Women in the Workplace

[RubberDucky451]

First of all all I'm a guy.

Recently I've heard talk that the "modern" housewife is one that works a job and cleans/takes care of the house. I've also noticed some of the pressures on women from reading history books that highlight the working women above the stay at home mom. Most women consider staying home a job in itself, it seems that taking a job and the housework would be suicide. Maybe some of the women on the forum could enlighten me.

 

[Agent Intellect]

TV and internet takes care of the children now. plus there is less manual work to be done in the house with modern appliances, fast food/microwave meals, nannies/babysitters, or just neglectful parents (hence the number of asshole children running around these days).

 

[Thread Killer]

In regards to the OP, that is pretty much true from what I've seen. Even if the guy doesn't go to his job much, it's still the woman's job.

I'm so glad I'm single.

 

[RubberDucky451]

TV and internet takes care of the children now. plus there is less manual work to be done in the house with modern appliances, fast food/microwave meals, nannies/babysitters, or just neglectful parents (hence the number of asshole children running around these days).

Great point. Good parenting certainly isn't throwing a TV dinner together for the kids. Neither is hiring a nanny to watch your kids all day, they get very little time with the parents.

 

[Toad]

Get them out of there and into a kitchen!

 

[Ermine]

Get back to the kitchen, Toad. You have won the Iron Chef sweepstakes and have been selected as a sous chef for Mario Batali in a high stakes competition! Go!

Like AI said, the "modern" housewife mostly neglects her children, and is detrimental to society by failing in her responsibilities as a mother. She doesn't have to be a stay at home mom, but anyone who tries to take that on should have sensible priorities in place, that is, children over the job. It's another situation entirely if the mother is the only able breadwinner or if the father stays at home instead, but children still have more value than money.

Responding to the OP, I agree. It would be suicide, and I would never consider doing a full time job and having kids at the same time, unless there is no other way to make ends meet. In my opinion, the "modern" housewife is a by product of modern feminism, that traditional femininity is weak and in order to assert oneself, one should try to be like a man. That never works successfully, and is very pathetic, thinking that their own gender and inherent attributes have no value. It really only contributes to sexism.

I'd like to have kids if and/or when I get married. I'm also going to study Graphic Design in college. Theoretically, I would work and/or go to college full time until I have a kid, and then go free lance, so I still contribute money, I'm doing something I enjoy, and I also put the children first. I'm not going to contribute to the societal problem of neglected bratty kids or modern feminism.

 

[snowqueen]

God this is a depressing thread! Are you seriously still hung up on these stereotypical gender role divisions in the 21st century? This is a total distortion of 'modern' feminism (what other kind is there?)

This is conflating a whole load of complex ideas into a simple binary of male/female - shame on you INTPs!

Men and women are people. Children are children. Homes are homes and workplaces are workplace.

Children need good parenting and homes need to be kept clean and jobs need to be done, money earned.

Are you seriously saying that women have magical powers of parenting and housework?

You could just as easily ask whether the problems in society stem from the fact that men are absent from their children's lives because of their focus on work and their reluctance to see housework as 'men's work'.

Just because temperamentally and socioculturally women are predisposed to children does not mean that they cannot also be excellent in the workplace or that men cannot be excellent homeworkers and parents.

People who have children, men and women, need to be a lot more thoughtful about how they manage the dual task of parenting their children and earning enough money to support their family. That means sitting down and thinking about how the responsibility is divided. It means sitting down and talking about what each of them wants in terms of time spent with children and working. Locally negotiated solutions are preferable to a generalised idea like 'women should stay at home and men go to work'. While I'm not disputing that however free ones choices might be, women probably are predisposed to childrearing while men to working, there is very little evidence that this is a strongly natural division in the human world. I know lots of women who prefer work and lots of men who prefer domesticity.

When I had children I took two years off work completely, then went back to work two mornings a week and increased that when they went to school and finally went back to work full time when they were both over 11 and at secondary school. That was because financially it made sense. I hated being a stay at home mother and couldn't wait to get back to work. But I did my duty. My male colleague and his wife are reversed. She has the earning power, they both worked part time when the children were small and now she is full time while he has remained part time - their kids are both under 11 still.

The worst parented children I see are often ones where the mother stays at home way beyond the time kids go to school - c'mon there is only so much housework one can do in 5 hours!! I'm sure there are lots of men who would like the luxury of hanging around the home while the children are at school!! Bad parenting is simply bad parenting and whether or not parents work has little to do with why children are brats. That is a lot more to do with an unwillingness to actually say no (often linked to a desire to be the child's 'friend' rather than parent), with the difficulties of bringing up children in highly consumerist societies and with a general erosion of communities and naturalistic play areas. Are you saying that working class parents have always been bad and rich parents good? History doesnt bear that out for a second. Values, discipline and love and quality attention are much more important.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Great post Snow!

Most women consider staying home a job in itself, it seems that taking a job and the housework would be suicide.

This is true only if the children are extremely young or if the couple has a whole brood. It's seems sensible to me to have two working parents who share the housework (along with any older children). I'd even argue that it's better than having one stay-at-home parent.

