Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
People wonder why I get offended at sexist comments (except @Chaz, he doesn't care)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm amazed at how wrong you are. I contributed to Hillary's presidential campaign last time around and will again. I'm looking forward to a Hillary candidacy and election. Here in Colorado, in the 4+ years I've been here there hasn't been a single woman on the ballot for me to vote for or support above the office of mayor of Colorado Springs. When I lived in Barbara Mikulski's district in Maryland, I voted for her. I can't vote for a woman candidate if there is no woman candidate.
Running for office is tough work. It's particularly tough for women to raise funds because of how the big boys in both parties (but even more so in the Republican party) control access and money. Yet, we do have women Senators and members of the House Of Representatives. It can be done. But they have to go out there and try. And, yes, they will often lose. But guess what, a majority of men who seek public office also lose. At one point or another, 10 people ran for Senator from Colorado this past year. Only one won. In other words, 90% of the candidates lost or withdrew their candidacy before or during the primary or during the election. It isn't easy running for office. Every Black office holder has gone through the same thing. But they run, and perhaps often lose, and slowly -- too slowly -- things change. Nobody "gave" Julian Bond a seat in the Georgia legislature; he had to run, he had to win, and then he had to fight for his election in court. It's tough to make progress.
No one is saying equal rights is easy. It isn't easy for Blacks. It isn't easy for Latinos. It isn't easy for American Indians. It isn't easy for gay and lesbian men and women. It isn't easy for members of minority religions. I felt fortunate to work in a state where women teachers and administrators got paid on exactly the same salary scale as men. It ought to be that away across our country. I vote for candidates who believe that. But I can't make it happen.
I would like to see a Congress that roughly reflects the American citizenry. But I don't know of any person who can just give it to the various minorities and women. It's too bad it has to be a struggle, but it just is.
We would have a better and more representative government on the state and national level if roughly half the people elected were women. But I don't have the power to make that happen. So all I can do is say please, women go out and try. If you do -- and you're a decent Democrat candidate -- you'll get my support. And frankly, among the people I hang out with, I think every one of them would not think twice about voting for a woman. (I realize there are many people out there who would not, but I don't think they are in the majority any longer).
You find my comments to be "thoughtless" and "unintelligent". That's fine. I would suggest that you copy a page from someone like Elizabeth Warren and carefully analyze situations and calmly but passionately state and support your positions instead of just ranting and attacking.
I only reacted to what you put.
And what you put sounded very much like "Women don't succeed because they don't put themselves forward"
You don't know they don't. All I know and have seen AND EXPERIENCED - is that women who put themselves forward are treated with derision, scepticism and disrespect.
It's not a case of women not trying.
It's a case of knowing that sometimes the fight isn't worth the spoils, because they too, become spoiled.
I guess we'd better tell those wannabe nuns to give up trying for ordination then, huh?
Don't know what it's like in the States but the little boys jeering at each other in Prime Minister's Question time on Wednesdays in the UK House of Commons - no thanks ... And the only women who get recognised by government are those who join in. To the extent that my day was made by a radio announcer who told a male and female politician bickering together on her show "children, behave". It was the only thing to say! But that is the kind of woman who gets picked to represent their party. And standing as an independent gets no-one elected as everyone knows the real power is with the prime minister.
Still uncertain what Maggie Thatcher's oestrogen/testerone levels were ...
Do know that she took elocution lessons to lower her voice to a more masculine level though.
We have quite a few women in MN who run for various offices. Unfortunately, this also includes Michelle Bachmann. One of our senators is just an amazing person. She (Amy Klobuchar) is our senator alongside Al Franken and the 2 of them, they work for the people. They do wonderful work. I am having a problem with social security. I left them a VM 7 days ago where they promised a return call within 3 days. I emailed my senator, had a letter and the necessary forms within 2 days for her to assist with kicking them in the butt to work on my case. Awesome people who truly work for the citizens of the state. I sincerely hope she runs for a high federal position one day.
Two million years ago did Man insist Woman stay home while he did the hunting?
Maybe so.
Today, therefore, do men posess different physical abilities(power) because they did not sit home and weave baskets, instead choosing the cool task of killing animals and getting a lot of exercise at the same time by chasing them.( With the added bonus of learning how to make weapons!)
Maybe so.
Or
Two million years ago did Woman say " I'll stay home while you chase around after the
mammoth"?
Did Woman choose the life or was she ordered to the life?
I don't know.
There is an assertion in this thread suggesting men rule by force.
I think men do rule by force, in today's world especially.
Do men Hold power by force alone?
Maybe so.
I cannot conceive of anything in the Constitution that reflects on who is elected to government positions, only who gets to vote. So it appears to me that seeking relief from the courts based on the Constitution is a dead end.
Similarly, I cannot believe that a Constitutional amendment could be passed by the required number of states that would lead to any kind of quota system like a few European nations have. In fact, I think Americans would generally find any quota system an anathema.
That leaves the only realistic way for more women candidates to be elected is for more to run and simply grit it out and progress slowly (but I think surely). For example, of the 10 people who actually put themselves up for election to Colorado's Senate seat, only 1 was a woman (10%). Yet, 41% of our state legislators are currently women (the highest rate of any state). So I think it's very difficult to say that Coloradans won't vote for a female candidate.
