|
Post by teancum79 on May 23, 2007 9:18:50 GMT -5
My gender studies teacher (who was a bit odd) said many times that Men and women where both victims of the gender bias in our society. Women where supposed to always be gentile kind polite and use their bodies to make men happy. Men where to always be strong unfeeling unemotional jerks.
These rules work well for men when it coems to getting money, but it really cuts them out of many of the finer things in life.
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on May 23, 2007 10:00:46 GMT -5
yes, I think that's true. But until women have the same advantage money-wise, they are always going to be held down.....I think you've hit the nail on the head. It boils down to money. Those that have it are always in power over those that don't.
I have a degree, my husband doesn't. Yet he makes more money than I do.....and still would even if he were in my field. That just isn't fair.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 23, 2007 10:23:59 GMT -5
yea that creates a problem. I know that awhile back it was assumed (and often was the case) that a man was supporting a family and a woman was getting a little extra cash for this or that. That is far from the case no days though.
I guess in my ideal world women would be treated as equals and have the same education and employment opportunities that men do, but would choose to put their kids first.
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on May 23, 2007 18:08:01 GMT -5
actually, it would be good if both the mother and the father put their kids first, and decided, between themselves, what WOULD be the best kind of upbringing, who will do what for them, how the jobs will be dispersed, and what will bring about the healthiest, most moral, decent, honest and good kids. If people took the time to decide these things while the kids were still young, and then implemented them, the world would be a far, far better place.
Right now it seems to me that most parents don't really think about being a parent....they just sort of shuffle along doing what they do and hope for the best for their kids. Maybe they are too worn out because this society places emphasis on the fact that you are only "worth" something if you are making money.....it devalues women's stay-at-home work. That has definitely got to be changed, so that people start realizing that it is truly important to plan for your child's upbringing, in order to maximize the chances that they will turn into truly good human beings.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 23, 2007 19:10:17 GMT -5
Indeed but there is a fine line between noticing differences in physical nature based on nature, and in defining roles for sexes based on tradition. Who said anything about physical nature? Generally, women are more intuitive, men more "action" oriented. Women tend to read between the lines, men take things more at face-value. Most women require girlfriends with whom they can talk intimately; men are mostly satisfied with keeping things at a relatively superficial level without getting into emotions too much. These aren't traditions. We're simply made differently. Now I'll grant you that there are more or less masculine or feminine people of both genders. But these generalities still hold -- just to a slightly lesser degree. It depends on the work. Women do not do nearly as well with jobs requiring heavy lifting or strategy. Men do not do nearly as well with jobs requiring a lot of patience or paying great attention to detail. It's not that either can't do what the other does -- just that it doesn't go as well when we try to do or be something that we're simply not. You may think that, but I don't see it that way. My niece is a tomboy, but she isn't nearly as aggressive when worked up as my nephew who is a mama's boy. And their sister is as girly a girl as one can be. No one told them that traditionally they have to be this way -- God made them this way. In what way is a woman's influence over her son dependent on her son? I think you are the one with thinking stuck in a tradition. Nice try, but I haven't said anything about separating the sexes. Quite the opposite. The whole idea is that they completely complement one another. You're apparently not hearing what I'm saying.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on May 23, 2007 19:43:19 GMT -5
Indeed these are generalities, which as I was saying, are often mixed with tradition or said to hold for most to all in a gender. People are not generalities they're people.
Something that were simply not? That is definitely a point of view. I am a man, and I have never been the lifting macho man cursory type person. I have had a great mix of characteristics including many that you say are “womanly.” It is this kind of taking tradition and societal norms as nature that is hurting our society both women and men.
I am going to say this in a way that is the least offensive I can think of. Using basic accepted sociology and psychology it has been proven that while certain tendencies to exist that a great part of our upbringing is due to the societal norms and traditions that are impressed upon us both verbally and non-verbally from all sectors of society. Sure you niece might have been “made by God” or nature a tomboy but society is an equal partner and our growth.
Heres where you are the one trying to pull a fast one. My quote was responding to you saying women have much influence in society through their influence over their sons and husbands. Thus I was not saying the influence on her son was dependent upon her son, (though it is dependent upon their existence) but rather that the influence you claimed they had in society through this influence was dependent upon them. If a women must work through a man to exercise her power it is not her power at all that is greater but the man’s that she must work through. I am stuck in a tradition? That’s interesting considering my response has come from many differing religious and scientific points of view including sociology, psychology, politics, biology, New Age, and Christian points of view. Try again, or perhaps evidence next time.
Quote Jedi Velarius: This separate but equal doctrine didn't work for Racism, and i don't think it can solve sexism either.
The whole idea is that they compliment each other ….? Ok well your idea is that they are equal in that each occupies a different area of society, thus coming together as a family unit as a compliment. The key word here is different sectors of society. If a women must stay in the home to be considered fulfilling her “god ordained role” and a man must provide and leave the children up to the woman, then this is not a compliment at all. This is indeed separation. I think that I have indeed heard what you are saying.
I wish you great love, but I sense much anger in your post, and avoidance to issues, through discrediting.
