I'd like to draw attention to the work of Laura Hale who is seeking women who are interested in sports for her Wiki Academies in Australia & New Zealand.

There is more information at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/UCNISS/Sport_Social_Media_Academy and at her own site http://ozziesport.com

If you are interested please contact Laura by email (laura at fanhistory.com) or Twitter @ozziesport

Happy Internationl Women's Day everyone!

regards
Rosie

"According to Gallup polls female aversion to a female boss is concentrated among older women from ages 35 and up. A University of Toronto Study (2008) reported that women working for a female supervisor experience more stress symptoms (emotional and physical) than women working for a male. A British study reveals that one out of six women experience underlying tensions with a female boss. “Men make better bosses because they are easy-to-read. You are on a more stable playing field.”

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art67608.asp

And all this time we have been told that men are evil, and oppress women in the home and in the workplace.

What should I be told now, and what should I think?

Rosie a good article thank you.

The only point of difference I'd make is with the sentiment around "laid down for us by men"

That seems to carry an assumption that women have not been part and parcel of laying down the cultural context. Given that women have done most of the early childhood stuff in our society for a long time there does seem to be an elephant in the room when men get all the credit/blame for shaping society. We've all been in it together.

R0bert

"Women may indeed be acting within the patriarchal culture laid down for us by men and abusing other women as a result of our own fears for ourselves within it eg competing with other women for men, excluding women we feel threaten our dependency on (male/patriachal) social capital, gossiping about women's perceived morality, etc."

The author spends the time to state that women are responsible for their own actions and then this statement is made. It looks like the author is saying that women can do this stuff but it is men who are ultimately responsible. How predictable!

How about we say that both men AND women are responsible for how the world works, that they both carry the blame and the opportunity to change and leave it at that. I would also point out that women are not the only ones who experience pressure to conform, men are also moulded and pressured into a way of acting from birth, by both women and men. Anyone who believes that a boy is born knowing how to 'wolf whistle', as it were, and is somehow trained out of it is blinded by their own arrogance.

Gail Kelly CEO of Westpac was asked on Q&A last night if she had ever experienced sexism in the workplace. Naturally being a girl of the 70s she said as she rose up the ladder many of her male colleagues advised her to 'toughen up' and set yourself apart from the staff, which was not in her nature. She believes in a more inclusive and accessible approach to management. I think it is up to women, as Gail Kelly stated to find their own way and stay true to who they are and their principles. Naturally this goes for men too - each of us having to stay true to ourselves.

Many of the old management styles have gone the way of the dinosaur. The culture of the time was dictated probably more on old notions of class than gender - maybe a mix of the two.

In my experience I have had many great male and female bosses and only a handful of horrid ones of both sexes. It really comes down to ability and confidence. Managers that are not confident of their abilities, who are incompetent, or who fear scrutiny often use bullying tactics to mask that insecurity.

This is not an exclusively male attribute but a people attribute.

Pelican,

Here is the latest study, hot off the press

"The findings revealed that women working under a lone female supervisor reported more distress and physical symptoms than did women working for a male supervisor. Women who reported to a mixed-gender pair of supervisors indicated a higher level of distress and physical symptoms than their counterparts with one male manager.

The researchers also found that men working under a single supervisor had similar levels of distress regardless of their boss’ gender. When supervised by two managers, one male and one female, men reported lower distress levels and fewer physical symptoms than men who worked for a lone male supervisor."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908125150.htm

Personally I have found it similar.

I would much prefer a male department head, and a male assistant department head.

I guess I'm not that different to the majority of female workers.

Well that is where we are different vanna. I would prefer a competent and consultative style of manager - the gender is irrelevant.

Pelican,

Well that is interesting.

But in your search for knowledge, how often would you consult websites such as the following.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/

http://www.nature.com/news/index.html

http://www.newscientist.com/

http://www.sciencemag.org/

It is interesting that the vast majority of readers of those websites are evil (should I say it) males.

vanna
Well I will take your word for it. If it is only evil males reading it I would be in poor company and would rather direct my energies elsewhere.

