What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Soooo... Representations of women in the media would be one such target, right?

It certainly would be, though I personally feel that it's more constructive to challenge depictions of women as passive or victims, instead of the sexualisation of women. It's not the sex in 50 Shades that get me, is how passive she is. And I'm not keen on Twilight for the same reason. I haven't read the books, so I thought it might just be the actress' portrayal.

(I understand that you see Page 3 as the objectification of women, and this is where I play Devil's Advocate, because of the ambiguity around self determination/autonomy. If you want to be objectified, is that freedom?)

That's not to say that I agree with the sexualisation of children, either - didn't someone post something in here about the Sun counting down to a girl's 16th birthday?

That's abhorrent.

Edited February 18, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm asking you for your opinion based on something you said. If that's so difficult, fine.

It's not difficult for me. Tho you seem to be having difficulties with marrying together my constant theme when things flip onto a new page, otherwise you'd have no need to ask me that question.

A question which you say I've already answered, anyway. And where you say I rejected your take, so you claim to know my view.

And where very little of what you've claimed of me is true.

Didn't you lose it a bit yesterday, claiming me to be putting words in your mouth?

[feral chile]

Should women (who might want to have babies) simply resign themselves to never having the opportunities that men have then?

I'm hoping society will adapt. The more women who enter the workforce, the more changes we'll see.

[Katster]

Do you think the changes to paternity leave are positive changes?

Whether we like it or not, women are the ones who give birth and breastfeed, so even a completely egalitarian society would have to allow for this.

Do you think the move to service industries and away from heavy industry has had an effect on 'patriarchy', a more socially acceptable female presence in the workforce, etc.,?

I feel that the more women in a particular working environment, the more likelihood there is to pressure for changes.

I do, but after everything I went through to have a baby there's no way I'd share the leave. Sorry dude.

[feral chile]

If a man could get pregnant, he would be treated in exactly the same way.

A "sympathetic boss" is a bad boss, in capitalist terms.

Now your view that women are more sympathetic than men on the otherhand is not a statement I am comfortable with at all, and in fact is quite offensive.

It reveals you to be a dinosaur.

Why are you offended russy? If women feel disadvantaged by a system that favours men, and a woman has managed to get herself into a place of authority, mightn't she be in a position to understand the difficulties women face?

If patriarchy is true, women need to get women into positions of authority, so that there's a female perspective there.

So realistically, the more women help each other, the more they help themselves.

[feral chile]

I do, but after everything I went through to have a baby there's no way I'd share the leave. Sorry dude.

I wouldn't either. I'm presuming there's been pressure to bring in equality for fathers though.

Anyone know the background?

[feral chile]

no matter how sympathetic she might be, nothing of that sympathy can avoid a woman off work to give birth having a negative impact on that business.

Maybe that's why they're changing the paternity leave regulations.

[russycarps]

Why are you offended russy? If women feel disadvantaged by a system that favours men, and a woman has managed to get herself into a place of authority, mightn't she be in a position to understand the difficulties women face?

If patriarchy is true, women need to get women into positions of authority, so that there's a female perspective there.

So realistically, the more women help each other, the more they help themselves.

Like Thatcher did?

I think it was a silly generalisation to make.

[feral chile]

Our nursery bill for full time childcare is over £700/month. She's dropping down to part time hours in a fortnight, though it'll still be £300 (we could of course take her out completely and save the money but she starts school in September so only had a few months left and she adores it there - and I'm not sure I can cope with both of them at home all the time ). I'm very lucky that my employer is in a childcare voucher scheme and that she is also getting her free hours. I don't know how people with two or more nursery age children, or on low incomes, manage.

they probably don't. I had to stay at home. I could have chosen to pursue a career, and my husband would have had to stay home, but I wanted to be the one to stay home.

I'm prepared to accept that was a socially determined decision, I'm certainly from a very traditional background, mining fathers and housewives.

