Real feminists, meaning the ones that actually know about gender studies and have read a lot, they do demand that also men should get the rights they deserve, like the ones you talked about. They don't just blindly defend women. In many countries, men have earned parental permits thanks to the feminists.
I'm sure many men would love to spend time with their kids. An obvious obstacle to this is the inconvenient fact that roughly 85% of mothers are given full custody of the kids after divorce. Most marriages end in divorce and most divorces are brought by women. You also got that bit where men who don't pay child support can be sent to prison even though debtor's prison has supposedly been made illegal.
while i agree that men should share in raising children, (i for one look forward to having kids of my own), men are two times likely to request joint or full custody of children, while mothers are almost 5.5 times more likely to request full (instead of joint) custody of their children. I believe the problem lies not solely with men, but society as a whole, and gender norms perpetuated by both sexes. People assume that many men are incapable caregivers, or simply not as good as a mother/woman.
Crazy Wolfgang I've worked with female construction workers. I've probably worked with 20. only 2 of them were actually competent builders. women just really aren't laborer material. one reason is physical ability but the main reason is. girls are brought up to be femenine. getting dirty and building things has never been femenine. the only reason there are competent female builders is because over time we have progressed to let children do what they want to do. and not judge. so contrary to what the femenists preach. we have actually progressed not masoginized.
or women who dedicate their lives to their work, much like many men bury their heads in their work. The difference is, many women will bury their heads in family, leaving less chance to get ahead of their male counterparts. Women often work less overtime than men, so if i'm an employer and i see two candidates (man + woman) with equal qualification but the male has more experience...then it's a no brainer that i'd go for the male.
Regardless of what patterns and stereotypes exist, individuals should be hired as just that. Individuals. A woman shouldn't be disregarded for a position because "most women" aren't good at leadership roles or "most women" aren't as strong as men or "most women" are more likely to get pregnant and prioritize family over their career. This is lazy and inefficient thinking that creates an unnecessary barrier for potentially fantastic workers based on a gamble.
Too many people confuse equal results with equal opportunity. Women have every opportunity to succeed in career as men do. Saying the lack of results is because of sexism is just academic laziness and an unwillingness to look for real answers. Crying sexism is just a political tactic to gain special treatment and it has been working, so it's unlikely to stop.
+uchibenkei BC Stats, “Mind the Gap: Income Inequality Growing,” Business Indicators (January 2012) www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2012/12/CCPA-BC_BC_Disadvantage_for_Women_0.pdf . These are what facts look like.... but you seem to be happy in your ignorance is bliss look at the world.
+uchibenkei A yes, but saying that all the observed discrepancies you see is because women are naturally not good at/not interested in certain fields without providing any evidence for that isn't academic laziness at all.
She didn't say that these women are being rejected because of what they might do. She's saying that these women are being rejected because of what they're actually doing.
I work in an industrial environment with hundreds of workers. We have a lot of women working with us, very few that can keep up with the heavily physical nature of the work. The company (multinational mining/industrial company) saves the easier and better jobs for them. Men don't find their way up to those positions unless they come from the top, as a sideways move or as work experience for a college graduate. Such jobs include training, administration, laboratory, leading, etc.
and by the way, if you compare the females that get away with "false rape claims" you´ll see that they are way lees that the ones that were actually raped and could not get justice. It is not easy to get away with a false rape claim, because they have to make studies and to find the DNA of the men acussed in the body of the victim, alongside woth other charateristics.
i agree with your point that those are not ideals of true feminism. I just feel that many people who are self declared "feminists" dont understand your point. I absolutely agree that there are plenty out there who will meet the demands, but i feel from personal experience that there are many who dont understand that there must be equal demands. Similarly, I totally support true feminism, but find the movement being diluted by people who don't truely understand what it means to be a feminist.
Everyone has challenges in their lives not just women. They aren't making it to the top because of their properties as an individual, not because of their sex.
My comment was not meant to be an attack on feminism or feminist ideas, but rather the movement's departure from its roots, and how many claim to be feminists without understanding the true meaning. Many associate the feminist movement with a hatred of men, and ignore the societal prejudices that men face. I apologize if i phrased it in such a way that it looked like i was anti feminist.
The 'challenges that women face all the way through their career' are exactly the same as the challenges men face, except for the affirmative action, all women short lists, benevolent sexism, etc
equal opportunity won't nessasarily mean equal outcome. Leaving a career to raise kids is a choice and does not automatically mean there's discrimination. Also the discrimination toward men raising children, especialy in divorce, drops the burder on women and takes them off the career path. Freeing women to pursue careers goes hand in hand with trusting men to be care-givers.