Pelican,

Your so hot your making me sexist.

I think the readership of those websites does say quite a lot. Males in general are more technically orientated, and pursue more scientific knowledge.

Science leads to industry, which eventually leads to wealth, and eventually men begin to accumulate more wealth.

This then is called male “power and control” or “patriarchy” (as referenced by the author)

So what do we do now.

Abandon science, industry and wealth, so that we will have a more feminine society?

vanna,

"Science leads to industry, which eventually leads to wealth, and eventually men begin to accumulate more wealth."

Unfortunately the science inspired model almost completely bypasses the fundamental core of human experience - so that accumulation and wealth become the sole motivation of life.

How utterly sad that this has become the dominant Western paradigm. How limiting it is of the human dimension - and how evident is the lesson that wealth creation is "not" the key to a life well lived.

Good article, however as it tends not support feminist dogma, and prejudice it will go the way most of these go.

Which is highly sugggestive that feminists cannot tolerate a mirror being held up to them. Whilst the microscopic focus remains at all times on male behaviour, feminists can avoid dealing with the real issues about equality.

So before patriarchy came along, women didn't compete for men?

Uh-huh? And how do you think they got the support of men?

JamesH my experiences have obviously been different to yours. I notice many women have a much broader interpretation of feminism than your own narrow view that only sees feminism in terms of the overplayed man-hater variety.

I don't think you have ever said one positive thing about women since you have been on OLO. Using your own criteria maybe you need a microscope too.

But I suspect you and vanna are not interested in two-way self-examination.

You can pretend our society was not formed on a patriarchy - but it is a historical fact - it is how we proceed from here that matters.

Peter Hume
When women had no rights whatsoever, the ony way they could compete or survive was using sex consciously or unconsciously (if that was your implication). Men have always had the power to say no.

Once again I'm depressed that the gender context is treated as a given.
However, Women are absolutely complicit in the gender stakes, and indeed support male institutions like the military, patriotism (soft porn), getting pissed and machismo in general. Nor, in my experience, is their any such thing as comradeship among the ladies, whom I've heard use the "bitch" designation infinitely more often and with far greater malice than men.
Nor are they above exploiting sexual-harassment laws opportunistically. A woman only has to invoke the spectre of harassment. I worked for decades in large factories where the male/female compliment was roughly even doing round the clock rotating shifts. I can assure you, I've seen it all. It wasn't very flattering to either sex, but where the men were often chauvinistic, the women were far more manipulative, even vicious (this, however, is arguably a facet of their subaltern status; where no real power exists, manipulation is the weapon of choice).
On one occasion "I" was offended that in a memo (sent to another company) the female half of the workforce was referred to as "our girls" by management (while men were distinguished by name, or more typically by job description). I tried to get the "girls" to make an official complaint, but I couldn't even get then to see how they'd been slighted.
So I agree with Rosie Williams, women need to stand up and be accountable for themselves, their sex and their society.

Pelican, obviously these FEMALE authors have a different perspective than your rather narrow claim.

Christine Hoff-Sommers, Daphne Patai, Melanie Phillips, Eeva Sodhi, Wendy MeElroy to name a few!

Generally speaking it is not the more mild and moderate feminists, but the rather more radical feminist that drives public policy and debate.

More women talking about their favourite subject...women. All I can say is thank god for patriarchy. Without men we'd still be living in caves.

I noticed this latesat campaign on women not contributing to Wiki. I mean, really. A free, open source puplication that anyone can contribute to and now women are complaining because there are not enough women contributing. Well, patriarchy has well and truely been dead for the last 20-30 years. We have a female PM and G-G AND numerous state based female G-Gs. But women STILL complain about patriarchy. Maybe it's time to just get over complaining and start contributing.

Women have had every opportunity in the last 20 or 30 years to contribute to the technological revolution. A revolution which has changed our lives in ways never seen before in human history. For much of this time women were already outperforming men at school and university. I remember 20 years ago feminists were bleating on about women missing the technological revolution. Once the technological revolution caught up with their desires and provided an opportunity to communicate via facebook, IM and so on women got online with avengeance. But they are not interested the technology per say, just what they can do with it. Men created the IT revolution because they have an innate curiousity: women just aren't as interested in inanimate objects.

