Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

The role of women in sexism

Is funny isn't it

Tyson Fury's wife wants to take her daughters out of school

FGM is perpetuated largely by women

Women help to enforce the hijab in countries where it is mandatory 

Women who want to be "given away" on their wedding day and change their name 

Women who don't like male religious or political leaders because "I like a man in charge".

All of these "because it's traditional" as though that justifies anything

Must be something to do with evolved survival skills within the community I reckon.

It's weird tho. Weird af.

 

O mio babbino caro.

mr m did not ask my father’s permission

and we paid for and arranged our wedding ourselves.

mr m senior was outraged - but we had a soprano sing the puccini at our wedding, job done. Not a dry eye.

I mostly agree tbh.

My wife wanted to change her name but I wouldn’t have been bothered if she’d felt differently.

We did have a completely traditional wedding ceremony tho. She was “given away”. As per, however, I did not ask permission to propose.

“Women who don't like female religious or political leaders because "I like a man in charge".”

These pitiful creatures strike me as particularly weird tbh

Why on earth shouldn't women change their name? Is using their father's more feminist than using their husband's? Less so I'd have thought; they had no choice in the former. 

I did a lot of things in relation to my first marriage I would not do in my second and I think it was because I was so young. Like get married in church. Be "given away". That kind of stuff.

I think young people are really quite socially conservative especially when doing life ritual stuff. 

I wish I had continued to use my own name professionally. Now I'm stuck with ex husbands name, which I've spent 20 years spelling to people. It's annoying 

It's not surprising. The patriarchy is an equilibrium. It suits most women. I read recently that many male CEOs are married to women who studied the same courses as them at university, e.g. MBAs. Those women are equally as intelligent and qualified as the men to get to the CEO position, but many of them just don't want to. They would prefer to marry a man who is going to become a CEO than become one themselves.

If a woman is the beneficiary of positive discrimination, and is pushed into a position that a man otherwise would have got (whether he was more qualified or not is irrelevant here), it will more likely than not have an equal and opposite impact on another woman, e.g. the man's wife. A lot of men are high-performing precisely because they have a woman behind them doing the main body of the work bringing up the household.

I am not saying any of the above in support of or against any agenda. These are simply facts. You could use them to support or oppose positive discrimination. Plenty of women do benefit from there being a Patriarchy.

I would love Mrs Royalty to become CEO of compuglobalmegacorp. I would attend events as required and keep a lovely home, while developing expensive tastes in holidays and alcohol.

Sounds awesome tbh.

"If a woman is the beneficiary of positive discrimination, and is pushed into a position that a man otherwise would have got (whether he was more qualified or not is irrelevant here), it will more likely than not have an equal and opposite impact on another woman, e.g. the man's wife"

er this sounds an awful lot like the old bollocks that men 'needed' the good jobs / higher salaries for the same job because they're supporting a family 

your hypothetical poor wife suffering the equal and opposite effect you posit can always get a job herself. 

Funny how men never think they're the recipient of positive discrimination by virtue of being men, and having been running everything for centuries. Hmmmmmm

 I should add that in my father’s religion (and therefore mine, nominally, at least) there is no giving away of a bride and walking down the aisle. The priest will only marry couples who arrive at the church together and walk down the aisle together. This, traditionally, was to do away with forced marriages, the bride had to come willingly. And also, interestingly, where dowries were commonplace. A dowry where the bride’s father gave money or assets to be brought into the marriage by the bride so she had some wealth of her own to bring to the marriage (not a dowry where the bride’s father pays money to the groom’s family and thereby “selling” her and she never gets to see any of it).

old fashioned but sound.

i didnt get a dowry however :(

Is using their father's more feminist than using their husband's? 

Well by that logic men are also using "their father's" name. 

Unless you believe that men own names whereas women are merely permitted to borrow them. 

I'm not trying to be facetious.

It's not that uncommon, in a man versus woman competition for a job, for the man to be better qualified. Usually it is because he has more experience. Usually that is because he has worked longer hours. Usually that will be because he has a wife who takes care of all of the parenting and housework, allowing him to work longer.

Usually, the woman he is up against does not have that level of background support. She may be married, but probably her husband won't do much housework. She may have fewer professional hours under her belt because she has caring and parental responsibilities.

It's more like a competition between a woman and a man-and-a-woman. It's 2 versus 1. The 2 are more likely than not going to be better. 

To push the woman ahead is just as much undermining the work of the wife as it is an attempt to correct all of the discrimination that the woman has faced during her career (which is a very real thing). 