Women generally do worse when it comes to getting top positions because of life choices. The biological drive to be a mother and start a family is the sole reason many women do not obtain the top jobs. Unless you make your own company, it's very hard (male or female) to get a Executive job by the time you're 35. Before this time, women usually start families and as they are the primary caregivers, they'll lose the opportunity to become executives more often than men. Is it fair? Well it's a life choice. If a woman wanted both she could achieve it but it would be very difficult to obtain. A woman would have to nurture her baby, whilst working overtime which would mean less rest, which in turn leads to bad decisions made and that could be problematic for the company. If the woman had a man in her life to take care of the baby then it could work but the problem with that is most women have a maternal instinct which causes them to be addicted to their baby. It's a switch that can't be turned off. The proposed solution: Well I've heard about quota's which means that companies will be forced to allocate spaces for women. The problem with this is that it's unfair to those that did work overtime all those years. The hiring of people no longer becomes due to merit and is down to genders. That is the purest form of sexism. The fact that you hire someone because of their gender and not their merits is a horrible idea. Overall, i think the system is fair. There is equal opportunity out there, but you have to want it. Ask any woman out there who is 40 years old and not an executive what stopped them becoimng an executive...the answer will be having a family.
L.M Thank you for such an intelligent and well discussed argument! The best articulated post I've seen on this topic by far. I agree completely! Positive discrimination in favour of women is NOT the solution and is just a shifting of discrimination towards toward men. Not to the mention the fact that I would find it utterly insulting to my intelligence if I was awarded a job simply because I am a woman and they are trying to fill a quota and not because I was actually the most suitable candidate and EARNED that position - which btw, mirrors the feeling if the opposite were to happen and I didn't get a job simply because I am female. In most developed countries in the world, opportunities are equal for both sexes and women's greatest disadvantage in the workplace has nothing to do with discrimination, but rather our childbearing potential and our choice to use it in most cases. Like you said, it's in women's DNA to have that maternal desire to be with our baby 24/7, and society's attempt to accommodate new mothers so that they can continue working shortly is not making them feel any better about leaving their child with a stranger all day at some daycare centre. Unfortunately it's the only solution for women who try to have it all. It's not good for the children either. What's best for them is to be loved and cared for, have a solid foundation and a stable routine with lots of attention and exposure to their mothers. A big dilemma... with no easy solution.
Shannon Grech Thanks for that high praise. Much appreciated. What annoys me the most about the quota is not even the sexism that is openly displayed against men. The worst thing is women like you that worked hard at something and probably did deserve that promotion, will never know if you really did. Women will lose that sense of accomplishment. Also the men in the office will not respect you as much as they would have done if you made it on your own. In this particular situation, I always argue that feminism is toxic to women's rise in the workplace.
Definitely. I will graduate from uni next year and would like to think that I will be judged equally amongst the men, as it should be, as real feminists would have it. Not as any more favourably or any less, but as equal. Unfortunately in the back of my mind is that fear that all my hard work will be meaningless if I eventually choose to start a family. After taking a break to give birth, my chances at career progression, understandably, diminish considerably. My boyfriend (future father of my kids) is not so keen on the idea of his career going on hold to help me care for our children. Why would he be? Society does not put the same expectations on men to be the caregivers. As long as they are supporting their family financially, that is considered enough. This is where the focus should turn to. Men need to start fighting more for their paternal rights, not only to help their wives/partners maintain stamina in their careers, but also so that they can have a more active role in the raising of their children. Too many men are failing to support their wives' career prospects in this respect. There needs to be a seismic shift in thought on men's responsibilities towards their family that transcends breadwinning. Sometimes I wish I was born a man so that I wouldn't have to worry about the thought of losing my career or giving up my dreams for a family. But see.. there's the problem right there. Because men don't worry about these things. Women are left to figure it out for themselves. Sorry for the rant :/
I don't mind the rant...it's a welcome break from studying. As it's true that men are not expected to be the primary caregivers, alot of that is due to biology again. As soon as a child is born, he/she is dependent on the mother. A mothers breast milk is good in the early stages of a baby's life in terms of helping the immune system which has not fully matured yet. Then there's the time spent with the baby. The more time spent with a baby, the more attached you become. I couldn't imagine many mothers that would like to walk away from their baby that cries out for them. So i think it is just natural for women to be primary caregivers. As for men being the primary caregiver, I remember reading somewhere how the early radical feminist group managed to take over the court system and argued the importance of the child to be with the mother rather than the father. It is because of this that mothers will overwhelmingly win the child custody battles and this just belittles the importance of a father in a child's life. Unless the courts recognize it, there's no way that men will be considered primary caregivers and there are many fathers that really do want to be it. So men don't have the same choice because women have the child. Men don't require a paternity leave, nor do they require to be with a child all the time. The thing is, there's no real solution to this. 1) One way i can see this being solved is if you nurture your child for a period of a couple months and then you go back to work and leave everything on the father. Problem with that is alot of men (although they'd love to just sit back and relax at home all day) need a job. It's part of their identity so I doubt they want to give that up. 2) Another option is a nanny, but some women don't enjoy the thought of a stranger looking after their child. 3) Freeze your eggs and have children later, but then you're kids will be young while you're so old. 4) Get a job that doesn't require so much of your time. So brokerage firms for example would not be a good place for women wanting children. Jobs with a skill that you could go back to easily helps such as doctor, dentist, teacher etc. Or even be your own boss. 5) Don't have kids.
