Brilliant, Leslie, I couldn't agree more. I have long argued that if merit is really the way people get ahead then obviously merit is something men have and women don't. A quick glance at many of the men in important positions is all it takes to realise merit rarely has anything to do with worldly success. Indeed, we will only have true equality when there are as many mediocre women in positions of power as there are mediocre men. The exceptional often succeed, its what happens to the relatively ordinary that reveals the true balance of power.

As to educating girls and their relative conservatism; I suspect this is not new. Young women don't want to believe their options are more limited than their brothers, so they ignore the evidence, until, later in life, particularly when they have kids, it hits them right between the eyes.

But there is another factor. Imagine, if you will, there was a religion that ran schools for black people, whose stated philosophy was that while black people are marvellous in their way, it is ordained by God that they never take leadership positions over white people, particularly in the church. What would we think of black parents who sent their kids to such schools? Yet, when we send our daughters to certain religious schools aren't we doing exactly the same thing? And, of course, they get the message.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that those young women who choose not to "do it all" are somehow compromising themselves. There is a lot of pleasure in raising your own children rather than leaving them in childcare for fifty hours each week and only spending a few exhausted hours with them. There are also lots of other fulfilling things to do in your 'spare time' such as volunteering or studying which are not available to working mums. What's more you don't have to spend your weekends cleaning and shopping. Unfortunately there is still a problem when returning to work as few employers can see the the vast resource of highly skilled part-time labour that is right in front of their eyes. Maybe the next generation are on the right track.

On ya Sajo... well waid

From the Article:

<<“biological imperative” and the work-family crunch have reduced the number of qualified women available for such high-level appointments.>>

What a disgrace.. describing 'family' as an unholy competitor to 'work'... its a 'crunch'.... well well well... is this what it all about ? Women not wanting to have children so they can have 'careers' ?
I have a feeling that is a rather 'limited' perspective.. and of very limited duration.. in fact.. it would last as long as it took for the current generation to die OUT!

I wish to go on record as CLEARLY and without the slightest murmer of apology, WOMEN HAVE CHILDREN....and they are built for this purpose.

Breasts suggest in unambiguous terms "Feed me" and given that a baby needs continuous food, and that breast milk is the recommended diet according to the operators manual (and common sense) it is suggestive of a finite TIME... and given the emotional and bonding and nurturing needs of our precious infants.... not to mention the obvious 'cannot miss it' lesson from female motherhood in nature, it is also suggesting a definite time allocation, in the case of humans a few years per baby !

How in Gods name this wonderful aspect of life, becomes sooooo screwed up ..so distorted... so turned on its head.. so convoluted as to be described as a 'crunch' and a burdensome 'in the way of career' one at that.. is beyond me.

Yes.. of course. I do need a Bex or 3 and a good lie down, 3 laps of the retarding basin have tired me, and this article has annoyed me.

...and now, I've probably annoyed a few fellow contributors :)

I find it highly annoying that in these discussions, people such as Boaz-David seem to find it incredible that a woman might not want to be tied purely to her biological function 'for at least a couple of years'!

Many women I know find it strange that in the work/children discussions, it is never suggested that BOTH parents work part-time. Work IS rewarding, if you are lucky enough to have a job that uses your talents and interests. It provides social connections, a chance to think about things from different perspectives, and a chance to interact with adults.

Children are ALSO rewarding. Unconditional love, joy of watching their development, the fun of new discovery of the world.

People should not be forced to choose one or the other. All people, men and women both, should be able to genuinely balance their time in their various roles as parent/worker/friend etc.

I think this article does point out a difficulty with the 'merit' argument. It does seem to suggest that only 'exceptional' women can achieve important goals, and that the rest are just 'not as good' as the majority of men that make up the upper echalons of our society. Who, as enaj pointed out, are hardly paragons of virtue.

Hmm, not sure how coherant that came out. Basically I am saying that we should all be able to participate properly in all aspects of our lives. It should not be that after children that women stay home and men stay at work. Lets mix it up a little and make ourselves all a bit happier

Dear Boaz David,
Women don't curl up and die after they have finished reproducing, you know. I took 5 years out from the workforce while my 2 kids were small and went back part-time. Am I to pay for this - literally - forever? My experience of bearing and rearing children, of juggling family and paid work have given me skills and abilities most people (male and female) who have never done them can only dream of. Yet the skills I have gained at home are unvalued, unpaid and unappreciated. I am crammed so hard up against the glass ceiling I can hardly breathe, micro-managed by people with half my skills and experience who did not take time out for kids. They had wives who did, but they did not.
Women are voting with their wombs, Boaz-David, make it easier for them to have work and family - as men do - or they will stop having kids. Its happening in Italy, its happening in Japan, and, eventually, it will happen here. The evidence is perfectly clear, countries with family friendly work practices, like much of Scandinavia, are maintaining healthy birth rates, those who insist that child rearing is women's work and do nothing to help are watching their birth rates collapse.
Reap as ye sew, I'm afraid.

Yes it would be wonderful if both parents could work part-time. Unfortunately part-time work is undervalued, underpaid, insecure and difficult to find in the professional field. Most families need more financial security and rely heavily on at least one full-time income. Experience tells me that it is usually the woman who chooses to take on the nurturing role although there is no real reason why it can't be the man. It is not the girls who need educating but the boys - especially those who are employers.

Our good Dr Leslie here, argues for the need to educate girls to learn the ability to reason correctly - to learn the art of logic. She seems concerned that young women aren't thinking their arguments through properly and so she calls on educators to ensure girls learn to be aware of unspoken assumptions and implications.

Unspoken assumptions and implications!

From personal experience, that's something I didn't think girls ever had to be taught. It just seemed to be natural for women to cook up all sorts of crazy notions in their heads any time a man does or doesn't say something.

Anyway, here's the very interesting part of it, she doesn't argue for the need to educate boys in this same way. Why? What are we readers to make of this? What are the unspoken assumptions and implications of this article?

Is she implying the unspoken assumption that boys don't need to learn the ability to reason because logic is an innate masculine trait? Is she saying that boys naturally possess the critical skills of deduction? And is she inferring here too, that girls are lacking in a natural ability to reason?

If we are to assume the answer to these questions is yes, then the truth is that this call to the educators of girls alone is an insult to every woman's intelligence.

Conclusions based on unspoken assumptions and implications aren't logic Dr Leslie, they're imagination.

Dear Enaj
you should know me well enough by now, and have read enough of my posts, to be aware that I'm not opposed to females working and having careers, I totally agree that when the nurturing process is under control, that work and career are fantastic life options.

My opinion is this. Its not realistic for most women (I say most because without 'most' having children, we will definitly die out) to see 'career' in the same way a man might, where the maximum advancement in that career will usually require on going and uninterupted committment and physical presense.

I would emphasise, that a life for most women in this order would be more socially appropriate:

1/ A good education, but one which definitely includes specific 'nurture related' subjects. (which may include home ec. Health medical, creative use of everyday chemicals for household purposes and psychology)
2/ Work for a time, then Family, Children (if possible).
3/ Either Career/work or community related activities.

At the same time, I believe that we should be teaching MEN, about family responsibility, committment, and the values which make a good family run well.. so I'd again use the education medium to provide subjects related to the male role.

