Feminist myths are making equality laws unfair to men

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083966/Feminist-myths-making-equality-laws-unfair-men.html

What do you think about this? Are sex discrimination laws making men suffer at the expense of women cuz they're based on an assumption that all women want to put career first?

[Greenday]

If people believe in the assumption that all women would rather put their career first, then yes, it is making men suffer. It's hurting men that women get special priority over men, whether they are more qualified or not. I understand that their is sexism going on, which is a load of crap, but if a woman gets a job when she is less qualified BECAUSE she is a woman, there's something completely wrong with that.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, a lot of women (at least women I know) are very career oriented. I am. Right now, school/job comes first. Family/social life is second. I'm 25, and marriage is the farthest thing from my mind.

And, at least in acadaemia, I will have obstacles. I am a female, Southern, historian. I will have to work harder to prove myself than my male counterparts. (No, I don't have any figures to back this up, what I do have is years of experience in classrooms on both sides of the desk).

I recently read an article in the NY Times about student evaluations, and how they are unfair to women. With a male professor, the students tend to focus on teaching style, material, etc. With a female professor, students are more likely to focus on appearance. The other TA's have confirmed this.

And, as far as I'm concerned, the anti-discrimination laws need to stay in place until something resembling the Equal Rights Amendment is in the Constitution. (This is the US, I don't know about the situation in the UK.)

[Flyndaran]

As everyone likes to eat and live inside away from the weather, even women, of course today's women focus on career.

I've seen how my mother faces discriminiation in her carerr, so I agree that it still exists in disgustingly huge amounts.

But, there is still an enormous amount of anti-male discrimination in the court systems.

Either way, I hate any judgement based on anything other than the salient qualities.

[anriana]

I think it is hard to argue for or against this without specific laws to consider.

[Sylvia727]

This article points to cultural impact as if it was the solution, not the problem. Women are more likely than men to choose to stay home with the children, for many many factors, but a strong reason is the cultural impact. The households this generation were raised in had a housewife and a working husband. Almost all tv shows showed a working man and a stay-at-home mom, and they trivialized the amount of work that a housekeeper is responsible for. Laundry, dishes, dusting, vacuuming, picking up, sweeping, mopping, garbage, bills, yard work, etc. is hard, thankless work. Add in children with the plethora of support services they require and the stay-at-homer could easily end up doing more work than the person with an "actual" job.

For the author of this article to point to this factors as if they were proof that women don't want jobs is horse puckey. What they want is the same things the men want- a family, and respect for the work they do. Many women want jobs in a specific careers, but I often wonder how many women just want a job outside the home because the work they do inside the home isn't valued by society. At least once a week my stay-at-home mom was asked for a favor, ranging from "pick this up at the store" to "babysit my child for free" because she wasn't busy anyway, after all it's not like she had a job or something. And if housework was more appreciated by society, we'd see more men willing to stay home, thus balancing out the women who do want work in a specific field.

[Rapscallion]

My observations, coming from a company where we practice and encourage equality amongst the genders, are that you can take a group of women to water, but you can't make them drink.

We're trying to make the workplace 50/50 on a gender balance. It's about 60/40, but we're working on it. When it comes to applying for elected positions on the management committee, I've noted that we struggle to get enough women to stand. Granted, it's a shooting range, and as such I reckon women are too sensible to put themselves through it, but... Also, when we're supposed to pull together and work over to get the job done, on Saturdays (mostly volunteer workforce doing overtime), the balance is about 90% male.

Equal rights are great, but they come with equal responsibility. My main problem with linking this to this thread is whether women aren't doing the stuff because they're too sensible, or if they're only paying lip service.

Rapscallion

[Saydrah]

Single mothers, on average, earn around 30% less than childless women in the same career at the same level of responsibility (source: Yes! Magazine, which is on my kitchen table). Mothers who aren't single still earn less. And women overall still earn only about 83 cents to a man's dollar. Most executives and top earners are male.

So no, I wouldn't say that equality laws are unfair to men. The proof is in the pudding: Men are still making more money, getting more promotions, and because they tend to take less responsibility for childcare, are less likely to lose a job or be forced to take leave without pay when a child is ill.