Well put. I'm juggling options 4) and 5) right now. I don't like the idea of being an old parent and if I have a child at all I want to be there 100%. Nanny-raised children are generally hyperactive, undisciplined and rude (not stereotyping on this, my youngest brother is a classic case. And he's still a nightmare at 15). It's true that men and women have innate, distinct characteristics that we can't deny or ignore, such as the validity and identity men find in their jobs. I honestly like the 'no kids' option more but everyone I share this view with condescendingly tells me how young I am and that I'll change my mind. It's disheartening and they act like my perspective is invalid until I'm actually at the age to make a proper choice. Although I imagine that if I choose against children altogether at that point I will experience a whole new range of judgement. Please tell me being a male (i'm assuming you're a guy here) has its pitfalls too lol
They weren't even his a DNA Test proved it and the real kicker is she was married to him before they were even born and encouraged him to go into Army. He accepted someone else's kids and went into the army with her blessing.
i totally agree if men took a year off to give birth, he could never expect his job to be there when he came back. Obviously, men can raise children if women want to go to work, but many women dont want to do that. Inherently, when women drop out or choose to raise children instead, there are going to be fewer women, explaining the pyramid she was talking about.
Why should part time work set you in the track for a promotion? There are others who work full time and are willing to commit for the company working extra hours in times when they company needs the support, so why should those who set their priorities on their family advance? There is nothing unfair abouth that it is just a matter of choice.
i agree gender statistics shouldn't be kept: the most qualified candidates should be hired, regardless of gender or race, and if men are much more well qualified, so be it and if women are more qualified, again, so be it! feminists want men and women to be artificially made equal.
I dont blame you. My comment sounded harsher than i meant, rereading it now. I agree that unfortunately the idiots tend to be the loudest. I absolutely agree that there are tons of legit feminists out there, but it pains me to see such a noble goal be degraded by people who dont understand it, and see the same people begin an open tirade about men and their hateful bigotry, when their movement is actually about empowering, and helping women.
What about the fact that women have equal opportunity but continually take lower paying jobs because they prefer a flexible with little or no chance of being injured more dangerous jobs usually have more pay and the fact that a man who is likely to have more experience then a woman who has the same job?
most men get away with not paying child support...i met alot of men while being homeless that were homeless on purpose not to pay child support! and if these men wanted to be with teir children they would find away no matter what...it is a joke to say that most marriages are "brought to an end by women" marriage is two ppl together...but if things get too hard ppl just give up...and usually men want to be in control, when in reality marriage is a partnership between the two ppl
Precisely. There is only one ceiling, and it's there for the taking...if you're well-connected (e.g., a member of what George Carlin refers to as the "Big Club"); already possess multi-millions in (high-performing) stocks, currency, tangible gold and silver; real estate; regular returns on investments...and displaying sociopath/psychopath tendencies (because to get to the top requires doing heinous, soul-sacrificing deeds from time to time; things people who are strongly entrenched in morals, ethics, and principles just can't stomach--chalk it off to having a conscience beyond a life of providing for oneself and family and stockholders). Being agreeable/going along to get along is contrary to top-executive traits. Being difficult, critical, ultra-demanding, with a cutthroat nature that seeks to eliminate or mortally wound one's competition. These attributes are very common among national and for-profit business leaders, world over. If you don't possess a killer instinct, with a passion for amassing power and the wealth and political clout which accompanies it, then you are fairly much limited to breaking non-profit ceilings.
