Feminism goes insane in Norway

[M.Dancer]

Are you suggesting that women competent enough to sit on boards are few?

Whether they are few or many is irrelevant. Boards are picked for good reasons, havies ovaries (or testes) is not one of them.

[jazzer]

Go Hillary!

[kengs333]

This is pure drivel and you know it. Pffft. women entering the workforce drove up inflation? Got any links or anything to prove such an allegation?

Of course it's "drivel" to you because you don't (want to) believe it. Ask any economist, the cost of living has adjusted so that where once a man could usually support a family on his own, this is no longer the case. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but exceptions are not the rule.

Some people need to learn that not all women fit into the mold of "mother, housewife". Many many many of us are people first, women second. Many of us never had any desire to be wives or mothers. I never dreamed of having children, I dreamed of having a Corvette!

Right, that's the point; who drove these ideas into your head? This often happens in a very subtle manner, so of course you can make excuses for why it wasn't because of feminism. But in the end, that's what it boils down to.

Yet you would have me with 6 or 7 kids (feminism brought in birth control) and I would be certainly miserable. This is a good thing? Being a miserable mother?

I never said I would you bear any number of children. If you suggest that having children (and raising them) leads to misery, that says much about how much you value human life. And you expect me to believe feminist claptrap about how women are inherently more nurturing and compasionate? The contradictions of feminism are astonishing.

Feminism brought about the sexual revolution, which has proven to be the beginning of the decline of our civilization. Sexual immorality always is, ancient Rome being a perfect example. The fact that feminism lead to the acceptance of abortion and birth control in our society isn't exactly a stellar accomplishment. Abortion is the destruction of human life, while birth control has allowed for greater sexual promiscuity. In other words, feminism has made un-taboo premarital sex between children as young as 11 and 12 years of age. You think that that is a good thing?

Please, by all mean, do not have children. It's bad enough that women like you screw up the lives of other peoples' daughters...

I shake my head at your misogynist attitude. I shake my head that it is still prevelant in 2007. Heck, women of my generation grew up KNOWING we were equal, thanks to the sane men and women who came before us and fought for us.

I figured this would come up; you certainly don't waste any time in using the "m-word." The thing is, how can I be a "misogynist" for wanting women to live better lives? What makes me a "misogynist in your eyes is the fact that I oppose the ideology of feminism, which is negative, destructive, anti-male, and, as you have demonstrated, anti-human in general.

Feminists rarely, if ever, acknowledge the things that men have done to improve the standard of living for women. Many of these men, incidently, were you to have met them in person you would have considered "misogynists" as well, because instead of subscribing to fairy feminist fancies, the chose to produce tangible tangible results through "patriarchal" science.

My husband is glad that he does not have to bear the financial burden alone. He is my partner, and I, his. We share everything pretty much equally.

You should ask him exactly how he feels about having to outlay a disproportionate amount of money to secure your interest, how he feels about the liberties you take with his income. Trust me, beneath his amicable and compliant exterior, there is resentment brewing. There always is. Deny him intimacy for a few months and trust me it will boil to the surface...

I still wouldn't mind an answer to the following:

'So why is it that whenever a man has issues with feminism, which is an ideology, they are "angry with women" in general? And how is wanting women to be better persons and expression of "anger"?'

Edited October 18, 2007 by kengs333

[Peter F]

Whether they are few or many is irrelevant. Boards are picked for good reasons, havies ovaries (or testes) is not one of them.

As it should be...yet very few women sit on BoD's. The implication is that women must not be competent for the job as compared to men.

[Guest American Woman]

As it should be...yet very few women sit on BoD's. The implication is that women must not be competent for the job as compared to men.

Exactly. I was reading about this situation, curious what brought it on, and read that the U.K. says it's going to take forty years for women to catch up to men in this area, so it sounds as if Norway is trying to move the process along so women don't have to wait forty years for that equality.

Seems to me it's a safe bet to say that 4 women are competent enough to sit on a board for every 6 men.

Reading through this thread I'm totally amazed at some of the comments. Thank God I live when I do. I wouldn't have done well not being able to vote, not being given the opportunity/choice to be able to support myself, not being able to decide how many pregnancies/children I want, etc.

I guess according to some, women should be considerate enough to stay out of the work world so men can have more job opportuniites/make more money. Of course then women wouldn't be able to support themselves, and their families since there are so many single parents today, but I guess that's beside the point.

[jefferiah]

I guess according to some, women should be considerate enough to stay out of the work world so men can have more job opportuniites/make more money. Of course then women wouldn't be able to support themselves, and their families since there are so many single parents today, but I guess that's beside the point.

