Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 3 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 2 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By seagypsy

Thread: Isn't this sexist?

  1. #1 Isn't this sexist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Hill Women Say They'd Have 'Fiscal Cliff' Solved - Yahoo! News
    With 20 days to go until the nation goes over the so-called fiscal cliff, some female senators say if they were in charge, Congress would already have a deal."I think if we were in charge of the Senate and of the administration that we would have a budget deal by now," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told ABC's World News anchor Diane Sawyer today...."What I find is with all due deference to- deference to our male colleagues, that women's styles tend to be more collaborative," Collins said.Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said by nature women are "less confrontational and more collaborative," - both traits necessary to reach a deal to avoid the country going over the fiscal cliff.
    Now, just imagine a bunch of male senators saying: "If only we could bypass these [insert adjective] women, who are by nature [insert characterization], we could really get something done."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Unless i'm totally missing something it doesn't really put an forward an actual set of compromises each individual female Senator would be willing to agree to, now if they really actually want this to be taken seriously and not as a mere joke then surely they should actually put forward a proposal rather than just claiming they could come up with one.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    women behaving as sexist?

    lol

    "if we were in charge"----------far easier to be a gadfly opining from the outside

    let the lesson lech walesa learned when he managed to "get in control" guide all who wish for that position.

    I suspect that if nancy pelosi been more into cooperation and less into republican bashing that Obama would have had an easier time of it.
    So much for the myth of cooperative compliant females.
    Last edited by sculptor; December 12th, 2012 at 03:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Absolutely Harold.


    P.S women are less confrontational? more co-operative?... presumably they left out the 'towards other women'?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Women only hold 13 seats in the Senate; it will be 20 after January.

    Somewhat of a national embarrassment to have a lower percentage of women legislators than nations like Afghanistan.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Women only hold 13 seats in the Senate; it will be 20 after January.

    Somewhat of a national embarrassment to have a lower percentage of women legislators than nations like Afghanistan.
    Does it really matter how many are men or women, surely everybody would want the best people for the job regardless of gender, I mean I'd be quite happy if our parliment consisted entirely of female MP's if meant a better job was getting done for the country. I find all these attemps at social engineering the perfect gender balance are daft, I mean suppose you help members of either gender into a position to help achieve a balance what do you say to the next person "No sorry although you're perfectly qualified we've reached our target"? I think we forget all the PC nonsense and sexism, just promote the idea that no matter who or what you are if you're good enough then you'll get there. Forget any ratios lets just have a level playing field right from the start right through to the end and let the best people succeed regardless of gender, race, sexuality or religion. Then if it's always a case of equal opportunities we can forget about how many from this or that group and just know that everyone in a particular position earned it, are the best there is and deserves to be there.
    question for you likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You really think the 80% male reflects the ratio of men to women who are the best people for the job? I should hope not. Such strong bias indicates continuing and strong gender prejudice by each of the party organizations and the voting public.

    As for the OP Olympia Snow and several other women have staked out positions related to the deficit deals--she'd willing to lock down the lower rates for the lower and middle class at the expense and raising them for incomes above $250,000/year. That's at the heart of the Tea Party led stumbling block.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You really think the 80% male reflects the ratio of men to women who are the best people for the job? I should hope not.
    The problem I have is making an issue of a number. You see this is the way things work with real world employers, they have this idea that there needs to be so many women, blacks or gays in a particular role at a particular company, so employers actively seek out people to fill these roles, and more often than you might think, sometimes lowering the necessary standards that might have otherwise been needed for the position. Now this causes resentment that people have not always earned their position but also it leeds to the idea that these people are not good enough for the job. This then in turn actively leads to employers ruling out people from such groups once they've met their own prescribed targets.

    The real problem is you cannot have equality and descrimination together, the two just do not go. Whilst ever you make it easier for one group to get a postion over another people will never see them as equals, this also damages those who would never have needed the extra help in first place, it's not even a case of perceived guilt by association it's simply that most people can't tell who was helped and who wasn't so psychologically they are never viewed as equals.

    The only way to change this situation is eliminate all descrimination, base everything on ability, so that employers and other employees never have a reason to see a particular group as second rate, this is the only real way things will really start to change. Set a standard, then who ever achieves it has that opportunity, and forget about targets, ratios and numbers - with a level playing field and no descrimination these things will sort themselves out over time.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Women represent half the electorate. Obviously, a lot of them voted for men, so I'd say women are well represented.
    A lot of Democrat women must have voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary, and I'll bet a lot of Republican women voted for Romney over some of the excellent Republican women candidates as well.

