Why spoil the use of the inflammatory 'tokenism'. Emotive phrases sell papers, magazines, books.

Patriarchy for Dummies
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/24/patriarchy-for-dummies/

In the modern day women are assumed to have earned their place on merit which is a good thing.

In the past many females had to work twice as hard and be twice as good to break the glass ceiling but that has changed. Inept and tyrannical female managers can achieve as much success as their inept and tyrannical male counterparts for the most part - it is about knowing how to play the game once you know what the game is.

On the positive side, good women and men have helped to inject a more consultative and nuturing style of management over the last 20 years - at least on paper.

The time has truly past when tokenism influenced recruitment decisions.

Tokenism is not always wrong if a competent woman, disabled person, ethnic, Indigenous person is placed in a role of responsibility during a time when this would not be enough to push such an applicant over the line.

If women are so good at work, then how come the majority retire so early (about 50 on average).

If women are so good at work, then how come nearly every patent and piece of technology is developed by a male.

"placing interpersonal skills, listening skills and accuracy in work - at which research shows that more women excel"

I would like to see this research. Never heard of it before.

If feminists didn't spread so much miss-information, lie, exaggerate, carry out bigotry and prejudice, carry out advocacy research, hide information, carry out brain washing and indoctrination, and carry out so much male denigration and misandry, then maybe some of what they say is believable

vanna,

Some of us women don't give a toss about the politics of male verses female - we just get on with life unencumbered by such notions.
If women retire early from their "job", it's because they have the good sense in their middle-years to embrace "life" outside a rigid concept of workplace - not being one dimensional n'all.

The author makes sound arguments for an affirmative action framework rather than a "token woman" perspective.

Lately I've heard it asked of some public feminists, what will it mean for women if Gillard is not elected as PM? To a woman, they have bemoaned the possible loss of the opportunity to have our first female PM.

This is what I call inverted tokenism. There is no discussion about whether or not Gillard is offering policies that will encourage us to vote for her. There is no discussion of the increasing shift to the right Gillard is demonstrating, and that a shift to the right has never done women much good.

We have good reason to believe Gillard challenged parental leave, and pension increases, both of which seriously affect women. Yet we should support her because of her gender?

None of these aspects are publicly discussed by Gillard's feminist supporters. She is a woman, it's about time we had a female PM, and hell, what do policies and direction matter in the face of her being female? She'll be right.

In my lifetime I have fought ferociously for women's rights. I was one of the first single woman in this country to get a mortgage without a male guarantor. I am outraged at this so-called "feminist" attitude that because she is a woman we should overlook everything else, such as her policies and lack of direction.

This is not what I fought for. I want a woman in the job but I want a woman who demonstrates she can do the job, and is a supporter of other women.

This morning I heard a feminist on the airwaves claiming that it was dreadful that the media was claiming that Julia was being "saved" by a man - Rudd. Another example of men taking over. What I wanted to say was, who else is it that is guiding her every move, if not a contingent of blokes? How many women are there with the "faceless men" pulling the Gillards strings?

Enough, already. Feminists should weep.

Poirot,

We could all retire at 50, but someone has to pay for the pensions.

Maybe feminist with all their "talk" of tokenism could come up with something that provides a lot of tax, so anyone over 50 can retire.

That would be constructive, rather than the normal alienation of the genders that seems to saturate feminism.

But I have to get back to my second job.

Whatever it takes to get some equality of input, from both halves of the 50/50 gender split, into directing the various elements of human affairs; input developed from their different perspectives. Surely that would be of benefit to social progress for all.

Some societies seem to have gone a long way towards that, some haven’t.

Having had my say I will retire from the fray – take off the battle uniform, and get into mufti. Perhaps I will pull a burka over my head to contemplate other societies: that of Gro Harlem Brundtland for a start; then raise a glass to toast Hildegard of Bingen while relaxing to her music.

The author is not happy with NSW and QLD in being run by female pollies. Added to that the current PM with the emasculated males nodding their heads behind her on the cameras. It looks like Mr Rudd is about to join these men by standing behind the one who knifed him. Feminism has led to fatherless kids by thousands and many incompetent people in power who should not be there. By all means have woman who have made it on merit in power but this feminist stuff is as our current opposition leader called man made climate change. How many more Government positions are going to be made to promote this rubbish. Was the Victorian Police force given a token woman in the recent past? Anyone seen how pathetically feminist our police forces have become over the last 30 years. Even the most strident feminist would have to be embarassed.

Women still rely upon men to promote them they cant do it for themselves. The Queen, The Governor General, The NSW State Premier and the PM all unelected all appointed by men,

vanna:"If women are so good at work, then how come nearly every patent and piece of technology is developed by a male."

very true indeed.

Men and women evolved for different roles.

Like the Talibans, feminism is women's rights (which is a good cause) gone extreme.