I've also noticed some of the pressures on women from reading history books that highlight the working women above the stay at home mom.

There is nothing inherently superior about a working woman over a homemaker. The issue lies in that a 'homemaker' often doesn't have the marketable skills or knowledge that a working women would. They may be utterly dependent upon their partner. It's not a wise position to be in. A couple should be able to support themselves independently if necessary.

In my opinion, the "modern" housewife is a by product of modern feminism, that traditional femininity is weak and in order to assert oneself, one should try to be like a man.

Don't condemn modern feminism. Admittedly it is fronted by some questionable figures; but the concept in and of itself is noble. It's not about brow-beating stepford wives, but equality.

I'm curious what exactly you mean by 'traditional feminism' Ermine. I consider a dependent women to be 'weaker' than an independent one, but I feel the same way in regards to men.

Bad parenting is simply bad parenting and whether or not parents work has little to do with why children are brats. That is a lot more to do with an unwillingness to actually say no (often linked to a desire to be the child's 'friend' rather than parent), with the difficulties of bringing up children in highly consumerist societies and with a general erosion of communities and naturalistic play areas

This is very true. I've observed this in quite a few single parents and their children. The parent often become emotionally dependent on the child and will not deny them anything they can afford. Eventually the child/adolescent essentially becomes the authority(and tyrant) of the household.

 

[Ermine]

Don't condemn modern feminism. Admittedly it is fronted by some questionable figures; but the concept in and of itself is noble. It's not about brow-beating stepford wives, but equality.

I'm curious what exactly you mean by 'traditional feminism' Ermine. I consider a dependent women to be 'weaker' than an independent one, but I feel the same way in regards to men.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be equal. My stance is that people are created equal, but different. It's just really hard or impossible to fill two gender roles at once. And who said anything about stay at home moms being dependent?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

My stance is essentially the same as yours. However, I think the societal conception of stiff 'gender roles' is very negative. In reality the responsibilities of the parents overlap. When raising a child it's not important how you fill some specified role, it's how you meet the needs of the child.

Someone who can't support themself apart from their partner is by definition dependent.

 

[Agent Intellect]

i'm simply comparing the way homes are today to how they were before. i don't think anybody is assigned the job as breadwinner or housekeeper because of their gender, i'm just pointing out that in modern times, there has not been as much focus on the housekeeper aspect from either gender, although 'traditionally' it has been the woman. where the problem lies is that instead of parents delegating responsibilities to each other, they outsource the job of parenting to other people (nannies and babysitters) and count on television and the internet to keep the children busy (which further perpetuates consumerism and stereotypes of how people should be).

if anything, i'd say that rich parents are worse then working class and middle class parents. rich parents are the ones that seem to have very time consuming careers, and see the job of parenting as simply throwing money at things.

i for one would love to be a stay at home dad; i don't understand why some men would see that as a blow to their masculinity. it sort of ties in with the age of enlightenment thread, because more time with the children would be more time spent educating them, teaching them to think for themselves, and preparing them for the world. i can't count on TV to do that for them.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

well, i have just one point to make...

it is well documented that Prostitution is the oldest known occupation

just saying

 

[Kuu]

I don't think a truly "modern housewife" would have too much trouble. The less stuff you have, the less you have to clean and take care of. Minimalism is the staple of modern living. (Even minimalism in the number of children: the tendency in developed countries is to have none or as few as possible). If there's not much house chores, then it's not impossible to take care of the house as well as a job.

Of course, if you include children, it becomes more complicated as others have pointed out; but the OP wasn't talking about parenting... (Why is "modern housewife" instantly associated with "is a mom"...... old habits die hard, eh?)

 

[Perseus]

My experience of women in the work place has been:

1) often poor as they see their children as priority and the customer is left short changed

2) can be evilly manipulative and use their skills to exclude men

3) can fawn to the boss and get jobs that men are more skilled at doing

4) willing to work for less pay and they get the jobs and exclude men

 

[Deleted member 1424]

3) can fawn to the boss and get jobs that men are more skilled at doing

4) willing to work for less pay and they get the jobs and exclude men

YouTube - they took our jobs

 

[Waterstiller]

Thanks for the intelligent post, snowqueen.

Perseus, I hope you're not serious. In all your reading have you ever come across this?



Misanthropy +240exp

 

[RubberDucky451]

Conflict!! just as I planned when this thread was created. -evil laughter-

 

[Perseus]

Thanks for the intelligent post, snowqueen.

Perseus, I hope you're not serious. In all your reading have you ever come across this?



Misanthropy +240exp

Yes, it is all true. But women in the workplace when they have an intrinsic interest in the job are better than Men. Money and circumstances rear their head.

 

[walfin]

Are all of you really that old? The full-time housewife was a near extinct creature by the time I was born (my mum was and is one but she's a good bit older than my peers' mothers).

I found my stay-at-home mum to be a control freak and a "frog in the well" (Chinese idiom, sorry about that, but I think you can get the picture) who kept doing stupid things like rearranging the furniture because she had nothing better to do, and I've always felt that parents with other jobs are more well adjusted overall. From what snowqueen says (about mothers who stay at home even while their children are in school), I think it's true.