She did divorce him i know because he just so happens to be my cousin and he didn't deserve to be treated that way, especially after what he forgave her for she also called herself feminist and she was much like you in they way you prushed off things she doesn't want to here.
Certain things just can't work on the basis of hunches, feelings and intuition. I've had former girlfriends and former lady bosses that expected me to know by telepathy what is in their heads. Former.
Maybe she had enough & needed a break & he shouldn't of had kids if he's not there 2care 4them Do u think u need 2 consider giving up your job or putting your career on hold just 2 have kids,. it's like this. Take a career break 2look after a child & watch your employability rating drop like a stone. The message is, if you're a woman, don't have kids. If u do you'll be punished 4 your selfish actions. Why are many complying with this one harmful, anti-children, anti-human, anti-sentient system?
I disagree about your point of what feminists want, but then, that's just another annoying matter of placing the beliefs of many individuals under one umbrella label. I'm sure there are some who call themselves feminists and ask for benefits which they are not willing to work for. However, I don't think that is an inherent ideal of feminism, as that would contradict the central goal of gender equality; equal treatment also means equal demands, and true feminists are prepared to meet them.
With 200 applications from people you barely know and very shallow data given, patterns and stereotypes are the only way forward. The grades and qualifications you're awarded often have many flaws that can be abused and many people get a qualification without deserving it. But generally it is a good indicator. the same way generally women have to think about families so you'll be more weary. Don't get me wrong, it's unjust. But calling them lazy and inefficient is also unjust.
Have you ever been stuck watching a newborn, Twins and their older sister because their mom divorced their father because he was fighting overseas and she was out partying until the nexyt day?
I think the problem starts with the way people teach their daughters to communicate with others. Most people teach their daughters that she has all the goodies and if anybody wants them they should come ask her and if she's feeling generous then she might give some. But in the professional world you have to come bearing gifts all the time.
You should read the social contract .. all these things are all thought out by the unbiased .. women get lesser sentences because their children need them more than the prisons do. Psychologically a young child is more emotionally dependent on their mother & the courts consider the child over the parent .. from the age of 7 a child is asked by the court who they want 2 live with, so that's one of the reasons y men don't get custody because the child wants 2be with it's mother ..so y r u whining
@jontycampbell Meaning we are constantly lied to about wage gaps and glass ceilings and how oppressed women are. Google 'why men earn more' and read up on it a bit.
you and 15 other people are insane, you say "women prioritize family over career" is misleading, it is "women prioritize what makes them happy over their career, and the percent of women and how much, increases as the women is more successful" taking that gamble creates risk, and barriers for cycling out poor upper management, because a women in a spot will likely lead to a gap in upper management training, and promotions ladder.
what about the father who put HIS career on hold AND his life on the line to protect all of us at home sitting on our butts? You dont have to support the war, but you should always support our troops. (sorry for the tangent but just decided to interject some patriotic stuff)
Real feminists, meaning the ones that actually know about gender studies and have read a lot, they do demand that also men should get the rights they deserve, like the ones you talked about. They don't just blindly defend women. In many countries, men have earned parental permits thanks to the feminists.
I'm sure many men would love to spend time with their kids. An obvious obstacle to this is the inconvenient fact that roughly 85% of mothers are given full custody of the kids after divorce. Most marriages end in divorce and most divorces are brought by women. You also got that bit where men who don't pay child support can be sent to prison even though debtor's prison has supposedly been made illegal.
while i agree that men should share in raising children, (i for one look forward to having kids of my own),
men are two times likely to request joint or full custody of children, while mothers are almost 5.5 times more likely to request full (instead of joint) custody of their children. I believe the problem lies not solely with men, but society as a whole, and gender norms perpetuated by both sexes. People assume that many men are incapable caregivers, or simply not as good as a mother/woman.
Never heard a feminist complain about lack of females amongst construction worker
Crazy Wolfgang I've worked with female construction workers. I've probably worked with 20. only 2 of them were actually competent builders. women just really aren't laborer material. one reason is physical ability but the main reason is. girls are brought up to be femenine. getting dirty and building things has never been femenine. the only reason there are competent female builders is because over time we have progressed to let children do what they want to do. and not judge. so contrary to what the femenists preach. we have actually progressed not masoginized.
and
"What kinds of women make it to the top?"