It wasn't until I had 3 children and I mentioned to my health visitor that I wished I'd gone to University, that I even realised I had choices. She just said 'why don't you?'

I don't know if she was the first feminist I ever met, but to me, she was by far the most influential, and the one I owe the most to.

Just 3 words.

[feral chile]

Like Thatcher did?

I think it was a silly generalisation to make.

definitely not like Thatcher.

I'm not sure which way tony meant it, whether that women are by nature more sympathetic, or are more aware of obstacles in women's way.

Women are socialised to be more emotionally intelligent, however, just as men are to hide their feelings.

I agree that we need to move away from gender stereotyping though. I think men should be able to show sympathy and sensitivity without having to worry about being perceived as weak.

Does anyone think there are inherently masculine/feminine traits? I think there's still work to be done n this area, and women have been working on this for at least 30 years.

Edited February 18, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I think your situation is not that unusual - please don't take this as lack of sympathy. The idea that the woman has the option to stay at home and raise the kids in peace whilst the guy brings home a sufficient pay package (or a freshly slain antelope, depending on which era you're thinking of) only ever rang true for a relatively short space in history, and never for the whole population. A lot of women's work (apart from house and childrearing related work, which is of course unpaid) is hidden, ie a farmer would probably not have listed his wife as an employee, no matter how instrumental she might have been to running the farm. The sister of a friend of mine separated from her husband (who is running a farm) a few years ago. He then had to employ 2 people to get the work she'd left behind done. Of course the wife never got a salary for anything she did, she was a "housewife". They have 4 children too, btw.

Women in the poorer strata of society usually had to work, otherwise the family would not have survived. Both my grandmothers were "servant girls". During the industrial revolution, the textile industry employed masses of (poorly paid) women and children. It still employs mostly women (and in some countries, children), it is still relatively low paid work.

I found it terribly hard to go back to work - my son was 14 months old, he wasn't ready, nor was I, but needs must and all that.

Btw, we still don't have much affordable childcare. The nursery my son attended (it was a good one, but nothing special) charged £55 per day. No discount if the child was ill and had to miss days. The father paid half of it, and my boss agreed that I could work from home 2 days a week, otherwise it would have been incredibly expensive. And this was 5 years ago, They certainly charge more now.

Tax Credits helps with childcare in some cases.

What happens if you're a single woman earning minimum wage, 16 hours a week, and your childcare is more than your wages? Would Tax Credits pay out?

[feral chile]

try it the other way. Try and think of anything which is not infected by a male definition.

I think you might have difficulties finding even one thing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you thinking of a value bias in language ie stud/slut type of thing?

[feral chile]

I went for an interview at 7 months pregnant. I felt I had to do as much as I could to hide the fact (luckily I wasn't huge!) for the sake of the panel as much as anything - it would have been an enormous elephant in the room and put them in an awkward position I felt (in that if they didn't appoint me and I was obviously pregnant they might be accused of bias because of the pregnancy rather than on the fact I was a weaker candidate). As it was one of the panel suspected but they couldn't tell for definite apparently. Still, didn't get the bloody job

With regard to splitting maternity leave, while it would make logical/practical sense (I'm the main earner) it wouldn't work for us because I'm the only one with a burning desire to stay at home! I was part time for just over a year after I went back with my first. I'm already trying to work out how I can give up work altogether with this one! Pie in the sky...

What do you think the answer is? I felt the same way, and I was afraid to say (in this thread, and back in my militant feminist days) that I wanted to stay at home with my kids. it feels anti-feminist to me, because at least where I was bought up, women only worked if they had to and that reflected badly on the man, too. There was a huge value judgement around it.

How do we ensure women have genuine choices, because now it's just gone the other way, and women are feeling pressured into work?

Edited February 18, 2015 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

and it offended you?

jeez, you're easily offended

The idea that men aren't capable of sympathy is pretty offensive and outdated. I can see that being easily interpreted from that post of yours.

