Women in a man's world - What are your views?

[sinjin]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

We still share expenses as equally as we did before the layoff, and that isn't likely to change; it just means I will have less "disposable income" than she.

If it were you that made a good deal more would you still share expenses equally?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

If it were you that made a good deal more would you still share expenses equally?

I don't see why not. Of course, anything's open to discussion. After I am working again and know what kind of salary I will have, I might choose to discuss some readjustments; were the situation as you described, she knows she could ask the same.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

My comments were made in context. I have no problems with people who make personal decisions on what works best for their household. But I do hold accountable the very hypocrisy exhibited by one who chooses to bash her gender (female bosses and presidents and firefighters oh my) because she will never toil and earn the right to become one. Marginalize the hard-won efforts of people for the rights to equality and level the playing field for all by fixating the fringe, because she lacks the attitude to fight the fight and avoids ever needing to do so. Add to that the curiosities of polished pedestals and what she freely described. She’s a precarious position and she bashes out because seeing different balances of power threatens her. A human frailty should anyone be gracefully excused, until one becomes a complete putz about it. Ain’t fooling nobody.

There but for the grace of God go I.

[cynsaligia]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

What an interesting thread. Old school feminists who equate being a homemaker with being a "kept woman" in response to a woman who may or may not feel insecure (who can know this for sure?) about being a homemaker. After all these years, is this the best we can do? Perhaps real progress will come when people will do what LL suggests:

glossyp, i most emphatically do not equate being a homemaker with being a kept woman. in fact, you can be a kept woman even if you had a job of your own, if you wholly take your husband's perspectives without thought and to the detriment of women as a class. to me a kept woman (or man, for that matter) is someone who eats what their other half/benefactor says whole, does what they're told, doesn't have a mind of his/her own, and clings to erroneous opinions s/he has absorbed from their benefactor bcs to question those opinions is threatening to the benefactor or to the person being kept. i do agree with others who have posted here that karen (not all stay-at-home moms/ housewives/ladies who lunch/whatever one in that situation want to call herself--just karen) is a kept woman despite her protestations otherwise.

how do i come to this conclusion about her? if you read what she says thoughtfully (in the way you would read literature--don't just read what the person says word for word, but also how they're saying what they say or what they don't say, and what images their words evoke, etc) it's actually hard not to come to that conclusion. you're right--we can't know her inner heart as if it were our own, but she's given some of us quite a good amount of reason to believe that our conclusions are justified. acousticlady said it all best in her last post, and in a much more forgiving way than i would have.

and here i shall commence being unforgiving.

the only reason karen thinks i talk out of both sides of my mouth is because she's so myopic. simpleton or self-made-and-self-interested-simpleton she is, she refuses to acknowledge or realize that PM, acousticlady and i have NEVER said that women are exactly/literally equal to men, or should be. we've been saying that women deserve the same shots at all jobs, etc. as men do. we're saying that if a man is not as qualified as a woman to lead, have the woman lead. we're saying men should not get preferential treatment over women. neither should women get preferential treatment over men (nod to menehune man and joshuatree here).

what does karen say?

she says she's "discriminating in taste." when is it tasteful/socially acceptable in these times to say, "if i had my way, i would exclude a whole class of people from jobs, positions of power, etc., because i think that is inferior"? if anyone here said, "i will vote for every single good white person before i will consider a hawaiian person for president," that person would be flamed...nay, spontaneously combusted...by the firestorm of vehement responses. the things she says are akin to "you know, i have a few darling gay friends, and i would never say this to their faces, but we should admit every straight person into our country club before we admit even one of my magnificently flaming hairstylists." she denies she says these things, but you only need a fifth grader's reading ability to see that she clearly does. she thinks that her "there are exceptions" clause excuses her from my calling her the ugliest kind of prejudiced--where you discriminate against your own. but it doesn't excuse her one bit. in fact, it highlights her immorality of thinking even more.

she says, when all good men are exhausted, THEN i'll sigh and choose the woman--thereby indicating that she thinks men are inherently better leaders than women. she says, i'll never have a female boss because the few i've seen were bitchy (i know--i'm paraphrasing, but that's basically what she means).

she says, boy, is she ever so thankfully glad that her husband never had to suffer a female soldier at his side. goodness, if that were the case, her hubby could have died in vietnam because women are so inept and incapable of being soldiers, and by golly, if mr. karen had died a horrible death in war due to the negligence of the US military placing a female at his side (never mind the viet cong who, in this imaginary scenario, shot him), who would be around to make the money so karen can spend it??!! who, pray tell, would polish karen's pedestal??!! who??!!