And seriously. A grown adult taking pocket money from his/her spouse? You must be kidding. If you're a homemaker and you see it as salary, then think about this - did you marry someone, or did you become an indentured servant?

I think the one-spouse-works-part-time thing is fine though (regardless of whether it's the man or woman who does so).

But women in the workplace when they have an intrinsic interest in the job are better than Men.

If a woman says this, she must be a misandrist and if a man says this, he must be an idiot. It's fair ridiculous to stereotype job performance by gender.

Though in general women will do things differently due to more of them being feeling types (sigh. if only more women were INTP).

And I've not seen at least half the items in the male privilege checklist applied in my life.

 

[Devercia]

To understand the male perspective, you have to immagine the gender struggle as men see it. Much of it is like being pummled by a women. Even if you were a jerk, violence against you was unlikely to be called for. Thus men find themselves in the frustraiting possition of being unable to retaliate, or stand up for themselves. They are either going to be emascualted for allowing themselves to stepped on, or demonized for providing even the slightest retaliation.

The check list was full of lulz. I read probably 10 or so before I just assumed that I would take objection, atleast partially, to 2/3s of the statements. It is mostly oppinions based on statistics, if any, that the list itself sometimes admits to being disputed. Unfortunately there is a statistic to support any possition so its hard to make those assertions, though the list presumes to do so anyway.

@ DEY DERRKA DERR, it the specialization of the male gender role. I am all for the laxation of gender roles as I despise limitations on the genuinly competent, but I see alot of argements from feminism that want to have the cake and eat it too. For instance, Its not unfathomable in a custody battle for most people to accept the argument that women are better nurturers simply for being women. It is unfathomable for many to accept that men are better providers simply for being men, even though the arguments of the privledge check list are commonly held. I don't understand if the system is so biased to men being breadwinners, why we can't use that as a basis of argument?

I also postulate that feminism is not about sexual equality, otherwise it would not be called feminism. A post-modern observation, but I think it shows the bias, even if it is level-headed bias.

Essentially I see the subjection of women as a result of them being treated as things to be protected. Unfortunately things like afirmitive action only maintain that notion and prolong inequalities.

As far as women in the work place, I find those that think they need to prove themselves the most detrimental to their position. If there is a bias against women, mere familiarity will cause them not be thought of as women, but the person they are.

Edit:

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

lol, one of my pet peeves is unnecessary genderization of words. That last sentence was ambiguous, so I will say that "chairman" is not a maculine word, no more than human. Infact, I would argue that men being the subject gender neutral terms is just as derogitory. If you REALLY wanted to over think it, you could say tat XY includes the potential for XX.

 

[RubberDucky451]

To understand the male perspective, you have to immagine the gender struggle as men see it. Much of it is like being pummled by a women. Even if you were a jerk, violence against you was unlikely to be called for. Thus men find themselves in the frustraiting possition of being unable to retaliate, or stand up for themselves. They are either going to be emascualted for allowing themselves to stepped on, or demonized for providing even the slightest retaliation.

The check list was full of lulz. I read probably 10 or so before I just assumed that I would take objection, atleast partially, to 2/3s of the statements. It is mostly oppinions based on statistics, if any, that the list itself sometimes admits to being disputed. Unfortunately there is a statistic to support any possition so its hard to make those assertions, though the list presumes to do so anyway.

@ DEY DERRKA DERR, it the specialization of the male gender role. I am all for the laxation of gender roles as I despise limitations on the genuinly competent, but I see alot of argements from feminism that want to have the cake and eat it too. For instance, Its not unfathomable in a custody battle for most people to accept the argument that women are better nurturers simply for being women. It is unfathomable for many to accept that men are better providers simply for being men, even though the arguments of the privledge check list are commonly held. I don't understand if the system is so biased to men being breadwinners, why we can't use that as a basis of argument?

I also postulate that feminism is not about sexual equality, otherwise it would not be called feminism. A post-modern observation, but I think it shows the bias, even if it is level-headed bias.

Essentially I see the subjection of women as a result of them being treated as things to be protected. Unfortunately things like afirmitive action only maintain that notion and prolong inequalities.

As far as women in the work place, I find those that think they need to prove themselves the most detrimental to their position. If there is a bias against women, mere familiarity will cause them not be thought of as women, but the person they are.

Edit:

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

lol, one of my pet peeves is unnecessary genderization of words. That last sentence was ambiguous, so I will say that "chairman" is not a maculine word, no more than human. Infact, I would argue that men being the subject gender neutral terms is just as derogitory. If you REALLY wanted to over think it, you could say tat XY includes the potential for XX.

You've got some great thoughts here. I agree with a lot of your points, I'm a bit too lazy to type them like yourself.

 

[LucielaMinerva]

First of all all I'm a guy.

Recently I've heard talk that the "modern" housewife is one that works a job and cleans/takes care of the house. I've also noticed some of the pressures on women from reading history books that highlight the working women above the stay at home mom. Most women consider staying home a job in itself, it seems that taking a job and the housework would be suicide. Maybe some of the women on the forum could enlighten me.

I have horrible multi-tasking and interpersonal organization skills. I will never be able to do that, but give me a cupboard and I'll arrange it for you.