It’s easy to be confused by the interplay of the passage of time with social change. Women over 50 are of a generation who were criticised for working, discouraged by policies and denied opportunities. Women under 40 will catch up in work participation though there will be a lag effect due to the gradual introduction of feminist policy and related cultural change. Many people still criticise women for working, particularly working mothers. As care duty (children, the elderly, disabled) falls radically disproportionately onto women, the capacity to both work and care remains difficult due to the shortage of quality, affordable care (think of convincing your boss to allow you to work 9.30am to 2.30pm only while your kids are in school, assuming you don’t have a two hour daily commute). And what of women caring for the elderly and disabled? My (PT working) mother has cared for all four of my grandparents in my parents' home, as they have each come to need assistance. Nevertheless, reduced discrimination will enable greater participation in the future as policies take gradual effect. We’re in a period of massive social change. You can’t blame the lag effect of the past, on policies that weren’t in action when those behaviours were established. You can’t criticise the non-working women of history for their poor showing in invention. Geez – women were hardly going to be highly represented amongst inventors when they were not educated or employed (the source of most inventions despite notable exceptions to the rule). Women are now highly represented in the world of invention – research shows this. Social change of this magnitude takes generations. Nevertheless, the evidence of change and of the benefit of change is already clear. Apply a bit of common sense - think through the passage of time more carefully. Satisfying article Eileen.

colinsett, "Having had my say I will retire from the fray – take off the battle uniform, and get into mufti. Perhaps I will pull a burka over my head to contemplate other societies: that of Gro Harlem Brundtland for a start; then raise a glass to toast Hildegard of Bingen while relaxing to her music."

Heh, heh, accurate and very funny.

Thanks for that and have a good weekend.

So here we have the feminist Eileen, boasting her record. Perhaps it would be better to keep quiet about it.

19 years of reformist work in UK local, & central government. That would sound great, if during just that period the UK had not turned into a basket case semi police state.

Then we have years in the EEC, a dictatorial basket case, & the UN a total stuff up, of the first order. WOW!

Now she is a professor at UQ, where she is no doubt helping in the feminisation of our education system.

As if there has not been enough damage done with this feminisation all ready. Standards are dropping through the floor all over the country. This is of course OK by the feminists, as long as it is the male students who are suffering. They obviously don't care about standards, just winning the battle of the sexes, regardless of cost.

It's a damn good thing for them that most males don't realise they are in a fight, & just ignore the worst of the type

Michelle X:
I am a woman over fifty. I was never criticised for working. Please do not make such ludicrous generalisations.

There was a time when women were criticised for working, but it was not my generation. Indeed, we were very active in the second wave of feminism and we brought about a great deal of social change for women, including child care at the university I attended as an adult student.

Many things are still to be done. It is still not easy for women in the workforce.In many ways it has gone backwards. But women over fifty fought for the reforms women today do not even think twice about.My daughters in law are astounded when I tell them how difficult it was for us to even get a mortgage in our own right, and how we fought to change that and succeeded.

Please have a little respect for the women who are now over fifty, and who didn't care who criticised them, or about what.

Bah, another feminist lost soldier. How come they keep finding their way to OLO?

pelican> 'In the modern day women are assumed to have earned their place on merit which is a good thing.'

Exactly. The whole angry rant of this article is redundant.

I think it's more a case that women reject these institutions and the accepted mandatory working conditions than the fallacy that some old private school soggy biscuit lot are rejecting the women.

Take a good look at the landscape and there's more women rejecting the climb and all it entails than hitting their head on a glass ceiling.

Women more often than men have a wonderful work life balance and attitude to life, and men are the silly ones missing out. Many more men than women are left disappointed by their lack of progression in the workforce (due to nepotism, old school networks etc) because more often women are choosing that ladder's not for them anyway.

Just look at the hours female doctors bother to put in. When money isn't a factor in high wage positions, even when the kids are gone, women do less hours and retire earlier. Good on them!

'remarkable network of feisty women'
Feisty? Touchy and aggressive lot were they? Surely not all of them.

>'First, making sure that the criteria for selection are genuinely based on what is actually needed for the position '

>'Third, placing interpersonal skills, listening skills and accuracy in work - at which research shows that more women excel - higher up the scale of requirements.'

What were you just saying? What about 'First'? So what we have here is an attempt to promote skills the author believes women more likely hold than men regardless of whether they are the most important or even necessary for the position?

"Third, placing interpersonal skills, listening skills and accuracy in work - at which research shows that more women excel" Yep, no-one has better listening skills than those who call themselves "fiesty".

Congratulations to those women who have scaled the corporate ladder, just don't pretend that it did anything for the checkout chick who sold me groceries this morning.

Feminist version of non-tokenism:

"The next Tasmanian Supreme Court Justice will be a woman, and she will be selected on merit"
Tasmanian Attorney General Judy Jackson

Why do leftists maintain that the judiciary, boardrooms, legislature, etc, etc, should reflect the demographic of the population, an idea which has no logical basis.
This mentality has led to such absurd situations as asian students in the US needing to achieve college entry scores up to 35% higher than black students to have the same chance of college entrance. All in order to achieve racial quotas.
At the same time, leftists can easily accommodate the concept that a child with two homosexual fathers is no worse off than a child with a mother and a father, another idea which has no logical basis. What about the demographics, the equity?