Manly women.
or women who dedicate their lives to their work, much like many men bury their heads in their work. The difference is, many women will bury their heads in family, leaving less chance to get ahead of their male counterparts. Women often work less overtime than men, so if i'm an employer and i see two candidates (man + woman) with equal qualification but the male has more experience...then it's a no brainer that i'd go for the male.
Regardless of what patterns and stereotypes exist, individuals should be hired as just that. Individuals. A woman shouldn't be disregarded for a position because "most women" aren't good at leadership roles or "most women" aren't as strong as men or "most women" are more likely to get pregnant and prioritize family over their career. This is lazy and inefficient thinking that creates an unnecessary barrier for potentially fantastic workers based on a gamble.
I love her mannerisms.
Too many people confuse equal results with equal opportunity. Women have every opportunity to succeed in career as men do. Saying the lack of results is because of sexism is just academic laziness and an unwillingness to look for real answers. Crying sexism is just a political tactic to gain special treatment and it has been working, so it's unlikely to stop.
uchibenkei I think I believe the Dr of Psychology from North Western over this one
Thea M
that's nice. i think i don't give a shit what you believe, especially since you only believe what you want to hear. I believe in facts.
+uchibenkei
BC Stats, “Mind the Gap: Income Inequality Growing,”
Business Indicators (January 2012) www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2012/12/CCPA-BC_BC_Disadvantage_for_Women_0.pdf .
These are what facts look like.... but you seem to be happy in your ignorance is bliss look at the world.
+uchibenkei A yes, but saying that all the observed discrepancies you see is because women are naturally not good at/not interested in certain fields without providing any evidence for that isn't academic laziness at all.
She didn't say that these women are being rejected because of what they might do. She's saying that these women are being rejected because of what they're actually doing.
Most of the commenters are men. Are they the only ones looking this up?
Not really
I work in an industrial environment with hundreds of workers. We have a lot of women working with us, very few that can keep up with the heavily physical nature of the work. The company (multinational mining/industrial company) saves the easier and better jobs for them. Men don't find their way up to those positions unless they come from the top, as a sideways move or as work experience for a college graduate. Such jobs include training, administration, laboratory, leading, etc.
Try being falsely accused of a sex crime sometime and see if you "get away with it." Also, women abandon their kids all the time. #misandry
and by the way, if you compare the females that get away with "false rape claims" you´ll see that they are way lees that the ones that were actually raped and could not get justice. It is not easy to get away with a false rape claim, because they have to make studies and to find the DNA of the men acussed in the body of the victim, alongside woth other charateristics.
Most people value family over career. Men work hard so they can have a family. I think it's that simple.
i agree with your point that those are not ideals of true feminism. I just feel that many people who are self declared "feminists" dont understand your point. I absolutely agree that there are plenty out there who will meet the demands, but i feel from personal experience that there are many who dont understand that there must be equal demands. Similarly, I totally support true feminism, but find the movement being diluted by people who don't truely understand what it means to be a feminist.
Everyone has challenges in their lives not just women. They aren't making it to the top because of their properties as an individual, not because of their sex.
My comment was not meant to be an attack on feminism or feminist ideas, but rather the movement's departure from its roots, and how many claim to be feminists without understanding the true meaning. Many associate the feminist movement with a hatred of men, and ignore the societal prejudices that men face.
I apologize if i phrased it in such a way that it looked like i was anti feminist.
Can you please explain what she was trying to say in this part 1:27-1:54? I need to know for my sociology homework
So did you submit your homework?
The 'challenges that women face all the way through their career' are exactly the same as the challenges men face, except for the affirmative action, all women short lists, benevolent sexism, etc
equal opportunity won't nessasarily mean equal outcome. Leaving a career to raise kids is a choice and does not automatically mean there's discrimination.
Also the discrimination toward men raising children, especialy in divorce, drops the burder on women and takes them off the career path. Freeing women to pursue careers goes hand in hand with trusting men to be care-givers.
Women generally do worse when it comes to getting top positions because of life choices. The biological drive to be a mother and start a family is the sole reason many women do not obtain the top jobs. Unless you make your own company, it's very hard (male or female) to get a Executive job by the time you're 35. Before this time, women usually start families and as they are the primary caregivers, they'll lose the opportunity to become executives more often than men.
