Castanet

Jonrox wrote:The post history in this thread would suggest several people got very worked up over this. Or maybe a few us just got under their skin and rattled them to the point they couldn't even make rational points any longer.

Well, I won't argue what the post history suggests to you.
If I came across as upset or worked up in any way, then it's a result of poor writing skills, either that or just misunderstanding my tone/point. :)

youjustcomplain wrote:

What_the wrote:Since there's no actual discrimination I'd say some are perturbed over something that's not there. So, worked up probably fits the bill.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. People are not welcome to a showing of a movie based on their sex. That's clearly discrimination. Now, I can understand the argument that it is discrimination, but it's trivial. I find it hard to swallow that it's just not discrimination.

It would be like telling black people to ride in the back of the bus, because they're black and someone telling me it's not discrimination because they can still take the bus. You see, it doesn't matter how serious it is, it's either discrimination or it's not.

Seems like your case is that this just isn't discrimination, I argue otherwise.

Fair enough. I just know that I could go to that theatre and legally they could not deny me entry. If they did, that would be discrimination. They are only asking men to give them a chance to be girls. I just don't see that as discrimination or un equal

Just like if I want a round of golf with the guys, If a lady insists, well ok, but she'd be spoiling our manly fun and I'd have to ask the question why she wants to go.

I get your analogy but we're talking about real differences- man v.women. Not black man v. white man.
Would I want my coloured male friend to sit at the back. No. Do I want my better half to have a night out with her friends. Yes

Was it discrimination? Absolutely. Was it harmless? Absolutely. Did the women who attended the screenings have a great time? By all accounts it was an amazing experience for them. Did men get to see the movie? Absolutely... at one of tens of thousands of screenings across the world.

Affirmative Action: (herein referred to as AA)

AA is a temporary solution to an age old problem of inequality. It's my opinion that given time and education, society would likely "catch-up" in regards to a more fair and balanced workplace and government; therefore, making AA unnecessary in the future.

AA recognizes that an over-representation of men in positions of power is a result of a systemic policy of sexism and racism endured since societies were organized.

Because of social expectations and the prevailing attitudes historically, white men were given preferential treatement in most areas of government and industry. And guess what white males historically did with this power? They relished it! And they kept supporting a system which gave them power by hiring more of the same.

On the homefront historically, women were at home. Women raised the children, kept the home and made it possible for the men who were busy owning everything, and running everything to continue their thing. It's noteworthy that if men are relieved from the grind of the daily household chores, they would have enough energy and stamina to work outside of the home. Men and women entered into an agreement that supported the normal ideals of the time. Of course there were exceptions to this paradigm, one can always find an exception, but I'm going to write about what historically has occurred in general. It is also noteworthy to recognize that many women in the home found ways to monetarily contribute by performing a variety of work that assisted with the home's finances. This work was most often domestic in nature, but it absolutely was paid work that carried little opportunity for power or prestige.

Eventually, some members of society had a shift in their thinking, and women's groups (and other civil rights organizations) became organized and women and people of colour entered the workforce. Further, women and people of colour became to recognize the value of education, and educational institutions allowed women and people of colour entry which had been previously denied.

Let's assume here, we will limit this dialogue to Canada: It has only been a very recent development on the time continuum that our beliefs about women and what kind of work they do has changed. It wasn't until WWII when women were encouraged to work outside of the home to keep the country afloat while the men were away fighting. It wasn't till the 1960's that it became more normalized that women would and could be educated and work outside the home. Assuming that our current "system" really took a significant left turn from an agrarian culture to a business culture at the turn of the century, we have a history of organized labour 117 years old. However, it's really only been the last 40 years that women have slowly trickled into working outside of the home. And it's only been about 30 years where the contribution of women in the workplace has been valued appropriately (and even that is a generous statement of fact). To this day, considering that most women are employed outside of the home, the reality is that they overwhelmingly have superiors who are men. This fact is no surprise given that women will often choose a part-time schedule to accommodate childcare, or take employment with less prestige because she is the primary worker at home with domestic and childcare responsibilities.