That is not the reason for which people do not support such hiring policies. The reason is that they feel such equalization policies are based on a logical fallacy which presumes that equality can be acheived by making even results. I am someone who tends to disagree with the logic behind these policies as well. The prejudgement is made by those who argue for it that in any case where an inequality of a race group or a gender group is prevalent among a workplace that it must be due to discrimination. I think that is a large presumption. Another presumption is the one which says those who reject such socialist policies must be biased against a certain group.

A friend online told me that at a company where he works they have such a policy, and that even though the male quota is filled, the company is required to turn down male applicants for positions which they are applying for left and right, while it just so happens that few females are applying.

I understand that there are cases of discrimination as well, but I don't think that enacting a system where people will be chosen on the basis of their sex is advisable when in many cases it is never established that they were choosing males based on their sex either. This is social engineering, and it is something I am very strongly against. Does this mean I want women to stay out of the work world?

Suppose a company already has its male quota and that now it advertises a job opening. A man and a woman both apply. The man in this case just happens to be the better candidate for the job. The company is forced to hire based on sex though, and there you have it.

Where people have proposed the same thing in the political field I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how it could work without superceding democracy.

A law which says you must hire based on someone's sex is, IMO, a silly solution to the problem of people being hired based on sex.

Edited October 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[margrace]

That is not the reason for which people do not support such hiring policies. The reason is that they feel such equalization policies are based on a logical fallacy which presumes that equality can be acheived by making even results. I am someone who tends to disagree with the logic behind these policies as well. The prejudgement is made by those who argue for it that in any case where an inequality of a race group or a gender group is prevalent among a workplace that it must be due to discrimination. I think that is a large presumption. Another presumption is the one which says those who reject such socialist policies must be biased against a certain group.

A friend online told me that at a company where he works they have such a policy, and that even though the male quota is filled, the company is required to turn down male applicants for positions which they are applying for left and right, while it just so happens that few females are applying.

I understand that there are cases of discrimination as well, but I don't think that enacting a system where people will be chosen on the basis of their sex is advisable when in many cases it is never established that they were choosing males based on their sex either. This is social engineering, and it is something I am very strongly against. Does this mean I want women to stay out of the work world?

Suppose a company already has its male quota and that now it advertises a job opening. A man and a woman both apply. The man in this case just happens to be the better candidate for the job. The company is forced to hire based on sex though, and there you have it.

Where people have proposed the same thing in the political field I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how it could work without superceding democracy.

A law which says you must hire based on someone's sex is, IMO, a silly solution to the problem of people being hired based on sex.

My husband and I have always enjoyed Laurence Welk but did you ever notice his token black man and the Morman tabernacle choir is a wonderful powerful group but I have searched in vain for a brown or black face in all those 200 people.

No we don't need fair employment practices, our scenarios are all ready there.

[M.Dancer]

As it should be...yet very few women sit on BoD's. The implication is that women must not be competent for the job as compared to men.

Boards tend to also be quite a bit older than the general population. The implication is thatyounger folk are not as competant as older?

...no...that's not it.

I think in 20 years there will certainly be a pool of senior (senior) executives available for boards.....but now you would have a harder time finding enough women with say 30 years of management experiance culminating in senior corporate positions, having either an MBA, corparate counsel or accountancy background to make up 50% of the boards in Canada. The main reason for thgis is 30 to 40 years ago very few women were enrolling into the Harvard School of Business or the London School of Economics.

[Drea]

Of course it's "drivel" to you because you don't (want to) believe it. Ask any economist, the cost of living has adjusted so that where once a man could usually support a family on his own, this is no longer the case. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but exceptions are not the rule.

The more money that is printed, the higher inflation will go. We had better get those women OUT of the mint! LOL

Right, that's the point; who drove these ideas into your head? This often happens in a very subtle manner, so of course you can make excuses for why it wasn't because of feminism. But in the end, that's what it boils down to.

Who drove these ideas into my head? Who drove the idea into my brother's head that he had to have a hot Chevy Silverado when he was 16? Why no pressure for him to want children? Why is he allowed to want a car when I have to settle for babies?

I never said I would you bear any number of children.

Birth control was brought in by feminism. No feminism, no control over the number of children one has.

If you suggest that having children (and raising them) leads to misery, that says much about how much you value human life.

So I should be a breeding machine because I am female?

And you expect me to believe feminist claptrap about how women are inherently more nurturing and compasionate? The contradictions of feminism are astonishing.