Affirmative action has brought America to the brink of ruin with its first token black president.
When token female Elena Kagan was nominated for SCOTUS, simply for being Obamas female ideological clone, Senator Dianne Feinstein commented that it was refreshing to have a nominee with no judicial experience!
His previous token female nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, considered that a wise Latina woman such as herself would make better decisions than a white male.

Welcome to cloud cuckoo land.
Move right along, no tokenism here.

Dear Vanna

(i) Many women become mothers during their careers and two years ago the statistics [ABS]stated and advertised that women perform the 'lions' share of domestic tasks within households; this probably also accounts for the fact that the majority of males when advertising for housemates, state their preference for a female.

(ii) It was demonstrated during a Study within Australia that women in relationships automatically 'take on' their spouses worries, whether it be their health concerns, financial, work or social pressures in addition to taking on their childrens emotional and physical problems, school social issues and addressing those. The majority Vanna; not the minority.

(iii) Other studies have shown that the majority of women who are mothers, do in fact neglect many of their own health issues; instead, prioritising their childrens health and well being and their spouse's, during the course of the initial 15 years of family life.

(iv) By the time most mothers turn 40+, whether working outside of the home, or not, needless to say, many are quite burnt out despite loving their spouse and children immensely. These simple terms in no way are descriptive of the incredible amount of multi tasking and work performed by women.

Add to this, monthly cycles, gynaecological probs,pre-menopause, then menopause, just to name a few pain in the bum occurrences that women quietly soldier on with, while putting the family first, it is no surprise that women do not retire a great deal earlier; yet they keep working until their pay out to provide a roof over their family's heads.

As for patenting regarding both genders. It is an irrelevant and non-debatable issue given that many women do come up with concepts and wish to engineer and patent products, however at the time, like myself, most far too busy to follow through on the lengthy patency process, and not have the necessary capital to invest in the innovations. I mentioned some of the innovations I wished to patent and engineer years ago on an OLO thread a few months ago.

Eileen: most women I have worked with over 20 years have dedicated their time and energy 100% more than many men within their fields, to prove themselves to their male colleagues and Managers, that they are contributors and experts within their fields equal to any of their colleagues regardless of gender.

I noticed the changes regarding the equality for high profile positions within both the public service and private enterprise changing only as recently around 15 years ago. More male company directors were nominating women as directors and managers, similarly in the public service women had worked as well and hard, as males within those same roles. I work with more women in high profile roles, than I did back in the 80's and 90's. None of these women worked their way to the top lying on their backs or excuse the pun demanding to sit astride a man. Pure merit and many are raising children doing the domestic tasks at home after 12 hour days.

Vanna, I should also add that there are a portion of men and fathers who fully contribute and carry out the equal amount of tasks within households and of course take on the full responsibility of raising children and attending to their emotional and physical needs. These men, sadly, are in the minority within Australia. It is statistically, not a 50/50 ratio at present.

Divorced and Separated situations may differ from the statistics

To paraphrase the late, great Divine, 'I judge people by what's between their ears, not what's between their legs'.

I might also wonder what it is about people, who by any standard are pretty much at the top of the heap, that they are such unremittant whingers?

Foxydude

I cannot believe that Foxy married you.

We are unique

The latest ABS data (the time use study) does find that women do higher average amounts of housework. It also finds that, on average, men do more paid work that more than accounts for the difference.

More non-tokenism:
The US naval officer of the year for 2009 was such a close race that it was a four-way tie between, wait for it, two blacks, a Hispanic and a Caucasian.
What’s whitey doing in there? Sounds racist to me.
But wait, the Caucasian was a woman.
Fair enough then.
Wait a moment, the Hispanic was a woman too.
Well that’s reasonable because humanity is roughly divided into 50% women and 50% men.
Hang on, the two blacks were women too.
Well, what do you know?
In the navy, where 85% of sailors are male and 15% are female the four top performers were all women!
Just goes to show what women are capable of!
This was reported, without even a hint of irony, at:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/23/128731560/naval-history-all-4-winners-of-top-award-are-women
Said the chica: "We no longer have obstacles for women."
No, it was just a matter of pre-determining the outcome and then clearing the field.
Move right along folks, no tokenism here.

We are unique,
The issue of housework is becoming rather superfluous with about 25% of households now single person households. I think feminism has much to do with this sad statistic.

Housework is also not measured in terms of productivity, or how much is necessary and how much can be reduced.

“Most male research got done because their (often academic) wives did all the domestic and family work while the men did fieldwork and wrote their theses at the expense of their wives’ work.”

I do believe the author overlooks how the bills get paid, and also overlooks how a male gets married. If he wasn’t earning considerable income he probably would get married or she wouldn’t be interested in marrying him, and if he didn’t continue to earn considerable income, he would probably find himself divorced.

Such is the narrow mindedness and bigotry of feminist thought.