As a Christian, I would prefer to see the underlying values come through in all the above being.

Wives, respect your husbands
Husbands, love your wives as yourselves.

I am of the opinion, that the male should be the guiding hand in a marraige, but anyone who did that without the benefit and insight of another person, (his boss .. the wife :) would be a fool.

I don't think the last 2 paras could ever occurr unless females specifically looked for a man they could feel comfortable with as their guide, and so this comes back to social values and 'what we should look for in a partner'.

leslie - 'On merit alone'?
You seem to be assuming that the same number of women desire to go into the field and aspire to those positions. Until you support this assumption, the options you have given about how 'on merit alone' is insulting are incomplete.

The fact that you also admit that "there is evidence to suggest that young women are less ambitious than their mothers when it comes to work and family" seems to indicate you know this assumption is shaky.

I have often wondered about the principles and attitudes of certain academics in our education system. The author starts the article condemning the “stereotyping” of women.

Eg
“For a government to imply this suggests either that gender-based stereotypes about women’s intellectual and moral inferiority are alive and well, or that most women really do - when matched against men on a level playing field - come up short.”

After this, the author then precedes to carry out stereotyping and generalisations of men.

Eg
“And if women’s disproportionate shouldering of the second shift and the consequent difficulties they - but not their male partners…”
“assumption that men and the workplace aren’t going to change…”
“or are clear about the acceptance of do-nothing attitude of men…”

Leslie Cannold has written much about gender issues, but she appears to be yet another academic feminist that will rarely (if ever) have anything positive to say about the male gender. Just stereotyping and generalised demeaning, maligning remarks about males, but she does not seem to see this as “evidence of institutional discrimination” against men. Instead she only sees “evidence of institutional discrimination” against women.

It all reminds me of this comment by Kathleen Parker

Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women because they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2005/11/02/173922.html

Maybe feminists could set aside one day of the year to say something positive and pleasant about the male gender. This would be something very different from feminists, and so many people in so many different countries might begin to think differently of feminists also.

Welcome back Timken. It's been dull around here without you.

BOAZ_David does the boss see your posts before you submit them?

In Australia there have always been 2 groups with lower marriage rates - the low status, low paid men and well educated, high status women. Your assumption that there is a man out there for every Australian woman to respect just flies in the face of reality. Do you want to return to the good old days? My mother studied physiotherapy with women who had left school to work in offices in the 1930’s while their less academically able brothers were shepherded through school and university. These women’s salvation was the war, they enlisted and upon war’s end they took the opportunity to go to university and gain qualifications.

This article is about the appointment of a woman to the High Court of Australia. As law relies on intellect rather than brawn the surprise is why aren’t there more women on the High Court. Is this because the justices on the High Court bench need intellect and a solid professional track record? In most Australian families the woman is expected to support the husband and rear the children and this means their professional career has a big dint in it.

If we think its relevant for the High Court to represent a gender balanced view then there should be positive discrimination towards able women who mightn’t have the professional track record.

Most women want their children to achieve their full potential, not be forced to settle for stunted lives because girls are restricted to these narrow roles, or there aren’t enough resources to allow the child to develop to their potential.

Honestly BOAZ_David would you want to commit your life to raising 2 or 3 children when there is every chance an Australian woman will live 100 years? Rearing 15 children would be more absorbing. Rearing children should be part of life’s rich tapestry and women shouldn’t have to choose between career or children.

I don't believe this is an issue of merit - everybody knows that women are just as capable as men ...we already know the art of logic, have the ability to reason correctly (AND we're better at multi-tasking). But most women don't want a high-powered career, which could be one of the reasons why there are less women high up on the corporate ladder.

Woman are lucky in that they have the option of being stay-at-home mother/partner or having a career or both. They're not usually expected to be the prime provider and therefore less have motivation/reason to pursue careers, especially if they have a partner with a successful career.

Most women want a man with a well-paid career. I have many female friends whose mothers have told them to "find a rich man to look after you". A rich man, unless he's inherited his money, is usually rich because of a successful career.

This hasn't got anything to do with education / politics / derogatory ideas about women - it's more to do with the fact that a man that can be a good provider is more desirable to women, and I don't believe this will ever change

There can hardly be any argument that there is considerable biological difference between women and men. And that because of it, the upbringing and development of the two different sexes in the community must give rise to some differences regarding social vision.
So why the hell is society deprived of (almost, to date) fifty percent of those developed perspectives when it comes to how society is to be judged?
If that requires society to be proactive in the recruitment of women to the High Court, then that needs to be done so that society can benefit from an adequate representation of social perspective.

Oh Dear “The truth is that the merit claim is an insult to every woman’s intelligence.”

The alternative to the merit process are either affirmative action (“prejudice” by another word) or patronization.

Maybe the Merit claim, far from being an insult to every womans’ intelligence is simply above and beyond Ms Cannold’s own intelligence or prejudice.

The assessment of “merit” is not a matter measured across a few visible and simplistic standards but a complex balancing of different and sometimes contradicting attributes. Ones commitment to the role may be challenged between a woman who has been devoted to the service of that role and a man who, with equal dedication, did not take time out to produce children.

You cannot measure “conditional merit”, (where “conditional” is based upon a perfectly level playing field). “Merit” is measured in the circumstances which prevail. What Ms Cannold is demanding is Affirmative action.

Affirmative action is what some blacks have demanded in USA but it is also what whites practiced in South Africa under apartheid (the more the “white” the more the “affirmative”). That Cannold should expect it is a disgrace.

The final paragraph says a lot

Agree - Educators should not promote any point of view

But as for “unspoken assumptions behind, and implications of, the arguments powerful others make about them” – unspoken assumptions ? you can criticize what is said but not what is not said – and “unspoken” is “not said” – this sounds like political double-talk.

As for the bit about “do-nothing men”, plenty of men work hard to support and bring stability to their family environment. Plenty of men sacrifice health for their work roles and plenty of men know the truth – a couple committed to one another are a stronger unit than a couple of egos fighting over who is top-dog or whose career matters. But maybe that is part of Ms Cannolds own “issues” she needs to deal with and which prompted her to write this sort of garbage.

Have to agree that the perjorative 'do-nothing men' is unfair - Leslie would do better to be less insulting and more encouraging of men. There are many proactive men who love and support women. Men who agree that keeping 50% of potential tied to the kitchen is regressive and waste of human ability.

Leslie has a point though positive discrimination will need to occur while there is a vast predominance of men in positions of power. Like tends to employ like - regardless of any merit, women will not achieve equal representation without conscious effort by all in positions of power. And that includes other women - the Thatcherite types who prefer to keep their power from their sisters by maintaining the status quo.

There is a lot older women can do to encourage, advise and assist younger women, but we can't do it all alone. We need men to help too - from performing their share of parenting, housekeeping as well as treating women as equals in the workplace.

Walk beside me - we are strong, walk ahead of me - you walk alone.

(formerly Trinity)

Scout, 'tied to the kitchen' ?
no, not at all, I've emphasized the 'nurture' aspect, not some domestic prison. See my points above, there is ample opportunity for all that wonderful 'human' potential to be expressed in very fulfilling economic and socially rewarding ways.