But what happens when the children get older, and don't need mother as much as they used to? Now a woman wants to go back into the workplace in a more meaningful way. But gosh darn, she is way behind the curve of her male cohorts in regards to workplace experience and opportunity. She has spent her most valuable working years supporting the male breadwinner in the home by taking on domestic duties which allowed him the space to be the best employee he could. She is now in a game of career "catch up" and she is unlikely to ever fully narrow the gap. This isn't a complaint, it just is. Many women, I dare say even most women appreciate the opportunity to raise children and get them to school age (or at least pre-school age). But should they pay for the family contribution indefinitely?

Complicating matters, is a pervasive attitude that may in the interest of reality be correct: That women are a risk to hire because they may become pregnant and need an extended time off to bear more children; or, they require time off when duties at home require her attention (like an ill child who can't go to school or daycare). It of course makes more sense financially that the spouse who makes more money in these moments to be the one who carries on typically, while the women calls in sick or unavailable because she needs to. Employers have not until very recently (and even now it's not widely practiced) been supportive of flex-scheduling and job-sharing, and paying part-time employees the same hourly wage as full time timers. In short, the kind of things that women need to have access to positions of power. Make no mistake, this is still an overwhelming minority of employers (including government).

So, how do we correct this problem? In my opinion, we use AA to allow women to have access to the kind of positions where she can hopefully enact corporate and government policies which benefit families, and allow women in the workplace to have a more equal share in management.

Many people will argue that AA values social policy over merit. I don't believe however this is a correct assumption. There is nothing inherently in men that make them more qualified other than access to the system in regards to time-in. Women are educated in the same way that they are (and historically speaking this is pretty new) and if not for the contribution of women's work in the home, he too would have to have take time off to child mind. Therefore, we can manipulate the system when hiring positions of management in industries where there has been an imbalance of power and the candidates are equally matched. The only reason in the first place that there was an imbalance of power is because white males didn't really appreciate the predicament women find themselves in when they choose childcare over career. Equal doesn't mean everyone gets the same, equal means everybody gets access and opportunity to what is fair. In this case we allow for the reality of child rearing without penalty.

Most people I know (male or female) don't wish to work for someone who isn't qualified. There are plenty of occasions where a management position comes down to a handful of employees who are pretty close in abilities. It is then and there that there is an opportunity to equal the playing field by supporting affirmative action.

AA accelerates the process to correct a historical reality (or historical wrong). I don't imagine persons of either sex would appreciate taking the next 20+ years to naturally equal the playing field.

AA isn't a forever in my opinion. It's just a necessary market correction. There are many manipulations in society we employ to direct the population in the way we hope achieves desired outcomes.

I'm not sure that Affirmative Action is the best way to "level the field". I think it would be far better to equalize the sharing of parenting/family demands before hand so that there wouldn't be such a need to fix the problem afterward. So if it's child bearing/raising that is causing the problem, allow women to continue working as long as possible during pregnancy (already done in many occupations), get credit for the time they must take off. Maternal leave is good, why not equal requirements for paternal leave? So mother gets x number of weeks, and Dad also get x number of weeks (not necessarily at the same time of course). And more people in training or encouraged to take on day care positions, or provide private day care, so parents of either gendre can get back to work. Many women have said lack of day care was the biggest obstacle getting back to their jobs. I know it seems the habit is mother taking more time off from work than father, but why is that? Why not equal requirement for males to take their turn parenting? I just think more thought has to be put into how this could be accomplished for more couples. So that women are not losing major chunks of experience building, pensionable time,etc. more so than men.

^^ I don't disagree with Silverqueen on anything she stated with the exception of how best to get there.

But I also wish to honour that some women (including me) appreciate and enjoy my role domestically. I dare say, that I am equally passionate about exercising my expertise at home and at work. My husband, doesn't really have a particular passion for domestic duties. If he desired a larger parental role, I would gladly support him. Given that he doesn't so much dig it, I'm happy to have the opportunity at home and at work. I just don't want to pay for it when the reality is that one of us had to do it anyway.