the truth is, her logic that the scarcity of female versus male firefighters is proof that there are legions of women who fail the firefighter test is not logic at all. is she completely blind to the fact that there are legions of men who take (and retake...and retake...) the test and fail (and fail...and fail some more)? if she can produce evidence that if one compares the number of male applicant firefighters versus those males who pass the test against the number of female applicant firefighters versus those women who pass the test, the percentage of males passing verus not passing outnumber the females passing versus not passing, then she might have something there. but she fails to produce that. what she claims are facts are not facts at all, unless your definition of a fact is "that which karen says is so."

so yeah--i'll freely admit what she says sticks in my craw. but "sticking in my craw" is sooooo not the same as "getting my goat." one indicates she irks me (which is sorta true--actually, she completely disappoints me); the other indicates she irks me AND bested me, which is something that has NEVER happened here. she hasn't bested me logically, or with her critical thinking skills, or with open-mindedness, or with understanding and comprehension, and certainly she did not best me with writing ability and style.

i will post here a quote that appeared on this thread some time ago. it was posted, interestingly enough, by someone who until very recently was herself a stay-at-home-mom (grandma?), didn't complete college, has had a life of ups and downs. she is someone who many of us find endearing and for whom many have nothing but respect and admiration because she keeps an open mind, keeps an open heart to even the most unlikeable of us here on HT, and is always willing to share her wisdom as well as learn from the wisdom of others.

The only jobs for which no man is qualified are human incubators and wet nurse. Likewise, the only job for which no woman is or can be qualified is sperm donor. --Wilma Scott Heide (1921 - 1985), American feminist author and activist.

and with that, i say: to me, karen is rather like a used condom i've thrown on the street. she was useful, in terms of being a vehicle to express my points of view, but now that i've ejaculated all that i need to...*shrug*...i'm done with that.

[Karen]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

Cyn, thanks! you are the perfect example of how someone like me can dare to oppose "conventional wisdom" on a manner and give the opposing posters enough time and they uh......show themselves for what they really are.

Chalk another one up for "the movement." ahem......

Your lame attempt at how many men fail the firefighter test isn't valid, but you did grasp at straws like a real trooper. Men fail too, duhh...but at the end of each class what we see and have is a very strong majority of men.

Someone on here asked why I keep posting about physical strength. someone isn't thinking too critically or paying attention to what I have posted. Can women do anything men can do? yes or no, and therefore can what some of the biggest mouths in the movement want, happen? and that is to negate the very need for men in society, because they claim women can do it all and don't NEED men.

No....there are things besides impregnating a woman that women cannot do, and yes, I always say, like duhh, that there are exceptions to every rule. women cannot and will not ever have true equality because there are too many differences, and no, it wasn't my hubby or father that has me thinking this way. I am quite capable of critical thinking and forming my own arguments.

I don't need a man influencing my arguments because REALITY made them for me. I googled images, and typed in women fire departments and most pics that came up, page after page, had NO women in them, and I then found the various pages discussing how NYC has this tiny minority, and this is just common sense...women don't because women can't, except for this tiny minority that make it. This isn't the only job, the only thing that men do and most women fail at, hence men are much better at and the rabid, extreme mouths of the women's movement, of which I quoted several.....are WRONG in more ways than one.

Reality shows us that women really DO need men....we'd be in a heap of trouble if no men were firefighters, and no telling how many other jobs that I don't have the time to research. wonder how much oil we'd have from the drilling fields, and then to send on and process into gas for our precious SUVs, if not for MEN doing that job, too.

Yeah, I won't get obnoxious or gross, cuz I am not going to lower myself to Cyn's level and say I am done with this place in sucha manner, I'll just state the obvious...no one has gainsayed my argument that women cannot do ANY and everything men can do and as well, just what's always been so obvious and simple to me that a child can see it, and leave it at that. What more is there to say? Have at it, least most of you didn't lower youselves to a level that is unworhty of what you claim to stand for, just cuz you dislike my opinions, observations and brevity to state them, not being here for a popularity contest or something.

Projections have failed and I've made my case well, a case that hasn't been countered successfully. wow, big whoop....women are not as strong as men, just like grandma's bible said. both sexes need each other and no argument can change the reality of it.

It was fun~

[Menehune Man]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

Most jobs can be done by most people, regardless of gender.
It's a question of education I believe.

Very heavy lifting, I cannot do. Most men can carry more than I and some women can too!
Long ago in the early eighties I truly wanted to open a childcare center. I'm great with kids, but chose not to take the chance because it seemed at the time that every other month there was a scandal going on in one of them.

So we're not all equal in all things besides the gender issue.

I've always felt "Equal pay for equal work" is completely proper.