You also mentioned the sports issue again. Here's a question: why are a significant number of Board Of Directors of the LPGA men?
It seems others actually agree with my earlier sentiment:
>
>
>
How on earth should I know? Is this a quiz?
It's a general question not directed specifically to you.
I was going to suggest that the LPGA ought to open one tournament year to any qualified golfer up to a 50% participation rate by men. Take that out of the box action to get things moving.
But when a significant portion of the LPGA is run by men -- which seems bizarre to me -- I wonder if that is even possible.
That wouldn't work. We tried quota systems in schools in an attempt to adress racial disparities and to integrate racially. It didn't work so good.
Noone accepted the program. Entire crops were lost.
Wait. That's the Matrix. Sorry ;-)
Absolutely. The Denver City Council, all elected positions have a majority of women seated. That includes my own district.
State house is full of women with more being elected all the time.
We haven't had a woman as governor ...... yet.
That is for damned sure. Coloradoans seem to be genuinely gender-blind when it comes to our elected officials. I'd wager that if more women were to put themselves on the ballot, more would be elected. I've also noticed that at no time, in any election here, was the subject of gender used to negatively campaign. Noone ever said or insinuated that we shouldn't vote for a candidate because she's a woman. They can get down-and-dirty, but gender NEVER comes up. The same can be said for the social and business climate. There are a lot of women setting the tempo of life here in Colorado and that's a Good Thing.
So, like you, @vinlyn, I have to take some umbrage at any suggestion that you and I don't get it or in some way are contributing to a problem, when, in fact, we're not. We shouldn't even be expected to apologize for it. If anything, some folks in this thread should be asking how our state does it. We should be congratulated for living and participatig in a state that has such liberal ideas about the role of women in politics, business and society.
I guess there are men out there that condone violence against women. I don't think I know any. Most men I know will step in when a woman is being abused. I've had to do it myself more than once.
I'm sorry you live in a world where women have to struggle so much. It's not like that here.
Just to show some balance:
The mayor and half the council are women here. All the people at the bank are women including the manager. Women are involved in every business I need to deal with, including gear suppliers, fuel docks, unloading. Not just as employees. As owners.
I bought my first fishboat from a woman. I have sold fish to female fish buyers throughout my career. Many of our fisheries bureaucrats are women including the Director General for the Pacific Region. Our fisheries minister is a woman. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about-notre-sujet/minister-ministre-eng.htm
So is our provincial premiere. https://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/40thparl/clark-Christy.htm
My ex has been a teamster all her life. She can work harder than most men and was stronger than me when we met. The chainsaw in our household belonged to her. We are friends. I stay on her couch regularly.
My cousin ran an excavator before she was hurt and had to retire.
My sister is a self made businesswoman. Very successful.
My daughter is as capable as any male crewman I've ever had. Better than most. She has traveled in the world alone, including the Middle East. She is a success at whatever she tries and is not held back by her gender.
Do I have sexist attitudes? Probably. If I displayed them to any of the women I know, I would be flayed. They won't tolerate it. It's been many years since I've been accused of sexism. Except here, the other day.
>
I doubt that women were forced to play the roles they did way back when or even in more recent times, because it was obviously the most practical choice for survival of the most. Nowadays, in technically advanced countries, a much smaller segment of society needs to be pressured to do much of anything to survive.
>
I guess there are men out there that condone violence against women. I don't think I know any. Most men I know will step in when a woman is being abused. I've had to do it myself more than once.
>
I'm sorry you live in a world where women have to struggle so much. It's not like that here.
>
Just to show some balance:
>
The mayor and half the council are women here. All the people at the bank are women including the manager. Women are involved in every business I need to deal with, including gear suppliers, fuel docks, unloading. Not just as employees. As owners.
>
I bought my first fishboat from a woman. I have sold fish to female fish buyers throughout my career. Many of our fisheries bureaucrats are women including the Director General for the Pacific Region. Our fisheries minister is a woman. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about-notre-sujet/minister-ministre-eng.htm
>
So is our provincial premiere. https://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/40thparl/clark-Christy.htm
>
My ex has been a teamster all her life. She can work harder than most men and was stronger than me when we met. The chainsaw in our household belonged to her. We are friends. I stay on her couch regularly. My cousin ran an excavator before she was hurt and had to retire. My sister is a self made businesswoman. Very successful. My daughter is as capable as any male crewman I've ever had. Better than most. She has traveled in the world alone, including the Middle East. She is a success at whatever she tries and is not held back by her gender.
>
Do I have sexist attitudes? Probably. If I displayed them to any of the women I know, I would be flayed. They won't tolerate it. It's been many years since I've been accused of sexism. Except here, the other day.
It's great to hear individual's stories because we really need them. My greatest concern about all this is the backwards countries and societies that are so virulently violent against women of all ages. I couldn't even begin to say just how deeply It bothers me, especially knowing how long this stuff has gone on, with people knowing about it (governments especially) without raising an eyebrow and even seeming as though that's the direction they want the world to go in. Paranoid or not, that's how I feel. 'We' can't even begin to compare the way we generally live and the latter.