Is it fair? Well it's a life choice. If a woman wanted both she could achieve it but it would be very difficult to obtain. A woman would have to nurture her baby, whilst working overtime which would mean less rest, which in turn leads to bad decisions made and that could be problematic for the company. If the woman had a man in her life to take care of the baby then it could work but the problem with that is most women have a maternal instinct which causes them to be addicted to their baby. It's a switch that can't be turned off.
The proposed solution: Well I've heard about quota's which means that companies will be forced to allocate spaces for women. The problem with this is that it's unfair to those that did work overtime all those years. The hiring of people no longer becomes due to merit and is down to genders. That is the purest form of sexism. The fact that you hire someone because of their gender and not their merits is a horrible idea.
Overall, i think the system is fair. There is equal opportunity out there, but you have to want it. Ask any woman out there who is 40 years old and not an executive what stopped them becoimng an executive...the answer will be having a family.
L.M Thank you for such an intelligent and well discussed argument! The best articulated post I've seen on this topic by far. I agree completely! Positive discrimination in favour of women is NOT the solution and is just a shifting of discrimination towards toward men. Not to the mention the fact that I would find it utterly insulting to my intelligence if I was awarded a job simply because I am a woman and they are trying to fill a quota and not because I was actually the most suitable candidate and EARNED that position - which btw, mirrors the feeling if the opposite were to happen and I didn't get a job simply because I am female.
In most developed countries in the world, opportunities are equal for both sexes and women's greatest disadvantage in the workplace has nothing to do with discrimination, but rather our childbearing potential and our choice to use it in most cases. Like you said, it's in women's DNA to have that maternal desire to be with our baby 24/7, and society's attempt to accommodate new mothers so that they can continue working shortly is not making them feel any better about leaving their child with a stranger all day at some daycare centre. Unfortunately it's the only solution for women who try to have it all. It's not good for the children either. What's best for them is to be loved and cared for, have a solid foundation and a stable routine with lots of attention and exposure to their mothers.
A big dilemma... with no easy solution.
Shannon Grech Thanks for that high praise. Much appreciated.
What annoys me the most about the quota is not even the sexism that is openly displayed against men. The worst thing is women like you that worked hard at something and probably did deserve that promotion, will never know if you really did. Women will lose that sense of accomplishment. Also the men in the office will not respect you as much as they would have done if you made it on your own. In this particular situation, I always argue that feminism is toxic to women's rise in the workplace.
Definitely. I will graduate from uni next year and would like to think that I will be judged equally amongst the men, as it should be, as real feminists would have it. Not as any more favourably or any less, but as equal.
Unfortunately in the back of my mind is that fear that all my hard work will be meaningless if I eventually choose to start a family. After taking a break to give birth, my chances at career progression, understandably, diminish considerably. My boyfriend (future father of my kids) is not so keen on the idea of his career going on hold to help me care for our children. Why would he be? Society does not put the same expectations on men to be the caregivers. As long as they are supporting their family financially, that is considered enough. This is where the focus should turn to. Men need to start fighting more for their paternal rights, not only to help their wives/partners maintain stamina in their careers, but also so that they can have a more active role in the raising of their children. Too many men are failing to support their wives' career prospects in this respect. There needs to be a seismic shift in thought on men's responsibilities towards their family that transcends breadwinning.
Sometimes I wish I was born a man so that I wouldn't have to worry about the thought of losing my career or giving up my dreams for a family. But see.. there's the problem right there. Because men don't worry about these things. Women are left to figure it out for themselves.
Sorry for the rant :/
I don't mind the rant...it's a welcome break from studying.
As it's true that men are not expected to be the primary caregivers, alot of that is due to biology again. As soon as a child is born, he/she is dependent on the mother. A mothers breast milk is good in the early stages of a baby's life in terms of helping the immune system which has not fully matured yet. Then there's the time spent with the baby. The more time spent with a baby, the more attached you become. I couldn't imagine many mothers that would like to walk away from their baby that cries out for them. So i think it is just natural for women to be primary caregivers.
As for men being the primary caregiver, I remember reading somewhere how the early radical feminist group managed to take over the court system and argued the importance of the child to be with the mother rather than the father. It is because of this that mothers will overwhelmingly win the child custody battles and this just belittles the importance of a father in a child's life. Unless the courts recognize it, there's no way that men will be considered primary caregivers and there are many fathers that really do want to be it.
