Feminism

[SirRumpole]

Lots of people work in jobs they don't particularly enjoy, we have lots of safety nets in society, at the end of the day it's your choice what you do, outside of sex slaves, I don't ghink anyone is forced into prostitution.

I mean is it a social problem that needs to be addressed when you have a woman working a cleaning job or changing nappies in an old folks home they she doesn't particularly enjoy, but has a lack of other alternatives?

It's a fine line between choice and necessity, but your last two examples are jobs that SOMEONE has to do and they have a value to society whereas prostitution is not a necessity to anyone merely satisfying someone else's pleasure.

But yes, if women find prostitution repugnant there are other alternatives including social security.I'm not sure what this argument has to do with feminism though.

 

[Value Collector]

It's a fine line between choice and necessity, but your last two examples are jobs that SOMEONE has to do and they have a value to society whereas prostitution is not a necessity to anyone merely satisfying someone else's pleasure.

But yes, if women find prostitution repugnant there are other alternatives including social security.I'm not sure what this argument has to do with feminism though.

Most people who work, work out of necessity, whether they choose to work 30hours cleaning or 2 hours providing a sexual service is their choice, neither is immoral, its just a personal preference based on your like and dislikes.

i wouldn't say prostitution doesn't have value for society, there are lots physiological benefits to having sex, even if it was just pure entertainment value, saying sex workers offer no value to society would be like saying the music or motion picture industry or theme parks or sports entertainment has no benefits to society.

 

[sydboy007]

Been thinking on this one for a bit.

Happened to see some woman's A league soccer on the ABC today. When you compare the incomes they earn and the recognition they receive, there's a massive gap to that of men. Just look at the recent football world cup, or the lack of credit tot eh Australian woman's cricket team that has been performing far better than the men have recently.

I also think for a lot of woman who lack an interest in sports makes it hard in the higher ranks. I've noticed how a few of the guys at work who went to private schools bond over their shared playing of Rugby. They have a pretty good network due to it amongst old school friends, but also between the private schools as well. Yes, that also affects men who didn't attend a private school, though my experience is more men than woman enjoy the sport.

The we have the crazy ideas of some men. Look to the USA when conservative politicians will say they're not scientists so can't say for sure if climate change is occurring, yet they're also not doctors but feel fully qualified to deny woman the right to an abortion and pretty much tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies. I still remember the nut job Todd Akin in the US talking about legitimate rape and how a woman's body will shut down any pregnancy that occurs so there would be no need for an abortion. I doubt a man would ever think of using that term about a male rape victim.

There's been quite a bit of new apartment construction in my area and the rose of Australia hotel has been hosting a lot of the tradies in the afternoon. The odd derogatory comment they make about woman shocks me. Yes, a group of men a bit drunk, but if you wouldn't say in front of your partner, why say it at all? I still think there is a low underlying level of misogyny out there in Australia, just like there's a low level of racisim that ebbs and flows with the community attitudes.

Maybe the term feminism is out dated, but there's definitely still a lot of things to change before woman are equal with men in most respects.

 

[SirRumpole]

Happened to see some woman's A league soccer on the ABC today. When you compare the incomes they earn and the recognition they receive, there's a massive gap to that of men. Just look at the recent football world cup, or the lack of credit tot eh Australian woman's cricket team that has been performing far better than the men have recently.

Pay differences are relative to the audiences that they attract. Women's cricket may make it one day, but if you played a women's world cup cricket match at the same time as a men's match at another comparable venue, I'll wager that the men's match will outrate the women's in terms of attendance and TV audience.

That's not a statement about the quality of the men's vs women's ability, just that the public personna at the moment is that cricket is a man's game.

 

[Value Collector]

Pay differences are relative to the audiences that they attract. Women's cricket may make it one day, but if you played a women's world cup cricket match at the same time as a men's match at another comparable venue, I'll wager that the men's match will outrate the women's in terms of attendance and TV audience.

.

Agreed, the pay a sports star can earn is directly related to the revenue generated by ticket sales, pay tv downloads, mechandise and sponsorships.

As long as the sports revenue is being divided between two classes, one side will always be getting more coverage than the other, I have no idea on the stats, but I could imagine some in some sports womans teams get more coverage, eg, beach volley ball, net ball and figure skating.

