In your own world of friends, family, work etc., do you think things are pretty balanced between the two genders?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Obviously if you look at the world in general or even the country in general, things are still skewed towards men and women are discriminated. But when I look at the actual environment I live in, which is a mainly white, middle-class environment in a 1st world country, I think things are pretty balanced. When I look at my female friends and family members, I don't see that they're particularly disadvantaged in terms of the career ambitions, romantic life or the ability to achieve the things they want to achieve. Obviously, the two genders are not treated in the same way and both suffer a level of discrimination, but I think the gender advantages and disadvantages balance each other out.

What say you?

― Person of unspecified gender, Friday, 3 October 2003 13:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree that both male and female genders (are three any others here?) have roughly the same chances/opportunities to achieve what they want.

Often they want slightly different things

― mei (mei), Friday, 3 October 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I think most of the opportunities are there, and one just has to try hard to get what they want, but sometimes it's a difference of how hard one has to try. I do think that the better you fit into a traditional gender role, the easier time you'll have of pursuing a job that's traditional for that gender. See the male-dominated professions of construction, welding, engineering and the female-dominated professions of city librarian, child care, social work.

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 3 October 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Everything except the menstruating and scratching of balls. Those mystifyingly still follow outdated traditional gender roles.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 3 October 2003 15:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I have scratched a few balls in my day and stand up for my sisters' right to do same.

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 3 October 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I once worked in a boutique that sold mainly ladies' costume jewelry.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 3 October 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Other professions that are male-dominated: CEO of major companies, political leaders, millionaires, senior judges...

One other note: number of countries in the world where women earn as much as men: zero. That has some way to go before we have evidence of equal opportunity, I think.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 3 October 2003 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

well, I am by far the lowest paid member of my work-place, which is almost 50/50 m:f. And the top spot (or the second-from-top-spot actually, but the top-spot in terms of day-to-day in-your-face dilly-o) is held by a female.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 3 October 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

In my workplace experience, women with children (sometimes referred to as "mothers") expect, and get, far more latitude in job flexibility (modified hours, telecommuting, etc.) than women without children and men either w/ or w/o them.

I also think it is total bullshit that women at my company can take six weeks off to have a baby but others can't have six weeks off to finish a novel or go to Africa or whatever on the 60% full time pay that our company provides for maternity leave. Total bullshit.

― quincie, Friday, 3 October 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I would say it's fairly even for me. But then I live in a fairly "progressive" place. My gf makes about double what I do.

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Friday, 3 October 2003 19:48 (twenty-two years ago)

In my workplace experience, anyone who asks for job flexibility (for health or parental reasons) gets it, but people like me who whip their ass in productivity get promoted. Is this fair?

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 3 October 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

hell yeah

― the surface noise (electricsound), Saturday, 4 October 2003 00:30 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, teeny, I think that is completely fair.

what bugs me most about the situation at my company is that the powers that be think that baby-having is worth a long leave WITH PAY but no other activity is so worthy as to merit paid leave. if the leave was without pay it would be one thing -- anyone (mommy-to-be or otherwise) could just suck it up and go for as long as they like without a paycheck. but why can't I get 60% full time pay to go off and do my own thing for six week without a pregnancy being involved? what if I wanted to go do six months of charitable work? nope, only baby-having gets you your six weeks at 60%.

the other day i heard two women talking (one was preggo) and one said to the other "oh, isn't having a baby the most special, unique experience in the world?" i was sorely tempted to point out that women have been birthing babies for thousands of years en masse. i can't think of too many things LESS special and unique than having a baby.

NOT having children is far more unique, given that less than a quarter of all women will not ever have a pregnancy in their lifetimes.

― quincie, Saturday, 4 October 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm as much a baby-hater as anyone, but the rationale is that without good parents, the babies turn into shitty teenagers/adults and make EVERYONE'S life misery, downfall of society follows, etc.

― teeny (teeny), Saturday, 4 October 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Bugs me too. It's really stupid _and_ sexist, yes?

― mei (mei), Sunday, 5 October 2003 08:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Kind-of. But remember that this same woman will never make partner at her law firm or run her own company. Not that she should necessarily, because she didn't put in the hours, but that's the score.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 5 October 2003 10:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm in favour of MORE leave for people having babies, but I think it should be allocated very differently - a basic quota for the mother(-to-be) as she has all the actual childbirthing to do and that warrants some leave, and more to share as they choose, so that the man could get the rest if he were to be the one to stay home and care for the baby during the initial months.