[Rapscallion]

I'm just wondering how much of this is from laws being unfair to women, and how much is from nature being unfair. I doubt many would deny that women are - in general - more likely to be the one willing to stay at home and look after the children as part of a relationship. Not sure that could be measured.

Rapscallion

[Saydrah]

But the question there is, how much of that is actually inherent differences between men and women, and how much is societal expectation? You can't deny that men who stay home to take care of their children are subject to jibes and insults from friends, family, and even strangers. Men who depend on their wife's income are almost always told that they're unmanly and should be the bread-earner, even if they are contributing to the family with cooking, childcare, and other homemaking tasks. Similarly, women with children who work hours similar to those of working fathers face accusations of being distant, workaholics, and bad mothers for not taking more time away from work to be with their children.

I think many men would love to stay home with their kids, and many women would love high-powered corporate careers, if they were freed from those expectations completely. I know my sister has done her best to raise my niece without fixed gender roles and expectations. As a result, Niecelet, now 8, wants to be an astronaut or mathematician, and says she would like to have a baby someday but not until she's 27 and has a husband who will help take care of it so she can keep her career.

[Greenday]

Most executives and top earners are male.

And here we have argument number TWO. That's right, we now have two parts to this debates.

What you brought up was the unfairness of women not reaching the top positions. While yes, that does suck, what's unaccounted for is that most men don't get those positions either. Most men are stuck working the lower level jobs just like most women. If the issue was that most men are CEOs and most women are regular employees, I'd have a much bigger problem with this. The problem is, most men are making tons of money either.

Which brings us back to the original part of the debate. When talking about lower level jobs, it is complete crap that women can get a job even if they are less qualified than their male counterpart solely on the fact that they are women. And that creates a big inequality for the MAIN workforce, in which it is unfair for men.

[Rapscallion]

I work for a company that practices what it preaches. We do give equal footing to women in all areas. Our operational management is mostly female - two blokes out of about eight. When it comes to actually doing the ground work as extras on a voluntary basis, it's nearly men only. When it comes to the highest echelons (so to speak - we try for as flat a hierarchy as possible), we actively have to encourage women to go for it.

I don't know a stay-at-home dad, but I've never heard of one who was harassed because of his choice. Well, I've heard of some who became stay-at-homes when they became widowers, or to care for disabled children etc, but I've never actually known anyone like that. In short, I can deny that men are subject to such harassment, because I've never seen it or had it reported to me.

"I think many men would love to stay home with their kids." That's a touch vague. Ten thousand men would be many men, but a small percentage of the population and therefore statistically less influential. Also, 'I think' is also vague - how many is it actually? I have no idea, and I'd prefer not to debate by going to Google to find out what others have said.

I strongly suspect (I have no direct knowledge of this and can't be bothered hitting search engines) that the societal roles were generated by the general preferences of either gender, so it can't be ignored as a factor. Is it necessarily right? Not in this day and age. Is it what is? Yes.

I'm all for giving everyone an equal chance, but I can't allow for someone to be forced into a role just to satisfy the political ideals of a small number of loudmouths. If a woman wants to get into a business role, fine. If she wants to stay at home and be a mother, fine. If a man wants to do either of those (father in the second case, natch), then fine. All cases should be judged on their merits, and not on gender.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

And here we have argument number TWO. That's right, we now have two parts to this debates.

What you brought up was the unfairness of women not reaching the top positions. While yes, that does suck, what's unaccounted for is that most men don't get those positions either. Most men are stuck working the lower level jobs just like most women. If the issue was that most men are CEOs and most women are regular employees, I'd have a much bigger problem with this. The problem is, most men are making tons of money either.

Which brings us back to the original part of the debate. When talking about lower level jobs, it is complete crap that women can get a job even if they are less qualified than their male counterpart solely on the fact that they are women. And that creates a big inequality for the MAIN workforce, in which it is unfair for men.

Why does it matter? Comparatively, more men reach the CEO spot than women. That's not really debatable. Nor is the fact that on average, men earn more money doing the same job than an equally qualified woman.

I was listening to an interesting Fresh Air interview some months ago that was addressing this, and the author being interviewed posited that women just aren't used to asking for the moon. I wish I could remember who it was that was being interviewed so I could go find the link to it again.

[Sylvia727]

the author being interviewed posited that women just aren't used to asking for the moon.