Maybe we need to integrate men and women in more sports, But a lot of people would say that wouldn't be fair in contact sports, eg rugby league.

 

[sydboy007]

Pay differences are relative to the audiences that they attract. Women's cricket may make it one day, but if you played a women's world cup cricket match at the same time as a men's match at another comparable venue, I'll wager that the men's match will outrate the women's in terms of attendance and TV audience.

That's not a statement about the quality of the men's vs women's ability, just that the public personna at the moment is that cricket is a man's game.

Yes the income generated by men's sports is higher, but why? It seems womans sports, in general, are second rated across a broad spectrum. It's not so much the industry itself, as they just following the eye balls, but a society thing. A lot of woman's teams seem pretty invisible, not only in Australia but pretty around the world. Try asking a cricket / soccer / hockey fan to name some of the great Australian players. I'd be surprised if they actually named a woman. Tennis would be the exception.

Maybe it's time to integrate. A lot of sports could have men and woman competing against each other

Soccer could easily be a mixed team sports. Cricket, hockey and most non contact sports could also probably get away with mixed teams.

I think the imagery of men and woman playing with and against each other would be a potent symbol that woman are equal with men.

 

[basilio]

If one wants to see what feminism could mean check out the work of Sally Wainwright.

Sally is now (finally) recognized as the best TV writer in the UK. She currently has 3 outstanding series with exceptionally strong female characters. The shows are Last Tango in Halifax, Scott and Bailey and Happy Valley. These are all well worth a view.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/th...aking-feminist-crime-drama-in-the-uk-20140828
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...like-writing-women-theyre-heroic-happy-valley

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes the income generated by men's sports is higher, but why?

It could just come down to the fact that men are more interested in sport than women overall.

When sporting discussions arise, women are more likely to express the opinion that sport is a waste of time (possibly because it distracts their partner's attention from the needs of the female) and so women get a bit envious that sport has taken the attention of men from them.

Is lack of interest in sport by women an expression of feminism, or just a cry for attention ? Maybe one is an expression of the other.

I'd like to hear a psychologist's opinion on that.

 

[Tisme]

Well I have had four women doing traditional male roles in a very male dominated industry for a few years now ....ground breaking in many ways.

I blame my poor performance as a male dominator on the head strong ancestoral and current family women, my departed wife, my daughter and a missing link whereby I lust after and love women, but just can't make a bridge to the sepulchral shores of Realmanland so I can look back from it's headland to the clusters of fabled female weaknesses.

 

[Calliope]

Well I have had four women doing traditional male roles in a very male dominated industry for a few years now ....ground breaking in many ways.

I blame my poor performance as a male dominator on the head strong ancestoral(sic) and current family women, my departed wife, my daughter and a missing link whereby I lust after and love women

The Americans have a term for that...it's called being "pussy whipped".

 

[Hodgie]

Yes the income generated by men's sports is higher, but why? It seems womans sports, in general, are second rated across a broad spectrum. It's not so much the industry itself, as they just following the eye balls, but a society thing. A lot of woman's teams seem pretty invisible, not only in Australia but pretty around the world. Try asking a cricket / soccer / hockey fan to name some of the great Australian players. I'd be surprised if they actually named a woman. Tennis would be the exception.

Maybe it's time to integrate. A lot of sports could have men and woman competing against each other

Soccer could easily be a mixed team sports. Cricket, hockey and most non contact sports could also probably get away with mixed teams.

I think the imagery of men and woman playing with and against each other would be a potent symbol that woman are equal with men.

Women would not stand a chance against men in soccer, sorry but that's the simple fact of it. You get mixed teams when people are younger, the women all move to women only teams when kids start hitting puberty because they simply cannot keep up. I noticed a massive difference around 14 or 15 when I was playing. Men are simply bigger and stronger and soccer actually is a contact sport, if a women was going shoulder to shoulder with a man she would get knocked over plus she would not keep up.

Also the skill level in women's soccer compared to men's has a gigantic difference.

I remember when I was playing under 15s soccer just for my local club, nothing special we won for our division but it was only a gold coast local league, we vs'd the women's QLD state team (open) and beat them by several goals, as a striker I found it easy to run around them and they just could not tackle like another male would. Keep in mind that from that point on males continue to grow for several more gears while women do not.

