Prejudice against women

[Black Dog]

So you find nothing telling about the fact that "bitch" is an insult that is directed exclusively at women?

You need to look beyond your basic measures. There is a lot more giong on in the world than a bunch of MPs sitting in parlaiment or a bunch of CEOs making capital expenditure decisions.

But as far as power goes, that's where stuff happens.

Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas.

So while men have power in society's economic and political realms, women have power over cleaning the toilet or scrubbing the floor.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So you find nothing telling about the fact that "bitch" is an insult that is directed exclusively at women?

No. I don't.

[Black Dog]

No. I don't.

Colour me surprised.

[JerrySeinfeld]

No. I don't.

Colour me surprised.

haha

you fell right into belinda's little web. making this a "woman's issue".

nice one. keep scouring those headlines looknig for something...anything...about which to be "upset".

[JerrySeinfeld]

So you find nothing telling about the fact that "bitch" is an insult that is directed exclusively at women?

You need to look beyond your basic measures. There is a lot more giong on in the world than a bunch of MPs sitting in parlaiment or a bunch of CEOs making capital expenditure decisions.

But as far as power goes, that's where stuff happens.

Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas.

So while men have power in society's economic and political realms, women have power over cleaning the toilet or scrubbing the floor.

There you go again wishing people said things that they didn't (a la Mackay). No that's not at all what I said. That's what YOU said. Black DOG i'm starting to wonder about your own little closet perceptions of women. That often happens - people with hidden issues tend to overcompensate.

Here, I'll paste it again.

Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas

[Black Dog]

haha

you fell right into belinda's little web. making this a "woman's issue".

This ain't hard, so I'm not sure why you can't grasp it. MacKay's slur at Stronach was not necessarily indicative of any braod anti-women sentiment on his part, but the fact that such slurs against women (injcluding the word "bitch")are commonplace demonstrates the imbalance in how women are viewed in our society. To wit: I can't think of any equivilant insult that attacks men based on their gender (indeed, in our society, "manliness" is a virtue, while being feminine is indicative of weakness).

[JerrySeinfeld]

haha

you fell right into belinda's little web. making this a "woman's issue".

This ain't hard, so I'm not sure why you can't grasp it. MacKay's slur at Stronach was not necessarily indicative of any braod anti-women sentiment on his part, but the fact that such slurs against women (injcluding the word "bitch")are commonplace demonstrates the imbalance in how women are viewed in our society. To wit: I can't think of any equivilant insult that attacks men based on their gender (indeed, in our society, "manliness" is a virtue, while being feminine is indicative of weakness).

ok, Dick

[Black Dog]

Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas

Women have always borne the bulk of responsibility for household chores and child rearing. Of course, that usually came at the expense of things like economic autonomy, political representation, and even personal soverignety. That's still the case today in large part. The levelling of the playing field, the increase in women's economic clout and the strides they've made in political representation is almost entirely due to the advancement of feminist ideas.

[Black Dog]

ok, Dick

Nope. Scatological or physlogical insults (dick, asshole) don't have the same connotations as "bitch". "Dick" simply means "jerk" or unpleasant individual: there's no specific gender. bitch, on the other hand, invokes a sterotype of a woman who is malicious, spiteful, domineering, unpleasant or sexually promiscuous. And when directed at a male, it is essentially saying "You are a woman."

[JerrySeinfeld]

Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas

Women have always borne the bulk of responsibility for household chores and child rearing. Of course, that usually came at the expense of things like economic autonomy, political representation, and even personal soverignety. That's still the case today in large part. The levelling of the playing field, the increase in women's economic clout and the strides they've made in political representation is almost entirely due to the advancement of feminist ideas.

Well, yes and no. Women make up about 60% of the students in universities. I believe the percentage is even higher for Med school, Law school and some other prestigous disciplines.

But as long as women have childeren (which admittedly is a question mark in today's baron west), they will generally run the household.

As for economic autonomy a marriage is a union - a partnership. If the marriage disolves - that's been taken care of by divorce law. Ah yes - divorce court. Another area where women hold the balance of power.

As for "political representation" - last time I checked women had just as many votes as men. Perhaps there just aren't as many women interested in becoming an MP. Perhaps they're more focussed upon the important areas of life - areas where they hold a great deal of decision making power and influence.