PS Who is going to be to first feminist to tell me we would have computers if it were up to women?

Dane, interestingly truthful concept, I suspect the main driver for men to be inventors, is that they want to impress women.

In the stone age, was it not the best hunter who in theory made the most desirable mate? So if a bloke is good at something, what is his driving motivation?

<When women had no rights whatsoever, the ony way they could compete or survive was using sex consciously or unconsciously (if that was your implication). Men have always had the power to say no>.Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:46:50 PM

Pelican, this is as you describe it a very narrow point of view!

At what time in history did women have 'no' rights what so ever?

Following the anglo saxon history, if you were irish, scottish and male, you had no rights what so ever. If you happened to be serf or crofter, your life style depended very heavily on the grace of your ruling lord.

Female gentry were regarded as weak and in need of protection.

There was the code of chilvary, I read an article on labour laws and laws were introduced that protected women and children, but not men.

So Pelican how much research have you actually done, on history and human rights? Remember you are now judging the past from a modern perspective and values.

If you use the example of the right to vote, it was not long before women got the right to vote, that all men got the right to vote, it use to be restricted to certain select groups of men, such as land owners.
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2006/06/green-fields-of-france.html

Men have always had the power to say 'no'. When and where? If you were conscripted, you definitely did not have the power to say no.

Feminists love myths, thus they created the 'Glass Ceiling', 'The gender pay gap'. Such is the power of night mares.
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2008/03/power-of-nightmares.html

Interesting article and comments. From my own experience I've found that for their part, Australian men, have generally reacted positively to the growing equality of women. In fact, their own roles, being complimentary to those of women, are inevitably in some flux as well. Men are now permitted a more gentle and expressive personality than would have been considered appropriate a few decades ago. Like the feminine role, the masculine role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual. Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and cultural change. Under the old system, everyone knew what their roles were and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system in the past constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make choices. There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now has the liberty - or the burden - to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment. Our society today is individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation, and it is a society in which men and women are able to explore a wide variety of possible roles. True liberation from the restrictions of gender today means that all possible options are open and equally acceptable for both sexes. And, a person's individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex is the primary measure of that person's worth and achievement.

There we go! Its unethical to rip off the poor!~Raycom has the call: WOW! I wish I could be that person:) what a DICKens! 19th order is needed:) and I agree:) but 6.9 billion is knocking at the back-door, and the players don,t know what to do:) Clue! For every action....there;s an equal and ? something reaction:) I guess no-one told me. Sorry members.......its all so fair today......Iam just not thinking strait.

Maybe when I wake up tomorrow. "Men versus women" what joke. When you loose all you have because of the rich......Join me! Its getting worst.

Fat people in a fat rich would.............it must be heaven.

But I see no god!

OH I see...........those in power are the real gods. Now I get it:)

BLUE..........and FY!

All the best.

pelican,

'The culture of the time was dictated probably more on old notions of class than gender '

Yeah! Try telling that to your average feminist. We all know pelican, that if women ran the world there would be no war, and we'd all solve our differences around the kitchen table drinking camomile tea. It's the nature of men to be brutish domineering bullies, where women are consultative communicators nurturing all members of the team making everyone smile and hug each other.

'You can pretend our society was not formed on a patriarchy - but it is a historical fact - it is how we proceed from here that matters.'
Yep, but as robert said, men are always given total responsibility for the patriarchy.

That's why this is such a great article. I've read so much feminist crap, but this is the first article that discusses women and their responsibilities. I've said before, the irony is that feminism is actually all about men, which brings me to

James,

'Whilst the microscopic focus remains at all times on male behaviour, feminists can avoid dealing with the real issues about equality.'

Amen. Feminism is all about men. How many feminist articles do you read, where the topic is really men. An analysis of their behaviour, theories about their motives, their nature, what they have that women don't, how they treat women, their attitudes to women. I really think it's time for feminists to stop trying to work men out, and to just concentrate how women can change their own lives.