Sand..
I don't think you read past my first line in that post...
have another read.....

I've maintained that the nurture period should not be disrupted by 'career/work' unless of course she is 'supergirl' who can juggle both with NO detriment to the children. But for some reason, I just can't see how a 'career' in a competitive dog eat dog world would give much time for nurturing children.

When the children are of age to cope more independantly.. the world is your oyster ! Go for it..enjoy it.. seek challenges.. seek opportunities.. even wallow in it :)

Scout,
“Leslie would do better to be less insulting and more encouraging of men.”

Leslie does not have to even “encourage” men. If she treats men with dignity, then they will treat her with dignity.

It reminds me of a situation in a company that employed a female personal relations officer who began “demanding” respect from men, but she also went around continuously criticizing and maligning the men in that company.

She left within 12mnths. In fact she had to, as no male would eventually work with her. Meanwhile there were other women employed in the same company that had been there for up to 20yrs. They didn’t demean or criticize men all day, so men naturally gave them respect, and would readily work with them at any task.

The continuous outpouring of negative, demeaning remarks and criticism of the male gender by academic feminists is not working in their favour. There is almost nothing that can be relied upon from an academic feminist, and much of what is in this article only presents half the story. If these academic feminists are acting as representatives for women, then I don’t think women are being very well served.

Scout “the Thatcherite types who prefer to keep their power from their sisters by maintaining the status quo”

What complete bunkum. Margaret Thatcher was a woman who proved that women could be not only a “Prime Minister” but a successful “Prime Minister” capable of steering a country back from the edge of an economic precipice.

Nothing Margaret Thatcher did held other women back and if you listen to any commentator who knew her, Margaret Thatcher was one very “feminine lady” who had the secret of success – that is self esteem. Alot of the “must have career and promotion to highest office as well as family” women lack the self esteem to deal with the setbacks and challenges they face along that journey, as a matter of course. Thus they become bitter at their own failure and look to blame the environment instead of themselves (goes for some men too).

However back the dearest Margaret who said

“In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”

She also observed

“ The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

Of course the following made the feminist lobby mad, because she was right

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib”.

However one of the best was

“The woman's mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities”

Margaret Thatcher was a woman who graced the highest levels of the worlds powerful and yet she also realised what so many feminists forget – the world is made up of men and we are to be treated as “Equal”.

Finally for the talented and gifted (of either gender and doubtless ethnicity) she said this

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

That says alot about the woman, to see how the world can move forward and contradicts your suggestion about her.

I seemed to have a bit of bait for many in my last post.

‘Thatcherite’ – a deliberate term to describe the successful and powerful woman who is in a position to provide positive changes that would assist women in politics/business/educational opportunities – and fails to do so. Col, if Maggie achieved so much for women – where is the 50% representation in Britain? 20 years on – nothing much has changed. Women like Thatcher get into power precisely because they are NOT going to threaten the status quo. Words are cheap, actions speak volumes.

‘Do-nothing-men’ – no doubt about, it is an unkind term, and yes, Leslie could’ve refrained from using it. Reality is, Timkins, men and women demean each other ALL the time. I kindly suggest you focus on the issues and perhaps not dwell on little injustices so much – its up to you.

Women in the workforce. BD - no reason why women can’t be parents and work at their careers. Why should they have to catch up their careers after child birth when men don’t? Solution – family friendly workplaces – larger ones providing child minding facilities (instead of gyms for the executives) flexible hours, incentives for men to take time out for parenting, subsidies (tax incentives) for child care. With all these IR reforms a shame that they don’t factor in the reality that people breed. BD, not all women want to breed. Not all women have wonderful supportive partners. Therefore, we need careers just as much as men do.

In summary, we cannot claim to be a democracy while we do not have full representation (50%) of women in the public sphere. Leslie Cannold is correct in that we STILL require positive discrimination for all marginalised people. When we have achieved balance then we will have the luxury of ‘merit’.

Scout,
Possibly men and women demean each other, but the majority of demeaning statements regards a gender would now be coming from academic feminists, so many of whom continuously attempt to demonise the male gender. They will rarely have a positive word for the male gender, but will throw every type of accusation at the male gender. The situation or the issue can vary, but the maligning remarks and attempts at male demonisation stay the same. Perhaps they want something from the male gender, so they believe that maligning the male gender is the best way of achieving this, but not for long I think.

Like so much else written about women and work, this article only covers part of the story. Recent surveys such as the HILDA survey and others have highlighted how often women prefer the male to be the primary breadwinner (and this often occurs even when there are no dependant children, and often occurs even if they are divorced). I know of only one female journalist in the press who has written about this, and no academic feminist has even written about it to my knowledge.

The other factor is that women on average drop out of the full time workforce at a much younger age than men (ie. about 17 yrs younger). All this means that men are required to be the main wage earners and stay in the workforce longer, so naturally they start to fill the top positions. They also fill those positions on merit, (based on years of hard work), as there are only a few top positions compared to the number of people employed.

If academics were more willing to give the full story (which they don't appear to want to do), and if women on average were willing to be the main breadwinners, (which they don't appear to want to do), and if women on average were willing to work up to retirement age (which they don't appear to want to do) then there might be more reasonable talk of more women being in higher positions.

Until then.

Scout

Not all women want to 'breed' as you put it, but by golly, if a LARGE number of them don't.. we are dead....literally.

You seem to insist that women should still be able to juggle career and family, well the day men develop breasts I guess we might see that more likely. But "family friendly workplaces" ? Scout..when was the last time you ran a business and tried to compete in this dog eat dog world ? You seem to be of the naive opinion that business are '
here one day, still here the next' I'm hereby sending you off for some counselling by 'REALITY' :) tease... but seriously, you are living in some kind of dreamland to expect all that 'family friendly' stuff from businesses.

In a way, it reminds me of the Empress Dowager of China who (so the story goes) was born with small feet, so, to not feel left out or odd, she began having all females feet bound. i.e. You don't want to face up to the reality of being female, and you want the world to re-structure itself based on a deformed view of life.

I suppose, with me speaking from a "production/manufacturing" position, explains a bit about why I see such suggestions as ludicrous. They may be more compatable with a work environment not needing people and materials be in place for a given amount of time.

But your not seeing the obvious point here.. what place is more family friendly than THE HOME.. for crying out loud..... No transport costs, No traffic jams, a puter and a phone and voila..away u go.
You can still enjoy the human interaction side of things by scheduling, but not on a daily basis. Whyyy the heck ADD to the burden of infant reliance by adding a hectic job to it ?

Scout
"no reason why women can’t be parents and work at their careers. Why should they have to catch up their careers after child birth when men don’t?"

I agree with your sentiment but the answer is not for both parents to abandon the kids. Young children do not thrive trapped in a city office block five days a week while mum or dad drop in occasionally to say hello - but taking care not to get paint or yoghurt on the best suit! Surely children are worth sacrificing your career path for a short time.

The answer is not for more flexible hours etc. but for employers to be more supportive of people who have taken a career break ie. training and part-time positions in rewarding professional roles.