I'm sorry you don't seem to see the value and importance of this realm. Really, it matters far more than the next "royal commission on blah blah blah" being headed up by some former premier....

[JerrySeinfeld]

ok, Dick

Nope. Scatological or physlogical insults (dick, asshole) don't have the same connotations as "bitch". "Dick" simply means "jerk" or unpleasant individual: there's no specific gender. bitch, on the other hand, invokes a sterotype of a woman who is malicious, spiteful, domineering, unpleasant or sexually promiscuous. And when directed at a male, it is essentially saying "You are a woman."

Wow - you're really revealing your thoughts here.

[Black Dog]

Well, yes and no. Women make up about 60% of the students in universities. I believe the percentage is even higher for Med school, Law school and some other prestigous disciplines.

But as long as women have childeren (which admittedly is a question mark in today's baron west), they will generally run the household.

As for economic autonomy a marriage is a union - a partnership. If the marriage disolves - that's been taken care of by divorce law. Ah yes - divorce court. Another area where women hold the balance of power.

As for "political representation" - last time I checked women had just as many votes as men. Perhaps there just aren't as many women interested in becoming an MP. Perhaps they're more focussed upon the important areas of life - areas where they hold a great deal of decision making power and influence.

There's no denying women have made strides in education, in political representation (it wasn't that long ago that they couldn't actually vote), in reproductive and personal freedom etc etc. (all thanks to feminism). This would seem to indicate that there's a lot of women out there who aret interested in more than picking out curtains, making dinner and vacumning the rug. Again, thanks to feminism, they have other options. But that doesn't mean they are equal. They are still underepresented in politics, in the workplace, and in the boardrooms. There's still lots of barriers keeping women from advancing in those realms and pushing them in the direction of the home (again: have you ever heard a man talk about the challenge of maintaining a career and a home life?), but hey: that's what feminism is for.

I'm sorry you don't seem to see the value and importance of this realm. Really, it matters far more than the next "royal commission on blah blah blah" being headed up by some former premier....

I'm not denying it's importance. But I have to ask how those responsibilities benefit women: it's telling that women in your world get loads of responsibility and plenty of (unpaid) work, but what do they get out of it? The underlying implication is that women happily sacrifice their time because, well, that's what women are for. Men, on the other hand, sacrifice their time, but in exchange for more money and more clout.

[Black Dog]

Wow - you're really revealing your thoughts here.

Yeah: I just totally made that up. The word bitch has absolutely no gendered implications whatsoever.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well, yes and no. Women make up about 60% of the students in universities. I believe the percentage is even higher for Med school, Law school and some other prestigous disciplines.

But as long as women have childeren (which admittedly is a question mark in today's baron west), they will generally run the household.

As for economic autonomy a marriage is a union - a partnership. If the marriage disolves - that's been taken care of by divorce law. Ah yes - divorce court. Another area where women hold the balance of power.

As for "political representation" - last time I checked women had just as many votes as men. Perhaps there just aren't as many women interested in becoming an MP. Perhaps they're more focussed upon the important areas of life - areas where they hold a great deal of decision making power and influence.

There's no denying women have made strides in education, in political representation (it wasn't that long ago that they couldn't actually vote), in reproductive and personal freedom etc etc. (all thanks to feminism). This would seem to indicate that there's a lot of women out there who aret interested in more than picking out curtains, making dinner and vacumning the rug. Again, thanks to feminism, they have other options. But that doesn't mean they are equal. They are still underepresented in politics, in the workplace, and in the boardrooms. There's still lots of barriers keeping women from advancing in those realms and pushing them in the direction of the home (again: have you ever heard a man talk about the challenge of maintaining a career and a home life?), but hey: that's what feminism is for.

I'm sorry you don't seem to see the value and importance of this realm. Really, it matters far more than the next "royal commission on blah blah blah" being headed up by some former premier....

I'm not denying it's importance. But I have to ask how those responsibilities benefit women: it's telling that women in your world get loads of responsibility and plenty of (unpaid) work, but what do they get out of it? The underlying implication is that women happily sacrifice their time because, well, that's what women are for. Men, on the other hand, sacrifice their time, but in exchange for more money and more clout.