>
You're missing the point.
Try to understand: I inhabit the same world you do.
You live in such a world too.
I don't know how else to explain it.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not rife, prevalent or quotidian.
Do I have sexist attitudes? Probably. If I displayed them to any of the women I know, I would be flayed. They won't tolerate it. It's been many years since I've been accused of sexism. Except here, the other day.
You were accused then, because it seemed to be the case.
Incidentally, I applaud your "Different perspective, regarding your ex, sister and the many women you mentioned.
I merely omitted it because repetition wasn't necessary.
However, I would say that actually as a continuum, that's really very rare.
All I want is that to be the norm, not the exception that proves the rule.
And sadly, that's as it currently stands.
Okay, so we've spent 9 pages blaming men for the problem. Case made. Declare victory.
I think it's time to redirect the focus of the thread to what are PRACTICAL, REALISTIC steps that can actually work and garner some change in the right direction. Not pie in the sky. Real.
You know the saying?
"For evil to triumph, it is sufficient that Good men do nothing"....?
QED.
Would not financially supporting the initially cited "artists" be considered "doing something"? If so, I can keep doing that every day.
If that's not sufficient, what else do you propose I can do to further equality in this specific case?
Also and on a related note, how do your propose a man address sexism about women, by women?
For example, say I'm not the biggest fan of a certain woman's song about snakes, how can I "do something" without undermining her right to expression, asserting my privilege, etc.
Perhaps my negative view of that song is somehow patriarchal and sexist in of itself? If that's so, I'm not sure where to go.
Can a song be inherently sexist or is it always contextual? I have an idea of an answer but I'd like to challenge this view against your (everyone's) views.
This is an honest question (like my other question) and I am honestly asking (no sarcasm).
Sexism certainly DOES exist woman on woman. I call that out just as much as any other.
Just as many men have no inkling that their behaviour, attitudes and opinions may carry sexist over- or under-tones, many women do not realise that either.
If you feel something someone says may be offensive, then yes, no matter, you should feel you have the right to say something.
I have, before now.
Or how about women on men? Talk about a tough nut to crack? I tried bringing that up a couple times on this forum. Didn't get too far. I've known a number of women who obsessively complained about sexism in men, but when you'd try to offer women acting in a sexist way towards men, it was like you had just puked on their shoes.
If we can return to Buddhism for a moment (refreshing idea, eh?) There is nothing that is inherently anything.
Well said!
Didn't get too far with it, though :-(. Lotta pies in the sky it seems.
...
...
I think if you buy hip hop and rap music, but refrain from buying some of it for the specific reason...well, that has meaning. But I don't buy that kind of music, so to say I'm supporting the cause by not buying the music is not legitimate.
Sexism by women is an interesting topic. Before I was a school administrator I was a science teacher -- general and earth science, and on occasion biology. It used to drive me nuts when a girl would say (and this happened often): "I can't do science." And I would respond by saying something along the lines of, "You're a very intelligent young lady, you read well, you think well, and that's all that's required to 'do' science." TO which the most common response was, "Well, my mother said she could never do science, either." Honest to god, I would think my head was going to explode. And the next time I would see that mother, I would bring it up.
After becoming a principal, we had a male math teacher who had a Math Club. His Math Club -- up to my tenure -- had been virtually all boys. When I became principal I made announcements encouraging girls to join the Math Club and made it clear that I expected that teacher to be welcoming and inclusive to girls who showed any interest, and sometimes I personally intervened if a girl didn't feel comfortable attending the meetings. When I would do my observations of him teaching, I would put in writing my concerns that he called mostly on the boys. At least when I would be sitting in the classroom, it helped.
Another very good way to get ideas out to a broader constituency can be Facebook.
I keep up with my kids online, and I saw a close girl friend of my son's say she couldn't do science or math, because girls just can't. My son (who is adept at both) told her "Just because you have ovaries doesn't mean you can't think I can." LOL he's not got the most tact, but the girl is now a senior and is in physics voluntarily. They are lab partners and designed a working hovercraft
Encouragement can go a long ways, for anyone.
What can we do...being involved with young people is a great thing. Just chatting with them, and encouraging them can mean a lot if they don't get it at home. Youth groups, any positive enforcement where people are treated as equals. Reaching them at younger ages can make all the difference. Volunteer with those groups, chat with your kids' friends, chat with your kids. Those things along can make a big difference in how they interact with the world, and the way they manage the things they are a part of.
Tell people when they say something offensive or inappropriate. You can't control whether they do it again or whether they think you are nuts. But often, they don't even realize what they are saying is inappropriate and will think about it once they are told. Even getting someone to second guess why they say what they say is a big step.
Check yourself and make sure you are not harboring sexism or other isms. Get rid of your "Pffft you run like a girl!" phrases so that your kids don't pick them up. Get rid of your notions that certain toys and hobbies and careers and sports are for girls or boys. Don't fall into roles where you expect your spouse/partner to do the same jobs all the time. Expand your horizons and learn how to do some of those "other sex" jobs, like using a level to hang a picture, or the right temperate to put your own laundry on so it doesn't shrink. Mow the lawn, buy your wife's tampons, cook dinner together, learn how to hook up the playstation to the tv. No one is incapable of learning how to do any of these things. They don't take a man or a woman to do either of them. Put yourself into the role you don't normally choose-walk in someone else's shoes.