If we vs'd the males team of the same division we would have been absolutely destroyed. Its no contest.

I also remember there was a television program called Soccer Superstar or something like that on Fox 8 where a bunch of non-professional soccer players all competed for a chance to sign with an A league squad. In 1 of the episodes they vs'd the Australian Womens team and they had to play handicapped (the male side had a few less players than the women) and still beat them. You're looking at a bunch of young kids that just went into a competition and have never played together as a team before and they beat the Australian womens team who run their whole life and career around it, yes they were a talented bunch but they are vsing the women that represent our country in the sport, this is the crème of the crop in womens soccer in Australia. Again, if they vs'd the Socceroos (the male side) it wouldn't have been close.

It's possible that this is because so many more males play so there is a greater selection. However, if there were mixed leagues where women or men can be selected for the same squad in soccer I can guarantee it would be very rare for any women to be competing against the top level soccer players in the world.

I don't think it's sexist to say that males are simply built differently to females and this is reflected in sports performance.

 

[basilio]

The modern woman ? .. perhaps

Does their work make them cynical about marriage? None admit to it, but all the female detectives I speak to say they continue to be surprised by the games partners played in relationships. “The case that really blew me away was of this woman who said she knew her husband was having an affair, and she just wanted me to give her the evidence,” says Khatri. “So I ask her what she will do with it – bring it up with their families, or go to the court? She told me she would do neither – she would save the evidence for when she is caught cheating.”

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...dies-detective-agencies-cheating-social-media

 

[Julia]

I don't think it's sexist to say that males are simply built differently to females and this is reflected in sports performance.

No, of course it's not and thanks for raising the example of the physical differences between men and women.
That has nothing to do with misogyny, just reflecting on reality.

The sort of thing that so irritates me is when women squawk indignantly about a man opening a door for them.
Wouldn't we all, as ordinary courteous human beings, hold open a door for someone following us, or if they are just struggling with parcels etc? It's the faux outrage that's so silly.

Does their work make them cynical about marriage? None admit to it, but all the female detectives I speak to say they continue to be surprised by the games partners played in relationships. “The case that really blew me away was of this woman who said she knew her husband was having an affair, and she just wanted me to give her the evidence,” says Khatri. “So I ask her what she will do with it – bring it up with their families, or go to the court? She told me she would do neither – she would save the evidence for when she is caught cheating.”

I'm not surprised. Women are often more manipulative than men in my experience.

Syd, re your remark about the cat calls I suspect blokes do that to try to embarrass and intimidate.
If a woman simply laughs and walks on it usually takes the wind out of their sails.

 

[Knobby22]

I read a great article on feminism, I think it was in Fairfax, that said that there were two strands of Feminism.
Individualistic Feminism exemplified by the right and women such as Julie Bishop and the collective form of feminism used by the Left.

It severely criticised the Left side for not being inclusive and being too narrow minded on what feminism is. It stated Feminism cannot go forward while the leftist part of the movement limited its thinking and did not take into account other women's attitudes and in fact deliberately excluded them in many cases.

Most women are by naturally feminists but not in the sense the left wants them to be. It is no wonder most women do not identify with the so called "Feminist movement".

 

[Craton]

OK, Julia I'll bite.

Feminism. A word that makes me, as a man, think about how I relate to women. To a lot of people I guess feminism means equality between the sexes as in equal pay, equal rights and the like. But how can this be when there are glaring differences between the male and female of our species?

Firstly, and the most obvious is that men and women are biologically different. This biological difference is something that will always stand in the way of allowing equality between the sexes to exist. To exist with some sort of parity at least. This biological difference will also preclude any equality of rights as well. Why?

If men could bear children then this would be a non-issue but the fact is men cannot and thus, a woman would/should be deemed to have more rights in this regard. Her right to bring life into the world is her right alone. Yes, she may have an obligation to discuss this with her partner but whether she does or does not should not be determined by moral, male or religious dogma.

Also, the fact that it is the woman that bears children makes her the so-called weaker sex. Hence this perceived vulnerability makes her more fragile and thus needs protection provided by the apparently stronger male. This all adds up to the situation that lessens her rights because as the woman cannot protect herself, she is at the mercy and direction of the man and so, by extrapolation, has less rights than man.