A woman who can do that is truly amazing. I think I would be extremely jealous of such an overachiever.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Even if you were a jerk, violence against you was unlikely to be called for. Thus men find themselves in the frustraiting possition of being unable to retaliate, or stand up for themselves. They are either going to be emascualted for allowing themselves to stepped on, or demonized for providing even the slightest retaliation.

Umm Violence isn't the only means of retaliation. Not to mention that it is frankly not appropriate between anyone anymore. It's not the dark ages.

For instance, Its not unfathomable in a custody battle for most people to accept the argument that women are better nurturers simply for being women. It is unfathomable for many to accept that men are better providers simply for being men, even though the arguments of the privledge check list are commonly held. I don't understand if the system is so biased to men being breadwinners, why we can't use that as a basis of argument?

So your saying people make the presumptions that women are better nurturers and but not that men are better workers? First of all I find that many people make both presumptions (and wrongly imo). Second there is an obvious a biological argument for women being nurturers. Worker/breadwinner is a too overgeneralized term to argue for or against. Though in general men are physically stronger (again obvious biological argument). I'm not really sure what you describing as 'having your cake and eating it too' though.

If there is a bias against women, mere familiarity will cause them not be thought of as women, but the person they are.

This is an extremely naive statement. Not everyone is an NT that judges based on competence.

 

[walfin]

Umm Violence isn't the only means of retaliation. Not to mention that it is frankly not appropriate between anyone anymore. It's not the dark ages.

Recently in my country there was an ad about some project or other aimed at eliminating violence towards women.

But WHY IS IT STILL APPROPRIATE TOWARDS MEN?

Put it this way - in this day and age, violence against women isn't tolerated but violence against men is still acceptable (and sometimes even called for). I don't see any campaign calling for a reduction in ALL forms of unjustified violence. When people die in wars it's always "even women and children". I can understand the children part, but why is it so much more acceptable for a man to die than a woman? It should be unacceptable for both genders.

Sorry. I went out of point. I'm always this way when people say all sorts of shit about gender roles.

And anyway. Feminism strives for equality. It had meaning when things really were unequal. Sexual egalitarianism would probably be a better term now, but it's a horrible mouthful.

And I doubt it's really that acceptable for a man to not help with household chores and changing nappies nowadays.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Recently in my country there was an ad about some project or other aimed at eliminating violence towards women.

But WHY IS IT STILL APPROPRIATE TOWARDS MEN?

Because we seem to like it? Maybe it is an attitude that men should be able to defend themselves and if not, the weakness (as it is then perceived to be) is their own fault. Let's face it, society at large still sees women as needing protection and sometimes it's true. Men are more prone to being violent and since the average physical strength of the male is stronger than the average strength of the female. Thus society sees a need to protect women from men.

 

[truthseeker72]

Recently in my country there was an ad about some project or other aimed at eliminating violence towards women.

But WHY IS IT STILL APPROPRIATE TOWARDS MEN?

Put it this way - in this day and age, violence against women isn't tolerated but violence against men is still acceptable (and sometimes even called for). I don't see any campaign calling for a reduction in ALL forms of unjustified violence. When people die in wars it's always "even women and children". I can understand the children part, but why is it so much more acceptable for a man to die than a woman? It should be unacceptable for both genders.

Sorry. I went out of point. I'm always this way when people say all sorts of shit about gender roles.

And anyway. Feminism strives for equality. It had meaning when things really were unequal. Sexual egalitarianism would probably be a better term now, but it's a horrible mouthful.

And I doubt it's really that acceptable for a man to not help with household chores and changing nappies nowadays.

I'm glad that you pointed out this double standard. Domestic violence literature and advertisements almost exclusively focus on male-on-female domestic violence. Yet, I've reviewed sevaral studies that confirm female-on-male domestic violence is just as prevelant. (I will provide cites, I promise).

Regarding IB's argument about superior male strength necessitating more protection for females, in actuality, women are much more likely to use weapons and surprise when attacking their male mates, thus negating the strength imbalance (think Lorena Bobbitt, frying pans, attacks in the shower).

I too have wondered about the 21st century viability of the traditional notion of "women first." I was born in 1972, the heyday of the modern American feminist movement. As long as I've been aware of these issues, it has been strictly taboo to state (at least publicly) that men are inherently superior to women in anything except physical strength. Actually, I tend to agree that men are not any better, on average, than women at leading, organizing, building, or other traditionally male tasks. So, if women are in fact equal, why do they still need greater protection and deference?

I think Walfin alluded to this already, but I''ll state it more bluntly: modern gender feminism (as opposed to traditional equity feminism) has never been about equality. Rather, its true purpose is to grab as much power for women as possible, regardless of the effect on men or gender relations.

 

[truthseeker72]

As promised, here is a sampling of the studies that reveal the rough equality of domestice violence between men and women:

- A survey conducted in 1997 by Bruce Heady and Dorothy Scott of the Melbourne University revealed the following statistics among 804 men and 839 women:

5.1% of the men surveyed reported being slapped, scratched or shaken by their partner, as opposed to 3.2% of the women surveyed;

4.1% of the men surveyed reported being hit by a fist, something in the hand, or by a thrown object, as opposed to 2.5% of women surveyed;

2.1% of the men surveyed reported being kicked by their partner, as opposed to 1.4% of the women surveyed.