Great post Briar Rose -- eminently sensible.
I wish some others --and I talk of both sexes-- could see past tribal loyalties

Briar Rose is right in saying that women over 50 these days are not criticized for working- and indeed are encouraged to do so by their families and the Government.

Young childless women, married or not, are also encouraged to work by all.
Once the kiddies come along though, that's where the trouble still remains. If the mother stays home to care for the kids, the family income goes down and some fathers often resent the fact that the mother is at home 'doing nothing' and he is paying for this 'holiday'.

On the other hand, mothers who go out to work while the kids are young are said to be 'dumping' their kids in childcare by others, while the fathers encourage them to keep working so they can keep the family income up. Even those women who choose to work because they want to continue their career are made to feel guilty by others.

Damned if they do work and damned if they don't.

Single mothers, whether by choice or by being dumped by the babies fathers, are also much maligned if they 'dump' the kids in childcare while they work. The fathers of these children are not made to feel guilty at all.

If the single mother decides to stay at home and look after the kids, with centrelink's help, then she is accused of having kids to 'make money' from the government.

Damned if they do work and damned if they don't.

The fathers of these children, on the other hand, are pitied by others because they have to pay maintenance for their kids!

Young mothers are still the most disadvantaged females in our society, as far as equality goes. Feminism has not helped them.

Suzanonline,
Single mothers were well catered for in the past.

There were few single mothers.

However, I think you will find that some of the aims of feminism, which include the ellimination of marriage and its replacement with de facto relationships is the main cause of single mothers.

Interesting how few, if any, university academics publicise statistics regards single mothers and de facto relationships.

Feminism, Shmeminism....

Can't resist this quote from novelist, Rebecca West:

"People always call me a feminist when I express opinions which differentiate me from a doormat".

Hi Michellex :)

You make an important point about time lag. I'm in the group to which you refer and recognize exactly what you're saying.

Female inventors: Here's an interesting book about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Daughters-Invention-Revised-Technology/dp/0813521971/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281147614&sr=1-1

Apgar tests, which evaluate a baby’s health upon birth/ Virginia Apgar/1952

Circular saw/Tabitha Babbitt/1812
Dishwasher/Josephine Cochran/1872
Disposable diaper/Marion Donovan/1950
Electric hot water heater/Ida Forbes/1917
Elevated railway/Mary Walton/1881
Engine muffler/El Dorado Jones/1917
Fire escape/Anna Connelly/1887
Globes/Ellen Fitz/1875
Ironing board/Sarah Boone/1892
Kevlar (radial tires, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests) Stephanie Kwolek/1966
Life raft/Maria Beaseley/1882
Liquid Paper/Bessie Nesmith/1951
Locomotive chimney/Mary Walton/1879
Medical syringe/Letitia Geer/1899
Paper-bag-making machine/Margaret Knight/1871
Rotary engine/Margaret Knight/1904
Scotchgard™ fabric protector/Patsy O. Sherman/1956
Street-cleaning machine/Florence Parpart/1900
Submarine lamp and telescope/Sarah Mather/1845
Windshield wiper/Mary Anderson/1903

Gertrude Belle Elion developed a range of medications such as drugs to fight cancer.

Women have contributed inventions in engineering, science, agriculture, transport (trains; motor vehicles; alternative transport); food; safety; textiles; printing; computing; communications; military and seafaring.

http://www.women-inventors.com/

A lot of women had to put patents in a male's name; depending on prevailing or local laws preventing women from owning property.

Others didn't have the money to patent or to develop the invention for the market.

Unique: Hiya - enjoyed reading your post too :)

A woman invented the breathalyser. Just as well too because it was used recently in the US to test a drunken woman who rang 911 for a date.

Just goes to show that women are just as smart and just as stupid as men.

Vanna- c'mon admit it; you're not from planet earth are ya. :)

V: Single mothers were well catered for in the past.

P: By whom? There were no social security benefits until relatively recently.

V: There were few single mothers.

P: There were HOMES in major locations to house pregnant girls until they gave birth and the babies were put out for adoption. The homes were to hide the girls' pregnancies and prevent the family being 'shamed.' I remember those homes being full and busy well into the 1970s.

V: <"However, I think you will find that some of the aims of feminism, which include the ellimination of marriage and its replacement with de facto relationships is the main cause of single mothers.">

NO 'philosophy' is going to 'make' someone leave a relationship into which they've entered. If the relationship breaks down it would have anyway. If feminism has provided anything it's been the possibility that women can obtain financial independence, sign contracts to obtain her own premises to live in etc; which allows women to be less financially and socially dependent on a male. A woman no longer qualifies as 'the old ball and chain' when she marries. NOw a man can be sure that a woman stays with him because she wants to and cares about him, rather than because he is the only means she has for basic survival.

V: <"Interesting how few, if any, university academics publicise statistics regards single mothers and de facto relationships.">

Have you actually done any research on this? Government statistics are compiled by people who have university education, for a start.

Cornflower: <"Just goes to show that women are just as smart and just as stupid as men">

Yes!!

Cornflower you are turning into a feminist at last, gasp!

Anyway, well said.