My experience is that the majority of advertised part-time work is for telemarketing and receptionist positions. Very little for experienced graduates who have taken a few years off and gained plenty of new skills in the process. There are now programs to get nurses and teachers back into the workforce but this is only after years of shortages. Unfortunately I am neither a teacher or a nurse. Perhaps if there is a need to educate girls to think about their work/family balance we should be encouraging them to choose their careers carefully.

Hey guys,
Its an incredibly recent thing that any society could afford to keep large numbers of adults out of the workforce, and has always only happened among those who could afford it.
Women have always worked alongside men and left childminding to older siblings and grandparents. Firstly, as gatherers in hunter gatherer societies (bringing home the majority of calories consumed) in the fields, then in factories, shops and as domestic servants. This idealised, romantic vision of the happy woman behind the white picket fence with a kids at her feet, waving goodbye to hubby is just that, a vision. It was hardly anybody's reality ever. Women are never going to leave the paid workforce, our world can't afford to let them. And, if that is true, why should they accept the majority of the lowest paid, lowest skilled, lowest interest jobs?
Oh, and Boaz-David, I expect my husband to love AND respect me, just as I love and respect him. Personally, I wouldn't want love that comes without respect, and I wouldn't want a life partner who saw it as his job to "guide" me, whatever that means. In a real partnership, we guide one another. One taking the lead, sometimes, the other taking it sometimes. If the family can only survive by limiting the choices and potential of its female members, then there is something wrong with the family.

Enaj
Please don't imagine that by staying at home or reducing hours for a while to look after children constitutes leaving the workforce. Who do you think provides all the unpaid labour such as regularly listening to kindergarten children reading or playing games, running the school canteen, fundraising and volunteer work for charity organisations, not to mention running other people's (ie. those who get paid) children to and from school and after school activities? It certainly isn't full-time career mums or dads. All this would cost taxpayers a lot of money if they had to pay.

Anyhow my opinion is that of an average working career of about forty years surely it is worth dedicating a few of those years to one's offspring. Ideally both parents should have the opportunity to pitch in. I appreciate some just could not afford it but many don't want to make the sacrifices.

I am the last person to advocate women stay at home always - a rewarding career is immensely important. It is possible to have it all - just not all at the same time and maybe some positions are just not achievable while the children are young. It seems from the article that younger women are realising this. I wish them well.

By the way not many of us have children old enough to look after the little ones - and I would hope they had a life of their own by then. Grandparents are not always available either and strangely enough most want to enjoy their well- earned retirement.

"In summary, we cannot claim to be a democracy while we do not have full representation (50%) of women in the public sphere. Leslie Cannold is correct in that we STILL require positive discrimination for all marginalised people. When we have achieved balance then we will have the luxury of ‘merit’."

So get the job (whether qualified or not) and then get the experience. Too bad about the potential damage that can be done during this period of achieving "balance", until the experience is gained.

Whilst there's a definite place for women in the workforce (in any role), positive discrimination is like a band-aid approach. All it results in is people who may be not be ideal in positions of power which is no good for anybody.

Achieving a balance of male/female ratio in the High Court would need to be tackled from the ground up. Women have to want it badly enough (from a young age) to do the groundwork and work their way up. There'd be no point in appointing a woman to the High Court if she'll have no respect from anybody because she was appointed through positive discrimination (especially since it's perceived by some as prejudice.)

Whilst I don't agree with the "women need guidance" piffle, I would agree that a woman in a supporting role to a partner in a position of power can probably achieve a lot more (and be more satisfied) than insisting on a "balance" through +ve discrimination.

Has it been ignored or is it possible that the man can stay at home and mind the children? Who decides who gets to continue their career?

Now don’t give me any nonsense about a man needing to feel like he’s contributing for his self-esteem either. Isn’t that what a woman wants and is told that raising the kids and keeping the house can provide this? What’s good for the gander is good for the goose…

And no foolishness about the mothers milk issue. Sometimes a mother doesn’t produce enough milk and has to use supplements (as my mother did). Add that the modern age has seen the introduction of breast pumps if you want to keep a store and there is no issue with providing for the child.

So, what other lame excuse is there for men not to share in the raising of children and bringing financial security to the household with women?

As to women being ‘guided’. Not even worthy of consideration…

Reason
"Has it been ignored or is it possible that the man can stay at home and mind the children? Who decides who gets to continue their career?"

The reality of the situation is that the majority of women want the husband to be the main breadwinner, and this often occurs even if there are no dependant children. Any belief that the majority of husbands force the mothers to stay at home, (or chain them to the kitchen sink etc ) is only a feminist type myth. Survey data consistently shows that the majority of women prefer to be at home, or prefer to work part time only, with their husbands out working full time.

So the husbands do what their wives want, then all these feminists complain that men fill the workforce and the women are in the homes.

Is it time to mention the work of Dr Elspeth Probyn who studies that the design of work. BOAZ_David would be pleased to learn that staffordshire pottery in the early 1900s was a cottage industry where women threw and decorated the pottery and their husbands tended the kiln in the back yard, the children were cared for in the home. Great efficiencies and greater profits were made when the pottery was made in factories.

Discrimination in favour of men is so ingrained in Australian society that we are blind to it. In England in the 1890's women couldn't own property. In the 1920's Australian women didn't work. My grandmother worked in a professional capacity - there is only so much painting and embrodiery you can do but she wasn't paid - her father kept her. In the 1940s some women who had served in the armed forces took the opportunity to go to university and get degrees so they could earn a living.

Professional women immigrating to Australia are often dismayed to discover that there are no women engineers. There is a high proportion of women engineers in India, Russia and pre 1975 Iran.

Professional women in Australia are often faced with the choice of work full time or quit. Why should women who want children be forced to give up well paid jobs and forced to retrain into different areas once their children no longer need full time care?

In summary we need to design work so that we place value on child rearing. Not all women can find a partner who earns more than them. While women are forced to chose between child rearing and career you will find that intelligent career women have lower fertility rates than their less able sisters. There will also be fewer qualified women candidates for seats on the high court.

Its a bit of a circular argument though Timkins- do women prefer to work part-time and have their partners work full time because they prefer to have a 'male bread-winner', or do they prefer to work part-time because various surveys have shown that even when both partners are working full-time that women end up doing more of the child-rearing and domestic chores? Perhaps they are just acknoweledging a way of trying to balance their timesheets and family finances?

If people, like Boaz-David for example, are arguing that through being a bit thrifty couples can afford for one partner to take a year or five away from the workforce after childbirth, then I see no reason why the workforce, and people's expectations of the workforce, cannot be altered so that BOTH men and women take those few years part-time.

I see little reason why I should be expected to give up my career for several years, which has cost me a fortune in HECS fees, time and effort, while my partner, who is similarly qualified and employed, should suffer no set backs.

Perhaps Leslie should have argued not that we should be educating girls to have lower expectations of their ability to fully participate in the workforce, as we should be educating boys and girls both to expect, and demand, that they be given fair time for family.

"...intelligent career women have lower fertility rates than their less able sisters."

I'm surprised this statement didn't come with a link to some obscure stats site. Does that mean career-oriented ambitious women are morphing into barren power-brokers? And that "intelligent career-minded" women are "more able" than fertile women? Twist it whichever way you will, it's the biggest load of codswallap I've heard in a long time.