-A study produced by Susan Steinmetz, Richard Gelles, and Murray Strauss at the Family Research Labarotary at the University of New Hampshire revealed the following:

22 per 1000 wives reported being severely assaulted by their husbands
59 per 1000 wives reported having severely assaulted their husbands
32 per 1000 husbands reported having been severely assaulted by their wives
18 per 1000 husbands reported having severely assualted their wives
20 per 1000 husbands and wives both reported that the wife has been severely assaulted
44 per 1000 husbands and wives both reported that the husband has been severely assualted.

-A meta-analysis of dometic violence studies performed by Martins S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach found that:

"[W]omen are as physically agressive, or more agressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 252,800."

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I just did a quick look over at your sources truthseeker and they do bear out in some ways but the Center for Disease Control seems to have different numbers. 7.5% of men claiming to have been assaulted in their lifetime by their intimates (although no word on whether or not gay relationships are included in that and by what degrees) and 25% of women have made the same claim. I don't know which, if either, is correct between the CDC and the FRL. My guess is different questions get different answers. If my gf scratched, or slapped or threw something at me, I'm not inclined to think of it as assault and thus would answer no to the assault question but if asked specifically about scratches, slaps etc., I would say yes to those things (this is hypothetical of course). I just don't find such minor instances to be worthy of the term assault unless I were injured in a meaningful way.

One thing that is left out though is that women are at a far greater risk of suffering severe injuries due to domestic violence than men. That's where our physicality comes into it.

 

[Devercia]

Umm Violence isn't the only means of retaliation. Not to mention that it is frankly not appropriate between anyone anymore. It's not the dark ages.

It was a analogy. Violent retaliation is easily identifiable as wrong, but is biased as to which gender engages in it, even if both are. Its true of non-violent retaliation as well. A women whom argues about female gender inequalities is regarded as some sort of minor heroin. Any man who argues for male gender inequalities runs the risk of being put along side racists in their mentality, or be emasculated by other macho men who don't want you to realize they don't have enough penis.

An example is one I admit am short of details. There was a dean of some university that in a speech mentioned the possibility of natural differences between the abilities of the sexes. He was forced to resign for those words.

I found it, but its not the same source I read years ago. I mostly referring to the first minute and 1/2.
YouTube - Why Men Earn More 1 - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap

So your saying people make the presumptions that women are better nurturers and but not that men are better workers?

Not quite. Some will and some won't. the won'ts are irrelevent, as there is always someone who will.

First of all I find that many people make both presumptions (and wrongly imo). Second there is an obvious a biological argument for women being nurturers.

Ok, no disputes here, other than its matter of perception. They may or may not be better for being women, but people certainly percieve as such.

Worker/breadwinner is a too overgeneralized term to argue for or against. Though in general men are physically stronger (again obvious biological argument). I'm not really sure what you describing as 'having your cake and eating it too' though.

The reality of it is not really relevent to my point. Regardless of male biological disposition to breadwinning, the bias in the workplace for them to take and succeed such a role makes it the reality. The 'better' person for the jobbeing measured by the general results of the gender, not the initial potential.

The traditional feminist position is that men are favored in the workplace. What they are unwilling to argue is that this makes them better breadwinners. THis is the haveing the cake(arguing that the workplace is biased) and eating it too (Denying that the bias makes them more likely to be good breadwinners) Its a discontinuity within the feminist argument.

Essentially, I'm asking if such a supposition of work bias for men is true, why using that very same suppositon to benifit the male position is "against the rules." It goes beyond the perticular point, and beyond the 'hitting girls is against the rules'. There are many restrictions on how a man can argue for himself based on his gender, regardless to how he compares the genders.

And anyway. Feminism strives for equality. It had meaning when things really were unequal. Sexual egalitarianism would probably be a better term now, but it's a horrible mouthful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

This is an extremely naive statement. Not everyone is an NT that judges based on competence.

I deliberately avoided the word competence.

 

[walfin]

7.5% of men claiming to have been assaulted in their lifetime by their intimates (although no word on whether or not gay relationships are included in that and by what degrees) and 25% of women have made the same claim.

Is it significant that one refers to spouses but another refers to intimates?

I have a suspicion that the most violent men don't marry the women they abuse.

I just don't find such minor instances to be worthy of the term assault unless I were injured in a meaningful way.

One thing that is left out though is that women are at a far greater risk of suffering severe injuries due to domestic violence than men. That's where our physicality comes into it.

See, this is the problem. Most men don't see "minor instances" as assault. Most women would.

There have been women in my country who hit me (albeit playfully) on the thigh before. I really didn't like it. If I had done the same and they had kicked up a fuss I might've been charged with sexual harassment or whatever. If I were to report it to the police they would've laughed and brushed it off, and even if I pressed a private summons against them the court would throw it out based on the de minimis rule (a feature of criminal law in most common law jurisdictions), because the reasonable man (truly gender specific in this case) would not find it meaningful. And I know this will happen because there was a case where a man who pressed charges against his wife for slapping him (I can't remember whether it was in public or not) was dismissed on those grounds (and of course, stare decisis would apply).