    No surprise that Olympia Snow would agree with Democrats. She's practically a Democrat herself. That wasn't really the point of my post though. I am commenting on the blatant stereotyping of women and men, which hardly anybody is calling them out on.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I do think this "essential" nature of women argument should be avoided. For all I know the Senator might be right about the particular group of women in question. But the idea that all women leaders will, because of some ineffable woman stuff, always be more cooperative and less confrontational than any man leader is clearly nonsense.

    Unless you've never heard of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Simiravo Bandaranaike or Margaret Thatcher, all of them just as ruthless and confrontational as any man. And yes, there are plenty of examples like Mary Robinson and Gro Harlem Brundtland on the other side of the aggressive fence. Which just goes to show that women can vary as much as men can in their approaches to leadership.
    Harold14370, Ascended and Neverfly like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Obviously, a lot of them voted for men, so I'd say women are well represented.
    That many women might also be biased towards male politicians doesn't mean the bias doesn't exist.

    No surprise that Olympia Snow would agree with Democrats. She's practically a Democrat herself.
    That's the sort of thinking that's killing our party. The party insist that the tent that will only hold those who are 100% behind the republican platform, not only reinforces the echo chamber often based on distorted facts (such as the illusion that Romney might actually win), but also makes it immune to serious internal dialog and new ideas. I voted her several times before I changed by residency from Maine in the early 90s. Rather amazing she's still around. She's a good glimpse of the past though and fact that the republican party left her in recent years, not the other way around. She said something last years Reagan's party being able to accept a wide range of views that made him successful--her comments should seem all the most relevant given our most recent smashing defeat.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    But this is why this whole story seems a bit daft it's taking away credibility from people doing a serious and important job, it's also turned a serious financial issue into a mildly comic sexist sideshow. It leaves me, and I'm sure others, thinking if this is indeed true and not some publicity stunt, then why haven't or arn't they doing it. I'm sure we'd all welcome a viable solution and if they pulled off surely they would be given tremendous credit. No my over all feeling is this is most unfair to many of them, putting them in this position under the media spotlight and done nothing good for their public image.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Hill Women Say They'd Have 'Fiscal Cliff' Solved - Yahoo! News
    With 20 days to go until the nation goes over the so-called fiscal cliff, some female senators say if they were in charge, Congress would already have a deal."I think if we were in charge of the Senate and of the administration that we would have a budget deal by now," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told ABC's World News anchor Diane Sawyer today...."What I find is with all due deference to- deference to our male colleagues, that women's styles tend to be more collaborative," Collins said.Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said by nature women are "less confrontational and more collaborative," - both traits necessary to reach a deal to avoid the country going over the fiscal cliff.
    Now, just imagine a bunch of male senators saying: "If only we could bypass these [insert adjective] women, who are by nature [insert characterization], we could really get something done."
    Yes I think it is a sexist remark of the women to make. It always irritates me when women whine and complain if a man makes a remark that even vaguely suggests that he views a woman as different than men in anyway. But they are totally fine with women making generalizations about women implying that we are better than men in some way. Makes me ashamed to be a woman.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Makes me ashamed to be a woman.
    No need. Men get just as many opportunities to cringe and hide when some politician or columnist spouts equivalent rubbish about the innate strength and vigour (choose your own cliche) of men, making them more decisive or reasonable (choose more cliches).
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370;376015Now, just imagine a bunch of male senators saying: "If only we could bypass these [insert adjective
    women, who are by nature [insert characterization], we could really get something done."

    The thing is, there was once a time when men were in charge. Nobody has any illusions about that possibility being fundamentally better than the present state of affairs.

    Women can say it because nobody knows what kind of a world they'd create yet. Maybe someday they will get to be in charge, and then they'll make their mistakes and we'll finally get to see it proven that they are only human also.

    Until then.... they'll never stop nagging us, will they?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Until then.... they'll never stop nagging us, will they?
    I really don't know whether you think this is funny. But that would only work if this group was men only, and you know it's not.

    So it's sort of serious, sort of tongue in cheek, sort of you ladies won't mind if we fellers have our little digs at your expense, and if you lady-people complain that's too bad. It'll show you up for the humourless killjoys you really are, we always knew you couldn't take a joke - so sit tight and smile grimly, you can't win.