Can you please quote me on that? Can you please find the post in which I said that women are inherently more nuturing than men? They are not. Father's love their children just as much as mother's do.

Feminism brought about the sexual revolution, which has proven to be the beginning of the decline of our civilization. Sexual immorality always is, ancient Rome being a perfect example. The fact that feminism lead to the acceptance of abortion and birth control in our society isn't exactly a stellar accomplishment. Abortion is the destruction of human life, while birth control has allowed for greater sexual promiscuity. In other words, feminism has made un-taboo premarital sex between children as young as 11 and 12 years of age. You think that that is a good thing?

Yes I can bed who I want, when I want. Why is this a problem for you? Why? Do you want to control me? Control my uterus?

Pedophilia has nothing to do with feminism. My aunt (in 1936) gave birth to a baby boy -- the father was HER father. Dirty bastard! Yet in 1936 there was NO ONE she could turn to for help. And you think this is a good thing?

Please, by all mean, do not have children. It's bad enough that women like you screw up the lives of other peoples' daughters...

Ha ha, I have a son. A wonderful teenager! He does the dinner dishes.. he cleans the toilet.. He will grow up knowing he does not have to "take care of" a partner -- he will grow up knowing that partners share in the financial/emotional aspects of the marriage.

I figured this would come up; you certainly don't waste any time in using the "m-word." The thing is, how can I be a "misogynist" for wanting women to live better lives? What makes me a "misogynist in your eyes is the fact that I oppose the ideology of feminism, which is negative, destructive, anti-male, and, as you have demonstrated, anti-human in general.

You want to control women. You do not want women to have autonomy. Therefore you are a mysogynist. Ugly word isn't it?

Feminists rarely, if ever, acknowledge the things that men have done to improve the standard of living for women. Many of these men, incidently, were you to have met them in person you would have considered "misogynists" as well, because instead of subscribing to fairy feminist fancies, the chose to produce tangible tangible results through "patriarchal" science.

There have been millions of good men, there will be millions more. I have no hatred toward men. I do not want to "control" them or "put them in their place".

You should ask him exactly how he feels about having to outlay a disproportionate amount of money to secure your interest, how he feels about the liberties you take with his income. Trust me, beneath his amicable and compliant exterior, there is resentment brewing. There always is. Deny him intimacy for a few months and trust me it will boil to the surface...

Secure my interests? Why would he be "resentful"? Good god man, I make plenty of my own money. In fact we pull in about the same amount. It all goes into one big pot. But in your eyes it would be better if I stayed home and didn't bring in any money. (THAT would be cause for resentment IMO)

I still wouldn't mind an answer to the following:

'So why is it that whenever a man has issues with feminism, which is an ideology, they are "angry with women" in general? And how is wanting women to be better persons and expression of "anger"?'

Why is it when women talk about equality we are labelled feminazis? Labelled cold hard bitches? Why is that?

Wanting a woman to be a better person does not mean forcing her into a gender stereotyped mold.

It's like saying ALL men like hockey. It is simply not true. While a good number of men may like hockey, there are some that have no use for it at all.

You are trying to paint all women the same. This is unrealistic. We are each individual (just as men are) and deserve to be treated as humans first.

I am a human being, respect me as such.

[ScottSA]

Fewer women enter the workforce, fewer women stay in the workforce, and fewer women are willing to put in the all-consuming time required for the corporate world. Since boards of directors are made up of people who spend their entire lives as workaholics, it's not even a little bit surprising that most are men.

Quite frankly, given the snivelling and lawsuits that all too often accompany women into high places, I'd just as soon not hire women anyway. Feminism kinda shot itself in the foot...it's one thing to demand entry, but quite another to demand that everything change once you get there.

[M.Dancer]

Birth control was brought in by feminism. No feminism, no control over the number of children one has.

That is of course, nonsense.

Birth control predates feminism by at least 2000 trimestres

[jefferiah]

My husband and I have always enjoyed Laurence Welk but did you ever notice his token black man and the Morman tabernacle choir is a wonderful powerful group but I have searched in vain for a brown or black face in all those 200 people.

I always find it funny that so many people who claim to think nothing about race can spend so much time looking to see how many people there are of a certain race. I think that sort of thinking is kind of akin to the one which seeks a token black man.

If you go the church I went to when I was growing up Margrace, you would most likely have never been able to pick out a black man in the congregation. Were they not allowed in our church? Well, actually, through none of my doing, there are very very few black people in the rural area where I live, until recently. (However for many years you would have seen a black man in our church, only not in the congregation but at the pulpit.)

I remember a girl who moved here lamenting how terrible our high school was because there were only two black people. "It's pathetic," she said. Were black people barred from the school? No. There were relatively few black people living in the town where my high school was. Were black people being barred from moving to the town? No, again.

Things just don't magically always even out in nice numbers.

I wonder do people in China lament the presence of a vast majority of Asians?

Edited October 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Oct 18 2007, 06:03 AM)

I guess according to some, women should be considerate enough to stay out of the work world so men can have more job opportuniites/make more money. Of course then women wouldn't be able to support themselves, and their families since there are so many single parents today, but I guess that's beside the point.

That is not the reason for which people do not support such hiring policies. The reason is that they feel such equalization policies are based on a logical fallacy which presumes that equality can be acheived by making even results. I am someone who tends to disagree with the logic behind these policies as well. The prejudgement is made by those who argue for it that in any case where an inequality of a race group or a gender group is prevalent among a workplace that it must be due to discrimination. I think that is a large presumption. Another presumption is the one which says those who reject such socialist policies must be biased against a certain group.

A friend online told me that at a company where he works they have such a policy, and that even though the male quota is filled, the company is required to turn down male applicants for positions which they are applying for left and right, while it just so happens that few females are applying.

I understand that there are cases of discrimination as well, but I don't think that enacting a system where people will be chosen on the basis of their sex is advisable when in many cases it is never established that they were choosing males based on their sex either. This is social engineering, and it is something I am very strongly against. Does this mean I want women to stay out of the work world?

Suppose a company already has its male quota and that now it advertises a job opening. A man and a woman both apply. The man in this case just happens to be the better candidate for the job. The company is forced to hire based on sex though, and there you have it.

Where people have proposed the same thing in the political field I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how it could work without superceding democracy.

A law which says you must hire based on someone's sex is, IMO, a silly solution to the problem of people being hired based on sex.

My comment wasn't in response to views about supporting/not supporting this policy, but towards some of the comments in general.

The policy isn't going for "even results" since the ratio is 4-6. But I have a question. If the major predominance of men on the boards of directors isn't due to gender inequality, what do you think it's due to? Do you think women are less qualified for the position? You made the statement that you don't think men were being chosen on the basis of their sex, so you must think that many, many more men are qualified for the position; or that many, many more men than women aspire to such a position. I find either scenario highly unlikely.

I'm confused about this comment, too: A law which says you must hire based on someone's sex is, IMO, a silly solution to the problem of people being hired based on sex. It sounds as if you are saying men are being hired because they are men.

You point out some legitimate flaws in having a policy that says x number of women must be hired for certain positions, but without the policy there is a problem too. So how does one solve the problem? Do you think women should just have to live with it?

For the record:

Having women well represented in the corporate boardroom can help improve financial performance, according to a new study by a group that promotes women in executive roles.

Catalyst Inc, a nonprofit organization focused on women in the workplace, is set to release a report later on Monday showing that big companies with the greatest number of female board members on average have significantly better financial performance than those with fewer women.

Link

[jefferiah]

I'm confused about this comment, too: A law which says you must hire based on someone's sex is, IMO, a silly solution to the problem of people being hired based on sex. It sounds as if you are saying men are being hired because they are men.

No, this is not what I am saying, and I have made it clear in my arguments that I do not think this can be the truth in all cases where there is not proportional gender representation in the workplace.

But these policies are obviously being enacted for that purpose, wouldn't you say?

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think the policies are being enacted because people are being hired on the basis of their sex so much as because people aren't being hired on the basis of their sex. It might sound like the same thing, but there's a subtle difference. In other words, without the policy, just/mostly men are being hired for these positions. With the policy, both men and women are being hired.

Since you don't support such policies, do you think women should just have to live with things the way they are?

[jefferiah]

I don't think the policies are being enacted because people are being hired on the basis of their sex so much as because people aren't being hired on the basis of their sex. It might sound like the same thing, but there's a subtle difference. In other words, without the policy, just/mostly men are being hired for these positions. With the policy, both men and women are being hired.

Since you don't support such policies, do you think women should just have to live with things the way they are?

Do you think I should have the right to tell the owners of a company who they can hire?

[Guest American Woman]

Do you think I should have the right to tell the owners of a company who they can hire?

I asked you first. Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. Seems fair to me.

[August1991]

I agree with that, the problem is that the reality itself is a thing in a flux. E.g if 90% of CEO have "grown up" in an environment dominated by white male Yale graduates they'll probably tend to perpetrate it further down - unless given a strong incentive to change the trend. In a plain sense their view, conscious or otherwise, of a worthy candidate may include the factors (like, gender, colour, school) which in reality have little relation to the candidate's performance. Rather than wait for the natural process to take care of the outdated practices, the society may attempt to accelerate the change, there's nothing wrong with that.

Strong incentive? Wait for the natural process?

We have such a strong incentive now and the natural process is not slow. The incentive is the profit motive.

The Left readily describes business (Corporations, the Right, Conrad Black) as greedy, rapacious, dog-eat-dog. Corporations are always looking for an angle and a new way to exploit someone to make a buck. Apparently, corporations are even psychopaths in this pursuit.

Well, if women make good directors, but no one wants to hire them, then surely a smart entrepreneur will hire them (women are cheaper than men) and profits will be greater. Higher revenues, lower costs equal bigger profits, no?

There should be no need for hiring quotas - assuming of course that an entrepreneur has the freedom to set up a new business and do things differently.

I tend to agree though that blunt tools, like direct participation quotas, probably do more harm than good in the long run - by, as stated, confusing the perception of the affairs. Is there a better approach - would be good to hear the examples.

The best way to protect women's interests is to give them a choice, and give their employers a choice.

Competition is the best way to protect the rights of any minority and minorities know this instinctively. The best way to deal with idiots is to have the freedom to cross the street and deal elsewhere.

If there's such a thing as a glass ceiling or an old boy's network, it's because there is a lack of choice.

For example, real estate is an open and competitive business. Anyone can get into it. Nowadays in Canada, almost half of real estate agents are women and women are usually among the top performers in most major markets.

-----

Men and women are different and the difference is not merely physical. The difference in behaviour of women and men is fundamental to the evolution of life on this planet. (I suspect that life anywhere else in the universe will have a similar dichotomy.)

This difference means that individual women and men will, on average, choose differently. Individuals should be as free to choose as possible and it is costly to society to restrict arbitrarily their choices. I usually describe myself as a feminist because I feel that ultimately, feminism means that a woman should be free to choose.

[jefferiah]

Well I am not on any Board of Directors and I am surviving. Do you think I should just live with the way things are, not being on a board of directors and all? How can one expect to survive without being on a board of directors in a corporation?

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Well I am not on any Board of Directors and I am surviving. Do you think I should just live with the way things are, not being on a board of directors and all? How can one expect to survive without being on a board of directors in a corporation?

Are you qualified to be? Is it your aspiration, but you are being denied the position in spite of your qualifications because you're a woman?

We can "survive" many things, but in great countries like ours, we should not be denied equal opportunity.

Edited to add:

You're dancing around the question. It's a straight forward question that requires a simple staight forward answer. Why are you having such a difficult time answering it?

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

Are you qualified to be? Is it your aspiration, but you are being denied the position in spite of your qualifications because you're a woman?

We can "survive" many things, but in great countries like ours, we should not be denied equal opportunity.

And how many women were applying for the job, and as Dancer stated how many had at this point had a decent amount of seniority.

Do you think that the government should have the right to tell people who have built a business who they can hire?

[jefferiah]

Are you qualified to be? Is it your aspiration, but you are being denied the position in spite of your qualifications because you're a woman?

We can "survive" many things, but in great countries like ours, we should not be denied equal opportunity.

Edited to add:

You're dancing around the question. It's a straight forward question that requires a simple staight forward answer. Why are you having such a difficult time answering it?

I think you should know my answer by now. My right to work or anyone's right to work is not the question. I have a right to work. But it is not my right to be hired in someone else's businesses. Nor does the right to be hired belong to any group. It is someone else's right to do the hiring. The one who runs the show.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Do you think that the government should have the right to tell people who have built a business who they can hire?

I think the government should have a right to tell people that they can't discriminate. Don't you?

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

I think the government should have a right to tell people that they can't discriminate. Don't you?

No. It sounds nice on paper though.

If you come into my office lets say and there are 10 women working there and only one man, will you just automatically assume that I was discriminating against males in my hiring. Or, how about this, in a society free from discrimination, do you think that by some strange chance numbers of race, sex, creed would just evenly pan out, and that if they did not discrimination is implied?

And if that is not always the case, then there will be a great many cases where the law is actually going to force the employer (who may be non-discriminatory) to commit discrimination in hiring.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Oct 19 2007, 12:23 AM)

I think the government should have a right to tell people that they can't discriminate. Don't you?

No. It sounds nice on paper though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it you're a white male.