Yes,...but FAIL through a sneaking suspicion that there are some things that men do better than women and vice versa. Like the Kiwi male who drank more than the breathalyser was capable of measuring (even if it was only to get his ticker up for his date out there in a pasture somewhere). Could a woman have beaten him, no siree!

Pynchme,
Just as well men don't feel the need to list everything invented by men,
otherwise this thread would be very long indeed.

Pynchme,

Your claim that Tabitha Babbitt invented the circular saw in 1812 seems problematic:

"Various claims have been made as to who invented the circular saw:

A common claim is for a little known sailmaker named Samuel Miller of Southampton, England who obtained a patent in 1777 for a saw windmill. However the specification for this only mentions the form of the saw incidentally, probably indicating that it was not his invention.

Gervinus of Germany is often credited with inventing the circular saw in 1780

Walter Taylor of Southampton had the blockmaking contract for Portsmouth Dockyard. In about 1762 he built a saw mill where he roughed out the blocks. This was replaced by another mill in 1781. Descriptions of his machinery there in the 1790s show that he had circular saws. Taylor patented two other improvements to blockmaking but not the circular saw. This suggests either that he did not invent it or that he published his invention without patenting it (which would mean it was no longer patentable).

Another claim is that it originated in Holland in the sixteenth or seventeenth century.This may be correct, but nothing more precise is known.

The use of a large circular saw in a saw mill is said to have been invented in 1813 by Tabitha Babbit, a Shaker spinster, who sought to ease the labour of the male sawyers in her community."

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

Dear me,
and that was only the first of your claims for female inventors.

funny how we acknowledge inventors and then make up such dumb stories like evolution when it comes to humans.

Oh dear Proxy, you have two options.

1. Read the link that references it:

"Saws
Saws are toosl with a thin metal strip with teeth on one edge or a thin metal disk with teeth on the periphery. In 1777, Samuel Miller invented the circular saw in England, the round metal disk type of saw that cuts by spinning and is used hand-held or table-mounted. Large circular saws are found in saw mills and are used to produce lumber. In 1813, Shaker-Sister, Tabitha Babbitt (1784-1854) invented the first circular saw used in a saw mill. Babbitt was working in the spinning house at the Harvard Shaker community in Massachusetts, when she decided to invent an improvement to the two-man pit saws that were being used for lumber production. Tabitha Babbitt is also credited with inventing an improved version of cut nails, a new method of making false teeth, and an improved spinning wheel head.

In 1807, William Newberry invented a band saw. In 1780, Gervinus also invented a circular saw, however, a more primitive one."

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltools.htm

2. Take up any dispute with the authors concerned; links to the referencing sites have been provided.

FYI:

"Until about 1840, only 20 other U.S. patents were issued to women. The inventions related to apparel, tools, cook stoves, and fire places. Patents are the proof of "ownership" of an invention and only the inventor(s) can apply for a patent. In the past, women were not allowed equal rights of property ownership (patents are a form of intellectual property) and many women patented their inventions under their husband's or father's names. In the past, women were also prevented from receiving the higher education necessary for inventing. (Unfortunately, some countries in the world today still deny women equal rights and an equal education.)

We will never know all the women who deserve credit for their creative labor, as the Patent and Trademark Office does not require gender, racial, or ethnic identification in patent or trademark applications..."

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blwomeninventors.htm

It's not a M v F contest Proxy, but justice in recognizing contributions that have been made.

runner,

Inventions are a product of adaptation - the evolution in human thought and practice.

Research into the mating behaviour of chimpanzees showed that female chimps were more likely to mate with males who supplied them with food.

take this a step further, in a hunter gather society, successful hunters were more likely to have gotten laid. Once we moved from from being hunter gathers, males had to discover other ways of trying to impress females so that they could get laid. Hence the inventions.

As too single mothers, Melaine Phillips wrote :Saying the Unsayable"
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471

“Cornflower”:
(a) A tall herb cultivated for its blue flowers.
(b) A blogger who turns the air blue with traditional jokes about pasteurized New Zealand males.

Thorstein Veblen posits that the first notion of ownership was in the form of females as booty stolen from neighbouring tribes....

we are unique,

'women perform the 'lions' share of domestic tasks within households; this probably also accounts for the fact that the majority of males when advertising for housemates, state their preference for a female.'

Oh how naive. I can think of another reason that is much more logical.

As to the rest of your melodramatic victim lecture...

Oh, of course, women retire earlier because they are the down trodden martyrs of society. Give me a break!

http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs10/chesterspaper.pdf

Read it if you are at all interested in facts.

Suze,

'some fathers often resent the fact that the mother is at home 'doing nothing' and he is paying for this 'holiday'.'

As some mothers resent the 'absent' fathers who are off providing for the family.

'while the fathers encourage them to keep working so they can keep the family income up'

Nothing to do with women's individual career aspirations or desire for a higher standard of living of course. Again, give me a break. Those nasty men dragging their women folk to work every day.

