more.

 

Myth? Yeah? :lmao: You are clearly not a woman in the corporate world who knows how much male peers in the exact same position make... More than her.

 

Yay gotta love conspiracy theorists.

 

The California State Legislature has a lot to learn, and not just about the gender pay gap myth. California is a mess. Unfortunately, the feminist agenda is very strong in California, so they have no problems passing useless laws that seek to remedy inequalities that do not exist.

[kilgore]

What???

 

So do you mean you think because some women want to take time off work and have kids all women should pay for that?

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

This is the first post I read on this thread, and I can already tell what the "level" is.

 

 

 

Myth? Yeah? :lmao: You are clearly not a woman in the corporate world who knows how much male peers in the exact same position make... More than her.

 

Yay gotta love conspiracy theorists.

 

Also it's not like women have the option to ask men to have babies for them. If the women don't do it - no more babies.

[RedRobin]

I think it's right for a man to pay on dates and for a woman to purchase groceries and cook on the alternate date. He can chose to cook too and she can choose to pay on a date. We're both spending money on each other. That shouldn't hurt the cause one bit. To be honest though, the only times I've ever paid on dates is when I was sure there was no romantic future with said man.

 

 

I bolded this, but also see you mention that he could cook and she could choose to pay on the date. So that is cool.

 

 

I take exception to why you only pay for dates when there was no romantic future. I have this stupid 'rule' to thank for why plenty of guys I went on dates with thought I wasn't interested. It's *ss backwards, if you ask me. It would help everyone out if women with this "I like guys to pay" thing just be consistent. It's confusing for everyone to change your rules... but I digress....

 

 

As far as who pays....My billing rate per hour at work ranges from $250/hr to $500/hr. Going to the grocery store and cooking is at least an hour or two out of my day. That's a pretty expensive meal.

 

 

How much does the guy make? If he's paying for a $20 date for me, while I'm expected to spend $20 at the store for food and cook it.... that's not equal.

 

 

Yea, I'm happy to pay my share. It costs me 5 minutes of my 'time' before taxes.

 

 

Why I don't consider most men's chores equal to women's household chores? 'Male' chores (mowing lawns, fixing cars) are sporadic. Usually don't take that long. 'Womens' chores are daily and routine. Takes much more time. In most of my relationships, we did chores together. And things we didn't want to do, we paid someone else to do.

 

 

My time is much more valuable than money.

[RedRobin]

In reality, men work more hours per week than women do, we take fewer vacation days, and overall, spend more time in the workforce.

 

 

The problem is using 'average' data to support sexist treatment of individuals. That is called stereotyping and, um, sexism.

 

 

Men are more likely to kill themselves or kill others in a workplace. They are more likely to be substance abusers or alcoholics. And much more likely to commit a crime against an employer than women are... yet somehow that doesn't keep employers from, in general, paying them more for the same job.

 

 

The kind of bias you talk about is the called the 'tyrany of low expectations'. You expect a woman to perform subpar, work fewer hours, or leave the company... then you give her fewer opportunities, neglect to promote her, etc. while giving her male colleagues who may be performing below her those opportunities.... because they ASSUME the guy will be around for the long haul. Or want to believe it because he's their beer drinking, or golf playing, or strip club attending buddy. Even if her performance on the same tasks are on the same level or above her male peers. Just like any sexist stereotype, as long as you can point to ONE woman you hired that fit it, that justifies treating all women with that blanket.

 

 

You know, it wasn't until I was divorced and past the age when most women start a family that I stopped hearing BS comments from my male co-workers and managers about when I was going to squeeze out some kids and leave the company... yet, those same male employees were the first to jump ship. They were the ones taking flex time for their kids, and taking all the vacation they could get.

 

 

so, no. Sexism in hiring and promoting is alive and well.

[kilgore]

The problem is using 'average' data to support sexist treatment of individuals. That is called stereotyping and, um, sexism.

 

 

Men are more likely to kill themselves or kill others in a workplace. They are more likely to be substance abusers or alcoholics. And much more likely to commit a crime against an employer than women are... yet somehow that doesn't keep employers from, in general, paying them more for the same job.

 

 

The kind of bias you talk about is the called the 'tyrany of low expectations'. You expect a woman to perform subpar, work fewer hours, or leave the company... then you give her fewer opportunities, neglect to promote her, etc. while giving her male colleagues who may be performing below her those opportunities.... because they ASSUME the guy will be around for the long haul. Or want to believe it because he's their beer drinking, or golf playing, or strip club attending buddy. Even if her performance on the same tasks are on the same level or above her male peers. Just like any sexist stereotype, as long as you can point to ONE woman you hired that fit it, that justifies treating all women with that blanket.