Am I the only one who thinks that women's "choice" of work or career is a bad thing? Toss a coin sweetheart. It ain't hard.

Having to chose between "having a career and having children" is a wretched choice but it is one that many women have to face. I repeat, not all women can find a well paid supportive partner.

And I stand by my elitist comment that well educated high status women have lower fertility rates than less well educated women

Women are choosing. They are choosing not to have children. As soon as they had the option to control their fertility and return to the workforce, they did. If we make it hard for them to be in the workforce and earn their own money and have children, chances are, they will (indeed, are) choose not to have children, or no more than one.
Who cares whether Boaz David or Lisamaree like or approve of their choice? It is happening and will continue. We need to ask young women what they want, not what religious leaders, politicians, business leaders and pontificators of all kinds think they should have. You'll find they not only want to work, they cannot imagine a future where they don't. They'd like to have kids too, but not at the price we are currently asking.
Once, women had no choice, now they do. Like it or not, what women want must be taken into account.

Laurie,
I don't think it is a circular argument, as there were women in those studies who had no dependant children, (either having no children at all, or their children had left home), but still these women had higher life satisfaction if their husbands were the main breadwinners.

It can also be shown by the number of women who retire early, (and most women retire much earlier than men), but still require their husbands to keep working. There are actually very few women who work to close to retirement age, and the vast majority drop out much earlier.

The women will frequently uses the men as workhorses and pay packets, (even if they have no children), but this factor is seldom mentioned.

Also I think "work" in the workplace is over glorified by many feminists. In reality, work can often be drudgery with high levels of both physical and mental stress for few rewards,, and the higher up the chain someone goes, the longer hours they are normally expected to work, and the more responsibility they are normally expected to carry. I think many women begin to see this once they have worked in industry for a while, so they drop out early, (either by working part time, or not at all), and let their husbands earn the income.

If academics want to talk about women and work, then they should incorporate all aspects and not just a few, (eg incorporate the level satisfaction expressed by so many women who have their husbands working full time while they do not, the early retirement ages of so many women, the 28% of women who do not have children, the fact that married mothers have more children than unmarried mothers etc). Once all such information is on the table, then there can be a clearer picture of the situation, and there is less likelihood of misinformation being spread.

To enjay,

You say, "We need to ask young women what they want..."

But I say, we also need to ask young men, what do they want?

Right now young men are gaining momentum in anti-marriage, anti-commitment, women-can-go-hang, marriage strike attitudes. You may not be close enough to men, and young men in particular to hear their voices, but despite an education system that intentionally dumbs them down academically, young men today, aren't stupid.

The social debate has for the last 30 years focused on women to the extent that women now live in a princess privileged world here in the west. But the social debate has begun to shift and young men simply can't see any advantage for them to take the risk of marriage. Especially now when young women are going 'raunch' - they get what they want without the risk of divorce or the responsibility of caring for a wife. So what you and others are discussing as "a woman's choice" is rapidly evaporating. Women will "have" to work to support themselves, because young men can't be bothered. Why should they?

Feminism has inadvertently liberated young men from being chained to a wife, children and mortgage. And if you thought the chaining was the other way around, then think again.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with Cannold's call for sexist teaching of logic to schoolgirls.

Perhaps she's right. Perhaps women do need a few lessons on staying logically on the point instead of digressing and shifting the focus onto themselves and their own particular selfish lifestyles and points of view. If this forum is any guide, she may appear to be correct.

Timkins,
My point is directed towards those who claim a womens roles is in the home.

I am sure there are many females who want nothing better than to be kept - just as I am sure there are many men who treat their female partner as a play thing/punching bag/bad day release toy.

My point is simply that two people together have options. I am in a relationship with a woman who has the potential to reach a top executive job within the next 5 years – sometime about when we are thinking of having children. It would be ludicrous of me to tell her she should give up that job – which pays better than mine – so I get a ‘sense of fulfilment’ while she ‘fulfils her feminine urges’. Both are hogwash.

I do understand where you are coming from Timkins. But to lumber all women under the same umbrella is too general. I say: take each on their/her/his merits and try to do what is right for both of you. If you cannot reach mutual agreement, then there is, in my opinion, something wrong with the relationship.

In relation to this article, I think that educating the women is only half the battle. Both men and women need to see each other as equals. Educate both to find the desire to work together. If in a family situation – decide what is best for the family. If it means the man stays at home – so what?

I like ‘sands’ idea – design a work place where both get some leeway. If this were another thread tough, I would say the new world order is making damn sure that does not happen!

Yes, Maximus, there is a backlash. But isn’t it just about finding a little respect for both sides? This shouldn’t be like a battle. Men and women are supposed to be made for each other (oh, my gawd, how religious is that?!). Why is it that there are so many on either side that just want to take advantage of the other?

As ever, it seems that to those men who don't apparently like them very much, women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they pursue self-actualisation via the workplace they are demonised as man-hating feminists, and if they do so via home and family they are obviously manipulative gold-diggers. As a bloke who rather likes women, I get the impression that some of the chaps who seem to write here most prolifically about all aspects of women's lives are also those who evidently spend the least time actually with women.

Further, it's surely unnecessary in this day and age to respond with any seriousness to silly patriarchal assertions that women should somehow be under the 'guidance' of their 'husbands''

However, having said that - I've long thought that women have been sold a bit of a pup by second-wave feminism with respect to equating their emancipation with self-actualisation in the workforce. The reason I think this is that I also think that men have also been sold a pup if they think that work and its material and status rewards will actually make them happy - and some of the chaps who post here most often seem singularly unhappy... unless of course they've found God or some other such opiate.

My partner and I are 'downshifters' - in that we opted out of very demanding urban careers in favour of running a business together in the bush, and leading a decidedly more pleasant life together in each other's company. We don't make much money, but we live pretty cheaply and actually enjoy producing much of our own food - even selling surplus. One of the really great things is that we each create space in our working arrangements for the other to do the stuff that we never had time to do when we worked 60 - 80 hour weeks as professionals, ironically at a time when we each had little kids and big mortgages.

Now we have time for each other, our kids and grandkids. There are alternatives, people :)

Well my goodness. Quack, quack! Up spoke the duck.

But did the duck quack about logic? Did the duck quack about girl's education? No. The duck did quack about his alternative life style and how he and his duckette did have it all together growing vegies in the bush, whilst the rest of us have no idea of what was going on.

The duck wears his adopted country-life as a heart upon his sleeve. Does the duck think he's the only one on these pages who lives up the bush? Does the duck think he's the only one who has open, ongoing and decent relationships with womenfolk? Does the duck have his head up his own dark place?

Could be.

Gosh - I shouldn't have said that - I'll get banned like Timkins did last week. But on the other hand, having had those unspoken presumptions and inferences revealed above by the good Dr Leslie, what can a man do but to go paranoid and read into the text anything that he might consider to be an accusation against his character.

Mahatma Duck, go sit on it - stop making presumptions and taking inferences and turning them into illogical conclusions. You're not the only person in this world with common human respect and decency. And don't assume you are.

Some of us are actually pretty nice likable people - even if we don't always agree with your point of view.