It's a start.
I think the arrangement you describe is an arrangement. A prehistoric woman past puberty had a baby hanging off of her titty and a new one on the way after weaning the previous one. Wash, rinse repeat until she died in childbirth or wore out. Not a great set up for chasing mammoth!
One piece I haven't seen mentioned yet -- and whether it matters or not, it is historical --- but women have been 'subject' to their biology whether they wanted to be or not up until about sixty years ago when hormonal birth control was synthesized in a lab. And then if THAT didn't work or wasn't available, you were pregnant whether you wanted to be or not with the choice of seeing the old woman or back alley medic to abort it for you.
Nowadays women are completely and utterly free from their previous biological imperative. Staying home to care for little ones is preferred but not enforced like it used to be. When my mother found out she was pregnant with me she resigned her job. I asked why, was she let go or??? and she said back then women did not work when they were pregnant, it just wasn't done (this was the 60's) in her world. Nowadays there is only preference, not imperative
Sadly, I think there's a massive amount of social pressure on women.
Let's note here, I said Social. That includes, actively, both genders.
The major hurdle is that women get pregnant, and have children.
Men, for entirely biological reasons, obviously can't.
Many women have strong maternal instincts, and want to have children, but that means one of several things:
They have to interrupt their careers in order to do so, occasionally for prolonged periods of time. There's Maternity leave, which can amount to an extended period.
Getting back into the swing of work can prove challenging in some fields.
There's colleague resentment (I have seen this, for myself, though not directed at me) and understandably, companies are wary of investing time, money and effort into recruiting, training and developing an employee if one result is that she the leaves to have a child....
The guilt factor is massive.
Many women who have children, mid-career, then return to work - and leave their children with a childminder.
Their salaries therefore go towards paying someone to look after their children, often with very little left over. So they're working, if only to pay someone to look after their child(ren) while they work.
And the guilty feelings of 'abandoning their kids to a virtual stranger' - don't let me go there! It hurts....
Childcare within the working premises, job-sharing and paternity leave have all made great strides forward and have done a fair amount to help some people.
But not everyone has access to such commodities, and often, a woman will have to choose between motherhood, OR job.
House-husbands (men 'home-makers') are still rare, although they obviously exist.
But in general, this specific aspect of a woman's role, still gives great cause for concern.
Things like a two car garage are not very important in the long run. If one has to choose between a career and raising a child, the choice is better made before one has both.
I'm more or less a single dad right now to a beautiful one year old girl. I have to work two midnight shifts a week and turn any others down for the lack of an available sitter.
I have effectively thrown my seniority out the window and any chance of being fulltime in my chosen field any time soon.
In this I can relate to many mom's who have to leave the punch clock to stay home with kids.
I don't regret any of it. I know that in general, women are the more nurturing of the sexes though and can see why we as a species look to Mom for love.
When Mom is no longer a big part of our day, maybe we hold a kind of resentment that stays to affect our social view of women in general. I'm just thinking out loud now though because I am effectively Mr. Mom.
Oh, ok... I notice the thread is being buried, lol. oh well.
That happens, but for a variety of reasons.
I understand how strong the instinct to have children is, but ....
Women get 12 weeks of paid paid leave here. That's awesome and hasn't always been that way. Some people - young, single males mostly - get peaved with this, thinking this leave amounts to nothing more than an extended paid vacation. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, but that's how some people think.
Some companies offer a similar benefit for men, which is, I think, rather enlightened.
Some people abuse the system and this is where the greatest resentment comes from. They take their maternity leave, then they take vacation, along with 2-weeks notice, and quit. The company gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop. They have to hold a position for the person(s) on maternity leave and can't get a permanent replacement. They loose all the time and expense of trainning the employeee who just quit and have to find and train a replacement. They're out the payroll. And it's not unreasonable to think that this former employee planned to milk the company for 12 weeks of maternity leave and benefits, all along. Nothing the employer can do.
That causes resentment.
I've been witness to this happening 3 times and I know it happens a lot.
Another thing that causes resentment can go along these lines: Back when I got diagnosed with cancer, I started thing that I'd like to do a pilgrimage to Bodhgaya. A trip like this would require 2 weeks at the minimum. Three weeks would be even better if you figure in jet lag recovery, travel time, and so on. I've never had a employer who would allow an absence like that. I'd have to quit my job, go on pilgrimage, and find a new job when I got back. That's not the same thing as having a baby, of course, but it's pretty damned important to me. Why does a woman get to take 12 weeks off for a baby and gets to keep her job, while I can't get three to do something equally important to me?
But it still isn't the same. Our society is built on a ancient model where the mother and extended family do the child-rearing. Not strangers. In not keeping with that model, we contribute to a breakdown in the structure of society and the roles that it's components serve. Look around you. Many of the ills confronting our society today is, in part, because of the breakdown of that part of society.