And yes, I agree that when no weapons are used women are at a greater risk. But if a woman throws a knife at me, I'm pretty sure I'll be injured.

The traditional feminist position is that men are favored in the workplace. What they are unwilling to argue is that this makes them better breadwinners. THis is the haveing the cake(arguing that the workplace is biased) and eating it too (Denying that the bias makes them more likely to be good breadwinners) Its a discontinuity within the feminist argument.

You know, this thing about having their cake and eating it too. What I'm most afraid of is that the balance will swing so far in favour of women that there'll be a backlash from men which will put us all the way back to the middle ages.

 

[Carnap]

Ulrich Beck has a section on family in his Risk Society. It's pretty interesting. Basically he insinuates that women in the workplace does cause existential problems ( marriages that are not satisfying tend to make people overvalue their career and look for some kind of magic fulfillment in that, etc) but admits that, among many problems that our family structures have in the West, it is just too late to turn back.

Women can't suddenly say they want to go back to the kitchen, it's absurd.

I think it breaks marriages, too. So easy to fall in love with a colleague on the job with shared interests that your wife/husband doesn't have (maybe you married them too early).

So, yeah, I think the whole thing is problematic. Without a solution.

Bravo for bringing it up and risking all the ladies foaming at the mouth about stereotypes and gender roles.

 

[snowqueen]

Ulrich Beck has a section on family in his Risk Society. It's pretty interesting. Basically he insinuates that women in the workplace does cause existential problems ( marriages that are not satisfying tend to make people overvalue their career and look for some kind of magic fulfillment in that, etc) but admits that, among many problems that our family structures have in the West, it is just too late to turn back.

'overvalue their career'? What on earth is that supposed to mean? When men focus strongly on their career they are dynamic, thrusting and ambitious but when women do they are 'overvaluing' it because their marriage isn't satisfying?? So women are supposed to be satisfied with cooking, cleaning, raising children and fucking? What on earth are you doing at university, Carnap? Why are you even educating yourself?

I think it breaks marriages, too. So easy to fall in love with a colleague on the job with shared interests that your wife/husband doesn't have (maybe you married them too early).

That's just too ridiculous - for one, it privileges marriage as some kind of sacred institution (oh hang on, religion has already done that conveniently enough) which has perpetuated more abuse and unhappiness than nearly any other. Secondly, it assumes that men would be oh so noble if it weren't for women coming along and tempting them (the Adam/Eve myth) which conveniently means that men don't have to take responsibility for their lack of control. Actually there are plenty of men and women who can see the difference between attraction and action. Separating women and men in the workplace doesn't save marriages - it simply perpetuates the oppression of women in the home and social and financial inequality.

So, yeah, I think the whole thing is problematic. Without a solution.

That shows an alarming paucity of imagination, frankly

Bravo for bringing it up and risking all the ladies foaming at the mouth about stereotypes and gender roles.

This is an age-old tactic of dismissing feminists by making out they are simply emotional idiots who are getting a bit hysterical and can't think properly. It hides an inability to form a convincing argument.

 

[truthseeker72]

'overvalue their career'? What on earth is that supposed to mean? When men focus strongly on their career they are dynamic, thrusting and ambitious but when women do they are 'overvaluing' it because their marriage isn't satisfying?? So women are supposed to be satisfied with cooking, cleaning, raising children and fucking? What on earth are you doing at university, Carnap? Why are you even educating yourself?




That's just too ridiculous - for one, it privileges marriage as some kind of sacred institution (oh hang on, religion has already done that conveniently enough) which has perpetuated more abuse and unhappiness than nearly any other. Secondly, it assumes that men would be oh so noble if it weren't for women coming along and tempting them (the Adam/Eve myth) which conveniently means that men don't have to take responsibility for their lack of control. Actually there are plenty of men and women who can see the difference between attraction and action. Separating women and men in the workplace doesn't save marriages - it simply perpetuates the oppression of women in the home and social and financial inequality.




That shows an alarming paucity of imagination, frankly



This is an age-old tactic of dismissing feminists by making out they are simply emotional idiots who are getting a bit hysterical and can't think properly. It hides an inability to form a convincing argument.

Whoa! it sounds like Carnap touched a few your nerves, SnowQueen. Still, I enjoy a spirited debate, especially about this topic.

I agree, for the most part, with SnowQueen on the issue of women in the workplace. One minor point of contention: Men can, and often do "overvalue" their careers, and when they do this, they inevitably receive criticism from their wives/girlfriends for speding too much time at the office, and not enought time with them. Ironically, women are more likely to settle into a relationship with a successfuly man (face it, when is the last time a woman listed "unemployed" or "between jobs" as traits she looks for in a man), yet, once they have their man, they complain about the very same behavior that led to their career success. I have personally experienced this frustrating paradox.

On all of the other points, however, I agree with SnowQueen. Men are not innately superior to women at working in an office. Nor are women "just better" than men at cooking, cleaning, and "keeping house." Many women pursue and achieve succesful careers, and yes, more and more men are taking on the "Mr. Mom" role.

