pelican,

'There is quite a bit of men-as-victim thinking going around'

I think there is on OLO. But if you peruse the papers any day of the week, you would think only women can be victims.

'occasionally it does not hurt to point out legitimate disparities'

I just never read any new stories when men are disadvantaged. It's just not news worthy. I suspect also as antiseptic says, that people are only interested in finding areas where women are disadvantaged. If men were found to need more sleep or not getting as much sleep we just wouldn't hear about it. As antiseptic says, we never hear about child neglect from mothers. Do you ever wonder why?

Most of my beef with feminism is the constant barrage of anti-men, women=victim man=abuser propaganda that is everywhere.

That and the turning of things like lack of sleep into a gender/equity issue and demonising poor doctors who do their job badly, calling them rapists.

Also the assumption that women don't really choose to have a work-life balance, it's all due to 'societal expectations'.

Those comments I quoted are very close to the prevailing opinion of my partner and her friends.

'I never realised before I had kids how much I would want to be a full-time mother instead of combining a career with motherhood. I always assumed I would want to keep working as I loved my job.'

'I have found on many occasions when I sit down with another working mother that I don’t know, we end up discussing our lives (as mothers do), and that many of them will reluctantly admit they really don’t want to work but would rather stay at home with their kids. To the world they put on the public face that they love having a career and a family but that is so often far removed from the truth.'

Those comments ring very true. Enemies of the sisterhood all, and the prime reason for the gender pay gap that feminists constantly quote as evidence of discrimination.

Dear Houellebecq,

Speaking as a mother, those comments ring true to me also - but these are only my perceptions and they emanate from my life experience.
Staying home with the kids is something that seemed second nature to me - it's where I wanted to be.
I do, however, seem to have the ability to separate my own agenda from current societal pressures and expectations, which tends to afford me a little more autonomy of choice in my psychological outlook.

Houlley
Perhaps my views are too tainted by OLO. My experience match Poirot's. I wanted to stay home and be with my children. I also don't care if my husband earns more than me but he does not care if I earn more than him.

This is where feminism (or more rightly people) went a bit astray along the way and we end up with a funny paradigm if you think about it. There is much fanfare even in the papers when there is a woman appointed to a Board or CEO role. However, alternatively when a there is a good news story about men who choose to be stay-at-home parents there is also much fanfare. Or hailing the appointment the increase in male nurses or female electricians.

It probably has something to do with the addressing the balance where one gender has not gained 'access' or opportunities easily due to those social expectations/conditioning that you love.

One of the things I personally lament about the whole process is the fact that women who stay at home (still in the majority) tend to miss out on various fronts while the OSW concentrate too heavily on careers and not enough on the choice aspect of feminism. When I was a teenager in the 70s the choice aspect was the mantra.

The natural progression of that was to evolve into better working conditons that afforded men and women more choices but that was when we thought advances in technology would mean more leisure hours and sharing of work. The opposite occured to serve the purposes of "economic growth" and many more hours spent at the office in many cases.

Men and women do not have these choices unless they can afford it. The best thing to do is not to worry too much about societal expectations (as reflected in policy) and just get on with the job of living. The people that really count are your family and friends, not some airy fairy organisation whose policies might only reflect the flavour of the month. "Working families" is my favourite.

Sorry, CJ, but I don't entirely agree.
"That "Girls Can Do Anything" campaign has been around for yonks...”
I have always considered prejudice to be one of humanity's greatest evils; which is basically what this thread is about. Prejudice is always instantly recognisable by sweeping generalisations, such as:
"men are stronger than women"; -which men? How old are they?
"Women are better at..."
"Men are better at..."
"Women need more..." etc., etc.; including "Girls (or boys) can do anything".
Which brings me back to one of my favourite bugbears, the American Declaration of Independence, and the notion of being 'created equal'.
Why do so many people believe that being equal means we have to all be the same?
There has grown an underlying and enormous faith in education in recent years. Specifically, the idea that anyone can do anything, with the right training and education.
Bull.
If I practised guitar 10 hours a day, 7 days a week all my life, I still couldn't play like Ritchie Blackmore.
By the same token, in Health and Safety I'm certain the major cause of accidents is putting the wrong people in the wrong jobs.
Antiseptic, -as far as I am aware- has not suggested women -or men- are being paid more for the same job, or should be.
He has however, made some generalisations.
As I think Severin pointed out, the original article was quite prejudicial and inflammatory. But the results of some very focussed surveys were just as 'anti' older, married women as men.
What was the tax bracket of these 'higher paid' women? Why were they earning more? Were they paid more, or were they working longer hours?
I think more facts are required (and fewer generalisations) before I get my jocks in a twist.

Grim you are the voice of reason.

pelican,

'One of the things I personally lament about the whole process is the fact that women who stay at home (still in the majority) tend to miss out on various fronts while the OSW concentrate too heavily on careers and not enough on the choice aspect of feminism. When I was a teenager in the 70s the choice aspect was the mantra. '

If you want to talk about choice, I think women really have the upper hand there. Sure, they don't get to choose who has the baby, but after that, they have a lot more choices in their work-life balance than men.

From Suze's link...

'According to statistics from Rice Warner Actuaries and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian women earn an average of 17 per cent less than men, which sets them up for a lifetime of financial inequality worth up to $1 million.'

'a lifetime of financial inequality'? No! The majority of women will spend the *family* money just like their partners. And their partners will likely die earlier, negating the supposed super problem. This is not an inequality.

'The pay gap, alone, means many women can not accumulate as much wealth, have less choice about their lifestyles and have significantly lower superannuation, than men.'

Women, if given more choice, would earn even less than men.It's their choices about their lifestyles that is the reason for the 'inequality' in the first place.

As I have said, women may well break through the glass ceiling, but men will NEVER break into that glass nursery:-)