Yeah.. Wierd. Looks like the last post was made yesterday, but yours/mine happened today. Like the thread's been closed but we can still post to it.
Whatever
>
Anf here's the painful paradox.
People don't realise, when embarking on parenthood, just how much it's going to cost them. The result is, that in order to afford to have the child - they both have to work....
Often, grandparents turn into childminders, and it's not as if the working couple then continue in a relatively comfortable life, let alone one of luxury. Countless parents will attest to the fact that they can barely keep their heads above the water....
Loads of people say, "We'll have children when we can afford them". The standard, pat and quite realistic response to that is, "If you wait until then, you never will."
>
First of all, it causes YOU resentment. I've never had that complaint brought to my attention, by anyone else....
Sadly, if you are that ill from Cancer, then either you have the option of leaving your job (in which case, there are many charitable organisations which could help you fund your dream trip - I know this for a fact, one of my ex-landlords was an employee of a charity that existed exactly for this purpose) or if you're well enough to continue working, then you abide by the conditions of your employment contract.
You're absolutely right. It's not the same thing at all, as having a baby, and the fact that it's 'important to you' unfortunately, carries no weight.
And I say none of this with any malice.
Having a baby is a costly and incrementally expensive act. By the time the child is 18, it will have cost the parents, nearly a quarter of a million dollars, so giving the mother a helpful start, is a bonus.
The cruel, 'grey-light-of-day' harsh reality is that unless your cancer is debilitating or terminal, then it's presumed treatable and possibly even curable.
That doesn't therefore make you a special case.
Of course, but other people will have what they feel are equally important desires that won't be fulfilled.
It's not a "dream trip". It's a pilgrimage. It's not for sightseeing. It's not a tour.
My Dream Trip would be to Le Mans for the 24 hours race.
I don't need a charitable organization. I make more than enough money to go. I just can't get the time.
There's nothing in my "contract" that precludes taking three weeks off. They just won't approve the time.
Of course.
To whom? The company gets nothing in that bargain. Here, I believe they're required, by law, to provide maternity leave. On the ledger, it's a losing proposition for the company.
We seem to presume a lot around here ......
My cancer isn't debilitating or to a terminal stage ...... yet. It's isn't curable, either. I'm stuck with it. And I don't think of myself as a special case. I just want 3 weeks off and my job when I get back. They don't even have to pay beyond my available vacation pay if it doesn't cover the whole trip.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
Well, yes, obviously, to your employers, it is.
I will tell you what I have been told here in this thread.
"OK, it's a problem. Now, what's to be done about it?"
Get snarky much?
Oh, I know what to do. In my case, I find work that is condusive to taking the time off that I want. If I were to go into pure consulting work, I'd get paid more, get more tax deductions, and could leave any time I felt like it, like between contracts.
To go back to the topic, that's a simple, effective and easily reachable goal for me, and I'm working on that, even as we speak. Just got off the phone for a 1yr contract at the Mayo Clinic. I'm not just sitting around crying about how unfair my current situation is. I'm doing something about it.
As far as sexism and gender equality are concerned, I've done as much as I think I have to, even if that's not enough to please you. I vote without gender bias, I treat the women in my life with gender respect, and call my mom every week. I know there's a great, big, horseshit world out there and women get the fuzzy end of the lollipop some times. So do men. I have niether the time nor the inclination to solve everyone's problems. I have enough of my own.
If you want to change the world, quit talking about it, and get to work. I'll shout encouragement.
@Chaz (You do not have to read the fillers they are just there, I just wanted to give you my support.) _The thing in italic is also there within the fillers so I marked it italic. _
I went in exile and wouldn't post anymore, when however watching a private message I hopped on to read this sad news. I remember my grandfather telling me a woman working in the same company as my grandfather (was a sort of boss in one division.) The woman worked in a different division her mother died and later her father went terminal. She couldn't get any days off to take care for her father. People in the company said 'you need to go to (my grandfathers name) She went to him, and said to her 'you go home and take care for your father. That's what you will do, I will take care of things here don't worry and I want to see you back when it's all over and your rested.'
I do not know what to say really, I do compliment you for being a nice sport and even here keeping your composure. While you get battered, three weeks, what are they in a human life? What do three weeks even represent in money, a monthly paycheck? When you cannot even get free time in such a case that is painful.
-Fillers to keep on topic-
As for feminism, I guess this is why the very word feminism sends chills up my spine. With feminism I picture justice, scales a sword and a blindfold. Sexism seems to weigh heavier than humanism. Human life and it's quality should be enforced no matter male or female. This means by society, after all it has been said here that private clubs can do what they want. So why would I not be able to privately do what I want when it's in the law? If females want to make fun of boys with they're love for cars, that's they're private time. As long as it stays all within the laws.
So going back to humans and quality of life, I can see how society is changing. Every group is fending for they're own. Trying to justificate they're thought what they do and how. Bit in essence it boils down the basic ethics._ When Aristotle said the best lute player should get the best lute, the one that needs 3 weeks off would be the people that can employ or use it best. I do think you are in a position you could argue that you could use those 3 weeks really well. Even under the guise of therapy.