All I'm saying is that the majority of women support principles that are sexist against women, and were those principles revised to promote equality, more women would suffer as a result. That's not an excuse not to do it. We should be doing it. Those who benefit from sexism (male and female) should adapt to a more equal society. It's just that it isn't as incredibly simple as some people suggest, and that is why women are often the first defenders of misogynistic practices.

 

He appears to be saying that not only are they, they should be, because otherwise the other dudes housewife will have to cut up her peter Jones card or something 

"So basically you're saying that women with lazy sexist husbands who don't pull their weight are at a professional disadvantage?" 

 

Yes, they are. Single women and single men have a similar disadvantage. A team of two is probably going to do a better job than one person. 

In fact if you're that dependent on your wife keeping the wheels turning so you can function at a basic level, you're likely to become functionality useless if she leaves you, or has a stroke. You sound like a liability mate. 

I have a truly novel idea. Choose someone with similar values to make your life with. 

Then you don't have to go through life being someone who gets annoyed because other people have slightly different values and lifestyles to you.

just a suggestion darlin'

Then you don't have to go through life being someone who gets annoyed because other people have slightly different values and lifestyles to you.

The thing is that you can marry someone great who pulls their weight and doesn't expect you to behave like a 1950s housewife, but if 90% of other women do this then you will spend your life brushing up against other people who find it weird that you don't and will do things like crying when you say you're thinking of not walking down the aisle with your dad, or sending you parcels addressed to Mrs Husbandsname which then get delivered to the post office and you can't collect them because you have no ID in that name.

Why is this about me? I'm not married by the way, and if I was, I would be doing a fair share of the housework.

It's basic mathematics. To make partner in an MC/US firm, you might need to bill 2000-2500 hours per year for 10 years. To do that for 10 years you almost certainly need somebody to cook and clean for you and also bring up any children you have.

The majority of female candidates at 10 years PQE are not going to have the same number of hours. The reasons why they do not are 100% the result of sexually discriminate practices. But that doesn't change the fact that they have fewer hours does it? And that is what the employer is primarily going to be interested in, nor would it be discriminatory to prefer the candidate with more experience. (It would be indirect discrimination, which is quite different.) 

To do that for 10 years you almost certainly need somebody to cook and clean for you and also bring up any children you have.

And a woman's male partner can't do the lion's share of these things because... 

The majority of female candidates at 10 years PQE don't have children. But sure sure this is just a hypothesis you have and not in any way your world view 

OK 

I'm not annoyed by other people's values until they suggest I am less deserving of a job because they have a housewife to keep.

Nobody suggested this. 

Or maybe it was that she's less deserving of the job because she doesn't have time if she's bringing up her children single handedly and waiting on her lazy husband hand on foot as she should be.

Some such bollocks anyway. 

I was only trying to explain the role that women have in sexism, which is what the thread is about. Perhaps it's not a good look for a man to point this out.

The principle I've been trying to explain discriminates against me (a single man) as much as it does against a single woman, but even more so against women married to men who don't do much housework (which is most married women). I see men get ahead of me because they can commit more time to work than I can, because there's a wife in the background doing everything for them. I'm not shocked or offended that this happens. 

Very competitive jobs usually do go to people with a support network that allows them to spend stupid hours at work. Those people are usually men. Lots of women aren't interested in those jobs. They use their sexual capital to compete for and team up with men who are interested in them. For every woman who sets out to climb the professional ladder on merit, there are three women who are using their sexual capital to hold them back. It's never just the men doing this.

More likely your analysis of social hierarchy and inequality is fundamentally flawed from the outset by virtue of being based on notion of sex as the defininng feature of commonality and a notion of the other being  "the patriarchy" which is little more than a misandronistic conspiracy theory.

I wonder about social conditioning. It upsets me so much when people say things like "oh you know what girls are like when they get together" (in a pejorative way). Girls are awesome when they get together stop being a cow, Simone!

‘More likely your analysis of social hierarchy and inequality is fundamentally flawed from the outset by virtue of being based on notion of sex as the defininng feature of commonality and a notion of the other being  "the patriarchy" which is little more than a misandronistic conspiracy theory.’

PARKLIFE!

I'm literally arguing for equally shared parental leave policies in the other thread and 2 patriarchal women with internalised misogyny are arguing against it!!

lady p and Linda need to be 'decolonised' from patriarchal thinking!!