'The fathers of these children are not made to feel guilty at all.'
a) nobody can make you feel guilty, and b) fathers are 'deadbeat dads' if they don't provide enough for the kids.

To All,

I cant believe you lot jumping about defending the inventiveness of women. How sad. It says more about you than it does about them. Just ignore idiots like that.

Some good points Houellebecq.

Thank you James.

I think it's quite funny how men were blamed for keeping their wives barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, and now Suze reckons it's also our fault for pushing our wives into the workforce to be wage slaves. It's a tough job all this domineering of women, a man's work is never done.

I'm still waiting for the Author to reconcile points 'First' and 'Third' as I said in my first post. They are contradictory in my opinion.

>'First, making sure that the criteria for selection are genuinely based on what is actually needed for the position '

>'Third, placing interpersonal skills, listening skills and accuracy in work - at which research shows that more women excel - higher up the scale of requirements.'

For one I don't believe women excel at these skills any more than men, in fact statements about men excelling in certain areas are considered sexist. Secondly, point 1 calls for the criteria based on what is necessary, then point 3 wants more weight given to skills the author thinks women will more likely excel. i.e. The scale of requirements for what is required should NOT be based on what is actually needed for the position.

<I think it's quite funny how men were blamed for keeping their wives barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, and now Suze reckons it's also our fault for pushing our wives into the workforce to be wage slaves. It's a tough job all this domineering of women, a man's work is never done.>

Basically it is a no win situation.Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.

The earlier feminists saw marriage a patriarchial construct designed to keep women oppressed.

Now some women are complaining that men wont commit to marriage.

The tv show friends, had one episode where two women who were arguing with each other and as soon as a bloke stepped in they both turned on him.

Briar Rose, You are a woman over 50 who was never criticised for working? Lucky you. I am a working woman of 40 with two children under school age. Despite having a generally positive experience of community reaction to my workforce participation, I am often subtley criticised for being a working mother. I am a part-time worker. My full time working friends are often openly criticised. Criticism of working women over 50 in my family was commonplace. The different attitudes to workforce participation of mothers, particularly of young children, are a subject of much conversation in anti-natal classes, parents' (generally new mothers') groups, playgroups, anti-natal classes, We must move in different social cirles. I also think you read dogma into observation. I didn't say "all women were criticised". I said "women were criticised". They still are. This doesn't mean that every woman will have the same experience. Same as: "People of non-Anglos ethnicity experience racism in Australia". There are no doubt many who don't, that doesn't make untrue the experience of those who do. I'm also suprised at your comment. We seem to be coming from a similar perspective yet your comment has an "attack" quality about it. I'm fine with that. Argument is a wonderful part of my life and I often phrase conversation as "attack" when I don't think it through. Often. I've read some of your comments and commend your views.

Briar Rose - did you think I meant that women over 50 in the workforce now are criticised for working? I've read my post and I can see from my phrasing that would be a logical interpretation and thus would make your comment back to me understandable. Which at present it is not. What I actually meant was: women who are now over 50 who worked when their children were under school age were often criticised at that time (i.e. when they were working mothers of under-school age children back in the 70s). Phrasing - my downfall. How often am I misunderstood because of my poor expression? Apologies. I'm sure its nevertheless possible that when you were in this situation you were not criticised. But I feel it would be extremely hard for you to argue convincingly that criticism of working mothers of young children in the 70s was not commonplace.

Mountain, meet Molehill.

Personally I never tire of hearing about women 'not so long ago' who had trouble getting mortgages or had 'societal expectations' repressing their every move. (Of course, only one gender ever experiences 'societal expectations', and those 'expectations' are only held and reinforced by the other gender.)

It's just so relevant to my life today. And even though I wasn't born, well, I take full responsibility for these injustices, and I hope they are never forgotten. Heaven forbid we ever move on.

Now, what was it I was saying about lost soldiers...

Houellebecq, I wonder if it starts in childhood

I remember reading that if two siblings of different genders were fighting, regardless of who started it, if the older sibling was male, he would be the one to get into trouble, and if the older sibling was female and the younger male, it would still be the male who got into trouble.

Oh Gawd!

Who are being martyrs now. Pot and kettles line up.

I'm sorry pelican,

I would respond it's just I have so much ironing to do.

You know, I "automatically 'take on' my spouses worries", and I don't look after my health and prioritise my children's .... oh the humanity! Maybe I'm a woman. Maybe I should retire at 40 due to 'burn out' too.

Oh, I give up. Please pelican, look at the evidence, I'm just not worthy. Please see....

'Posted by we are unique, Saturday, 7 August 2010 1:26:52 AM'

'Add to this, monthly cycles, gynaecological probs,pre-menopause, then menopause, just to name a few pain in the bum occurrences that women quietly soldier on with, while putting the family first, it is no surprise that women do not retire a great deal earlier; yet they keep working until their pay out to provide a roof over their family's heads.'

And that's just the tip of it.

'Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 7 August 2010 4:27:56 PM' Comes a close second.

Then we have the last lot of posts about women suffering so much criticism and societal expectations.