In life people, or humans in general just tend to forget or lose sight of what really matters. Being brainwashed by opinions, the church made you believe that the devil was after you in every evil thought you had. Feminism makes someone believe every male is evil and good guys do nothing. Society has turned into a game of poker in which everyone can chose, select and employ a miniorities deck and play it with all justification.
-fillers to keep on topic ended-
Dear Chaz I do wish you the best, and I do hope for you, as a fellow human being you can get those 3 weeks. On the other hand I must say I am at a loss of words and do not really know what to tell you... Take care man, take care.
12 weeks of paid leave is NOT a requirement. Women who get that are still lucky. Under FMLA, if you work for a big enough employer and have been there for a year, you are entitled to 12 weeks (unpaid) off where you are promised not to have your job given to someone else. You are NOT paid for it unless that is a perk your employer offers.
Hmmmmm....
Ive worked for companies an my wife has, too, where you're paid 60%. Kind of like short term disability.
And i still couldn't get 3 weeks off.
That's up to the company though, it's not a law and it's not covered under FMLA. At my last job, I did get short term disability because I had a c-section, but it only covered 6 weeks and if I wanted pay for the other 6 weeks of maternity time off, I had to use my vacation and sick time.
FMLA applies to mom and dad, not just mom. But it is combined. So if mom takes 12 weeks, it doesn't guarantee there will be any covered under FMLA for dad. They can each take 6 weeks, or any combination thereof, over the 12 months after the child is born or adopted. When our son was born, my husband and I worked for the same employer. I took 12 weeks off, and my husband took 2 or 3 weeks of vacation time.
I'm probably not remembering this quite right, but in my school district back east a woman teacher could take 6 or 12 weeks and come back to her same position, or she could take the remainder of the school year and come back to a teaching position in the district, but not necessarily in the same school. Or something like that.
Not at all. It was a question put to me, in this thread. I also put it to you.
Why would that be snarky?
Unless of course. you're agreeing that when it was put to me, it was also snarky.
Yup, I got that.....
Well I'm glad you seem to have sorted a viable solution for yourself.
Oh, YOUR 'the topic'. Right.
Yes, well done. If only eliminating blatant sexism an misogyny was THAT simple.
>
It's not a question of pleasing me though, is it?
It's a question of supporting women in their quest for total equality and end of being discriminated against.
You think this topic is all about Me?? Really??
>
A lot of the times. in ways you obviously cannot see o appreciate.
So do men.
>
If men were discriminated against, in the same way, to the same level, over the same amount of time women have, then maybe I'd feel more sympathy for you.
As it stands, you're just wingeing out of some misguided sense of personal entitlement.
You have a habit of doing this. It comes across in a similar way to "huh! so you've been objectified, assaulted, victimiesed and sexually discriminated against, huh? Well, count yourself lucky you don't have to shave every morning!"
>
Who's asked you to? Even I know your shoulders aren't that broad...
What... and you imagine my life is utterly problem-free...?
I still find the time though to devote to things that require attention...
>
Yes, you sit on the sidelines, and wave your little flag, and cheer, between sips of root-beer... You sit there, watch, and appear to give support, while actually doing nothing yourself to eliminate the problem YOUR gender is to blame for.
I'm doing what I can to 'change the world'.
It's discussing these issues with men like you that I finding most challenging.
YOU halt progress. By your resistance to believe such an issue exists, and even being told it does, by turning your back on it and refusing to contribute to its resolution.
Male gender only exists biologically. Males do however not exist that would mean every male is part of a collective a hydra with billions of heads. Not one male in this topic is part of such a creature.
Every male lives his own life, we are not a collective that communicates trough telepathy or brainwaves to discuss how to ruin the life of females. So what are males? The plural of male? I am one males but males is not me in plural, not even my biology I got different bone structure and or DNA then most males.
With that out of the way it is very worrisome your so blinded and only looking at your cause of which you believe is the only right cause. That this thread is about pleasing you, when another woman comes and says she has no problem with males they are wrong and should read a book. When a male says something they are sexist or unintelligent the only one wavering around the truth is you that is the conviction.
If you look at the situation of peoples life you could try and feel some sympathy understanding everyone has emotion is not so hard. To then also understand that you may have your emotion regardless of having been an victim or being a victim of this or that.
Also you say the fault is in men but you do not expect us to carry it on our shoulders like atlas did the world. Do you think other people will listen to me when I say to stop sexism just because they are male and I am male? Do you think they will high five me and go like yes we will tell our friends and stop it all? In all honesty what are you trying to aim at? All I can see if males that do not like feminism because feminism became notorious for being anti male. Surely at that time males will not listen when you push on them full force you can expect reaction. Because of this I think most males associate feminism with male haters. Start finding a new group that strives for equality for race for gender for everyone.
As your time is precious and your life is not problem free I can forecast you will not get the results you hope to achieve here as it stand I think many people think negatively of this thread the attitude towards man is quite hostile this is why I came blazing in like a Machiavelli Machiavelli really loved his family he is depicted as a cruel man though.