So men don't have the same choice because women have the child. Men don't require a paternity leave, nor do they require to be with a child all the time.
The thing is, there's no real solution to this.
1) One way i can see this being solved is if you nurture your child for a period of a couple months and then you go back to work and leave everything on the father. Problem with that is alot of men (although they'd love to just sit back and relax at home all day) need a job. It's part of their identity so I doubt they want to give that up.
2) Another option is a nanny, but some women don't enjoy the thought of a stranger looking after their child.
3) Freeze your eggs and have children later, but then you're kids will be young while you're so old.
4) Get a job that doesn't require so much of your time. So brokerage firms for example would not be a good place for women wanting children. Jobs with a skill that you could go back to easily helps such as doctor, dentist, teacher etc. Or even be your own boss.
5) Don't have kids.
Well put. I'm juggling options 4) and 5) right now. I don't like the idea of being an old parent and if I have a child at all I want to be there 100%. Nanny-raised children are generally hyperactive, undisciplined and rude (not stereotyping on this, my youngest brother is a classic case. And he's still a nightmare at 15).
It's true that men and women have innate, distinct characteristics that we can't deny or ignore, such as the validity and identity men find in their jobs. I honestly like the 'no kids' option more but everyone I share this view with condescendingly tells me how young I am and that I'll change my mind. It's disheartening and they act like my perspective is invalid until I'm actually at the age to make a proper choice. Although I imagine that if I choose against children altogether at that point I will experience a whole new range of judgement. Please tell me being a male (i'm assuming you're a guy here) has its pitfalls too lol
They weren't even his a DNA Test proved it and the real kicker is she was married to him before they were even born and encouraged him to go into Army. He accepted someone else's kids and went into the army with her blessing.
You cant be a full time parent (male or female) and work 70-80 hours a week running a ftse 100 company... Ground bracking!
Sure, but then you also have to account for it the other way and oppose for affirmative action for the same reason
i totally agree
if men took a year off to give birth, he could never expect his job to be there when he came back.
Obviously, men can raise children if women want to go to work, but many women dont want to do that.
Inherently, when women drop out or choose to raise children instead, there are going to be fewer women, explaining the pyramid she was talking about.
What about single fathers who raise their kids but still have full time jobs?
Why should part time work set you in the track for a promotion? There are others who work full time and are willing to commit for the company working extra hours in times when they company needs the support, so why should those who set their priorities on their family advance? There is nothing unfair abouth that it is just a matter of choice.
i agree
gender statistics shouldn't be kept: the most qualified candidates should be hired, regardless of gender or race, and if men are much more well qualified, so be it
and if women are more qualified, again, so be it!
feminists want men and women to be artificially made equal.
I dont blame you. My comment sounded harsher than i meant, rereading it now. I agree that unfortunately the idiots tend to be the loudest. I absolutely agree that there are tons of legit feminists out there, but it pains me to see such a noble goal be degraded by people who dont understand it, and see the same people begin an open tirade about men and their hateful bigotry, when their movement is actually about empowering, and helping women.
0:13 fart
Have you ever been stuck in a room with a screaming baby for a couple of hours
Yeah, normally I get it quiet in under 12 minutes
What about the fact that women have equal opportunity but continually take lower paying jobs because they prefer a flexible with little or no chance of being injured more dangerous jobs usually have more pay and the fact that a man who is likely to have more experience then a woman who has the same job?
yea, it has to break the" glass ceiling " and to reveal the " hidden power"
most men get away with not paying child support...i met alot of men while being homeless that were homeless on purpose not to pay child support! and if these men wanted to be with teir children they would find away no matter what...it is a joke to say that most marriages are "brought to an end by women" marriage is two ppl together...but if things get too hard ppl just give up...and usually men want to be in control, when in reality marriage is a partnership between the two ppl
The world of work hates everyone who doesn't suit the unwritten standards, not just women.
Precisely. There is only one ceiling, and it's there for the taking...if you're well-connected (e.g., a member of what George Carlin refers to as the "Big Club"); already possess multi-millions in (high-performing) stocks, currency, tangible gold and silver; real estate; regular returns on investments...and displaying sociopath/psychopath tendencies (because to get to the top requires doing heinous, soul-sacrificing deeds from time to time; things people who are strongly entrenched in morals, ethics, and principles just can't stomach--chalk it off to having a conscience beyond a life of providing for oneself and family and stockholders). Being agreeable/going along to get along is contrary to top-executive traits. Being difficult, critical, ultra-demanding, with a cutthroat nature that seeks to eliminate or mortally wound one's competition. These attributes are very common among national and for-profit business leaders, world over. If you don't possess a killer instinct, with a passion for amassing power and the wealth and political clout which accompanies it, then you are fairly much limited to breaking non-profit ceilings.