One point is that companies still prejudice against women because they have children and are therefore likely to want time off to care for them when sick, or if they are young anyway on the basis that they will probably leave to have kids in a year or two anyway, or start wanting lots of maternity leave. There are regulations against such prejudice, but that does not stop it happening.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 5 October 2003 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

But I find this rationale odd. Companies are also prejudiced against hiring employees who are chronically ill, or late to work, or have other priorities that interfere with their ability to perform the work required of them. And one would be hard pressed to pass legislation against this sort of discrimination. Why should rules about employees who choose to take time of to have children (whether male or female) be any different?

― mouse, Sunday, 5 October 2003 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't say that the women choose to take time off: I said employers decide that they might, and therefore prejudice against them. They think the women are more likely to take time off than the men with children; they assume women are working until they stop/break for kids, while men aren't. You have taken what was carefully stated as assumptions of employers and turned them into facts about the women.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 5 October 2003 19:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah, I'm sorry. I thought that you meant by:

One point is that companies still prejudice against women because they have children and are therefore likely to want time off to care for them when sick...

That you took umbrage with companies choosing not to hire women (or men) who have children at the time that they are hired. Which I think would be silly. I agree that it's unfair and a great example of gendered prejudice to assume that women without children are more likely to have children in the near future than their male counterparts.counterparts

― mouse, Sunday, 5 October 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course I also object to the fact that companies are prejudiced against women with children! My point was that they assume women with children are unreliable because they will want extra time off, an angle they will rarely apply to men*. These stereotyped attitudes become a self-fulfilling prophecy of course: women are the ones expected to be the carers, so have a better chance of getting time off and find it easier to ask and probably easier to get; and are given less opportunity and advancement because of this, making it easier for them to find slack in their schedules than men and reinforcing further these attitudes. It's a cycle that will be inescapable as long as misogynists see it as sensible and reasonable policy not to regard women with children as reliable employees. Can you really see nothing wrong in this? It's like talking to Calum!

*Actually, it's worse than this: I've heard the idea expressed lots of time that men with children are more stable and less likely to flit off and take risks, and therefore more reliable employees - I have never ever heard this said of women. Doublethink at its finest.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 5 October 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Companies are also prejudiced against hiring employees who are chronically ill, or late to work, or have other priorities that interfere with their ability to perform the work required of them. And one would be hard pressed to pass legislation against this sort of discrimination. Why should rules about employees who choose to take time of to have children (whether male or female) be any different?

There is legislation (at least in the states) regarding descriminating against chronically ill [potential] employees. Companies aren't allowed to ask and aren't technically allowed to know about any illness an interviewee may or may not have. Employees with chronic illnesses are also allowed to take [unpaid] leave with a doctor's okay without disclosing the illness or the reason for leave.

Of course it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice, and it's often the case that a boss knows an employee has a health condition which would potentially make him or her a less productive worker.

The point Martin is making is that women are assumed to be potentially less productive just by virtue of being women and thus potentially women-with-children or women-with-potential-children.

― martin m. (mushrush), Sunday, 5 October 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

The other point Martin is making is that women-with-children are viewed differently than men-with-children... Sorry I didn't mean to boil Martin's comments down and lose part of them.

― martin m. (mushrush), Sunday, 5 October 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I have no problem with the assumption that people with children are likely to be less reliable employees. The same would be assumed true for a potential employee who stated that he/she would frequently miss work to go to band practice, or work on a novel (I am not saying that this makes them any less worthwhile people, just people that an employer might by reluctant to hire). Given that their are laws in place to protect people who choose to have children, would it be surprising that an employer would try to avoid having his/her hands tied in this fashion?

Like I said, I do agree with you that it is unfair to assume that women are more likely to take time off to have children than are men. Also, that this is quite possibly a consequence of those same gender biased laws. I just think that quincie made a valid point. A better way to deal with this might be to do away with maternity and paternity leave and institute something with more universal applicability.

― mouse, Sunday, 5 October 2003 21:18 (twenty-two years ago)

amongst my friends, things are pretty equal, but i wouldn't hang out with people who were sexist. i grew up in a family with trad 50s values. mum stay at home look after kids, dad work and remains aloof from his offspring. women still do the majority of housework and parenting, even in households which claim to be egalitarian. in my work: well in one job i get winked at and patronised by lots of male customers, i imagine its par for the course as a receptionist. in my future career, things are FAR from equal, and i'm talking a university here. at the uni i work/study at, there are a total of around three female HODs. my supervisor is one of em, she's not even a full professor. there are only about 3 female full professors in the entire university. its far from balanced.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Sunday, 5 October 2003 22:42 (twenty-two years ago)

and martin s completely OTM regarding parental leave.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Sunday, 5 October 2003 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

oh and regarding my university: there have been recent moves to try and scrap the women's rights officers in the students association, because APPARENTLY they aren't necessary anymore. the "logic" behind this is that 55% of the students are female, so OBVIOUSLY things are equal now.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Sunday, 5 October 2003 22:55 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.