Not that I think you believe that.

[feral chile]

The idea that men aren't capable of sympathy is pretty offensive and outdated. I can see that being easily interpreted from that post of yours.

Not that I think you believe that.

we'd be totally screwed if it was true.

I think it's possible that sometimes women can be more vicious than men, purely because of the physical disadvantage.

When I see the media presentation of the woman screaming or cowering behind the male while he's getting attacked, it always feels unrealistic to me, I think women would be trying to get in some kind of disabling blow.

And because women would only have the advantage of surprise, it would have to be pretty permanent.

[Katster]

I wouldn't either. I'm presuming there's been pressure to bring in equality for fathers though.

Anyone know the background?

And so there should, it just ain't going to happen in most situations. A father is as equal a parent to a child and he should have the same rights to that child. Still in this day everyone deals with the mother. Dan came to every midwife appointment I had yet he was hardly spoken to or acknowledged during my pregnancy I understand he's not the average bloke but I'm sure plenty would be more involved with their children if women weren't such control freaks. Dan took her to change her nappy on a meal out with the family, my own mothers words were "what, and you let him change her?" and my brother remarked that he was "taking this parenting lark far too seriously". I despair at times with my own family, never mind everyone else.

[kaosmark2]

we'd be totally screwed if it was true.

I think it's possible that sometimes women can be more vicious than men, purely because of the physical disadvantage.

When I see the media presentation of the woman screaming or cowering behind the male while he's getting attacked, it always feels unrealistic to me, I think women would be trying to get in some kind of disabling blow.

And because women would only have the advantage of surprise, it would have to be pretty permanent.

Women are people, with all the variety and potential - for both kindness and cruelty - that everyone has. To think women are all sweet is pretty dehumanising.

I still can't think how someone could believe that.

[kaosmark2]

I'm glad you said you didn't think that's what I meant

What I said was, it was interesting that one female boss was more sympathetic. And yes, the possibility that women, in general, might be more sympatheticwas implied.

It's hardly a revolutionary concept.

I think this is more a product of men suppressing emotions and women emphasising sweetness over successive generations. I'm not sure the inherent difference (hormonally) is enough to generate the established divide.

[kaosmark2]

I don't think of sympathy as 'sweetness' though. I think it's quite a tough emotion. Not physically or aggressively tough, but still it needs strength of something.... Character?

Me neither, I'm just describing social associations. Sympathy definitely requires emotional strength, it's incredibly painful to see someone suffer abs care, shutting yourself off is a (valid) defence mechanism, but it also damages you.

And I say this as someone who forces themselves to walk past homeless people and apologise for not helping. I try and rationalise that my monthly donations to water aid, shelter and nspcc do more, but it's harder when the suffering is in your face, and suppressing sympathy seems, to me at least, vital to avoiding a breakdown.

[feral chile]

Me neither, I'm just describing social associations. Sympathy definitely requires emotional strength, it's incredibly painful to see someone suffer abs care, shutting yourself off is a (valid) defence mechanism, but it also damages you.

And I say this as someone who forces themselves to walk past homeless people and apologise for not helping. I try and rationalise that my monthly donations to water aid, shelter and nspcc do more, but it's harder when the suffering is in your face, and suppressing sympathy seems, to me at least, vital to avoiding a breakdown.

You do need an emotional filter.

I think, as well, women have learnt how to provide emotional support and men have learnt to provide practical support. That might be why you find it so difficult not to be able to resolve it.

To demonstrate, think of someone having a rant about something, and someone saying, 'what do you want me to do about it' then interpret that according to gender.

I don't know whether this is specific to my own gender bias conditioning, but if the respondent was a man, I wouldn't be surprised by his attitude, and be unsure if he meant 'so what' or, 'tell me what to do to put this right'.

whereas if it was a female respondent, I'd be shocked and take it as hostile.