[MatildaRose]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

My husband told me a few years ago that the only profession he feels women may not be well-suited for is professional football. He may be right; the necks on some of those guys are bigger around than my waist! With the proper training, though, I think women could endure the tackles, and for sure, we could make great wide receivers and running backs. The critical, strategic thinking required by quarterbacks? Women would shine! That being said, how many women would choose professional football as a means to make a living? Why are women "not allowed" in the sport? Why is the spot where women tee-off in golf closer to the flag than the men's?

My view is this: I love it when a man opens the door for me. I love it when a man, unknown to me, offers to lift that heavy box off a high shelf at Costco when he sees me struggling. I can certainly perform both tasks on my own, but what woman doesn't appreciate being viewed and treated like the lady that she is? Those actions are a result of possessing a sense of common courtesy and being taught by parents NOT that men are the stronger, smarter, more able species, but because it's the right and kind thing to do for anyone. Don't those actions make both men and women feel good? Wouldn't most men appreciate having their wife or girlfriend assisted in the same way? Don't most women enjoy being treated special? Have I opened a door for another woman with 3 young kids in tow? You betcha! Male? Female? It makes no difference when you're just doing the right thing.

When I was about 22, I got out of my car to pump some gas, and the gas station attendant said, "Well, you must be one of those "women's libbers." I said, "Actually, my father taught me to pump my own gas when I was 15...next?"

The title of this thread is perplexing to me and makes the assumption that this is a "man's world." Not by a long shot! Perhaps the more direct, "Do you think this is a man's world?" would have worked better, but that's just me.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

the only profession he feels women may not be well-suited for is professional football.

On average, I don't think most men are suited for pro-level; it takes a LOT of training. And I know plenty of women that I wouldn't want to be facing, if they were linebackers for the opposition.

Those actions are a result of possessing a sense of common courtesy and being taught by parents NOT that men are the stronger, smarter, more able species, but because it's the right and kind thing to do for anyone.

That last word says it all. I open doors and do other "common courtesies" for people - male, female, young, old, whatever. A`ole pilikia.

[Adri]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

This is a topic I have not seen touched on and I would truely like get an opinion on. Many of us are from different cultures, many of which historically do not treat women very well. Of course, on the surface, we say we have made great strides. I am very lucky in that I come from a long line of very strong (emotionally), highly educated women. It wasn't until I was in college that the idea of men and women being equal might not be the norm in many homes.

I saw a news story today where an organization has made a safe haven for arab women in the West Bank. In those countries women still do not have any rights at all. It got me to thinking about some women even in this country do not believe they have any rights. /snip

This reminds me of the plight of women in Afghanistan. Like women in most heavily Islamic areas, the women in Afghanistan historically had many restrictions placed upon what they could do, what they could wear, whether they could express themselves, whether they had any control over their own lives. But pre-Taliban, the women had reached a point where they had many of the rights that Americans tend to take for granted ~ they could get an education, they could work, they could be doctors or lawyers, they didn't have to wear burkhas, they could vote, they could travel without being accompanied by a male relative. All it took was a regime change in their government for them to lose all that. They could not get an education other than studying the Qur'an up to age 8, they could not work outside their home (and especially not as doctors or lawyers), they had severely limited health care because they could not be examined by a male doctor and no females were allowed to be doctors, there were severe restrictions placed upon their ability to travel and their entire means of support placed them at the mercy of their male relatives.

The women in Afghanistan have recently regained some of the freedom and rights they had before but they must know how easily it could all be lost to them again. The thing is, the women in Afghanistan are not so different from the women in America or in any other country. Once we (everyone in general) have certain freedoms and rights for a while, it gets easier and easier to take those rights and freedoms for granted and to start believing those freedoms and rights will never be lost again. To believe that *we* would never suffer the fate of the women in Afghanistan. Why? Because we're so different from them? Because we're so much better, stronger, smarter than they are that we would never "allow" such a thing to happen? (even in quiet erosions of our rights and freedoms as opposed to a catastrophic loss all at once?) Establishing and preserving fundamental human rights and "equality" (whether based on race, gender, sexual orientation or any other criteria) takes work and vigilance and perseverance. Sad to say, there will always be individual cases of inequality(as in people in abusive relationships and don't feel able to escape the abusive relationship or people who suffer discrimination based upon things like their gender or race). and sad to say, but there have always been categories of people who seem especially vulnerable to suffering the loss of equality for historical and social/cultural/religious reasons. American lawmakers recognize this ~ that's why we have Constitutionally "protected classes" of people and one of those classes includes women.

eta: For me, equality is not about whether someone opens a door for me because I'm female or whether I am physically able to be a soldier. For me, it's more would I be flat out restricted from holding a job even if I am qualified and able for no reason other than my gender? If I do get that job, would my pay or benefits be less just because of my gender? It doesn't mean that one gender is superior than the other, to me it means a level playing field in all aspects of our lives. Not just for men, not just for women, not just for any one particular race, etc.