    Well, I'm old enough that I really don't care if you think I'm a nag or a killjoy or humourless. I really don't care.

    So cut it out.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It's not so much about joking as staying with the main notion of the thread: women appear to have retained all the cultural advantages they had from the sexist era, while gaining all the powers that had previously been reserved for men. They're free to nag us. They're free to belittle us. They can demand protection if they don't feel like fighting their own battles.

    Meanwhile we're expected to go out of our way to avoid saying anything that implies we ought to have any special privileges of our own.
    Boing3000 and seagypsy like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not so much about joking as staying with the main notion of the thread: women appear to have retained all the cultural advantages they had from the sexist era, while gaining all the powers that had previously been reserved for men. They're free to nag us. They're free to belittle us. They can demand protection if they don't feel like fighting their own battles.

    Meanwhile we're expected to go out of our way to avoid saying anything that implies we ought to have any special privileges of our own.
    I have to agree here. I often hear the same women who call men dogs and referred to them as being incapable of sexual self control and such, whine and moan if men make small generalizations about them. I see women haul off and punch the hell out of men, then if they get hit back they call him a dirty bastard who hits women. I think if women want all the powers of men, they should have grow a thick enough skin to roll with the punches, physical or verbal. If you want to play football, you better wear a cup.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    women appear to have retained all the cultural advantages they had from the sexist era,
    Firstly, let's get one thing clear. The sexist "era" is not over. It won't be until girls and boys get the same kind of educational support to develop the skills and interests they have, rather than what they're expected to have or are told they should have. It won't be until women and men have the same freedom of choice in pursuing education that suits or interests them without being ridiculed or harassed when they try to exercise those choices. Ditto for jobs. Jobs of course have the added bonus of needing to offer the same pay and conditions to men and women.

    But I'm really interested in all the cultural advantages that women apparently used to have. I'll remind you at this point that I'm well over 60, so I may be more familiar than you are with the cultural situation of women I have actually known who've lived through the last 100+ years (my great grandmother was born in 1870, and I knew her for a dozen years as well as several other relatives who had had children around the time of WW1). What advantages do you think women once had that they no longer have?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Man or woman, any one who wants to be an elected representative should be automatically excluded from office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    " Galt for President " You will never make it then.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    women appear to have retained all the cultural advantages they had from the sexist era,
    Firstly, let's get one thing clear. The sexist "era" is not over. It won't be until girls and boys get the same kind of educational support to develop the skills and interests they have, rather than what they're expected to have or are told they should have. It won't be until women and men have the same freedom of choice in pursuing education that suits or interests them without being ridiculed or harassed when they try to exercise those choices. Ditto for jobs. Jobs of course have the added bonus of needing to offer the same pay and conditions to men and women.

    But I'm really interested in all the cultural advantages that women apparently used to have. I'll remind you at this point that I'm well over 60, so I may be more familiar than you are with the cultural situation of women I have actually known who've lived through the last 100+ years (my great grandmother was born in 1870, and I knew her for a dozen years as well as several other relatives who had had children around the time of WW1). What advantages do you think women once had that they no longer have?
    Cultural advantages:

    I don't know how things are in Australia but in the USA, women do not have to register for the draft and are not put in direct combat when in war. Women have more say over the raising of children. Women, along with children, still get first dibs on being rescued in disasters. They are given priority in welfare programs, try getting foodstamps as a single man, they will laugh at you and toss you out of the office. Women are almost always treated as the victim in a domestic dispute even if it is the woman who is the aggressor and she has not been touched by the man.
    ________

    I agree this is a sexist era still. It is sexist in favor of women now and men get the shaft quite often. Employers will hire a woman over an equally qualified man just because she is pretty and/or single. On top of that I still see men holding doors for women but rarely see women hold doors for men, though I do all the time.

    So women are still catered to like ladies but they are allowed to live like men. And men are made to grovel and beg for forgiveness that they had the audacity to be born with a penis.

    In America, girls and boys DO get the same educational support, which means little to none. I am 36 so I have only memories from the more present era and I was never told I couldn't do any type of career just because I was a woman. I grew up being told just the opposite and my experiences have confirmed it. I have been a security guard, a bus driver, and a field hand. There are plenty of jobs that are dominated by men but they are jobs that few women want. Not because they are barred from working it. Not many women want to be trash collectors. For that matter not many men want to be that but it pays well. But there are plenty of female police and they are as intimidating, if not more, than any male officers.