Could it have been Linda Babcock (http://www.womendontask.com/questions.html)?

[protege]

As someone who grew up in a home with a stay-at-home mom, I thought I should mention this. For the first few years of my life, I didn't see my dad much during the week. He usually left early, and sometimes didn't come home until after dinner. Throw in the corporate-required travel, and he was pretty damn busy. Mom and I sometimes got to meet him for dinner downtown, or wait at the bus stop with him, but that was pretty much it during the week. Sure, we'd go to the park or something on weekends, etc.

About the time my brother was born in '79, things started to change. Sure, Dad was bringing in some coin, but he actually hated it. Not so much that the job sucked, but he was missing his kids grow up, and my mother was getting a bit tired of all the traveling he was doing.

By '82, when my other brother was born, he'd had enough. He told his employer to go fuck themselves, and went into business for himself. Sure, the cash wasn't as good, and the hours were longer, but he did pretty much whatever he wanted. Plus, he could be home in minutes...not half an hour. Then the recession came, and most of his clients (local steel mills and factories) closed or went bankrupt. By 1989 or '90, business was pretty bad. In fact, there wasn't enough, and his company closed for good in 1993 :(

Before then, my mother went back to work. She wasn't too happy about that, but there were 3 kids to feed by then. What was hard, was getting us off to school, then going to work. Working 8 hours, then coming home and taking care of the house.

Ever since then, there's been some friction in that house. Mainly, because both of my parents work...yet my mother handles *all* of the housework. Some of that is because she doesn't like how others do it, but a great deal of it...is because certain family members sit on their asses. And yes, I *do* have a problem with that.

Mainly, because of what my father said to me once. That is "you should get a girlfriend, so you have someone to cook and clean for you" :eek:

My reaction? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not going to date someone so they'll clean my house. That's just wrong. It's not like I make a mess to begin with :rolleyes:

[AFPheonix]

Could it have been Linda Babcock (http://www.womendontask.com/questions.html)?

It's entirely possible, although I didn't find her on WHYY's website. there was a blurb on Day to Day that sounded pretty familiar, though.

[Sylvia727]

"you should get a girlfriend, so you have someone to cook and clean for you"

BWAHAHAHA!!! If any guy ever had the guts or the stupidity to say that to me, I'd laugh in his face, and then dump his sorry butt faster than a red hot fry pan. It's not like there's a secret girls-only club that teaches us how to cook and clean and pop out babies. Any fool can vacuum, although I have learned to my astonishment that some people don't know how to vacuum well. Cooking is harder, but estrogen doesn't make it less hard.

[Saydrah]

Raps, I think gender roles originally evolved because the sex differences physically prevented early humans from having non-traditional gender roles. For example, no breast pumps. In a hunter/gatherer society, a woman couldn't really go off chucking spears at mammoths with a baby latched onto each teat. Also, there's the theory that humans lost their hair originally because they were semi-aquatic at the stage that's more commonly believed to have been the hunter/gatherer stage, and going out in the water to fish with a baby attached would have been difficult. Then there's pregnancy and the lack of birth control, etc.

Of course, early societies were matriarchal because (according to most theories) humans were originally unaware that men played a part in the production of babies. Thus, women were held in high esteem and believed to have the ability to choose to give birth and continue the tribe. However, again due to a lack of technology to overcome sex differences, even in these societies women did not take the active role of hunting. In addition, men were expendable in early societies because one man could impregnate many women, while women were kept out of danger since more women were necessary to continue the tribe's lineage. Now, monogamy is the norm and men who father children with many mothers are frowned upon, so men are no longer automatically supposed to take on more dangerous roles and can instead stay home with children if they like.

Now we have the ability for women to choose birth control or sterilization to prevent pregnancy from interfering with work, to pump milk in order to be able to leave a baby, to purchase childcare services, to return to work shortly after having a baby, etc., but gender roles are so ingrained in society that many women don't aspire to traditionally male jobs and household roles.

[AdminAssistant]

Mainly, because of what my father said to me once. That is "you should get a girlfriend, so you have someone to cook and clean for you" :eek: My reaction? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not going to date someone so they'll clean my house. That's just wrong. It's not like I make a mess to begin with :rolleyes:

Sadly I have a friend who feels this way. ("Why should I have to learn to iron/cook/clean? When I get married my wife will do it.") Surprisingly enough, he is still single.