More clout in the workplace maybe. That means nothing on the homefront. You'd be surprised how many captains of industry are totally neutered at home.

Your comment about "lots of barriers keeping women form advancing ni those realms."

Can you give me an example?

I submit to you that women who want to advance and succeed in these areas in fact do so.

This whole social engineering - ie. people in parlaiment or industry must be represented by their proportion in society is ridiculous. Maybe women aren't enginners because their not good at math or because most women just don't find it interesting. WHO REALLY CARES? It just makes me laugh when social engineers say "we need more women in engineering." NO WE DON'T!! We need no such thing. Someone out there has made it into an equality issue. That's like saying "we need more racoons in Saskatchewan". No we don't. If there is are proportionately less racoons in saskatchewn, there might just be a very good, non-discriminatory reason for it. Same as women engineers. Or MPs, or industry captains.

BY THE WAY, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU DON'T HEAR MEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BALANCING WORK AND HOME LIFE. AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR CENTURIES. WHY IS THAT? Because men don't see it as some big accomplishment that they go to work, do work there, then come home and do work there, too.

But the point still remains: women give birth and raise childeren. Most have an instinct to do so and to take care of those childeren and that instinct is usually stronger than the instinct to go out and get that promotion. Many women take 10-20 years away from the workforce to care for their childeren which is noble, admirable, thoughtful, caring and generally, well, motherly.

That's a biological fact of life. No liberal women's program or feminist movement will ever change this biology. And as a result of this basic truism, women will always lag men (in numbers) in the workplace.

BUT the women who so choose to forgoe motherhood in favor of career advancement do have and will continue to have great successes, as much as men, in whichever field they choose.

Please give me an example of how this is not the case.

[betsy]

Some readers will just have to dig a little deeper. Apparently they can't understand the conversation going on here.....

...or perhaps it's not misunderstanding ....but simply, not agreeing.

Resorting to unconstructive criticism won't validate their arguments.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Some readers will just have to dig a little deeper. Apparently they can't understand the conversation going on here.....

...or perhaps it's not misunderstanding ....but simply, not agreeing.

Resorting to unconstructive criticism won't validate their arguments.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much.

Nowadays some women are even taking the place of men in male PGA events. Unlike men, they don't have to go to Q school and qualify like the rest of the field - they get invited merely on the basis that they are women. That's a pretty good gig if you can get it!

It's gotten to the point where women even tried to FORCE Augusta National Golf Club to allow women. That is the sense of entitlement women have in today's world - to the point where the feminist movement believes it has the right to force a private club to allow women. That's the biggest joke I've ever heard.

Has any male ever tried to join a "women only" fitness club? Good luck.

But Hootie Johnson (president August National) would have none of it - good on him!!!

Just because women have equality (and in some cases like PGA events even favoritism), doesn't mean their can't still be male sanctuaries in this world. Both women and men still have the right to sanctuary - to male or female only places to gather.

[Black Dog]

Your comment about "lots of barriers keeping women form advancing ni those realms."

Can you give me an example?

Sexual harraseement. The glass ceiling. Prevailing social attitudes like yours.

I submit to you that women who want to advance and succeed in these areas in fact do so.

Right: women are just clumped into low wage, dead-end gigs because that's all they want. Let's take the engineering example below. We know that women are underepresented in such professions, we just don't agree why. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a young woman trying to decide on a career. If you are inundated with messages throughout your life telling you that girls aren't as good at math, or girls don't find technical professions interesting, chances are you're going to bediscouraged from even trying in the first place.

This whole social engineering - ie. people in parlaiment or industry must be represented by their proportion in society is ridiculous. Maybe women aren't enginners because their not good at math or because most women just don't find it interesting. WHO REALLY CARES?

So what's wrong with examining why women are underrreprented in some areas and overwhelmingly over represented in others?

It just makes me laugh when social engineers say "we need more women in engineering." NO WE DON'T!! We need no such thing. Someone out there has made it into an equality issue. That's like saying "we need more racoons in Saskatchewan". No we don't. If there is are proportionately less racoons in saskatchewn, there might just be a very good, non-discriminatory reason for it. Same as women engineers. Or MPs, or industry captains.