Edited February 18, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

'The Effeminate Heterosexual'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/are-you-misunderstood?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost

The Effeminate Heterosexual

Just because a man is skinny, dresses neatly, and lacks a deep voice doesn't mean he's gay (or vice versa). Many men with seemingly feminine qualities are straight, just as many men with distinctly macho traits are gay.

The Fix: If you're interested in a woman, put out signs of attraction that are hard to mistake—more aggressive body language such as straight-on stance, a mischievous grin, and occasional touching. Say something like, "That reminds me of something funny my ex-girlfriend once said." She'll get it.

Edited February 18, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

'The Effeminate Heterosexual'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/are-you-misunderstood?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost

The Effeminate Heterosexual

Just because a man is skinny, dresses neatly, and lacks a deep voice doesn't mean he's gay (or vice versa). Many men with seemingly feminine qualities are straight, just as many men with distinctly macho traits are gay.

The Fix: If you're interested in a woman, put out signs of attraction that are hard to mistake—more aggressive body language such as straight-on stance, a mischievous grin, and occasional touching. Say something like, "That reminds me of something funny my ex-girlfriend once said." She'll get it.

These are the tell-tale signs of effeminate, let alone gay? Gawd help us, who makes these things up?

[midnight]

That was a cold emotionless business decision though. It wasn't made because she was a woman, it was made because she would lessen the efficiency of the business.

It's capitalism, not sexism.

I'm not disputing that it is capitalism (it is), but it is sexist too; one does not exclude the other.

There are people who think that capitalism and feminism don't go together well.

http://newint.org/blog/2014/10/15/feminism-capitalism-equal-pay/

[midnight]

Do you think the changes to paternity leave are positive changes?

Whether we like it or not, women are the ones who give birth and breastfeed, so even a completely egalitarian society would have to allow for this.

Do you think the move to service industries and away from heavy industry has had an effect on 'patriarchy', a more socially acceptable female presence in the workforce, etc.,?

I feel that the more women in a particular working environment, the more likelihood there is to pressure for changes.

This is the situation in Sweden, and doesn't seem to make the Swedes unhappy:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-15

So about 90% of Swedish men take parental leave, and if the man agrees to take at least a month of parental leave, the overall leave allocation for the family is increased. And the total entitlement is 480 days.

Btw, in Germany you can take up to 3 years parental leave (the pay is mostly low-ish, like SMP here), and the parents can split it any way they like.

These initiatives are financially backed by the governments, they'd cause massive problems for businesses otherwise.

If we want men to be more involved with the upbringing of children, we have to give them the opportunity to do so. Apart from the first few months, the ideal scenario would perhaps be that both parents work less until their children are relatively independent. I struggle with this myself, but I think it would be very beneficial for a lot of men if they could spend more time with their kids, puts things into perspective and all that. And the men who already do it will be considered less "odd".

[midnight]

I didn't expect my sympathetic boss to draw out so many comments, but in terms of hat it means for the business, it works like this (at the moment): I don't get reduced hours (quite the opposite, as we a re a tiny team), but I do get more fexibility than I used to. So assessments ( a large chunk of my work) can be done pretty much anywhere (though I wouldn't do them in an internet cafe for confidentiality reasons). I can work from home up to 2 days a week, as long as I get through the required workload and meet my deadlines. I have to be around for important meetings, monitoring visits etc, that goes without saying and we rarely need to discuss it.

I've been doing this for a good number of years now, and although it would always have been possible, none of my previous bosses liked the idea of working from home - presenteeism, lack of trust, setting a bad example, whatever the real reasons I can't be sure. I'd say the flexibility works well for both of us. She was working part-time for a while after she came back from maternity leave, and I covered for her absence (I'm full time). There was an article on part-time work on the bbc website today that describes aspects of our situation quite well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30655926

For many jobs that type of flexibility isn't an option because physical presence is essential, but the frustrating thing is that is often isn't considered where it would be a possibility.

Edited February 19, 2015 by midnight