I'm not arguing against anything. I told you your OP (which complained about different time allowances, no mention of pay) was factually incorrect 

stop making things up for attention. It's boring 

I totally agree with you about the fact that men should have equal rights to paid leave.

I just think it's hilarious that you describe is as "time off". It makes it obvious that you haven't done it. 

I've only done it for other people's children for a few hours at a time and even I know no one in their right kind would describe is as "time off". 

But yeah, it would redress the balance a bit for more women to come home at 7pm expecting the house to be clean and dinner to be on the table and wonder what their husband has been doing all day. 

 It makes it obvious that you haven't done it. 

No, I haven't done it. And one of the main reasons I haven't done it is the ridiculously sexist parental leave policy at my and everyone else's work.

my wife took 3 x 9 months because it was so much more financially compelling for her to do  so

So middle class people shouldn't ask for equal rights or pay on the basis of sex?

its the principle. And it damages women's ability to reach parity in the work place if we only see them as baby rearing machines.

equal parental leave. Forget that it's 'hotnow' saying it- you know it makes sense.

I wonder about social conditioning. It upsets me so much when people say things like "oh you know what girls are like when they get together" (in a pejorative way). Girls are awesome when they get together stop being a cow, Simone!

I have a problem with this statement. There are many examples of men working as Teams very effectively. From Wallstreet to Formula 1, Football to Pharmacy. The overwhelming evidence is that men are more effective than women in most environments. 

I like to believe that men and women are equal, but at present, there is so little evidence I'm beginning to think we will not reach that utopia. What's the latest in Scandinavia? The last I heard, women were taking 60% of university seats. Have we had enough of a shift for women to begin taking the lead in business/sport etc?

"I was thinking this in relation to the Labour leadership. Labour have never had a woman in charge, the Conservatives have had 2. However I haven't yet heard a single lefty female commentator who isn't for Starmer."

thsts because Lisa nandy and Rebecca wrong daily don't even know what women are, and want to throw us under the bus for woke points. 

Not really, Chimp. Women have time out of their careers to their own financial and professional detriment to do something which is necessary to the survival of the species and what they are doing is devalued by their male colleagues and (if they married a dickhead) partners alike. 

Only if you believe that the term “time off” is equivalent to “holiday” rather than being a neutral descriptor of time away from work for any purpose.

I don't know that I buy that

women don't breed "oh because society needs me!" they do it for their own purposes (some more well-reasoned than others)

it wouldn't be a bad thing if the birth rate dropped substantially and we were compelled to look for more efficient and less environmentally burdensome ways to structure our economy and society

so maybe only the independently wealthy should go for it for the next ten years 

so maybe only the independently wealthy should go for it for the next ten years

Well their children will definitely not wipe your bum if you end up in a home.

Who is this twot ObstreperousDogey?

i used to say, pre-babies, that i was going to enjoy all my time off while on maternity leave.* Oh how i am laughing on the other side of my face now. Ho ho ho.

indecision

 

*as a joke FAOD

On a sort of unrelated note, I just googled the redoubtable Mrs Fury and their kids - apparently, they have 5 kids, 3 sons, all named Prince...

Re the original post, if you want a truly depressing indictment of this idea, check out the article in the Guardian this weekend, about France and the #metoo movement : I began to lose the will to live at "I absolutely believe in equality. But I love what we call ‘la galanterie à la française’. I’m not a feminist. Men and women aren’t the same – and we don’t want to be treated as if we are."

Fortunately, younger women seem to "get it", and hopefully, idiotic ideas and comments like that will be consigned to the sh1tbin of history, where they belong (along with the likes of hotnow and his particular brand of idiocy).

That is the clear implication every time a man says it. I've never heard a woman say it, funnily enough. 
 

Really, you’ve never heard a woman refer to maternity leave as “time off work” even though that’s unequivocally exactly what it is? I certainly have. Agree that maternity leave isn’t a holiday but nobody said it was

I mostly agree wit the op. except that:

 

1. Thatcher won 3 elections (and lost none) where she got the votes of most women voters.  This suggests  "I like a man in charge" vibe isn't as strong as all that.

2. I  can't be bothered to research why Fury's wife removed their daughters from school. But isn't this a legal choice. you can do so so if you educate them adequately at home.

3. "Women who want to be "given away" on their wedding day and change their name" - I think this is trivial, and mostly just ritual. and there is zero social stigma related to your choice - so just decide what to do with your OH.

 

 

 

This may be worthy of its own thread. How many male roffers had the opportunity, realistically, to take more than 2 weeks of paternity leave?

and if you had the opportunity, would you want to take it?

