Go into your nearest bank branch. How many male employees do you see. Or your nearest library, hospital, or government department, especially environment.
Include all the facts. It's not a competition, men and women are different, and vive le difference I say.
Yes but that is not a result of unequal opportunity, it is a choice. Anyone can study medicine, librarianship etc those opportunities are not offered to one gender only. Women are still under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of ability but lack of opportunity.
I totally agree vive le difference
The next vocation to be vacated by men 'by choice' will be teaching, and after that probably parliamentarian.
There are more subtle modes of bullying and gender bias than skyping co-workers having sex. Affirmative action and quotas are just two of the clumsier mechanisms.
I have to disagree with your statement here. I'm female and would have thought it was fairly obvious that women are under represented in business, sciences etc not through lack of opportunity, but through lack of interest. If women really wanted jobs in those fields they would have them.
I don't think it's as clear cut (to use a Kev expression) as coming down to choice versus oppression.Exactly!! It still amazes me that feminists see the lack of women in business as oppression by the "patriarchy" rather than personal choice.
Thanks L
I don't want an army of girls.
gg
Call me old fashioned, sexist, whatever, but no way I want to see women on the front line of combat.
That is not on the basis of capability either, but I still hold doors open for ladies.
It will be a sad day when women are not treated differently than men, imho.A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.
A bit sad wayneL, your view does seem to be ice-ageist. Starting with the fact that everyone has an equal right to be here and has an equal right to take part. You appear to be against equal rights for all.
Balanced comment, and would expect nothing less. ABC's Leigh Sales and Ali Moore (they'll be wrapt to be in this list), Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Mary Robinson, Petra Kelly, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Coco Chanel, Golda Meir, Diana Princess of Wales, Boudicca,.....I don't think it's as clear cut (to use a Kev expression) as coming down to choice versus oppression.
There's a good deal of both.
If I had to come down on one side, it would be that if women fail to achieve promotion and the roles they seek, then it's more likely they're just not good enough than that the boys' club is keeping them out.
viz Gail Kelly, Heather Ridout, just to name two examples.
It is nothing to do with equal rights, it is about optimum performance, both physically and psychologically. I personally could not function properly as a soldier if there were women in my unit. The reason is because I love women; my relationship with them is different than it is with men.
There is a reason there are no women in the Wallabies or the All Blacks or any top line sporting team. There is a reason for women only sport etc.
In biology, rights are not equal in many things. Men have no right to bear children for example.
Equality of opportunity in business, liberty, politics, social settings etc is a right I believe. But equality in every facet of life as some Fabian ideological end is not desirable IMO.
If that is ice-ageist, fine, then I want to live in the ice age, not some Orwellian/Fabian dystopia.
Yes I think you're onto something there. Same principle as female door security, which can work well....Seriously, if you had a peacekeeping force made up of all female soldiers, wouldn't that be a help?? Especially against the Taliban.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?