Dear oh dear, Maximus. I certainly hope you feel better after that little spray. However, comments such as

"...natural for women to cook up all sorts of crazy notions in their heads any time a man does or doesn't say something"

and

"...women now live in a princess privileged world here in the west"

and

"Perhaps women do need a few lessons on staying logically on the point..."

seem to indicate a certain antagonism on your part towards women, which belies your claim of "open, ongoing and decent relationships with womenfolk".

My contribution to the thread took up issues raised by others concerning alternatives to traditionally gendered division of labour, and questioned whether work and consumption are really the parameters upon which our quality of lfe and relationships should be measured. Other than gratuitously taking a swipe at me, what was your contribution, exactly?

If you had actually read what I wrote instead of pouncing in ad hominem glee, you might have realised that I was critiquing the feminist assumption that the key to increasing women's status is via participation in the paid workforce.

Like I said, there are alternatives. You just need the imagination to see them.

Guys,
If you really believe men are so hard done by, you need to get active and do something about it. Feminists, by definition, are primarily interested in the condition of women. Asking them to get active on behalf of the injustices visited on men is like asking black activists not to rock the boat or demand their rights because it might adversely effect some white people.
Actually, feminists are often the mothers of sons and so are actually very likely to defend and agitate on behalf of men and boys, but, when they are wearing their feminist hat, they are noticing how society disadvantages their own gender and protesting about that. Personally, I believe feminism ( which, as I keep pointing out, only means a belief in the equal worth of both sexes) will help liberate both women and men from the straight jacket roles they have both been expected to inhabit for centuries.
I get annoyed that some men continue to expect women to give way and take a lesser role because it makes the men's lives easier. I think that is demeaning and damaging to both men and women. Many men need to grow up and start taking responsibility for themselves (so, by the way, do many women, particularly those who rely on dependent, manipulative, conventional feminine behaviour to get their way). Its not going to get you far if you sit around expecting feminists to help you. Really, you need to do it for yourselves.

Mahatma Duck,
It becomes difficult to decide what to call you, whether that should be “Mahatma Duck”, or “Garra”, or “Giaman”

There was a poster called “Garra” who has used exactly the same language, words and phrases as you have recently used (eg “I've thought for some time now that women who seek self-actualisation and fulfilment through paid work, either instead of or simultaneously with motherhood, have been sold a pup by second-wave feminism” . http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3438#7094)

Now “Garra” would carry out much name calling and flaming of other posters, which is something “Mahatma Duck” has indulged in a great deal also (probably holding the record on OLO for the amount of name-calling and flaming of others)

Then someone called "Giaman" began posting, who had a very similar style and used the same words and phrases previously used by “Garra” (eg “dodgy”, “misogynists” etc http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#13195).

So there appears to be 3 posters who have a very similar writing style, and have used exactly the same words and phrases in their posts. A “mahatma duck”, a “garra”, and a “ Giaman”.

Perhaps you can answer, if you have also posted onto forums using names of “garra”, and “Giaman”?

About the only thing I can agree with you is that many women (and some men) have definitely been lead astray by feminist doctrine.

If there are social issues concerning family and work, then there should be as much information made known as possible about family and work, not piecemeal information, or information that is specially selected so as to negatively portray the male gender.

Without full information being made known, no problems will be adequately solved, there will likely be a continuation of misinformation and myths spread throughout society, there will likely be discrimination, and of course no proper education programs can be adequately developed (for either males or females).

Enaj,
Telling men to “grow up” has been often used by various women and feminists. It appears to be a very common form of verbal abuse, that is used to hide relevant information and issues.

So how about addressing my moderation comments Timkins...

My mother is a "feminist" - in the true sense of the word, ie, she believes we're all equally intelligent, that women should have equal rights as men, not the hard-core " I need to be like a man, do like a man to be equal to a man" business. Choosing not to have a career may not be about "giving way to a lesser role", or about "being kept", and it's too bad that some women demean their gender by implying that it is. Any occupation, whether traditional or not, has a purpose. Gender has nothing to do with it.

I have found that negative gender bias towards women in the workplace is generally directed towards the hard-core feminists - these are the ones who jump up and down and make a fuss that they're not getting what they want because they're female - and they're the ones who should take responsibility for themselves and stop expecting women to forego their femininity in the expectation it will get them to the board room (or the high court).

I'm all for more male / female balance in the workplace, but where's the advantage of having a workplace full of men, and women who want to be like men? There's no "balance" in that. I think we can all agree that men and women are equally capable - but we're also different - we should celebrate the fact that we complement each other, not just in capabilities, but in values, goals, perception, ideals - we could learn a lot from each other and bring that with us into workplace.

Lisamaree,
I'm a feminist, my mother was one, my grandmother was one and my sisters, aunt, cousins and daughters are feminists, not to mention my father and husband, and none of them, and none of the women I know who call themselves feminists hate men or want to be "just like" a man. But they do want to be as respected, they do want to be paid as fairly and to have as much control over their bodies, careers and destinies as men do.
Who are these "hard core" feminists? Are they simply women who refuse to keep silent because what they say may annoy others? Why is a stroppy, hard headed male boss admired for being strong, while an equally stroppy, hard headed female one is considered a bitch? Is it possible we have two standards of behaviour, one for men and one for women? And is it also possible that feminists irritate because they point such things out?
In the workplace, I agree with you, there is no point in being a man in a skirt, but that is what it seems to be demanding. We're damned as hard faced bitches if we don't have kids, and damned as not serious enough, not committed enough to our work if we do. Why can't a woman just be a person? As individual, different and flawed as any other person? Maybe that's all most feminists really want, you know, that women be judged as people first and women second.

I think we would do well to start respecting both women and men for who they are as individuals rather than using work as a status symbol. I have found that after years of being 'someone' when I had a respectable and interesting career I have suddenly become a 'no-one' among the so-called feminists (especially the childless ones) when I admit to being at home - even if it is only a temporary situation. I find it very hard to explain that my life is extremely rewarding and I have opportunites to do all sorts of things that I would never have been able to with a full time job. The reason why work is so good for self esteem is simply that so many people treat unpaid work as a second rate.

I intend going back to work sometime and look forward to having some spare cash for a change. However there is little chance of resuming my career and I have had to retrain in a new field to give me some chance of a professional role. I know many others in the same position as myself who have basically had to give up their previous careers when taking more than the standard one year maternity leave. This seems a waste of years of education and experience.

Enaj. I'm not saying women shouldn't be treated equally, flaws and all. But what are the parameters? How is it "equal" for a woman that wants to have the door held open for her? or resents being "treated differently" if you do hold the door open for her? or a woman that wants to be treated "equally", but can't lift heavy objects? that wants to be treated like a "person" but wears micro-mini skirts to the office? or who gets offended if she hears swearing or a dirty joke? or who needs time off every month? and the list goes on and on. These are all valid differences that are neither good nor bad, they just are.

I think when people complain about being treated differently at work, they're experiencing the difference in "standards" between men and women. Men and women do have different standards of behaviour, both at work and at home. Plus people don't like aggressive women (either at work or socially) because it's considered a male trait and they feel threatened by it, just like people wouldn't hold a man in high regard if he cried a lot because it's considered feminine. So to become the kind of "equal" that you're wanting between genders, we'd have to genericise all gender behaviour, and not only at work but at home as well. Alternatively, we could try understanding and respecting the differences (I'm sure there's a zillion studies on that topic) learn to like them, and capitalise on them.