When can women be freed from these societal expectations. It's a human rights issue!

PS: I cant decide whether my new moniker will be 'studies have shown' or 'societal expectations.'

Maybe I'll settle on 'The downtrodden martyrs of society'.

Then again 'Victim of Societal Expectations' has a nice ring to it.

Michelle

You sound shocked that anyone could possibly criticise you. Criticism is a part of our society. Men are socialised not to make a big deal over it. Why socialise women to feel hurt every time that they see something that is a part of everyone's life? Was this criticism the sort of thing that men aren't socialised to get offended over?

Get a grip Benk - I'm trying to follow the logic of the criticism. If we want forums to work as didactic then we've got to think through people's criticisms and take them on board if they're valuable. If I want to do this effectively, I have to get to the bottom of the criticism and understand it. I couldn't understand the criticism I was responding to because it went again the grain of the research I've encountered, the personal stories I've heard and my own story. But having read over what I wrote and carefully re-read the criticism I now believe that the critic and I were at cross purposes - we were talking about different things. A valuable exercise. I now hope that the critic responds so I can confirm whether this is the case or whether I still have some thinking to do. That's why I'm checking the forum. I know there's a lot of people on this and other forums who use these places as places to vent their particular frustrations but there are just as many people having good conversations. An easy way to signal to a person that you want to have the conversation and not simply vent and attack is by using some basic pleasantries. We all use our pleasantries differently and they don't always translate well to paper and pen but the general principals remain the same. Your role here is a little confusing to me. You're not talking to me about the ideas outlined in this article or the subsequent discussion at all, but merely the manner in which I phrase my conversation. I think I've already established that I'm not so good as phrasing. So ultimately dude, what's your point?

I remember reading an article by a feminist once.
She was bemoaning the fact that women are hard done by
because they are more likely to be left widowed than men!
Feminocentrism, I think it's called.

Michelle

My point is that receiving criticism is a part of life and stopping it is outside of our control. We can, however control how we react to it. There is a marked difference between how each gender is socialised to react to criticism. Men are told to get over it, which has both strengths and weaknesses. It is assumed that criticism of women, such as comments over mothers' choices about paid work is a major problem.

I choose to believe that women are a little tougher than it is often assumed. I definitely believe that encouraging people to believe that they need to live in a world free from criticism, in order to be happy, is setting them up to fail.

Houellebecq: sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and a prominent feature in just about every posting of yours I have had the misfortune to read this year since joining OLO. In fact, up until now, steered clear of your mysoginistic arrogant posts regarding women and not bothered replying or giving you the attention you constantly seek through provocation to other female posters; often regarding trivial matters.

Q: If you do not agree on my viewpoints AS A WOMAN AND MOTHER, Houellebecq, that is tough! You do not live my life and have not known me, therefore STICK with facts and only comment on peoples lives you really do know about, via knowing them personally. Do not generalise about me playing victim in my life.

I suggest you stick with your internet researched statistics and I stand by my sources via government and university studies.

That okay with you Houellebecq?

BTW: have you ever posted any positive comments to females or about females during the time you have spent on OLO? Just wondering, as I am only able to recall you posting negative %$#@ and posting degrading comments towards female posters relating to female issues.

Fact is Houellebecq, most women and mothers do it tougher than men, given, for starters, they endure the following during their daily lives for a good 40 years;

'Add to this, monthly cycles, gynaecological probs,pre-menopause, then menopause, just to name a few pain in the bum occurrences that women quietly soldier on with, while putting the family first, it is no surprise that women do not retire a great deal earlier; yet they keep working until their pay out to provide a roof over their family's heads.'

What the hell would you know about experiencing some of these 'female' things though Houellebecq? Why hide behind your moniker and not just state you are a male or a male adoring female who enjoys spruiking about womens issues you clearly do not experience!

There is an interesting perspective on promotions to higher positions.

One is that they tend to higher clones of themselves.

Secondly networkers do very well, and this not based on ability.

I hear violins.....

'Fact is Houellebecq, most women and mothers do it tougher than men'

Fact huh? It's a bit crazy and out there that you think that you can compare the relative hardships of women and men because you're a woman, but I cannot dispute this view because I am a man. Yes, you're a woman (BTW I love any statement that starts with AS A WOMAN, gives me a chuckle every time), but you're not a man, so have no frame of reference to claim women have it harder than men.

Not once have I commented on your life, though I have commented on your posts which are chock full of melodramatic martyrdom.

'have you ever posted any positive comments to females or about females during the time you have spent on OLO?'

Definitely. I have also posted many many negative comments to male posters. I wonder why you only notice my comments to female posters, or only care if I'm negative towards females. On this very thread I labelled the male posters idiots. Mocking posters is the sort of thing I like doing. The responses entertain me.

But besides mocking the tone of your emotive posts, I have outlined why your 'facts' are wrong with respect to the workload of men and women, and also proven the fallacy about 'women have it tougher' with regards to your 'fact' above. These points are irrefutable.