It’s also not fair to disabled people. Even is expected to act the same way.
well said!!!!
She did divorce him i know because he just so happens to be my cousin and he didn't deserve to be treated that way, especially after what he forgave her for she also called herself feminist and she was much like you in they way you prushed off things she doesn't want to here.
Forgiveness! Forgiveness! Enough is enough. Even when love seems to faulter, Less is More.
Certain things just can't work on the basis of hunches, feelings and intuition. I've had former girlfriends and former lady bosses that expected me to know by telepathy what is in their heads. Former.
Nice double 666 handsigns....glass ceiling is the Firmament = Dome
😂😂😂
Yes, it's true... Men don't have to face challenges like women do... I was born male and a CEO job was just hand it to me🤣🤣🤣
Maybe she had enough & needed a break & he shouldn't of had kids if he's not there 2care 4them
Do u think u need 2 consider giving up your job or putting your career on hold just 2 have kids,. it's like this. Take a career break 2look after a child & watch your employability rating drop like a stone. The message is, if you're a woman, don't have kids. If u do you'll be punished 4 your selfish actions.
Why are many complying with this one harmful, anti-children, anti-human, anti-sentient system?
Thank you, this has been very informative.
I disagree about your point of what feminists want, but then, that's just another annoying matter of placing the beliefs of many individuals under one umbrella label. I'm sure there are some who call themselves feminists and ask for benefits which they are not willing to work for. However, I don't think that is an inherent ideal of feminism, as that would contradict the central goal of gender equality; equal treatment also means equal demands, and true feminists are prepared to meet them.
The glass ceiling is apparent, in your head.
With 200 applications from people you barely know and very shallow data given, patterns and stereotypes are the only way forward. The grades and qualifications you're awarded often have many flaws that can be abused and many people get a qualification without deserving it. But generally it is a good indicator. the same way generally women have to think about families so you'll be more weary. Don't get me wrong, it's unjust. But calling them lazy and inefficient is also unjust.
Have you ever been stuck watching a newborn, Twins and their older sister because their mom divorced their father because he was fighting overseas and she was out partying until the nexyt day?
Lol
@@junevesstein1 how exactly is this funny?
What you call PREJUDICE I call BIOLOGY
there is no glass ceiling it's an excuse created by feminists who can't get promoted.
@tom181071 Misleading them about their opportunities. Not their oppression. She meant. I think.
I think the problem starts with the way people teach their daughters to communicate with others. Most people teach their daughters that she has all the goodies and if anybody wants them they should come ask her and if she's feeling generous then she might give some. But in the professional world you have to come bearing gifts all the time.
You should read the social contract .. all these things are all thought out by the unbiased .. women get lesser sentences because their children need them more than the prisons do. Psychologically a young child is more emotionally dependent on their mother & the courts consider the child over the parent .. from the age of 7 a child is asked by the court who they want 2 live with, so that's one of the reasons y men don't get custody because the child wants 2be with it's mother ..so y r u whining
In all seriousness, did she queef at 0:15 ?
So, think big is the converse binary?
@jontycampbell Meaning we are constantly lied to about wage gaps and glass ceilings and how oppressed women are. Google 'why men earn more' and read up on it a bit.
WHY KIDNAP SOMEONE .. when all women have to do is snap their fingers & hundreds will come running ..
@likecrunchyness Check sanctimony levels.
@jontycampbell men have the women to- and should make changes in their lives as well!
you and 15 other people are insane, you say "women prioritize family over career" is misleading, it is "women prioritize what makes them happy over their career, and the percent of women and how much, increases as the women is more successful"
taking that gamble creates risk, and barriers for cycling out poor upper management, because a women in a spot will likely lead to a gap in upper management training, and promotions ladder.
Earth is flat, the way GOD made it. All will be revealed. Jesus is the truth.
what about the father who put HIS career on hold AND his life on the line to protect all of us at home sitting on our butts?
You dont have to support the war, but you should always support our troops.
(sorry for the tangent but just decided to interject some patriotic stuff)
funny that ppl dont like this response...cause you know i am right!
Incredibly bitter and a terrible presentation.
Too incohrent!!