I really hate the idea that because I am female, there is pressure for me to get married and have children, and then either 1) be forced to give up my career to be a housewife or 2) be told I am the worst mother in the world for working. It's why the idea of having children is very unappealing to me right now.

[Boozy]

My reaction? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not going to date someone so they'll clean my house. That's just wrong.

Your mom did right in raising you. :)

This subject is a tough one for people to think rationally about, because we're all so personally affected by it. Many, if not most of us, were probably raised in so-called "traditional" homes where our mothers, even if they worked outside the house, did the bulk of the work at home too. And if we had a happy childhood, it can be natural to attribute that to said traditional division of labour. So we have to challenge the way we think about these things.

Personally, I was raised by a stay-at-home mom and a father who worked so much that I have no memories of him before the age of 10. My husband was raised in a similar environment. Is that why he is so career-oriented and I'm not? Is that why whenever we discuss the particulars of having children, both of us immediately assume that I'll quit my job? And is this a choice we're actually making, or are we just blindly following gender expectations?

How many men actually feel completely free to ask themselves, "Do I want to stay at home with my children?" How many mothers feel guilty if they take a job outside the home and leave the kids with a sitter? How many still feel guilty if they leave their children with their own father? How many women do you hear referring to their husband's time with his children as "babysitting"?

Questions to think about. I have no answers. But I do think it's pointless to focus so much on women's equality in the workplace when there is not yet total equality in the home - for either sex.

[MystyGlyttyr]

I don't know about other women, but I've been at the newspaper and haven't advanced in three years because I don't WANT to.

It might sound odd, but I'm happy in the job I've got right now, and I can see that moving to another position would take away things I like and add things I hate. I'm happy with my salary (well, mostly) and hours, and happy with the responsibilities I have, so I don't want to move anywhere else (at least not in this company).

Now, my guy friends, on the other hand, have this habit of getting in a job they hate simply because it's up the ladder. They were perfectly happy in their job as a forklift operator or stocker or what-have-you, but leapt at a chance to move up even though they knew straight away it would be an added stress level or so.

So...not going by any studies here...do women have a habit of finding a position they like and clinging to it while men prefer to just climb for the hell of climbing? (Of me and my friends, only two are family men that might want raises for that reason, the rest of us are singles taking care of ourselves, so that's not the reason as far as I can tell.)

I wonder if anyone ever has actually gotten down and studied this?

[protege]

This subject is a tough one for people to think rationally about, because we're all so personally affected by it. Many, if not most of us, were probably raised in so-called "traditional" homes where our mothers, even if they worked outside the house, did the bulk of the work at home too. And if we had a happy childhood, it can be natural to attribute that to said traditional division of labour. So we have to challenge the way we think about these things.


That's the point I was trying to make. I don't think my dad was trying to be an asshole when he said what he did. Simply, I think that's how he was raised. I mean, in the 1940s, up until the 1960s, it was common for the mother to stay at home, while the father went to work. His parents did it (well, until he reached school age, anyway), his grandparents did it, etc. Same with my mother's side--the men went to work in the fields, and the women stayed home to take care of the house.

I do know one thing, my grandmother on Mom's side...is still resentful for being stuck at home all the time. Sure, she was a damn great cook, and took care of everyone. However, she had a chance to go to college...and wasn't allowed because of her father. The bastard actually *forbid* her, meaning she never got to realize her potential. However, I can understand *why* that happened--in the 1930s, it simply didn't happen.

[ArcticChicken]

I don't like laws that grant consideration to someone because of some factor they have no control over, because a law that gets me a better job or better pay because I'm a woman is still sexist. Sure, it works out to my advantage, but I'd rather get it because I'm the most qualified person for the job, and if I'm not, I'd honestly rather see someone else have it.

On the other hand, there are people out there who won't give me my due consideration because of the mere fact of my gender, and that's not cool either. I don't have a solution to the problem, I'm not sure this is one, except to teach my kids to be less prejudiced than I am, like my parents taught me.

[Pedersen]

Just read a joke that made me think of this thread for some reason.

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/90q1/arrest.11.html