She hasn't removed them yet, she says she wants to when they reach 11 (they are all still under 10), and her motivation is very clearly not with the intention of continuing anything like a formal education at home, it's to do with keeping them within what she calls the "traveller" tradition of keeping you children stupid.  Luckily, so far, Fury is, apparently, adamant that they will not be leaving.

Although, to be fair to her, she is an equal opportunity fool - she wants to take the boys out as well, so perhaps she doesn't deserve her position in this particular hall of fame.

I did the whole shared parental thing for our 2nd as by then it was enhanced

Although only for the last month or so so not really that hard

plus my wife had accrued loads of holiday so she took that and we just went on hols and did loads of cool stuff. 

Cru it is you that is a dinosaur. Younger women believe in shared parental rights and responsibilities and they believe in equal pay and conditions for men and women

enjoy feeling more and more alienated in a world where progress is being made day by day

it's to do with keeping them within what she calls the "traveller" tradition of keeping you children stupid.

ah so you're a racist as well as sexist

Unsurprised tbf

Not a clue what specifically you think you are referring to, dearie, but then it doesn't ever take much for you incel types to get your big boy pants in a twist...

And, really, if you think you and your sort, driven as you are by fear of change, and the daily reminder of your many, many inadequacies, represent "progress" of any sort, then you are even more deluded than your dribblings on here suggest.

This thread is a joke isnt it, women looking their nose down at other women for something theyre choosing to do, each to their own i say, men equally fall into 'traditions' too (e.g. paying for dates, bringing the bread home, being the protector, being the one that has to propose, bleed a radiator, get hit by women and not hit them back etc.) You can easily say men dont have to do any of these things which by all acounts is true, but then the guy will just have to enjoy a sexless loveless life lol 

Its not, but when you pay for a date lets say, it usually leads to more sex than insisting the woman pay or you split the bill (your salary is completely irrelevant in this)

Furthermore bleeding radiators doesnt equate to sex, never said it did, probably just a shaky hand at best 

Re the paying for dates thing, I always used to feel much more comfortable splitting the bill. Psychologically I do admit that there is a link between letting the man pay and feeling obligated to have sex with him, which I found really problematic. I would much rather pay my way and only have sex with him if I really want to. But if you went on a date with me back in the day and I flat out refused to let you pay no matter how much you tried to insist, it was probably a sign that I had no intention of you ever seeing me naked. 

Although later on one (if there was a later on) I would split or pay sometimes. One rich dude said I was the only woman that had ever bought him dinner which says more about his choices I think  

I think for me it was less about paying for sex and more that I didn't want the poor guy to spend loads of money on me if I didn't think we'd see each other again. I would always be more relaxed about letting the man pay if I thought there was the potential for a relationship where maybe I would pay next time or we would start splitting the bill. 

Even if you're happy to let the man pay at the beginning, you can't really let it carry on too long otherwise he'd be footing the bill for the whole relationship and it would just create resentment. 

With the paying for dates, i will clarify that i dont think any man actually thinks that this should gurantee them sex in any way... its just more that if you dont pay, you expect your chances of having sex have been severely diminished because she may never want to see you again, and this isnt because women are all about the money, its because its an indicator of whether that man is a gentlemen and if he isnt gentlemenly about this what other things may he not be gentlemenly about

With the paying for dates, i will clarify that i dont think any man actually thinks that this should gurantee them sex in any way... its just more that if you dont pay, you expect your chances of having sex have been severely diminished because she may never want to see you again, and this isnt because women are all about the money, its because its an indicator of whether that man is a gentlemen and if he isnt gentlemenly about this what other things may he not be gentlemenly about

Depends on the woman, I guess. 

But in my case, I would not be more likely to sleep with a man if he paid for dinner. I would be more likely to let him pay for dinner if I was actually interested in sleeping with him. 

the traditional role of women is not without its advantages to some women - a degree of material wealth and security without much effort and in many (although I accept not all) traditional cultures power over the domestic domain (which lets face it is the area that dominates much of our lives on an individual basis).    It certainly suits many women in our society, however much it irritates feminists.

Not seeking to justify lack of equality, but I can see why some women would not want change. 

Looking at going to Ronnie Scott's with the wife and she was looking through the acts.  "Friday looks a bit rubbish, Saturday is sold out and Sunday is a woman so we'll have to find another time".

Also refuses to pay money to see a female comic.  ALSO changed her name so is clearly a self-hating misogynist. 

Join the discussion

Login Register