So when men give you a hard time by resisting you now know why. Feminism is hostile towards males by extremists in the group. I will talk and reason with anyone that wants equality for everyone but I will resist against a group that is hostile towards me based on the gender I am now you will say females are being treated bad by males just by being born female. Though I have nothing to do with it and I will help anyone in my vincity whether male or female. I have many female friends as it stands. So I have nothing to do with it. To then be pointed at and be declared a criminal that is ridiculous.
So yes bad treatment of females is bad so is the bad treatment of males and I will try to do what I can to make a nice place for both one at a time. But feminists for them I shut my door.
Also historically do you think only females had a hard time? Athena was a goddess in Greek Sparta in its day and age had quite good citizenship towards females for ancient standards. Also in 1800 a woman could not do schooling maybe but how many males would be able to? Most people would be poor and males had to go straight to work also doing heavy jobs for a bad days pay. Do you think that was pleasant? If as a woman in that time your family had the money to put you to school you already would be very very very privileged almost everyone was poor. It then was the revolution that gave better rights and such to the work class. If you read history you'd know it was hard for both genders being poor. The cynics in ancient Greek would be poor but they had a woman in they're ranks that was also a philosopher and wrote philosophy and got read the works didn't survive however
Cleopatra also had power and ancient Egypt did not care for female or male leader. So yeah... There is a lot to say about history in which everyone was poor besides the elite people didn't steal apples out of the kings garden for fun but to feed they're families. Risking death by punishment and law. However I live in the now.
So good luck with your cause but I would change your approach.
I don't think I've seen a post on this board with so much ad hominem and presumption. It's logically indefensible so there sure is no need for me to comment, Fede.
I think it's time to shut this down. You would have shut this thread down a long time ago, and disciplined people bent on personal attacks like yours.
In fact, you may want reconsider your role as moderator on this board.
>
So now you're on the receiving end. Smarts doesn't it? Perhaps now, you will better consider your sarcasm and general tone.
>
Oh, YOU think it's time to shut this down?
As you well know...
>
No, I'm fine with it. If I had abused my position as Moderator, I might agree, but actually, I've been very unbiased in that regard. Besides, it's not my decision, or yours. That's up to my Superiors
Can we chill with the personal attacks? Maybe some of what's being said here is true, but how it's being said is neither necessary or kind. I would hope this discussion can be steered back into some potential solutions rather than rants and personal attacks.
Considering a forum member's name is placed in the title of this thread (and has been for awhile) it's obviously a bit personal and hostile in here.
Honestly, there's a place for passionate discourse and that happened a few pages ago. Now it's devolving, pretty petty, and veering off topic.
I was listening to a young guy on his phone yesterday complaining that the transport police had stopped him in his God given right to chat up women on public transport. He believed this was a homosexual conspiracy. Women were clearly in need of his attention/harassment. Oh the humanity. So some boys are still ignorant.
It is not an uncommon stance. I had a friend who would not cook, that was for women.
However sexism has nuances, levels and takes time to become aware of. Just as homophobia has moved in the UK from criminal behaviour to socially sanctioned - a neighbour of mine was recently the first to get a same sex marriage. Eh Ma Ho. I feel some here are very aware of the subtle nuances of sexism, others have some respect and some are still trying. I would place myself in still trying to be more aware . . .
@lobster said:
I sincerely believe this is @Federica's entire point.
To open up a little more, be curious, see what's still in there. Insisting one is 'finished' and complete in their beliefs or attitudes is in conflict with some basic Buddhist doctrines. Not that the Doctrine Police are patrolling . . . but hey, if the only thing you have left to say is to knock the moderator you've lost your end of the dialogue. It IS a pissing contest and rather obviously one sided.
I think one of the problems, federica, is that you assume that white men have never experienced prejudice that blocked or threatened to block their goals and ambitions.
One of our friends here on this forum is Tom, although I don't remember his screen name here. He lives in Thailand. Twice within the past year he has been beaten by the Thai cops, bad enough this last time that he will be undergoing extensive oral surgery. That's because foreigners living in Thailand are quite naturally (to the Thais) considered to be second class citizens (and even then, we from Britain and the U.S. are not considered third class citizens, as some from other countries to Thailand are considered). Now, I never suffered from the (very polite) prejudice the way Tom did, but I suffered through the bribes and scams, the standing in different lines, the paperwork for silly nothings that were required and would take days to work through to just have some official take 1 second (literally) to stamp a paper that was then essentially tossed. I was lucky that I never happened to be accused by the Thai police of some minor infraction (and that happens to White guys in Thailand on a daily basis and were totally trumped up) just to be assessed a fine that only went as far as the cop's pocket. Run through hoop after hoop is what we foreigners had to do, and much of it was just to show us who was in charge. And of course, you can say that we didn't have to live there, and that's true.
When I tried to work myself into school administration from teaching, in my first school system -- which was a majority Black district -- I was told, indirectly of course, that it would be difficult because most of the upper administration and school board was Black and they were promoting primarily Blacks to administrative positions. So, I took a substantial pay cut and a loss of retirement benefits and moved over the state line to a primarily White district. The teaching job I landed was in a school where the "area assistant superintendent" was a woman, and I was told (indirectly, of course) that it would be tough because she mostly promoted only women. Well, I had to work all the harder than women who were seeking the same kind of promotion to have a portfolio that, quite frankly, couldn't be denied. And once I was on the verge of promotion, the school board member that had to sign off on it just happened to be Black, and said he would only promote a Black candidate (male or female) for that position. Fortunately, the principal who wanted to hire me as assistant principal had a unique ace up his sleeve and he played it, and after a very long delay I got the job.