In other words "shut up and be happy in the kitchen"? There mayb be a good, non-disciminatory reason. o there may be a genuine discriminatory reason. But you're not interested in finding out which.

BY THE WAY, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU DON'T HEAR MEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BALANCING WORK AND HOME LIFE. AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR CENTURIES. WHY IS THAT? Because men don't see it as some big accomplishment that they go to work, do work there, then come home and do work there, too.

More likely its because men traditionally have shouldered a much smaller proportion of household labour.

But the point still remains: women give birth and raise childeren. Most have an instinct to do so and to take care of those childeren and that instinct is usually stronger than the instinct to go out and get that promotion. Many women take 10-20 years away from the workforce to care for their childeren which is noble, admirable, thoughtful, caring and generally, well, motherly.

And we're back to what me and betsy were arguing about. That is: gender roles and the extent to which they are socially determined. And here's where your argument runs into trouble: if having children etc etc is a "natural" urge for women, why is the number of women not having children increasing? I know you people like to blame feminazi brainwashing, but surely if the urge to have kids was so strong and natural, then you wouldn't see birthrates shrink as the number of women in the workplace increases. That suggests that women may not be the natural, enthusiastic mothers-to-be that you make them out to be.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much.

Funny, because every time you post on how the west's low birth rates vis a vis those of Muslim immigrants will be the end of western civilization, you undermine that point. The messag eyour sending there is that white women need to start pushing out more babies and stop messing about with things like "careers".

[JerrySeinfeld]

The glass ceiling.

Fairy tale. Example of this please?

Let's take the engineering example below. We know that women are underepresented in such professions, we just don't agree why. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a young woman trying to decide on a career. If you are inundated with messages throughout your life telling you that girls aren't as good at math, or girls don't find technical professions interesting, chances are you're going to bediscouraged from even trying in the first place.

Another fairy tale. If anything, thanks to social engineers like you, efforts are geared toward ENCOURAGING girls to enter these faculties. Which is why women are OVER represented in LAW, BUSINESS and MEDICINE (perhaps the most difficult and scientific faculty of them all).

You're spewing typical lefty rhetoric with no facts to back up your statements.

So what's wrong with examining why women are underrreprented in some areas and overwhelmingly over represented in others?

t HAS been over examined for decades by people like you. My point is there is 50,000 pound elephant in the room called BIOLOGY which you seem insistent upon pretending doesn't exist. You're so fanatical about your anti "women in the kitchen" rhetoric that you can't see that part of women's instincts and biology put a big percentage of women in that position out of CHOICE. You seem insistent upon talking down toward women who choose the home and family over a career in astrophysics. Get over it. You're insulting a huge percentage of th population by doing so. Not to mention that your ASSUMPTION that women are "in the kitchen" (ie. at home raising childeren and caring for the family - oh what a sin) out of FORCE as opposed to choice is simply inaccurate and generalizing.

More likely its because men traditionally have shouldered a much smaller proportion of household labour.

Another sexist assumption.

And we're back to what me and betsy were arguing about. That is: gender roles and the extent to which they are socially determined. And here's where your argument runs into trouble: if having children etc etc is a "natural" urge for women, why is the number of women not having children increasing? I know you people like to blame feminazi brainwashing, but surely if the urge to have kids was so strong and natural, then you wouldn't see birthrates shrink as the number of women in the workplace increases. That suggests that women may not be the natural, enthusiastic mothers-to-be that you make them out to be.

So now you're saying women don't have a maternal instinct? I love the left.

I guess we'll have to pit my certainty of today (more women stay home with the kids than men do) up against your dreamworld of the future.

Facts usually win out. Good try though.

[Black Dog]

Fairy tale. Example of this please?

By definition, the glass ceiling is not an official set of policies, but the attitudes and predjudices taht keep women from rising through the ranks.

the number of women in the workforce has been increasing. Women have made strides in managerial and professional jobs, yet that increase is not reflected in upper management and executive positions. Women account for 46.5% of America's workforce and for less than 8% of its top managers.perhaps you can tell me why that is.