Often it is said that men are not only chauvinistic but also misogynistic towards women and taking the role of protectant, he has most certainly misused that power. No doubt this weaker sex scenario is entrenched deep within our social and cultural psyche. In the Christian religion Eve was the first to sin and therefore all women born since are tainted. This may sound simplistic but it is what it is and the clear dominance of man over woman that has existed for many a millennium is evident still to this day, and all from her apparent weakness of body and spirit.

Of course her mind screams for an equality of sorts and in part this has been metered out slowly with women being given the right to vote and more recently, being able to bear arms alongside male soldiers in the line of fire. Still, there can never be true equality because men are men and women are women. This must be conceded before any meaningful agreement can be reached in terms of equality.

To my mind, feminism means the embracing of what a woman is and not being ashamed of having curves, of having hormonal swings, of child bearing, of being a contributing member of our society, of being paid fairly if not equality, of being recognised that she is a human being with the same amount of worth that a man has and of wanting to have the right to expound these very facts. The right to advertise what a woman is without being cajoled, abused or looked down upon. Most of all, to have the same rights and privileges that a man is imbued in the eyes of the courts, in the workplace, in public, in the home and across the land.

I wanted to touch on the subject of the exploitation of the flesh but while our media idols flaunt their “sex sells” angle, the denigration of women along with their rights will continue.

For certain women want to be treated in a fair and just manner and with the same weight of rights a man has. Whether that means equally as a man is another matter. That being said, I reckon we have come a long way in the last three or four decades but I make no mistake, women are still seen as objects of desire... Until man recognises woman as his equal, the status quo remains.

Disclaimer: I’ve always seen men and women as equals. Both have their strengths, both have their weaknesses and I’d like to think both have the same rights too.

In short, feminism is about being feminine and being proud of it.

 

[Julia]

I read a great article on feminism, I think it was in Fairfax, that said that there were two strands of Feminism.
Individualistic Feminism exemplified by the right and women such as Julie Bishop and the collective form of feminism used by the Left.

It severely criticised the Left side for not being inclusive and being too narrow minded on what feminism is. It stated Feminism cannot go forward while the leftist part of the movement limited its thinking and did not take into account other women's attitudes and in fact deliberately excluded them in many cases.

Most women are by naturally feminists but not in the sense the left wants them to be. It is no wonder most women do not identify with the so called "Feminist movement".

Knobby thanks for that. It sounds right on the money. Says it all really.

Craton, hope your post never falls into the hands of the feminazis! They would tear you to shreds.
I feel somewhat similarly inclined, but am trying to understand that you mean well enough, despite the archaic reasoning, viz in particular this:

No doubt this weaker sex scenario is entrenched deep within our social and cultural psyche. In the Christian religion Eve was the first to sin and therefore all women born since are tainted

Just can't believe any modern man could say that!!!

What about all the women who choose not to be baby bearing machines? Who are simply individuals in their own right? Why on earth should they be required to be, as you put it, "feminine"? Wear pretty dresses and always present a loving presence for the cave man husband when he comes home at night?

I'm reminded of some of the articles in such pap as the Women's Weekly in the 60s where women were advised that "if you want to keep your husband happy, be sure to be dressed nicely, have fresh make up on, a bright smile and a welcoming drink with the kiss of greeting, no matter what your day. Always remember he's the head of the household and must be treated with loving respect".

Good god!

Hodgie earlier made the entirely relevant point that of course women have in most cases less physical strength than men. That's just a biological fact. But many women have turned what strength they have into a strong defensive force in order to deal with the 'knock them down and take them' mentality that still exists in some chauvinistic males.

Your post has actually just demonstrated the ongoing need for the feminist movement, proving my original premise to be wrong. I'd really thought overall women had achieved respect as individuals, rather than the role of an accessory to men.

 

[Craton]

Craton, hope your post never falls into the hands of the feminazis! They would tear you to shreds.

Well, I did say I'd bite and I've taken the hook, line and sinker

I feel somewhat similarly inclined, but am trying to understand that you mean well enough, despite the archaic reasoning, viz in particular this: "No doubt this weaker sex scenario is entrenched deep within our social and cultural psyche. In the Christian religion Eve was the first to sin and therefore all women born since are tainted"

Just can't believe any modern man could say that!!!