[Te Poutiki a Tai]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

I come from a society (Maori) where the roles of men and women are complementary to each other and women are accorded as much respect as men. The names of our tribes can either be the names of important men or women or events. Ngati Kahu for example take their name from Kahu, their female ancestor while another tribe in the east of New Zealand is called Ngati Porou, taking their name from an important male ancestor.

So I find your question perplexing.

[cynsaligia]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

hypothetical situation brought up on new york times:

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

gloria steinem's piece isn't the best-argued (even if she's being factual, she gets a little shrill when she points out that male blacks got certain rights before women of any shade or lack of it did), but it does bring up an interesting question. if a female candidate used bill clinton's or barack obama's personal style while running for the presidency, would that woman be as successful as mr. clinton or mr. obama?

i tend to believe not. women at work and women in politics are scrutinized in ways that men don't have to endure. one merely need to look at the comments on the hillary clinton watch thread regarding her "lack of grace," "strength resembling that of a man's versus a woman's" but yet having a disdain for masculinity that falls into "feminazism."

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

Thank you Cyn for posting this.

As irritating as it is to read about the femalignment towards HRC, I think being considered an insider is her greatest obstacle. Both she and BO are similar in terms of legislative experience (and not too much different from Edwards) but fairly or not, she is forever linked to that last decade, and considering the eight-yr malady that is the Bush Administration, a great many people believe that she will bring the return of the Clinton Administration, which both garners and scares away votes.

A word about that femassasination: Katha Politt nailed it when she

quipped in an interview that if people didn't stop making sexist comments about Hillary Clinton, I might just have to vote for her. Maybe he missed the ironic conditional: he thought I supported her.

especially telling was this other quote:

If you get your news from the progressive media, especially the web, you would think large fields of ideological difference separate Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I haven't decided who I'm voting for. I would love to see a Democratic woman President; I'm not ashamed to say that. I'd love to see a Democratic black President too. But obviously--I shouldn't have to say this--what matters is what the candidates stand for and to whom they'll be beholden if elected. My problem is, the three don't look so far apart to me--certainly not enough to justify demonizing one and canonizing another, as my left-wing correspondent does. The differences seem more like branding: the strong, experienced woman; the black (but not too black) inspirer of hope; the hands-on economic populist crusader. Or if you prefer, the evil pro-corporate phony and everyone else.

Like KP, I haven't decided how I shall cast my vote. In an attempt to step outside of myself, I am saddened that here we have the first viable female candidate for president, yet I cannot bring myself to support her based on that criteria. Her centrist ways and all the things that irritated me about her husband's presidential record:
• the draconian welfare reform of 1996, which was GOP-inspired and she supported it.
• don't ask/don't tell military policy towards Gays

I freely admit my guilt when I assign baggage. I wish, in very fibre of my being, that pro/con HRC commentary focused on getting her past her husband's presidential record. All the ovarianimosity that spews out of people's mouths will make folks like me vote for her out of sympathy and solidarity, as we each have our own trials in the workplace in the face of ovaphobia.

[sinjin]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

...one merely need to look at the comments on the hillary clinton watch thread regarding her "lack of grace," "strength resembling that of a man's versus a woman's" but yet having a disdain for masculinity that falls into "feminazism."

I'd be happy to discuss my position if you would kindly address me directly. I'm not sure I understand your observation about "feminazism". A term I would never use.

[cynsaligia]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

I'd be happy to discuss my position if you would kindly address me directly. I'm not sure I understand your observation about "feminazism". A term I would never use.

i apologize for making you feel as if i was singling you out and characterizing you amongst those who refer to HRC as being a feminazi. i merely picked a sampling of phrases from the HRC thread without concern for the identity of the author(s) or the pieces they were referencing because my intent was to illustrate my view that women are still picked apart in the professional and political world in ways that men rarely have to suffer. for me, there was no need to "personalize."

see post #35 in the HRC thread if you need clarification re feminazism.

i've never felt a need for personal address as "permission" or "invitation" if i desired to expound further any position i might have, particularly on a discussion thread where the invitation to do so is inherent. i would have never imagined anyone would require such a thing.

[sinjin]

Re: Women in a man's world - What are your views?

i've never felt a need for personal address as "permission" or "invitation" if i desired to expound further any position i might have, particularly on a discussion thread where the invitation to do so is inherent. i would have never imagined anyone would require such a thing.

Not at all. I took no offense. Seeing you quote me made me want to clarify if it meant a chance to avoid seeming a common misogynist. I do indeed agree that women are judged in ways a man would never be. Of course a man may well be judged in ways a woman would never be. It is fascinating.