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.