Or take my neighbor, who has been on kidney dialysis 3 times a week for 11 years. When his kidneys began to fail, they wouldn't put him on the list for a kidney transplant because he was 6 months over the "ideal" age for a kidney transplant.
Pretty much all of us here have agreed with you that there is sexism against women. But there are also others "isms" that different ones of us have also experienced. There's no man I know who would deny that women are paid substantially less for many jobs/professions here than the men in the same jobs/professions. And we know that women are sometimes shut of some jobs completely. But at the same time, we also see the 20% of our Congress that are women, the likelihood that our next president will be woman, the Carly Fiorinas, the Meg Whitmans, the 6 cabinet or cabinet-level women in the President's cabinet, the 26% of college presidents who are women, and so on.
Is it where it should be? No. Definitely not.
But, did you know that in America: "On a national scale, public universities had the most even division between male and female students, with a male-female ratio of 43.6–56.4. While that difference is substantial, it still is smaller than private not-for-profit institutions (42.5-57.5) or all private schools (40.7-59.3). ... female domination of higher education prevails across all types of schools." And this despite the fact that only about a quarter of college presidents are women.
But there is far more to be done. Most of us men know that. For the most part, it's not male Democrats here in the States who have blocked the equal pay for women legislation. It's a subgroup of men in the Republican party -- for the most part -- that have done that.
I would say that you are guilty of stereotyping. And stereotyping is another "ism".
I also wanted to address Jason's response ("Jesus fucking Christ") to my suggestion that more women should run for office. Well, Jesus fucking Christ, Jason, the "She Should Run" organization, made up almost entirely of women, is a "national network committed to advancing women and girls in public leadership", that says more women should run for office. Jill Bossi, a candidate for Senate who lost, says more women should run for public office (she also wrote that: "I encourage women of all career paths to seriously consider throwing your hat into the ring (after all women do have more fashionable hats than the guys ever did!) Women are, I believe, better equipped to serve and to succeed in the halls of Congress. We need the diversity in the cesspool that is our current Congress. We need new voices. We need new advocates. America cannot sustain for much longer under the current weight of political cronyism and disdain for the American public. We women are stronger than we give ourselves credit for and it is time that more of us stood up and said, "Here I am, send me!"). The "close the gap CA" organization says more women should run for public office. The "Emerge" network are 14 state organizations that promote more women to run for public office. The WomenConnectForGood organization says more women should run for public office. The Center For Women In Politics believes more women should run for public office. Not to mention other such organizations and other women already in politics who all say more women should run for office. So once again, Jason, I will say that more women should run for public office.
But when you look at 2 year colleges and trade schools, except in health care they are very, very male dominated. Women feel they need the higher level degree because they need it to attempt to compete with men and because generally speaking women then to prefer the atmosphere a 4+ year degree will offer rather than HVAC repair or welding or plumbing or many of the other things that trade schools offer. The boys in my son's class are largely going to trade schools because that is where there interests lie and they don't want the loans that come with a 4 year degree. After suffering through school they want hands on training. That's just anecdotal, coming from talking to kids in my son's class about what they are doing after they graduate. Close to 75% of the boys are going to 2 year schools. The ratio is about the same for girls going to 4 year schools. So is higher education really "dominated by females" or do we need to adjust our definition of higher education so it paints a more realistic figure including all the boys who opt for 2 year degrees?
I took the thread title to be a bit of a gentle poke at Chaz. I assumed Fed wanted him to participate.
Perhaps Chaz took it differently.
I am sixty year old man. I, when in my early twenties realized my banter with other males often included aggressive put downs of the other man. He would do the same to me in turn of course...we were bonding. I stopped having interactions of that sort as soon as I could( I am not completely free of this action, nor the impulse... I am a work in progress:) like @lobster ). I believe this man to man insult behavior ( it was particularly man at man behavior back in the day) , even though it had its amusement , was hurting me.
If someone does the insult thing to me today( man or woman) I rarely rise to the bait.
I am good at that one thing for sure. I still like banter but try not to "call out " the other person in a way that might cause them to call me out.
Again, I got no hostile intent from the thread title, just a gentle calling out.
Obviously, the back and forth between Fed and Chaz is fed from a hidden spring. ( at least hidden from me somewhere deep in the archives of this forum)
I vote we keep Fed as moderator.
I'm confused.
I just provided the data.
It seems as if what you are pointing out is that females want to go to 4 year colleges for higher degrees than many males who just want to go to trade school. I would think that would be a good thing. Or perhaps I am misjudging that more females want "HVAC repair or welding or plumbing" jobs? ;-)
@vinlyn I was misunderstanding...something, LOL. My apologies. I thought you were making an argument that there being more women in 4 year colleges was unfair to men. I hadn't had coffee yet, I beg your forgiveness