Carnap's contention about women in the office leading to affairs cuts both ways. A career man that is married to a career woman will have more to talk about at home, and will just be able to relate better, I think, than the professional man who is married to the homemaker. I've always wondered how the latter combination could ever work when the two spouses carried on utterly different lives (e.g., "honey, I settled a multi-milliion case today" "Oh, that's nice, sweetie . . . I used a new bathroom cleaner today!)

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Ironically, women are more likely to settle into a relationship with a successfuly man (face it, when is the last time a woman listed "unemployed" or "between jobs" as traits she looks for in a man), yet, once they have their man, they complain about the very same behavior that led to their career success.

truthseeker? More like truthspeaker.

Be successful, have a high paying job and don't you dare work more than 40 hours a week!!

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

if i am honest, people who value a career (male or female) to an extreme extent i dislike. i dislike people who think wearing suits, talking 'properly' and whose primary focus is to make money and hide their insecurities i despise. everything must be proper, they have worked very hard and alienated a lot of people to make more money than most. odious people. and the reason i dislike people who have worked very hard just to make money is becaus through their process of career progression any human element from within them is gone or rejected, they condescend because they are 'superior' and can't understand why everyone doesn't want to hurt people and sell their souls for the purpose of cash. work hard, you'll be rich. be conventional, be 'proper'. all i can say is Fuck Off to these kind of Rodents.

how can money and personal stature be valued more than people and spirit, how can convention and impressing the bosses for a promotion by selling your soul and identity be held in any way as admirable?!


male or female, people like this are, frankly, below human and should be treated as below human. the way i see it, if someone has sold their identity and lost any human aspect or feeling for personal gain has lost any humanity and should be treated as any parasite or roach would be.

 

[Carnap]

Listen, maybe I didn't explain myself clearly or summarize the chapter very well. Frankly, I don't really care about that right now nor do I care about attacks on my skills for argument on the internet. I'm sure the book sums it all up much better than I, who knows, maybe I didn't even understand. And frankly, I don't really care.

(and, from experience, I fell in love with a married person at work and now I'm going to have to go look for someone else I'm not so unconciously, madly passionate about. Someone not married. Unless I change countries and become a second wife. I don't want kids. I want an older man, and I want a career. You see, there are not only two ways of doing things in the world, i.e. staying at home and having kids or being a raging feminist)

And I do think marriage is a sacred institution, one that allows divorce easily, but nonetheless an intense biological bond, and an incredible thing. And I hope to get married within the next three years.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QUDMaGlCuEQC&dq=risk+society&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=8DqOwyiEQ-&sig=HYcacLo6cwKnQ0ln_3bfunEHnlY&hl=en&ei=T0h8SvfuFpLqMfPS8O4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=risk%20society&f=false

it's the chapter called "I or I" about gendered conflict. I think it'll be more clear if I don't try to explain.

'overvalue their career'? What on earth is that supposed to mean? When men focus strongly on their career they are dynamic, thrusting and ambitious but when women do they are 'overvaluing' it because their marriage isn't satisfying?? So women are supposed to be satisfied with cooking, cleaning, raising children and fucking? What on earth are you doing at university, Carnap? Why are you even educating yourself?




That's just too ridiculous - for one, it privileges marriage as some kind of sacred institution (oh hang on, religion has already done that conveniently enough) which has perpetuated more abuse and unhappiness than nearly any other. Secondly, it assumes that men would be oh so noble if it weren't for women coming along and tempting them (the Adam/Eve myth) which conveniently means that men don't have to take responsibility for their lack of control. Actually there are plenty of men and women who can see the difference between attraction and action. Separating women and men in the workplace doesn't save marriages - it simply perpetuates the oppression of women in the home and social and financial inequality.




That shows an alarming paucity of imagination, frankly



This is an age-old tactic of dismissing feminists by making out they are simply emotional idiots who are getting a bit hysterical and can't think properly. It hides an inability to form a convincing argument.

 

[Carnap]

Listen, maybe I didn't explain myself clearly or summarize the chapter very well. Frankly, I don't really care about that right now nor do I care about attacks on my skills for argument on the internet. I'm sure the book sums it all up much better than I, who knows, maybe I didn't even understand. And frankly, I don't really care.

(and, from experience, I fell in love with a married person at work)

and never did i even say women were meant to be content in the kitchen. that's the problematic part. it's too late to go back.

see? this is all getting petty. and I am so not in the mood for hostility. I have enough of that in my personal life right now.

I'm retracting.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QUDMaGlCuEQC&dq=risk+society&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=8DqOwyiEQ-&sig=HYcacLo6cwKnQ0ln_3bfunEHnlY&hl=en&ei=T0h8SvfuFpLqMfPS8O4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=risk%20society&f=false

Why do I have two posts?

 

[walfin]

This is an age-old tactic of dismissing feminists by making out they are simply emotional idiots who are getting a bit hysterical and can't think properly. It hides an inability to form a convincing argument.