What you were saying about being perceived as a hard-faced bitch for not having kids - I've never come across this and it says more about the person who thinks it - with values like that they're not worth thinking about.

If I get to the door first, I hold it open. If someone holds it open for me, I thank them. Courtesy should be extended regardless of gender, race, age or anything else. Women who object to this are being silly, and, of course there are silly feminists, just as there are silly anything elses, one (or even1000) bad feminist does not make the philosophy of feminism bad. There are bad Christians, bad democrats, bad liberals and bad conservatives, they prove nothing except that all humans are flawed.
By and large, it is not feminists who discount women who choose to stay out of the workforce with kids, how could they? Most of them, like me, have done it, have been there. Society is not interested in women at home, it never has been. Oh, it says it is, but words mean nothing without actions. In this society, like it or not, we symbolise the value we place on things by the money we pay to it, and we don't give mums at home much at all. Single mothers will soon be getting even less.
Feminism, if not all feminists, should be about supporting women to make whatever choice they want to, work, home, motherhood, a combination, whatever. And helping them resist societies pressure on them to always take the worst paid, least powerful, least interesting option, by which I don't mean motherhood, I mean the crappiest jobs with the lowest pay. 70% of households living beneath the poverty line are headed by women, this statistic says something profound about how we value women and mothers and why we still need feminism.

Lisamaree,
Subject to enaj’s comments, I would take issue with points you made.

Your first paragraph – “How is it "equal" …that are neither good nor bad, they just are.”

I would hold that none of them is a valid ‘differences’. How is opening a door, what one wears to work or language one uses a difference? These are modes of behaviour – some are courtesies, as enaj points out. I choose to hold the door open for males. Does that make me gay? You should not equate behaviour with gender.

As to lifting heavy objects, there are women who are actually stronger than some men are. Do they get special dispensation? On the other hand, does the man become ‘less a man’?

The second paragraph – “I think when people complain … it's considered feminine.”

The only differences between men and women are the way they use a toilet and that one carries a baby to term. Period. All others form through world experience and choices. Some men are effeminate – I know a man you would swear was gay but is happily married with children. What would be wrong with him?

That we as a society currently associate behaviour with gender is a sad reflection of our past. The values of modern society espouse to equate behaviour with acceptable or not – regardless of gender. The level of success is currently low.

Example men crying being seen as unmanly. Is it not a healthy thing to release feelings? Isn’t this what we try to teach men? Just as any form of managerial aggressiveness is not acceptable either. It should be an issue regarding management style rather than the gender. A man should not be congratulated for being aggressive, as no woman should be congratulated for being sweet and cute when her management role is to lead.

In fact, your statement, regarding generalising gender behaviour is spot on. We should be. Judge individuals on behaviour rather than gender. Any expectation for behaviour based on gender is limiting, narrow minded and deconstructive to all individuals – and society.

Reason: Nothing wrong with crying men, or one that seems gay but has children (not that that's proof of sexual tendencies.) Your argument that some women are stronger is true, but I'd prefer to stick to general terms rather than exceptions to the rule. It's an irrefutable fact that generally, men are physically stronger than women.

If you choose to go through life believing that "The only differences between men and women are the way they use a toilet and that one carries a baby to term. Period", you'll be constantly frustrated and confused, because there's differences that can't be attributed to choice/environment, eg, communication skills, behavioural differences due to hormones. Eg, women with higher than normal levels of testosterone will have more aggressive behaviour than those that don't. Women with higher than normal levels of female hormones (eg, pregnant women, PMS) will generally behave moodily, be tired, etc. To say we're all the same except for babies/genetalia is simplifying a very complex phenomenon.

Physically, a man that is tall & broad with a deep voice will have more success getting what he wants at work than a slightly built man with a soft quiet voice. That's "using his masculinity". What's wrong with that? Conversely, a women can achieve the same result using her femininity (not to be confused with sexuality). I see nothing wrong with that either. Both achieve the same outcome, but with different gender-specific behaviour.

We will never get away from the fact that visual differences between us affect our reactions/behaviour towards each other - at work and anywhere else. To want men and women to all behave the same is unrealistic because it would have to be at work, home, socially. You couldn't just restrict it to work. For us to behave the same, we'd have to ignore the physical differences, so we'd all have to be either blind or try looking/dressing the same. No thanks.

PS: I think it's nice that you open the door for men. I always thought men did it so they could check you out from behind.

Lisamaree,
I understand what you are saying and, to some extent, agree. Visually we will always react differently to the opposite sex – and to others of the same sex, depending on the situation (i.e. intimidation, arrogance, etc.).

I also agree that it is rather an oversimplification that defining men and women solely via babies/genitals. However, the same can also be observed within the sex. To say that most women will be moody depending on the time of month/amount of hormones in their system is also rather broad. Many women react rather mildly – as is the case with men. Some display rather regressive responses to testosterone while others rarely display any aggressive tendency.

I would disagree that a man with large physique and deep voice will have more success getting his way (likewise for a woman’s femininity). And I disagree that there is nothing wrong with this. Firstly, many good and effective managers do not use their size/presence to motivate but their skills and example of leadership.

Second, there is something very wrong when a person uses their presence (whether masculine or feminine) to achieve. I know this does happen but that does not make right. Competence should be paramount, not charisma or intimidation. In addition, this should apply to the larger arena of life in general.

True, these are ideal concepts and the reality is that this gender-defining mindset does exist. But my point is we should be striving to achieve the ideal – people are judged on individual merit and behaviour – not on a pre-determined stereotype. Without the ideal as a goal to work towards, we do not move forward, we do not improve. We simply mark time – and that in the end leads to complacency – which in turn leads to a degradation of the status quo. Things get worse…

Reason - of all the names we posters use on this forum yours would have to be the most apt. Along with people like enaj, whenever I see a post from you I am filled with optimism and reassurance.

I am reassured to know that there are men like you who see us all as human beings first, our gender second.

In the range of human abilities and foibles there is massive overlap ie , aggressive women/timid men. To continue to evaluate people starting with their gender is limiting and lessens our possibilities.

Thanks

(formerly Trinity)

Scout (previously Trinity),
May I return the compliment? The voices of reason, (including Reasons) and there are many of them, on these posts are always heartening, and yours is especially so.

Reason, compliments galore...nice.

I totally agree with you that we should be judged on individual merit & behaviour. What I'm on about is the fact that I'm expected to repress my femininity. At the same time, I wouldn't expect you to repress your masculinity.

Perhaps if we made the distinction between "equality" and "sameness". You and I can be treated equally, but not necessarily the same. Problems arise when women expect to be treated the "same" as men, rather than "equally".

Enaj: Comprehensive studies have been done on the "value" of women (or men) staying at home as house-spouses. They do the equivalent of two people's jobs. Although they may not be appreciated by many, there is more understanding and awareness of their value, not just to their immediate family, but for the general community.