 

 

You know, it wasn't until I was divorced and past the age when most women start a family that I stopped hearing BS comments from my male co-workers and managers about when I was going to squeeze out some kids and leave the company... yet, those same male employees were the first to jump ship. They were the ones taking flex time for their kids, and taking all the vacation they could get.

 

 

so, no. Sexism in hiring and promoting is alive and well.

Also if a man wants a family the pressure on him to create a balance is much less than that of a woman. On the other hand, a man's efforts to create that balance are of ten not given the same credence by bosses, colleagues, etc

[RedRobin]

Also if a man wants a family the pressure on him to create a balance is much less than that of a woman. On the other hand, a man's efforts to create that balance are of ten not given the same credence by bosses, colleagues, etc

 

 

That's true. One of the reasons I chose not to have kids. My ex-H wanted kids. I told him he could stay home with them then. No problem. I knew I was going to work regardless. He didn't want to stay home. I wasn't about to have kids and have all of the responsibility dumped on me. So we didn't have them. Never mind that I told him before we got married that I didn't want them. Guess he thought I'd change my mind. I'm sure all his friends told him I would after we got married. Big mistake.

 

 

... and about the work thing... you are right about that too. If employers had their way, no one would have families or any life outside of work. We'd be chained to our desks and machines like a sweatshop. Only difference is that people expect WOMEN to take the career hit for having a family. When some men face that pressure, they are happy to shove it off on their wives/partners instead of realizing that kind of sacrifice comes with the territory for ANYONE, male or female, wants to be a responsible parent. We've all gotten way too accustomed to men being absent from family life and making excuses for it. Just because they face career pressure doesn't excuse it. Women face the same pressure.

 

 

Here's a funny trend I've noticed though.... guy goes home for lunch to spend time with his kid... everyone thinks he's an awesome family guy. Perks all around.

 

 

Woman goes home for lunch to spend time with her kid, she's shirking her responsibilities at work.... and worse, she's a poor mom. WTH? Shouldn't she be at home instead of sending the kid to daycare or emasculating her poor beat upon husband who is a SAHD?

[RedRobin]

I can only do so much to make you understand reality if you are unwilling to learn.

 

LOL, I've only spent my whole adult life in an all male field. You can quote statistics all day. Clearly without any first hand experience on your part at all, little one.

[kilgore]

LOL, I've only spent my whole adult life in an all male field. You can quote statistics all day. Clearly without any first hand experience on your part at all, little one.

 

I agree. Based on experience women get the shaft. Better now but still...

[RedRobin]

If someone is offended or thinks you are a hooker and equates spending $15 on a couple cups of coffee or $40 on a movie and some popcorn as payment for services you should render, that is their problem. If you pay, you still haven't earned their respect and they still think you and every other women is a peice of meat and probably always will.

 

 

Absolutely. Paying my share means we don't have to have that conversation or worry about it. If he pays, I don't have more respect for him either. If he insists on paying, I'll offer once more...my grandma taught me to say no twice, then accept if they insist. Pretty much applies to anything where you are unsure about the decorum.

 

Clearly if it's important to you, by all means go right ahead and continue forth. In my case, I decided long ago that I don't worry about those type of girls (guys in your case), give them bandwidth in my head, or treat other women differently because of a few moochers, leaches, users, etc.

 

 

I treat everyone the same when I first meet them. Looked at another way, you could say that I hope for the best and I give them enough rope to either hang themselves by or build a bridge. Up to them what to do with that 'rope'.

[kilgore]

Since when does anecdotal evidence not count too? Data is important but just bc something isn't captured by data doesn't mean it's not true; maybe it's not being measured right

[RedRobin]

I understand. Things like science and math are of little interest to you, since your anecdotal evidence trumps all.

 

I have plenty of first hand experience as I actually work in a traditionally female dominated field. Unlike you, I realize that the experiences of one person, myself in this case, have little to no bearing on a discussion of feminism.

 

The fact that your arguments have reached the point where you dismiss actual research and evidence in favor of digs at my person, and anecdotal evidence just shows that you have nothing left to offer to the discussion.

 

 

I'm not dismissing anything.

 

 

I'm questioning how you reached your conclusion that 'average' data justifies sexism and paying women less.

 

 

I gave you data on men, yet for some bizarre reason, that hasn't lead to the same conclusion (ie, men should make less)... even though one could argue that the effect the 'average' man has on a company has the potential for much graver negative consequences for that company than the 'average' woman. Why is that? Why is it that when men demonstrate some of the negative behaviors you claim women are guilty of, they aren't punished for it? Or at least not as severely as women? I'll tell you...

 

 

It's because of the kind of sexism you are supporting, that's why.

 

 

As for the science and math comment... that's funny. Since you don't know me very well, I'll let the people here who DO know me well have a silent chuckle about that one. Goes to show how deep your sexism really runs, TBH.