Osoyoos_Familyof4 wrote:^^ I don't disagree with Silverqueen on anything she stated with the exception of how best to get there.

But I also wish to honour that some women (including me) appreciate and enjoy my role domestically. I dare say, that I am equally passionate about exercising my expertise at home and at work. My husband, doesn't really have a particular passion for domestic duties. If he desired a larger parental role, I would gladly support him. Given that he doesn't so much dig it, I'm happy to have the opportunity at home and at work. I just don't want to pay for it when the reality is that one of us had to do it anyway.

I agree with you also, I had years when I "chose" to stay home, and times when I had to because of support a child needed at home that probably would have been phenomenally expensive to hire for.And my hubby would not have done very well being primary caretaker of the children and home either. So one way or another the family bears the cost of that. It's in situations like that where I can almost see my way to something I have not seen suggested and that is a wage for stay at home mothers (or fathers). I doubt we will see that in my lifetime though. There just doesn't seem to be a way to work this out so that families can still live on one income, or share part time home and job responsibilities between father and mother. The birth rate in Canada in general has dropped over the decades, and B.c. has the lowest birth rate of all the provinces, which means we seem not to be helping young families raise our next generation. Couples it seems just can't afford it, or at best can only afford one child, and that will not maintain the population at current levels. I am not saying everyone has to have six kids, or any kids, but there needs to be more support for families who are bringing up the next generation.

Is this really what has happened to society and people with in it. That AA is needed to change things to accommodate the weak minds within our society that believe in the "boogie man" and all his hidden agenda's and plans. The big conspiracy that is hiding out there around every corner? We are going to use AA to make women flood the roles of government and CEO's of companies. What makes you think AA will make women be the over represented sex with in these roles of power?
Or wait a minute, are you saying we need AA because of a hidden conspiracy? The reason mostly men fill the roles of crap jobs, CEO's of the companies they made, Government positions.
Decade old reasoning still at the table. When one women makes it into space then your argument fails. When so many women have been successful in business, you have lost your justification.
Have all the women that have succeeded in these roles gotten lucky, or did they actually just work for it? You know, actually work hard, long extra hours for years to achieve?
Its time to stop dramatizing your cheap justifications on why that representation is not there. Its called choice by numbers.

And this crap about men needing to do more of the house hold duties, nice try. Men I know cook, clean, shop, raise children, change diapers, coach soccer, protect, mow lawns, fix cars, work extra jobs, build homes on the side, etc, etc.
It has taken millions of successful people little time to achieve their status , so whats holding you back again?

A select few on these forums need to stop living in there victim roles and maybe need to do what other women have been doing for years, succeed, conquer and stop complaining so we can actually solve really life issues.

Not about "playing the victim role" , when we do have equal numbers of women and men in space, or in submarines, or in government, or doing the household work, there won't be a reason to keep raising awareness or attempting to level the field.

Yes, many men are doing their bit to support their partners, take on their parental responsibilities. Yet, many still do not, or do not do their fair share. They might cook , do dishes, laundry twice a week, while their wife does it five times a week, even when they both have full time jobs. They might take care of the kids for a small part of the day, but their partner is doing all the rest (80%) of the at home child care. Nowadays, we still call that progress. But it is the reality in many households. More women take part-time jobs or low paying jobs because they know they have to accomodate their children's care. These are all decisions that are worked out on the front lines of every family's care. We can't engineer our way into equality, it will have to evolve. Our current society, while light years better at it than say 50 years ago, is still not there yet. So until there is full equality, there will still be efforts to help women attain that.