There is a place for feminism, but I still maintain we need to remind ourselves of the difference between being treated as equally as men, and being treated the same as men.

We may understand the value of women at home looking after kids, but we still don't value them. I was home for 5 years with 2 small kids and was treated like, well, excreta. By friends, by family (particularly my father, who found it impossible to talk to me), by shop keepers, government agencies, school teachers, the media and, especially, people at dinner parties, whose eyes would glaze over when they asked me what i did and I told them. The only people who didn't treat me that way were other women, particularly those who identified as feminists. I went back into the work force and , bingo, the world thought I was worth something again.
I don't know about you, Lisamaree, but I don't want to be treated like a woman, or a man. I want to be treated like a person, like me, an individual, as different from other women as I am from men. I don't want you to make assumptions about my life, attitudes, brain power, earning power, status, importance or anything else based on what someone believes about women. I want you to judge me as you find me, without measuring me against some invisible, acceptable, female-behaviour yardstick.
If I'm too stroppy for your taste, fine, as long as you don't think to yourself she's too stroppy for a woman, in which case, I feel I'm being judged according to a double and unfair standard.

Dear Enaj
your experience speaks volumes about the tone of many of your postings .. specially in response to some of mine.

I feel sympathy for the ill treatment you bore the brunt of during your nurture/home management phase, and wish to asure you that such work is valued and valuable.

I think you might need to develop some new social network contacts.. those who don't look down on a mother doing the 'nesting'.
But you mentioned on your list of 'enemies' also the 'media'.... umm possibly you were reading into 'it' your own negative feelings at the time.

You mentioned that you experienced the 'attitude' from your dad and family ? That would indeed have left scars but I'm wondering why a dad would treat his daughter like that ?

Your kind of experience is one reason I'm so passionate about a Biblical understanding and position on the male/female roles. It doesn't exclude the idea of work, but it does give a framework of caring values which are totally the opposite of what you experienced at the hands of your list of 'enemies'. The last thing you should ever expect is to be looked down on for doing what comes naturally, (caring for your children)....

Last night at Bible Study, (5 guys and 1 lady, the female host) we discussed some issues, including how they are going to manage the situation with their 19 yr old daughter who is about to give birth (unmarried).. also looked at self defence, and now, next time I say to her 'slow motion' for the kick response to a male attacker.. I'll say it like this "SLOWWWWWW motion" :) as my finger is almost unusable from the 'demo kick' she gave my leg....my hand happened to be inbetween her foot and my thigh.

Boaz David,
Your religion, like all the others, largely patronises and condescends to women instead of valuing them.
You tell us we are all very well in our way, lovely and much valued - as mothers, of course, not as people - but we should "obey", we should be "guided", we should believe we are slightly less able to take a leadership role than blokes. "Our husband should be to us as Jesus Christ is to our husband", I heard at a High Anglican wedding service, only my affection for the bride prevented me getting up and stalking out. This is nonsense. Her marriage was, predictably, a disaster, by the way.
You have also utterly misunderstood my post. My father found it hard to talk to me because we had always discussed business in the past and he was proud of my (small) success in that world. When I was home with small kids (and pretty bored and unhappy) he was bewildered by it and didn't know what to talk to me about. He still loved me and supported me. I have many warm and supportive social networks, I have rarely suffered much at all, but that is largely because I fiercely stand up for myself and my right to follow my own star. This annoys many people and many criticise me for it, it is not womanly or feminine enough for some. But I can tell you this, it makes for a fun, satisfying and interesting life. I am not some infant in need of guidance by my big stwong wise hubby. I am responsible for myself and face the world head on as an adult should.

Lisamaree,
I like the way you separate equality from sameness. Well put.

I also agree that some women try to be treated ‘the same’ as men when it’s not possible. However, there is overlap between ‘the same’ and equality.

To be treated ‘the same’ when going for promotion isn’t similar to being treated ‘the same’ with respect to expectations on likes, dislikes, hobbies, conversation topics and literature tastes.

I believe most women ask only that they are not treated as weaker or less competent in any endeavour, simply because they are women. I also know some militants abuse the system – as do men.

I am sure you’ve seen, in this forum, some men’s attitudes to women’s ‘roles’. I argue that those roles were for another time and are as archaic as ‘bloodletting’ is useful for curing schizophrenia.

At any rate, you have helped clarify a term in my mind that will assist me in discussing the issue with others. For that, I thank you.

Enaj,
I understand your point. With a mother who raised 4 children, worked 3 jobs, earned 2 degrees and rose to the highest position in a number of Queensland public organisations – while being a single parent, I know the difference between being treated as a person and being treated lesser. There will always be those who feel threatened by the concept that women are nothing less than equal (though not the same, with a nod to Lisamaree).

I would make one more point.

Concepts of what are womanly, manly, feminine and masculine are from old world ideas that worked in an unequal, stereotyped time. A step to overcoming this would be to negate the need to define people this way. These terms are useful adjectives to describe behaviour. But, to use them as judgement on whether they are successful in their gender?

I would ask the following questions:
* Does it really matter whether a woman is feminine or a man masculine?

* Does an ill-fitting stereotype preclude the person from being a good, decent person or particularly effective or competent in their gender?

Hello Reason

You asked:

"I would ask the following questions:
* Does it really matter whether a woman is feminine or a man masculine?

* Does an ill-fitting stereotype preclude the person from being a good, decent person or particularly effective or competent in their gender?"

I have often pondered the meaning of "feminine" and "masculine" and what the hell it all means.

I am frequently told that I am very feminine, something I find amusing and bemusing.

I rarely wear dresses or frilly clothes, or makeup, have short hair.

I also practice martials arts, used to gad about on motorbikes, have an excellent sense of direction, am good at maths, good spatial abilities - all supposedly 'masculine' traits.

I can only conclude that I am regarded as 'feminine' because of my appearance. I most definitely look like a woman. So I really wonder why some people think that women are in danger of 'losing their feminity' if they do things like climb on the roof of their home to clean out guttering, perform minor repairs to their cars or even burb loudly in public - I have done all - still waiting to be called butch or some kind of pretend man.

I think it really is based on appearance and an attempt to place people in limiting boxes. Which brings me to your second question.

I believe that I was limited as a young girl by trying to fit a stereotype - I had excellent skills in maths and science and have always regretted not purusing those ablilities and followed a career in biology - which is still a passion.

All this is purely anecdotal of course.

I would like to add that when I see so-called feminine behaviour in men such as crying or tenderness or caring for children etc I always think there goes a real man. What I should be thinking is there goes a real human being.

Love to all.

If nothing else this article has highlighted (for me anyway) the relevance of "femininity" and "masculinity". While some think it's about fixing the roof or being good at maths, for me they're less tangible than that. They've nothing to do with abilities or appearance. There are many "beautiful" poeple that don't exhibit much femininity or masculinity. I'm saying don't repress it. Embrace it because you shouldn't be judged by it or treated in a lesser way because of it. A woman should be able to feel/be feminine and in control of her life at the same time. And get a job in the High Court without having to repress, compromise or change herself in any way to get there.

To enaj: big stwong hubby LOL! It's no wonder those bible study meeting have 500% over-representation from males.

It's been a pleasure talking with you all.