Edited September 3, 2015 by RedRobin

[RedRobin]

I agree that there are instances when "it's not being measured right." That is often done purposefully in order to generate misleading statistics in order to back up whatever agenda someone wishes. That is the case with the gender wage gap. Basically, they take each profession, add up how much all the men make, and then add up how much all of the women make. Finding a difference there, the feminist agenda is then pushed onto people as if there is some sexism at play. However, what those statistics leave out are factors like time spent on the job, hours worked per day, leave and vacation days taken, ect. When those variables are taken into account, just as the other poster pointed out, the gender wage gap all but disappears. Feminists these days seem almost brainwashed to the degree where they are just unwilling to accept the relevant data that dismisses their theories of a sexist, patriarchal society trying to keep women down.

 

As for personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, that are important mostly to the person that lives them. When decisions are made for a society in general, anecdotal evidence does not take precedence. We as a society cannot make decisions based on one person's life, especially when many others have a completely different experience.

 

 

No it doesn't. Now you are just making shyte up.

 

 

Exactly the opposite is true. Even after taking time spent on the job, vacation days, hours worked per day, etc into account... the gap still exists. Using weasel words like 'all but disappears' isn't the same as "there is no difference", or "women actually make more than men". Can you point to even one industry where women routinely make MORE than men? I can't.

 

 

I was going to say 'trust me' on this, but I know that's useless to say to you.... but what the hell.

 

 

'Trust me' when I tell you that I'd love to tell the women just entering my field that the world is their oyster... that if they work hard they will be granted the same opportunities as their male colleagues, but I haven't witnessed that. I don't share my observations with them, because I don't want to discourage them. They still have to work hard, regardless.... and every company and every manager is different. Might as well hope for the best for them.

[readynow]

I agree generally with your post RedRobin, but...

 

I bolded this, but also see you mention that he could cook and she could choose to pay on the date. So that is cool.

I take exception to why you only pay for dates when there was no romantic future. I have this stupid 'rule' to thank for why plenty of guys I went on dates with thought I wasn't interested. It's *ss backwards, if you ask me. It would help everyone out if women with this "I like guys to pay" thing just be consistent. It's confusing for everyone to change your rules... .

 

I think men should pay on dates. I think it's nice and chivalrous on the part of the man. I'm not saying this should apply in your dates or other women's dates, but it does in mine. We all don't have to do the same things, do we? I didn't change my 'rules' there. I like men doing traditionally men things, it makes me feel all fuzzy The last time a guy hinted that I paid on a date, I agreed with him completely and enjoyed the date thoroughly. It was then that I filtered him into 'friend' though. We're still friends now. That shouldn't affect your dating rules should it? If it's a consolation, I'm far away in England so that should leave your dating pool uncorrupted

 

I also agree that me cooking is far more valuable in time than him paying on a date. My work knows no bounds and time is very precious. But for a great relationship, who's counting? Yes, women's 'roles' take far longer and are more involved than men's. Are we looking to change that then? Please, let me know when men become able to carry a child for 9months

[Taramere]

I'm going to try to avoid writing a spiel, but I spent a spell in the workforce in the 1980s, between leaving school and going to university. I can well remember how routine discrimination against women was. Being cat-called and sexually harassed by men in the yard when I did temp work - and getting all the "ooooohhhh, fiesty..." comments when I told them I didn't appreciate it. I got ditched from a few temp jobs for reacting in the kind of polite but frosty way that is now commonly advocated.

 

The game appearing to involve reacting to sexual harassment either like some brothel running bawd, or (if the advice from the girl at the agency was anything to go by) playing weak and hurt and whining "you're embarrassing me" in a pathetic, giggly way.

 

That was also the era when celebrity DJs were groping and molesting vulnerable 14 year old girls quite publicly and with impunity. I know that vulnerable boys were also subjected to sexual harassment - but that was far more of a behind closed doors sort of thing....and certainly wouldn't have met with the indifferent "men will be men" attitude that public harassment of young girls met with.

 

It was not remotely uncommon for boys/young men to walk or run up and grab girls they didn't even know in a sexual way "for a laugh". If you had gone to the police and complained that some guy had run up to you in the street and grabbed your boobs/crotch area, they'd have just told you it was lads being lads and if you didn't like it you shouldn't be walking down the street at night. The cat-calling that girl in the Manhattan video got was incredibly tame compared to the way things were in my local high street back then.

 

I'm grateful to feminism for tackling that sort of thing. I didn't think it was acceptable back then, and I'm glad that it's generally not considered acceptable for women and girls to be treated like that now. Not that there aren't plenty of times I've an issue with feminism - but I've seen what anti-feminism looks like enough to say that if I have to pick between the two, I'll opt for feminism.