With love and peace,
Jedi Velarius Kenobi
|
|
|
Post by cenk on May 24, 2007 13:37:23 GMT -5
I have a degree, my husband doesn't. Yet he makes more money than I do.....and still would even if he were in my field. That just isn't fair. I agree that women should get paid equally to men. Thats only if they have to the same amount of work as men though, take the tennis championships at Wimbledon for instance. This year onwards the winner of the womans cup will get paid the same as the winner of the mens cup. You may think thats fair but I dont because a.) womens games have lower attendances than the mens game and b.) women play less then men (women play to 3 sets whereas men play to 5 sets in each game).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 24, 2007 22:16:40 GMT -5
Yes or like trying to make the number of females and males involved in university sports match the whole schools sex ratio. Reality is that men are more inclined to play sports on a competitive level. Also the altering of requirements to insure that enough females get jobs as fire fighters.
I think what we need to work towords is equality in opportunity not equality in results.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on May 25, 2007 7:46:07 GMT -5
Re the Wimbledon example.
If the men's game and women's game were played at different times of the year I'm not sure the decision would have been so controversial. If that was the case then you would just have had two separate competitions each with the same prize money and this comparison would not have been made. I understand your broader point though that there should be equal pay for equal work.
Teancum , you mentioned the changing of fire service regulations. Which regulations are you talking about? Do they refer to the ability to be a fire fighter or to the make up of the kind of person they want?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 25, 2007 9:16:12 GMT -5
Firefighters have very high standards in physical strength. A lot of men can't cut it and from people I've talked most women could not either. Some people decided that they would make a new set of rules so that more women could get the job. I guess it is kind of like having womens tees at a golf course. I'm fine with a little wiggle room for a golf game, but when my life could depend on a person moving me out of a burning building I don't want that person to be their on the make it easier for the women to get in plan. Placing public safety below someones idea of gender equality is a very bad idea. It is also very unfair to the male who did not quite make the cut, but could with the lowered bar who won't get the job.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on May 25, 2007 12:52:36 GMT -5
I take your point that some men might feel put out if they missed entry to the fire service but a woman got in because of a lower scale. To be honest though I don't know anything about fire service entry regulations and whether those entry levels are set at different levels for men and for women so I can't really comment. To be blunt though, if I was trapped in a burning building, I wouldn't care what sex the fire fighter who put the flames out was.
I think it all comes down to training and experience in the end. I read an article about female fighters in Canada whilst looking into this and I really don't think you could deny their level of commitment or expertise. Regarding strength differences between men and women Barry Ford, chief of the combined East and West Firehalls says:
" Women are as capable as men at doing any job, until it comes to the actual physical labour part of it, and then a person (woman or man) who is not as strong may have to figure out a different way of doing the job. You can bull-work it or you can use your brains."
(And)Mandy Schuttinga agrees. "We learn to do things our way with our strength," she says."
I don't think any one would argue that men and women share the same physical abilities but I think women can be creative with it and if a person is committed to doing something I really think thats half the battle.
I have a friend wants to join the fire service so much that she's been in the volunteer force for about four years, come through a serious knee injury and trained like she was in the army to reach the criteria necessary. I think that level of commitment deserves respect and encouragement.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on May 25, 2007 18:58:01 GMT -5
Many in my family weigh over 200 lbs. I'd be quite annoyed if a firefighter man or women has to leave me to burn because they are not strong enough to get us out. If a one legged, quad racial, half blind 100% deaf female with AIDS can do a job as well as anyone one else fine let them have the job. What concerns me is when their is talk or action to permit a person who is under qualified to have a job in order to make some equality nut happy.
I don't think gender should be a factor in employment (unless the nature of your job would make for awkward situations). Ability to work should be the issue and if the job requires a person to be 6' 5' or taller you are going to have a near all male staff and there is nothing wrong with that.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on May 26, 2007 4:59:30 GMT -5
First of all, I don't think you need to be 6'5 to have strength and being smaller isn't necessarily a disadvantage if its used well. Wasn't there a famous basket ball player in America who was the smallest player in the game? Because everyone else was as tall as trees he was able to score by jumping through legs and weaving about the court with more dexterity than the bigger guys could muster. Imagine a scenario where someone was stuck in a small space and none of the 6 footers could fit in to reach them in time. Someone smaller might be of benefit.
Second of all, fire fighters work as a unit. No one, male or female, would be sent in to the burning building alone. Your family members wouldn't be left behind because there would be a posse of people there to help carry them. You talk as though there is a conspiracy to let less adequate people through when, if my friend's experience is anything to go by, thats far from true.
Women have always faced prejudice in these types of occupations and have had to prove themselves capable even after getting the job-and many have. If they truly weren't able to do these jobs and members of the public were dying left right and centre because of their presence then they'd have been sacked and other women barred as result. This hasn't happened and I think that means they are doing their jobs well.
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on May 26, 2007 10:45:42 GMT -5
Imagine a scenario where someone was stuck in a small space and none of the 6 footers could fit in to reach them in time. Someone smaller might be of benefit. Second of all, fire fighters work as a unit. No one, male or female, would be sent in to the burning building alone. Your family members wouldn't be left behind because there would be a posse of people there to help carry them. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Yes, they do work as a team, and it isn't really a good idea to have all members of the team be exactly the same. Different situations call for different capabilities. It just isn't a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket and assuming that strength is always the best characteristic in situations like that.
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on May 26, 2007 10:48:04 GMT -5
and by the way, I'm not saying that's what the previous poster meant. I'm sure he didn't...I was just adding my thoughts.
|
|