BTW: The ABS is a government funded research body, and The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) is an Australian Government statutory agency. Anyway 'studies have shown' does not count for a reference, so you're in no position to comment on the study I put forward.

PS: You keep quietly soldiering on, and putting the family first, neglecting your health and taking on your spouses worries. I think you deserve to retire at 40 you selfless little toiler you. I don't know how you do it, but you deserve a medal. All women do, just for being women.

PPS: How am I 'hiding behind a moniker' any more than you?

Feminism and Islamism share some striking parallels:

Both justify the killing of innocents.
Both ignore the plight of FGM of girls in Islamic countries.
Both ignore the plight of subjugated women in Islamic countries.

There is one major difference though:
Only feminists whine endlessly about the victim status of Western women.

Proxy
You will find more parallels between Christianity and Islam than you will feminism. I doubt you will find feminists supporting some of the passages in both the Koran and Bible that denigrate women.

Secondly, abortion has been around a lot longer than feminism and I would like to know your sources where feminists are supporting FGM. I have not read one report of this nature, but why let facts get in the way of a good prejudice.

Thirdly, Islamic women are starting to make noises about their status in those nations where women are ranked no higher than cattle, and whose freedoms are limited. But then I guess you will be the first one out there decrying their 'victimhood' when these reforms come to fruition which is inevitable.

Women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Feminism simply means equal status and rights under the law - only someone with a hidden agenda could deny that right to any other human being.

My apologies Benk. My poor capacity for written communication has again reduced my understanding of the comments on the forum (in this case - what "criticism" you were pointing to). You may well be correct about men and womens socialisation re: criticism. I certainly have no grounds for claiming any understanding of such a thing. I certainly know nothing about the difference between men womens responses to criticism or whether criticism shapes peoples behaviour or not. I can only say that I find personally that the absence of criticism when the intention is good and the effort substantial is a wonderful thing. Maybe a man would not feel that way. Certainly the man in my life is immune to petty criticism.

Michelle

Your writing is perfectly clear. You might be too hard on yourself.

Unique - if you want a good laugh read Houellebecq's link.

Surely he jests again.

PPS: How am I 'hiding behind a moniker' any more than you?

Thank you Houellebecq for the backhanded gender compliment and admitting you enjoy stirring the pot with Posters for your pure entertainment. However any contribution on OLO is a positive in retrospect, therefore shall take a 'martyrdom' viewpoint regarding yourself and OLO saying that you are assisting some people at some time in some place.

Hiding behind your moniker is my interpretation of saying that you have never really given of yourself, had appeared to hide your gender and parts of your life [you know, it would be nice to see a few more people GIVING and SHARING, to keep up with all of the wonderful giving and generous other posters on OLO who are confident enough to share some of their lives, in order to assist Australian OLO participants and readers positively.

Examinator, Severin, Foxy, Yabby, Hasbeen, Belly, and others who I take my hat off to for being strong confident intelligent fairminded characters who put themselves out there constantly to assist other Australians. These are just a few of the OLOs who do not constantly cherry pick for their own personal gain. For the main part they discuss issues fairly to GIVE to other Australians.

Martyrdom? No, its called selflessly GIVING to the Community; our Australian community Houellebecq.

Perhaps I missed an indication of your gender, given have avoided your posts after reading so many sexist false comments this year.

At least you admit your enjoyment of hurting people intentionally to gain a reaction Houellebecq.

I challenge you to post more confidently and express your giving nature a little differently!

By the way I enjoyed your humour in some of last evening's posts. When you are not being cynical your humour is BEAUTIFUL Houellebecq.

Unique

When is Houllie not being cynical?

Houllie

Fantastic job you are doing of hiding your gender. I have no idea.

benk,

I hope you're being facetious. I had no idea people didn't know my gender. Know that I know this I feel inclined to perpetuate a mystery.

Unique,

For the life of me I cant decipher your first paragraph.

'had appeared to hide your gender and parts of your life'
How? I talk about my life at times. I had no idea it was mandatory or that anyone would be the slightest bit interested.

'put themselves out there constantly to assist other Australians. '
Hahahaha. WTF? We're commenting on a blog man. Not exactly the height of altruism. Everyone here has the opportunity to entertain themselves in whatever way works for them. Some people like to entertain themselves by pretending they are saving the world via OLO, I have more down to earth goals. Their entertainment is no more valid than mine.

'At least you admit your enjoyment of hurting people intentionally to gain a reaction Houellebecq. '

As I've said many times, who is hurt by some anonymous comment on a forum? Who is that fragile? Seriously. I couldn't give a proverbial what any of you lot think of me and I know nobody gives a toss what I think of them. It's anonymous opinion. And like I have also said many times, my customers always come back for more. They are obviously getting something they need from me. Perhaps a villain and someone to feel superior to.

'I challenge you to post more confidently and express your giving nature a little differently!'

Who are you, Oprah Winfrey or Dr Phil?

BTW: I have no idea of your gender and I wonder why the gender of the poster is so important to you.

Houllie

Perhaps you could respond to all criticism from Fractelle with "you only disagree with me bacause I'm a woman."