Well, let's put it this way. I am a man and I get fucking pissed when people pigeonhole me in some stupid stereotype, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that women would feel the same way when certain contentious arguments are raised. Carnap's statement was obviously not meant to diss feminists. Claiming that someone does "foam at the mouth" at times does not constitute calling him or her an "emotional idiot".

That's just too ridiculous - for one, it privileges marriage as some kind of sacred institution (oh hang on, religion has already done that conveniently enough) which has perpetuated more abuse and unhappiness than nearly any other.

And you're sure that without marriage abuse and unhappiness would lessen? There will always be abuse. If there were no laws governing relations between men and women it'll just result in more chaos. FWIW, marriage can be gender neutral (many governments are just too stupid to get it done ).

Though frankly saying that women might be more likely to have affairs if they work => women should not work is about the same as saying men always fuck their cute female secretaries => men should stay at home. Both premise and inference are rubbish.

Men can, and often do "overvalue" their careers, and when they do this, they inevitably receive criticism from their wives/girlfriends for speding too much time at the office

I once saw an ad somewhere that said, "No one ever says 'I wish I had spent more time at the office'". Perhaps that's because we only hear the successful people speak.

I've always wondered how the latter combination could ever work when the two spouses carried on utterly different lives

Well I can imagine how it would work out if they were both INTPs. They'd talk about all sorts of random stuff like here.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

aside from Physical Occupations, women are no more and no less capable than men.

 

[Carnap]

And you're sure that without marriage abuse and unhappiness would lessen? There will always be abuse. If there were no laws governing relations between men and women it'll just result in more chaos. FWIW, marriage can be gender neutral (many governments are just too stupid to get it done ).

No ! There would be more abuse without solid marriages. Once again, I'm the victim in this situation. I had a terrible relationship with someone, verbally abusive. If I had abstained from that, I would be a lot better off. Personally, I learned a lot, but would have had better mental health if I had just stayed single until I found someone to marry me. Some respectful person that wouldn't dream of cohabitating with a respectable woman before marriage. Trust me, there are some very traditional people left in this world (not in Europe) and they treat women like a queen. I know some Algerian housewives, they are just filled with light. I know some who are married and doing a PhD. There are no stereotypes, but there is a solidity in marriage that protects both the man and the woman.

 

[truthseeker72]

truthseeker? More like truthspeaker.

Be successful, have a high paying job and don't you dare work more than 40 hours a week!!

LOL. Funny, but unfortunately true.

Walfin: If you can find the theoretical, trivia-loving, intellectually curious INTP woman who would also be content as a homemaker, I'll appoint you Forum Master!

 

[walfin]

LOL. Funny, but unfortunately true.

Walfin: If you can find the theoretical, trivia-loving, intellectually curious INTP woman who would also be content as a homemaker, I'll appoint you Forum Master!

No thanks. I'd rather be the homemaker .

I'm quite sure an INTP woman wouldn't mind being a housewife, if her husband was also a househusband yet they both had tons of money. I can just imagine all the cool stuff in the house.

Have lots of money and work <40h a week? Sure. That's why many women like the idea of marrying produce-nothing lay-about aristocrats and haute bourgeoisie.

 

[Carnap]

You got it ! I would love to be a housewife with no kids, in a huge luxury "green home" in Iran or some other country so I could stay at home and hire myself philosophy professors from France, Bosnian language tutors, Persian language tutors, and massage therapists.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

just to lighten the mood...

YouTube - Show Me Your Genitals


i am not sexist and not sure whether this guy is mocking women or men like him. i don't agree but this is rather funny.

show me your genitals!

 

[snowqueen]

@ carnap - hey it wasn't intended personally - just looking for a lively debate. Religion and politics don't really do it for me here but this is one I am passionate about!

sed - that is hilarious!

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

...i can't shove my fist in your childhood dreams.....*shivers*

 

[snowqueen]

...i can't shove my fist in your childhood dreams.....*shivers*

yes I clocked that line too. I like Florence and the Machine but that song 'a kiss with a fist is better than none' does my head in.

 

[Jenn]

I'm curious how many of you have children?

I have two. I am currently a stay-at-home mom.

This idea of the "modern housewife", working and taking care of the house, is probably true. It is my observation that women, working or not, generally just care more about whether the throw pillows are taken in for dry cleaning or whether the carpets are vacuumed three times a week. Most men just don't care. Also because women think more of such things, women tend to judge each other more on the decor and cleanliness of their house. If a house is in disarray, female guests will more likely lay the blame on the woman of the house, and male guests just won't care.

I'm a mom and part-time student and my house is still in mild disarray. I don't really care. My husband doesn't care. We both have a similar saturation point and both contribute to the home's upkeep. I do more than him only because I'm home more - if I worked as many hours as he does I'd expect him to do half. What domesticity I do have is focused on teaching and playing with my children, coming up with cool things to do with the girl scout troop I lead, and other side projects such as Halloween costumes and birthday parties. I did not get into this gig to become obsessive about scrubbing countertops, preparing gourmet meals, or becoming an interior decorator.

But then I think that is part of me being INTP. I am not interested in becoming a soldier in the Mommy Wars or playing social games with competitive housewives. I'm me. I spend my time being engaged and interested in life, and as long as everyone under my roof is happy, that's good enough for me.