Does this long overdo (one time) event mean that women in the military are now on equal ground to the men? No, it doesn't.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wo ... e35460794/

The only thing stopping the numbers in these positions you list and the ones you dont come down to only one thing, You. Why are there less women in these roles? choice. Anything stopping you from filling these roles? Yes, your own decisions and choices. Do not blame anything but yourselves now. Opportunity has been there for many many years now, so do not be stopped by the usual bull crap. How pathetic. You dont need a big education or years of service to work in the ditches, yet why are their no women seen in them? Your own choice.
For God sake get over it, stop spreading the crap through out society of why you cant. No one wants you in these positions if you cant "cut" it in the real world.
Not sure what society you live in but in mine Its still the men, by the numbers, that are working themselves to death. Pulling in 2 jobs and doing their fair share of the family work( at the request of the movement). Maybe you think you wear a "cape" but News is that might be only at your level and it doesn't even come close to a lot of the rest of us.
Stop trying so hard to publish a false poster of real life out there. Your terribly wrong and only speak for yourself.
The first day your youngest child is in school full time, hit the ditches because its totally available to you. but prepare yourself, its a whole different world out there than that, that you try to smear.

watch this vid. and listen to what this women will tell you. Seems there are women out there that do not believe in your road blocks.

liisgo wrote:The only thing stopping the numbers in these positions you list and the ones you dont come down to only one thing, You. Why are there less women in these roles? choice. Anything stopping you from filling these roles? Yes, your own decisions and choices. Do not blame anything but yourselves now. Opportunity has been there for many many years now, so do not be stopped by the usual bull crap. How pathetic. You dont need a big education or years of service to work in the ditches, yet why are their no women seen in them? Your own choice.
For God sake get over it, stop spreading the crap through out society of why you cant. No one wants you in these positions if you cant "cut" it in the real world.
Not sure what society you live in but in mine Its still the men, by the numbers, that are working themselves to death. Pulling in 2 jobs and doing their fair share of the family work( at the request of the movement). Maybe you think you wear a "cape" but News is that might be only at your level and it doesn't even come close to a lot of the rest of us.
Stop trying so hard to publish a false poster of real life out there. Your terribly wrong and only speak for yourself.
The first day your youngest child is in school full time, hit the ditches because its totally available to you. but prepare yourself, its a whole different world out there than that, that you try to smear.

watch this vid. and listen to what this women will tell you. Seems there are women out there that do not believe in your road blocks.

The only thing forcing men in these positions you list and the ones you dont come down to only one thing, You. Why are there mainly men in these roles? choice. Anything stopping you from choosing other roles? Yes, your own decisions and choices. Do not blame anything but yourselves now. Opportunity has been there for many many years now, so do not be stopped by the usual bull crap. How pathetic. You dont need a big education or years of service to work in easier jobs, yet why are there so few men seen in them? Your own choice.
For God sake get over it, stop spreading the crap through out society of why you cant. No one wants you in these positions if you cant "cut" it in the real world.
Not sure what society you live in but in mine Its still the men, by the numbers, that are working themselves to death, by their own choice. Why? Pulling in 2 jobs and doing their fair share of the family work( at the request of the movement). Maybe you think you wear a "cape" but News is that might be only at your level and it doesn't even come close to a lot of the rest of us.
Stop trying so hard to publish a false poster of real life out there. Your terribly wrong and only speak for yourself.
The first day your youngest child is in school full time, hit the easier jobs because its totally available to you. but prepare yourself, its a whole different world out there than that, that you try to smear.
Why are so many men "playing the victim role"? There are so many other men out there who do not believe in you roadblocks.

ah, thats not a very good response. Liisgo was responding to your posts about women in different positions and your reasoning's why women arent represented. I didnt see complaining about men's positions but only your's.
Just kind of silly the response you write.
What was being said is that when a feminist complains about not having equal representation in many fields its about only one thing. Their own choices. If 100 men go after a government position and only 5 women, will dont expect a fair and equal representation.
Pretty weak response but you were backed into a corner with realization.

And of course, the only reason you see so many men in these positions is....Choice.
Like you said. Finally,

"Mansplaining" ...



... its just one term, that fine, I'm OK with that ...

Look at his body language. He's on his heels lol. Who's making it about gender?

She called him out and he has no other recourse.

Yup, mansplaining.

It's an apt term. Pepperoni and all.