    This is probably recent and only in my lifetime that this change has happened but I see the change continuing to sway in one direction to the point we are no longer equals but that men have to grovel at our feet. This isn't equality. it is emotional abuse against men at the hands of women. Men have started treating us fairly. it's time the feminists recognize it and stop giving them such a hard time.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    women appear to have retained all the cultural advantages they had from the sexist era,
    Firstly, let's get one thing clear. The sexist "era" is not over. It won't be until girls and boys get the same kind of educational support to develop the skills and interests they have, rather than what they're expected to have or are told they should have. It won't be until women and men have the same freedom of choice in pursuing education that suits or interests them without being ridiculed or harassed when they try to exercise those choices. Ditto for jobs. Jobs of course have the added bonus of needing to offer the same pay and conditions to men and women.
    So, when men have the option to drop out of college and become a homemaker? The option technically exists, of course, but as a man you'd be laughed at quite a lot if your wife is the only income earner.

    Or how about if another man is yelling insults at you, trying to provoke you into a fight. Maybe hide behind your girlfriend and let her stand up to him for you?

    It's good that women now have the option to be macho, but for men it's never been an option. It has always been a requirement.



    But I'm really interested in all the cultural advantages that women apparently used to have. I'll remind you at this point that I'm well over 60, so I may be more familiar than you are with the cultural situation of women I have actually known who've lived through the last 100+ years (my great grandmother was born in 1870, and I knew her for a dozen years as well as several other relatives who had had children around the time of WW1). What advantages do you think women once had that they no longer have?
    As I said, all of the advantages they used to have are the same ones they still do have.

    An interesting place to start in analyzing this is to look at how many men choose to have sexual reassignment surgery vs. women.

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    hus, the popular definition of a transsexual, for example, is that of "a woman trapped in a man's body." The popular definition also highlights that more men desire and undergo sex reassignment than women. Although the exact ratios are disputed in the professional literature, the generally accepted ratio is 4:1.
    Transsexualism
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    become a homemaker? The option technically exists, of course, but as a man you'd be laughed at quite a lot if your wife is the only income earner. .......

    It's good that women now have the option to be macho, but for men it's never been an option. It has always been a requirement.
    1. Women. You say become a "homemaker". As though it's an easy option. Modern appliances have eased some of the load for the last few decades. "Homemaking" before modern contraception and modern appliances, say when several of my schoolfriends married a year or so after leaving school, was no picnic. For our mothers and grandmothers and for a few of us, wielding pot sticks laden with cotton bed linens and shirts spilling boiling water on tired or unwary feet was hot, heavy, dangerous work, on your hands and arms as well if you lost your grip. And soap making is not for the faint-hearted either.

    As for making sauces, pickles, chutneys, fruit preserves and jellies or jams a few gallons at a time on a searing hot woodstove (the smell if you spilled anything sugary was horrible) in the worst heat of the summer, the less said the better. And the burns! Boiling fruit mixtures don't scald like water, they burn right through your skin. Handling those hot jars both as you fill them with boiling liquids and when you extract them from the vacuum processing requires strong hands, decisive movements and real nerve. (And fast reactions to hop out of the way if one of the bottles breaks and spills its contents.)

    2. Men. It seems you've not yet come across one of the main principles of the feminist movement.

    PHMT. Short for ... Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.

    The idea that men have "no option" is one of the main targets of feminist activism. It's not that women want to be 'just like men'. It's that everyone, men and women alike, should be able to pursue their education and their careers and their personal desires in the way that best suits the individual rather than in accordance with a "no options" stereotype.

    Why shouldn't men be able to take a few hours, weeks, months, years off work to care for children if that's what they want to do? Why shouldn't they work part-time if that suits their family arrangements? At the moment, working part-time or time off work for extended periods is seen as a "demand" by women. But it's not. It's a demand that employers should allow employees of any gender and any family arrangements options for the best way to combine their work with their family obligations wherever that is possible. (Because it's not just childcare. I remember I worked with a bloke who had lived his whole adult life with his sister, maybe a brother, I'm not sure. When that family member became terminally ill, he was the sole carer. And he was allowed to work part-time for a while and then time off for several months towards the end of his sibling's life. If we hadn't pushed so hard for "women's" rights for time off for caring obligations, he wouldn't have been able to do that so easily, if at all.)