Another fairy tale. If anything, thanks to social engineers like you, efforts are geared toward ENCOURAGING girls to enter these faculties. Which is why women are OVER represented in LAW, BUSINESS and MEDICINE (perhaps the most difficult and scientific faculty of them all).

I always find it hilarious that people who want to remove barriers to equity are decried as "social engineers", whereas people who want to maintain artificial barriers to equity are just upholding traditonal values or some rubbish like that. But I digress.

Any stats to back up your claim women are overrepresented? from what I can find, women are more or less proportinatly represented in undergrad law and medicine and still underrepresented in sciences (especialy in the so-called "hard" sciences, such as physics and engineering). of course, the percentages plummet as you get up into Bachelor degrees and PhDs....

My point is there is 50,000 pound elephant in the room called BIOLOGY which you seem insistent upon pretending doesn't exist. You're so fanatical about your anti "women in the kitchen" rhetoric that you can't see that part of women's instincts and biology put a big percentage of women in that position out of CHOICE. You seem insistent upon talking down toward women who choose the home and family over a career in astrophysics. Get over it. You're insulting a huge percentage of th population by doing so. Not to mention that your ASSUMPTION that women are "in the kitchen" (ie. at home raising childeren and caring for the family - oh what a sin) out of FORCE as opposed to choice is simply inaccurate and generalizing.

Again: if staying home with the kids is the default biological choice, why is the number of women having kids shrinking?

Another sexist assumption.

Actually, it's a fact.

Household Activities

--On an average day in 2005, 84 percent of women and 65 percent of men

spent some time doing household activities, such as housework, cooking,

lawn care, or financial and other household management. (See table 1.)

--Women who reported doing household activities on the diary day spent

2.7 hours on such activities while men spent 2.1 hours. (See table

1.)

--On an average day, 19 percent of men reported doing housework--such as

cleaning or doing laundry--compared with 53 percent of women. Thirty-

seven percent of men did food preparation or cleanup versus 66 percent

of women. (See table 1.)

Care of Household Children (by Adults in Households with Children)

--In households with the youngest child under age 6, time spent

providing primary childcare averaged 2.5 hours for women and 1.3 hours

for men. Physical care, playing with children, and travel related

to childcare accounted for most of the time spent in primary childcare

activities. (See table 9.)

--For adults living with children under age 6, women provided an average

of 1.1 hours of physical care--such as bathing, dressing, or feeding a

child--per day to household children, while men provided about one-half

of this amount--0.5 hour (about 30 minutes). (See table 9.)

So now you're saying women don't have a maternal instinct? I love the left.

Where?

I guess we'll have to pit my certainty of today (more women stay home with the kids than men do) up against your dreamworld of the future.

You mean your logical fallacy. That more women stay home than men doesn't prove anything about how "natural" that state of afairs is.

[margrace]

So original idea, has anyone here read Maleck's book "The Natasha's' and does anyone really know what it really is about?

[JerrySeinfeld]

By definition, the glass ceiling is not an official set of policies, but the attitudes and predjudices taht keep women from rising through the ranks. the number of women in the workforce has been increasing. Women have made strides in managerial and professional jobs, yet that increase is not reflected in upper management and executive positions. Women account for 46.5% of America's workforce and for less than 8% of its top managers.perhaps you can tell me why that is.

Because reaching top level management usual involves extra hours, and takes decades of uninterrupted progress.

Women tend to value more of a balance in life, balancing family, childeren, home, exciscise, social interraction. Men often rise to the top at the expense fo these things. Also, given a guy who stays on the job from 1988 to 2006 and a woman who takes mat leave a couple of times or even takes ten years or more off to raise childeren, then generally the uniterrupted male carer will flourish to the upper levels. Now this doesn't occur in every case. Women who apply themselves, work uninterruipted progressively toward the top reach the top just as men do. It just so happens that fewer of them make that choice.

I always find it hilarious that people who want to remove barriers to equity are decried as "social engineers", whereas people who want to maintain artificial barriers to equity are just upholding traditonal values or some rubbish like that. But I digress.

What barriers are you referring to? You still haven't provided me with one concrete example.