It's simply an observation, we may not admit to such a thing but put yourself in the shoes of a man, then imagine hearing for the first time that the apple was taken by a 'woman'. It's there, in the back of the mind, deep within the subconscious whether you or I like it or not.

What about all the women who choose not to be baby bearing machines? Who are simply individuals in their own right? Why on earth should they be required to be, as you put it, "feminine"? Wear pretty dresses and always present a loving presence for the cave man husband when he comes home at night?

Please don't get me wrong, I have huge respect for the female gender, I also believe they have the same rights as men and have the same rights as men to be as individual as they care to be. However, the cavemen are all too numerous where I live and I suspect elsewhere too! Thinking about the so called sporting hero's here.

I'm reminded of some of the articles in such pap as the Women's Weekly in the 60s where women were advised that "if you want to keep your husband happy, be sure to be dressed nicely, have fresh make up on, a bright smile and a welcoming drink with the kiss of greeting, no matter what your day. Always remember he's the head of the household and must be treated with loving respect".

Good god!

Pursuing some of the mags my teenager daughter bought (What? With centrefolds!) I'm not sure we've come a long way since those days but in a way too, those articles empower and give women a voice.

I know, beyond belief but I have seen first hand what women will do to attract and try and keep a man. Flashing obscene amounts of cleavage, wearing the shortest of skirts and more make up than a King's Cross hooker.
Ask me about my first grandson and how he was created in the vain attempt to keep my son "attached" to the child's mother. Both were teenagers at the time.

It was sicking to see my son so manipulated but to my son's credit, he's a wonderful father to the lad even though thankfully, the relationship ended long before the child was born.

That's not being feminine now is it? That's being a full on bitch full stop.

Hodgie earlier made the entirely relevant point that of course women have in most cases less physical strength than men. That's just a biological fact. But many women have turned what strength they have into a strong defensive force in order to deal with the 'knock them down and take them' mentality that still exists in some chauvinistic males.

Your post has actually just demonstrated the ongoing need for the feminist movement, proving my original premise to be wrong. I'd really thought overall women had achieved respect as individuals, rather than the role of an accessory to men.

Again, that subconscious thing about strength and the weaker sex. Unfortunately I think you are quite correct about the accessory (conquest) factor and I'd hazard a guess that most men will not have the gonads to admit it. Remember Julia Gillard's misogynist comments, one doesn't have to guess why she made them. Remember Abbotts' wink? Says it all right there. It goes to the very heart of the feminism movement I reckon.

However I do think that overall, men are a lot more sensitive and respectful in how they act towards and what they say around women. I'm not sure if that's because of the fear of repercussions or if indeed, most of us have finally come out and left the cave behind. Thing is I'm a bloke, I hear what blokes says when women are not around. No doubt it's the same with you sheila's, eh.

Julia, I must add that I find this woman, man thing fascinating, it's the most basic of human emotions, the attraction between the sexes, the want to love and be loved, procreation et al. How we interact between the sexes speaks volumes about us as a species. Throw in all the different cultures and sexual preferences into the mix and the mind bogles!

 

[burglar]

... the mind bogles!

A man will risk love to get sex, while a woman will risk sex to get love!

 

[Tisme]

The Americans have a term for that...it's called being "pussy whipped".

Could be right

I really am not threatened at all though and I don't have a need to threaten either.

 

[Tisme]

I'm reminded of some of the articles in such pap as the Women's Weekly in the 60s where women were advised that "if you want to keep your husband happy, be sure to be dressed nicely, have fresh make up on, a bright smile and a welcoming drink with the kiss of greeting, no matter what your day. Always remember he's the head of the household and must be treated with loving respect".

.

I think you are falling into a trap of sameness by wheeling our the same kind of mantra the vocals used in the sixties and seventies you refer to.

The Darren Stevens of this world never really existed as a force in this country, although I'm sure there were/are those women who do dress to impress for a myriad of reasons. I was fortunate to have a wife who took great pleasure in dressing well and treating me like I was loved and valuable; in no way did I think less of her because she was happy to do the "feminine" stuff ... stuff that evolved from women's wants and needs, with men all too happy to encourage the eye candy choices the women made and go to the pub when the fashion and prevailing man's worth turned sour on occasions.