This Gender pay gap is a good example. Let's do surveys on how many women would be happy to go to work 4 weeks after the birth of their child and stay working (With hubby at home) until the kids are school age. I think we need quotas for families that will allow men to enter the homeforce. They are being excluded, and women can play a vital role in changing their attitudes to men and their caring abilities. Men have just as much right to enter the homeforce as women.

Houlley you know my thoughts about the gender pay gap issue. Those thoughts you repeat above are not what the women I know believe, many more of them taking a much broader humanistic view.

That kind of talk was the 'speak' of the 70s but women also received flak from some male quarters and emphasis was on the bra-burning aspects rather than the big picture. I reckon we are getting closer to something that resembles fairer outcomes for men and women.

I listened to part of Kate Ellis' speech today and the comments made on Q&A Monday night about the number of women on Boards. The interpretation was: if there is an idea of merit based appointments why is there only 8.3% of women on Boards suggesting only 8.3% of women are suitable. This analogy misses the point completely.

Numbers are meaningless if taken at face value. Perhaps women make up only 8.3% because there are more men vying for those roles thus more to choose between and a lesser pool of women. Women are still the primary care givers and many women only want part-time work to be able to balance the two responsibilities.

I am a bit sick of hearing this rhetoric when there is much more work to be done overall on wage disparity across different sectors and complete lack of emphasis on the fact that some women still want to be stay-at-home mums at least for a time.

Within the whole feminism debate nobody asked what do we do with the children? Or what is best for the children? That does not infer there is only one model for success, but at the moment there is not many offerings other than de rigueur of economic growth and by implication an emphasis on institutionalised child care.

Houellebecq

<How many feminist articles do you read, where the topic is really men. An analysis of their behaviour, theories about their motives, their nature, what they have that women don't, how they treat women, their attitudes to women>

Whilst this is somewhat true, lately I have been considering that maybe it is more about putting huge wedges between male and female relationships.

Lets take for example the early 1960's when it was claimed that marriage was a patriarchial construct design to keep women enslaved. Notice the negative perspective on heterosexual marriage.

So marriage was viewed through the lense of negativity, rather than a relationship where caring, mutual respect and nurturing were taking place.

"The government remains committed to a 40 per cent representation of women on government boards by 2015"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-face-mandatory-reporting-in-bid-to-boost-gender-equality/story-fn59niix-1226018435720

Why?

Well because the vast majority of inventions are made by men.

Then men develop a business based on their inventions.

Then men erect the buildings to house the business.

Then women want to be on the board of directors to run the business.

Why?

Well because they are not as good as men in communication, and about 75% of women want a male boss.

Poirot

From what I have seen, women are drinking alcohol, because they want to be intoxicated.

So why do they want to be intoxicated?

As I have attempted to explain to the "established failure" Squeers, quite considerable numbers of people no longer drink, because they are required to have 0.0 blood alcohol content in their bloodstream, or they lose their jobs.

They don't drink, so why do women drink?

There are brands of beer available that have nearly 0% alcohol content, but women don't normally drink beer.

So it will probably be left to a male to find a drink for women with 0% alcohol, and something they won't whinge, whine or complain about.

BTW. Does Camille Paglig know about risk assessment. If not, don't bother reading any more of her stuff, because its a waste of reading time.

Feminists by focusing on the negatives of male female relationships create a culture of suspiscion and fear.

Often female representation on company boards or in politics are used as evidence of inequality, however it is my understanding that many of those who are in such positions display characteristics of sociopathic and psychopathic personalities.

JamesH,

Anyone male or female who focuses only on the negatives of male-female relationships does a disservice. That's a human trait that some people of both sexes are equally guilty of. Infantile finger-pointing doesn't achieve anything constructive. As for constantly blaming "feminists?" That's like referring to the 1950s "John Wayne" image of American manhood. Today it has less and less appeal to both sexes. In today's society there are many alternative lifestyles and roles that are acceptable for both men and women. Our society is individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation, and men and women can explore a wide variety of possible roles. At least that's been my experience.

Bettina Ardnt wrote
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-women-arent-getting-it-in-the-boardroom-or-the-bedroom-20110308-1bmic.html

<In the lively debate about quotas, one obstacle to women's progress was conveniently overlooked.

While it is obviously true that the pointy end of the corporate world remains a boys' club that shuts out many talented women, there's also solid evidence that part of the problem is women's fear of rejection.

Few women are adept at the relentless self-promotion required to make it to the top of the corporate world. Most women are really bad at asking for what they want>

I think that Susan Faludi was a perceptive woman, who knew that eventually men would begin to question and then challange feminist propaganda, so she wrote backlash in an attempt I assume to try and counteract what many men would eventually do.

There was also another who was perceptive, I can picture her, but not the name at present, some of her material uncovered some interesting directions to explore, that she missed totally or maybe ignored because they would go in a direction that did not support the feminist direction of the time.

In the binary system of human interaction there is much that is bearly perceptable and difficult to measure or to even observe.

For decades the glass ceiling was created as an explanation of why women weren't on boards excetera, when the reality was that many women failed to even to attempt to reach for the lofty heights.

JamesH,

Many women may have failed to reach the "lofty heights," but at the same time there have been many who did try and are still trying. In corporate and other workplaces, women may find themselves promoted - up to a point. Why do women stop short of the top? Because they're not game to go higher? Or don't want to, as you claim? Not so.
There is strong evidence that employers perceive women as less able than men, and simply don't take them as serious candidates for promotion. Another reason is the perception by some employers of women's "traditional" family responsibilities which may affect their careers. Many employers consider pregnancy and child raising (dropping out of the labour market for periods at a time) as a risk not worth taking when it comes to promotions. There's also a kind of "old-boys" network (there is not an "old-girl" network to speak of). There are still many men who feel a woman should be at home, rather than hiring, firing, and ordering men around. There are many complex reasons for why things happen as they do. However, one thing is clear. Women in Australia do have trouble rising to the top. The few that have are a minority in comparison to the number of female graduates entering the professions. Of the country's leading coporations how many have female chief executives, how many of these corporations have a woman executive on the "fast track" to the CEO's job? This pattern is repeated throughout the economy. Women may make up a large percentage of the work force with the necessary qualifications and required experience - but they are a very small percentage of senior executives. And that as Joe Hockey stated on "Q and A" last week - has got to change. You see he has a daughter, and he'd like to see her have all options open to her as he would for any of his children. And that's how it should be - for both males and females.

Lexi, there are a number of things, firstly men generally know how to relate and deal with other men, introduce a woman and the dynamics get changed.

So have you done any research into 'men wanting women to be in the kitchen'? or is just your assumption?

JamesH.,

Not all men (or women) know how to relate to each other, let alone have the necessary "people" skills required for a top job. However, I do see that in an atmosphere of often earthy male camaraderie, the combination of female competence (and sexual attractiveness) can be unsettling and even threatening for some men. As for my statement that
"There are still many men who feel a woman should be at home ... rather than hiring, firing, and ordering men around." This was taken from my own experience as well as from research. "The Changing Definition of Masculinity," by Clyde W. Franklin is just one book that
examines how concepts of masculinity have developed in response to changing social conditions, particularly the new roles of women.

I agree entirely with this whole article

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/groom-convicted-for-flogging-bride-on-wedding-day-20110331-1cnfi.html

Look at the evil in this guy's eyes. It's an incredible photo. Is that the father who made him in the background? A picture that tells a million words.

JamesH:”So have you done any research into 'men wanting women to be in the kitchen'? or is just your assumption?”

I have James, for years I looked for men who would admit to wanting a woman to be in the kitchen. I found a few and married my favourite one.

It took years because it wasn’t PC for half the men to be honest when first asked and the rest wanted women who would contribute to the household income while dumping any children that might be hanging around to be raised by daycare workers.

Wow Houell, that was an extreme case of someone spazzing out. You’re right though in that photo he and the dude behind him look all bad and wrong. I was left wondering who the happy chick next to him was.