Any stats to back up your claim women are overrepresented? from what I can find, women are more or less proportinatly represented in undergrad law and medicine and still underrepresented in sciences (especialy in the so-called "hard" sciences, such as physics and engineering). of course, the percentages plummet as you get up into Bachelor degrees and PhDs....

Again the PHD numbers reflect the time commitment and prioritizing mentioned above.

If your "barriers" actually existed, then no women would reach the top, period. The fact that those womenwho apply themselves and prioritize the in same fashion that driven men do, succeed as often as men do.

Here are your stats: This year, the percentage was 50.1%. The most recent Canadian medical school classes have a range of 43%–74% women (mean 58%), compared with a range of 26%–57% men (mean 42%). The gender gap in medical schools no longer exists.

link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=7916

Women are certainly NOT underrepresented.

Again: if staying home with the kids is the default biological choice, why is the number of women having kids shrinking?

I already responded to that - read again.

Actually, it's a fact.

No, it's not.

Household Activities

--On an average day in 2005, 84 percent of women and 65 percent of men

spent some time doing household activities, such as housework, cooking,

lawn care, or financial and other household management. (See table 1.)

--Women who reported doing household activities on the diary day spent

2.7 hours on such activities while men spent 2.1 hours. (See table

1.)

--On an average day, 19 percent of men reported doing housework--such as

cleaning or doing laundry--compared with 53 percent of women. Thirty-

seven percent of men did food preparation or cleanup versus 66 percent

of women. (See table 1.)

Care of Household Children (by Adults in Households with Children)

--In households with the youngest child under age 6, time spent

providing primary childcare averaged 2.5 hours for women and 1.3 hours

for men. Physical care, playing with children, and travel related

to childcare accounted for most of the time spent in primary childcare

activities. (See table 9.)

--For adults living with children under age 6, women provided an average

of 1.1 hours of physical care--such as bathing, dressing, or feeding a

child--per day to household children, while men provided about one-half

of this amount--0.5 hour (about 30 minutes). (See table 9.)

So now you're saying women don't have a maternal instinct? I love the left.

Great stats - and I agree with them all. And again (I repeat) this is because more women stay at home with the family!!!

If you wanted to compare apples to apples you'd have to dig up stats about working women's share versus the working' men's share.

C'mon DOG. Think here. THINK You can do it - i know it

You mean your logical fallacy. That more women stay home than men doesn't prove anything about how "natural" that state of afairs is.

I'm not the on saying there is a problem here so the onus isn't on me to prove anything. I'm saying things are as they are and not likely to change despite "programs" and "advocacy groups" and other social engineering.

In addition, you haven't shown me anything that says your trudeaupian world is any more natural.

[betsy]

Some readers will just have to dig a little deeper. Apparently they can't understand the conversation going on here.....

...or perhaps it's not misunderstanding ....but simply, not agreeing.

Resorting to unconstructive criticism won't validate their arguments.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much.

Nowadays some women are even taking the place of men in male PGA events. Unlike men, they don't have to go to Q school and qualify like the rest of the field - they get invited merely on the basis that they are women. That's a pretty good gig if you can get it!

It's gotten to the point where women even tried to FORCE Augusta National Golf Club to allow women. That is the sense of entitlement women have in today's world - to the point where the feminist movement believes it has the right to force a private club to allow women. That's the biggest joke I've ever heard.

Has any male ever tried to join a "women only" fitness club? Good luck.

But Hootie Johnson (president August National) would have none of it - good on him!!!

Just because women have equality (and in some cases like PGA events even favoritism), doesn't mean their can't still be male sanctuaries in this world. Both women and men still have the right to sanctuary - to male or female only places to gather.

Ooops. I wasn't referring to you Jerry. I agree with you.

Lowering standards just so to qualify is actually an insult to women. Patronizing...doing the "little women" a favor...let's lower the standards, boys...so they'll have a chance.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Some readers will just have to dig a little deeper. Apparently they can't understand the conversation going on here.....

...or perhaps it's not misunderstanding ....but simply, not agreeing.

Resorting to unconstructive criticism won't validate their arguments.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much.

Nowadays some women are even taking the place of men in male PGA events. Unlike men, they don't have to go to Q school and qualify like the rest of the field - they get invited merely on the basis that they are women. That's a pretty good gig if you can get it!

It's gotten to the point where women even tried to FORCE Augusta National Golf Club to allow women. That is the sense of entitlement women have in today's world - to the point where the feminist movement believes it has the right to force a private club to allow women. That's the biggest joke I've ever heard.

Has any male ever tried to join a "women only" fitness club? Good luck.

But Hootie Johnson (president August National) would have none of it - good on him!!!

Just because women have equality (and in some cases like PGA events even favoritism), doesn't mean their can't still be male sanctuaries in this world. Both women and men still have the right to sanctuary - to male or female only places to gather.

Ooops. I wasn't referring to you Jerry. I agree with you.

Lowering standards just so to qualify is actually an insult to women. Patronizing...doing the "little women" a favor...let's lower the standards, boys...so they'll have a chance.

Exactly - hear hear and great to hea it from a woman. The patronizing "poor woman" mentality is insulting and unwelcome from most women I know.

From my observatino, all women want is a fair shake and they are getting that. When they don't - trust me you hear about it.

[Black Dog]

Women tend to value more of a balance in life, balancing family, childeren, home, exciscise, social interraction. Men often rise to the top at the expense fo these things.

That's not what you said before:

BY THE WAY, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU DON'T HEAR MEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BALANCING WORK AND HOME LIFE. AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR CENTURIES. WHY IS THAT? Because men don't see it as some big accomplishment that they go to work, do work there, then come home and do work there, too.

Also, given a guy who stays on the job from 1988 to 2006 and a woman who takes mat leave a couple of times or even takes ten years or more off to raise childeren, then generally the uniterrupted male carer will flourish to the upper levels. Now this doesn't occur in every case. Women who apply themselves, work uninterruipted progressively toward the top reach the top just as men do. It just so happens that fewer of them make that choice.

Okay then: back it up.

What barriers are you referring to? You still haven't provided me with one concrete example.

Re-read what I wrote. The glass ceiling is, by definition, not a concrete set of policies.

If your "barriers" actually existed, then no women would reach the top, period.

Nonsense.

The fact that those womenwho apply themselves and prioritize the in same fashion that driven men do, succeed as often as men do.

Again: what evidence are you basing this on?

I already responded to that - read again.

You did not:

And we're back to what me and betsy were arguing about. That is: gender roles and the extent to which they are socially determined. And here's where your argument runs into trouble: if having children etc etc is a "natural" urge for women, why is the number of women not having children increasing? I know you people like to blame feminazi brainwashing, but surely if the urge to have kids was so strong and natural, then you wouldn't see birthrates shrink as the number of women in the workplace increases. That suggests that women may not be the natural, enthusiastic mothers-to-be that you make them out to be.

So now you're saying women don't have a maternal instinct? I love the left.

Some response.

No, it's not.

Just to recap for those in the back, this bit stems from my statement that "men traditionally have shouldered a much smaller proportion of household labour" which Jerry here called a "sexist assumption." So I decided to post some stats to show that, in fact, women do more housework than men (other stats show that men's share of housework increased between 1968 to 1985, from 4.4 weekly hours to 10, but has levelled off since). Here, Jerry is once again denying the original statement that men have done (and I would add, continue to do) less housework. But then, a funny thing happens....

Great stats - and I agree with them all. And again (I repeat) this is because more women stay at home with the family!!!

...

If you wanted to compare apples to apples you'd have to dig up stats about working women's share versus the working' men's share.

Even in double income households, women do more housework. link

I'm not the on saying there is a problem here so the onus isn't on me to prove anything. I'm saying things are as they are and not likely to change despite "programs" and "advocacy groups" and other social engineering.

Yet they clearly have changed. Once again: as education and income increases, fertility decreases. if things "are as they are" (the very definiton of a "just so" story fallacy, then fertility levels should be fairly constant, as should the proportion of women entering higher education and the workforce.

[betsy]

Btw Jerry, I notice you're experiencing the same problem. <sigh> Not only does he argue in circles, he misunderstands in circles as well. Over and over and over and over again....

Who's on first base? No. Who's on second base.