    This article is mainly about single dads, but it applies equally to married dads. Why should men be accosted and in fear of arrest in an ordinary shop because they've stopped off to buy some underwear for their kids? Father knows best as single dads tackle the other glass ceiling
    It's an outrage. We know there are perverts out there, but they are outnumbered 100s if not 1000s to 1 by ordinary men who have ordinary lives and whose ordinary kids need ordinary underwear. And if shop assistants and security guards routinely saw men doing this sort of thing with or without kids in tow, this bloke would not have been seen as unusual, let alone suspicious.

    Patriarchy hurts men too - this particular man especially.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm glad that you see the problem from both sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    become a homemaker? The option technically exists, of course, but as a man you'd be laughed at quite a lot if your wife is the only income earner. .......

    It's good that women now have the option to be macho, but for men it's never been an option. It has always been a requirement.
    1. Women. You say become a "homemaker". As though it's an easy option. Modern appliances have eased some of the load for the last few decades. "Homemaking" before modern contraception and modern appliances, say when several of my schoolfriends married a year or so after leaving school, was no picnic. For our mothers and grandmothers and for a few of us, wielding pot sticks laden with cotton bed linens and shirts spilling boiling water on tired or unwary feet was hot, heavy, dangerous work, on your hands and arms as well if you lost your grip. And soap making is not for the faint-hearted either.

    As for making sauces, pickles, chutneys, fruit preserves and jellies or jams a few gallons at a time on a searing hot woodstove (the smell if you spilled anything sugary was horrible) in the worst heat of the summer, the less said the better. And the burns! Boiling fruit mixtures don't scald like water, they burn right through your skin. Handling those hot jars both as you fill them with boiling liquids and when you extract them from the vacuum processing requires strong hands, decisive movements and real nerve. (And fast reactions to hop out of the way if one of the bottles breaks and spills its contents.)
    I'm happy to admit that it's not an easy option. Certainly it isn't one I want. I dread the day I will reluctantly settle down and have kids with someone. I dread it terribly. I might end up having to split that workload 50/50 with someone.

    However, I also know some men who are naturally predisposed toward that life. If you're predisposed toward something, then it's at least enjoyable for you, no matter how difficult or frustrating it might be for others.

    The mistake in the past was assuming every woman would be predisposed or that there was something wrong with her if she wasn't. It's kind of like how they used to forcibly train left handed children to use their right hands. A lot of wasted potential and unnecessary repetition of effort.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I'm glad that you see the problem from both sides.
    From my perspective, there's only one side. Good sense for people of any sex and any family arrangement.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Hill Women Say They'd Have 'Fiscal Cliff' Solved - Yahoo! News
    With 20 days to go until the nation goes over the so-called fiscal cliff, some female senators say if they were in charge, Congress would already have a deal."I think if we were in charge of the Senate and of the administration that we would have a budget deal by now," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told ABC's World News anchor Diane Sawyer today...."What I find is with all due deference to- deference to our male colleagues, that women's styles tend to be more collaborative," Collins said.Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said by nature women are "less confrontational and more collaborative," - both traits necessary to reach a deal to avoid the country going over the fiscal cliff.
    Now, just imagine a bunch of male senators saying: "If only we could bypass these [insert adjective] women, who are by nature [insert characterization], we could really get something done."
    Oh yes. If only we had a women in charge, things would run smoothly and everyone would get along. Wait, didn't we already have a women in charge of one of the houses of congress?



    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    What amazes me is why they'd come out and say such a thing, not only is it making light of a serious issue but turning it into a farce. What it's done is made everyone think "ok then what's your solution?" or they are thinking "yeah right, as if", but whole point is why come out and say anything unless they could back it up. I just can't see it being all that popular with some of the people that are going to be hit by big tax rises or those that suddenly discover the program that was giving them help and support has been cut. Now surely if there is a time for humour it's after the deal has been done and the tension and pressure is off, but not in the middle of serious negotiations. Also, it does feed into the stereotype that men don't believe that women can do things as well as them, it's just set up for men to be asking "ok then what can you do that we can't?", but with the obvious answer of nothing because it never was about men or women or their gender based skillsets it was always about trying to solve a difficult problem. Any suggestion that either a man or women could do something better on the basis of their gender alone is both daft and sexist, it's been proved time and again that both men and women are both equally capable, so notions of stereotype ideas just seem very dated and quite silly, it all just smacks of an ill timed joke that belongs in the 1960's or 70's. When you are being taken seriously people expect you to behave seriously.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •