The Student Room Group

Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Azaelia
There would be more if companies weren't so worried about women leaving to have babies. When I was employed on a 6month rolling contract basis just a few years ago, I was actually told by my boss (who was female too), that she wouldn't permanently employ me or other young women because she was worried we could go off on maternity leave at any time.

Sexism in employment is rife.

It is not more about sexism but...Maternity leave as far as I know is paid in a lot of places so if you hire a woman and she leaves, you will have to pay her despite her not doing any work. (ok if government involved that completely different matter).

Nobody prevents woman from not having the children though. Work. Just work. With the more topics like - "who needs children", "I don't understand long term relationships" in western european societies (they are more advanced in feminism) I don't see that as a problem anymore. Just like men fight for CEO position, woman can fight too. Proof you worth or something...Don't remember the quote.

With the technology development I can imagine how it will look like in the future where to create new life people will combine genes in their own machines lol.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by ThatOldGuy
...I referenced and showed that entire country governments...


Despite making a bold claim you have not answered my questions about how many is 'many' and by what evidence you demonstrate that this 'many' believed women were not people. The passing of laws is not actual evidence of what people believe let alone what the 'many' you make reference to believe.

It's curious that you've shifted away from the issue of abortion and the foetus, maybe that was your intention?
Original post by Azaelia
What a load of baloney! :biggrin: I work in the construction industry, And there are plenty of female police officers too.


You got it wrong. The pay gap and equality debate has centered around the elite jobs and C-Suite roles. They talk about jobs in finance, law, banking, consulting etc.
Original post by Chucke1992
With the technology development I can imagine how it will look like in the future where to create new life people will combine genes in their own machines lol.

We actually have something like this already! Called surrogate mothers.
As giving birth nowadays is much easier than in the past and with the advent of cloud services we can introduce something like "Surrogate Mother as a Service" (sounds like SM as a Service, but it is a service too lol) where you can choose woman to bear a child.

Pay her and and work.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Axiomasher
Despite making a bold claim you have not answered my questions about how many is 'many' and by what evidence you demonstrate that this 'many' believed women were not people. The passing of laws is not actual evidence of what people believe let alone what the 'many' you make reference to believe.

It's curious that you've shifted away from the issue of abortion and the foetus, maybe that was your intention?


I did answer your question and provided the fact that women were not legally persons as a method of doing so. How many is many? I don't know. That's why I didn't say "Three hundred and fifty-seven thousand, four hundred and six" and instead said 'Many'. You refuse to accept that the laws of an entire country represent 'many', so I'm asking you to provide me with what the definition of 'many' is using your own burden of proof - That is, that you cannot appeal to an authority(Like a dictionary) in the same sense that you do not accept an authority(In my case, a government).

And you still haven't answered the question of whether or not murdering women prior to their being granted personhood was wrong. You seem to be avoiding answering direct questions. Perhaps you're afraid it will show you're in the wrong?
Original post by Chucke1992
We actually have something like this already! Called surrogate mothers.
As giving birth nowadays is much easier than in the past and with the advent of cloud services we can introduce something like "Surrogate Mother as a Service" (sounds like SM as a Service, but it is a service too lol) where you can choose woman to bear a child.

Pay her and and work.


Interesting. Rather than having an artificial insemination or IVF for surrogate mothers, do you think that the husband should just have sex with the surrogate woman instead rather than the tedious, long and painful insemination process?
Original post by Wired_1800
Interesting. Rather than having an artificial insemination or IVF for surrogate mothers, do you think that the husband should just have sex with the surrogate woman instead rather than the tedious, long and painful insemination process?

It might be a bonus service or additional check box :smile: (do sex with her, do it raw and so on)
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Chucke1992
It might be a bonus service or additional check box :smile: (do sex with her, do it raw and so on)


Lol. Many women would not approve. :colone:
Original post by ThatOldGuy
You refuse to accept that the laws of an entire country represent 'many'...


But the passing of laws don't of themselves represent what people actually believe, no matter how you characterise 'many'. I'm sure there are laws which do represent the beliefs of 'many' but that's not the same thing as saying a law demonstrates the belief of many, indeed some laws seem to fly in the face of popular belief no matter that there might be democratic representation of some kind. Moreover, there will be laws passed every day which the wider population are completely ignorant about let alone have a belief as to. Let me help you out though seeing as you're not getting anywhere with all this. I believe that women are people, I don't believe that a foetus is a person, I believe that a foetus starts to gain personhood when it is at, or is close to, physiological independence from the mother. Is there an arbitrary quality to that? Sure, but as I definitely do not accept that a fertilised egg is suddenly a person and there is a development from that to personhood I think that is the most sensible point at which to identify the status. Until a foetus is physiologically independent then it is still, in my view, something of an organ of the mother.
Reading this thread makes it obvious why so many emasculated men can't get laid. Stop complaining and toughen up or forever be alone.
Original post by Dumb guy 4
Reading this thread makes it obvious why so many emasculated men can't get laid. Stop complaining and toughen up or forever be alone.


This.
This thread is just evident that "men" in this country are v unmanly.
Original post by Axiomasher
I don't think you should be thinking of punching anyone in the face unless you genuinely fear for your safety and it constitutes a reasonable response to their behaviour (i.e. they are swinging at you). Feeling offended or harassed isn't quite the same thing. Otherwise, whether an attacker is male or female shouldn't make any difference, it doesn't to me.


that's where I draw the line man, I don't take advice how or when to punch!
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by loveleest
This thread is just evident that "men" in this country are v unmanly.

that's sexist
Original post by Wired_1800
I agree with this. I saw a woman slap a man in public during an apparent argument. The man did not overreact and people just kept on with their business. I wonder whether the reaction would have been the same if it was the man that slapped and humilated the woman.


there's that video on YouTube about a bus driver punching a woman after she repeatedly harrased him, then everyone yelled "hey she's a female man!"
she said she regrets f'in with him later in an interview smh
Original post by loveleest
This thread is just evident that "men" in this country are v unmanly.


It’s much kinder to the ego to blame women for their lack of romantic success, than to reflect on themselves and see that the reason they can’t get laid is how they treat people/lack of social skills/ anything other than a conspiracy that women have impossible standards. :toofunny:
Original post by snowman77
This is what I don't understand about the modern day gender equality/feminism movement. They want equality in some areas, but other areas they are happy for things to stay the same as long as they receive the benefit.

Women want equal treatment in the workplace with their male colleagues. They want equal pay (FWIW the gender pay gap is a myth - same job for same hours get paid the same, otherwise it's illegal), they don't want to experience sexual harassment in the workplace (what about all the false accusations which ruin men's careers?), they want the same opportunities men have, they want equal opportunities for promotion (despite many of them taking time off for maternity leave).

This is all fair enough. Except they don't want equality in dating. Men are still expected to:

- ask the woman out and face possible rejection (women might give subtle hints, but under no circumstances will they ask the man out - that is "his job":wink:
- pay for the first date (and possible subsequent dates as well)
- propose to the woman
- treat her with meals/gifts
- hold open the door for her
- give up his coat if she's cold, so he can freeze (but never the other way around)
- put the majority of effort into sex (this is centered around pleasing the woman - the man's enjoyment is always assumed)
- be manly and dominant, never show any weak emotions, keep his problems bottled up because otherwise it's "unmanly"
- household chores must now be shared. Women no longer have to do all the cooking and cleaning, it's shared equally between men, because otherwise it's gender discrimination/oppression. Despite the fact men are still seen as the primary breadwinner in the household and a man without a job is a virtual disaster.


So back to the original question: Why do women want gender equality in the workplace (and indeed many other areas), but not in dating? I'm interested to hear to views of men, women and any feminists.


The whole "feminist" movement and ideals in first world countries are just led by women who are brought up to believe they're disadvantaged. Its one of those petty movements you just laugh in the face of and move on, no point paying attention to such stupidity.
Original post by loveleest
This thread is just evident that "men" in this country are v unmanly.


You're just a brainless princess who insists on abusing their gender, stay single forever :wink:
Original post by cat_mac
It’s much kinder to the ego to blame women for their lack of romantic success, than to reflect on themselves and see that the reason they can’t get laid is how they treat people/lack of social skills/ anything other than a conspiracy that women have impossible standards. :toofunny:


I did not see that in the last two or three pages
Original post by Chucke1992
I did not see that in the last two or three pages


It is a reoccurring theme in this thread though.

Sadly a lot of guys on here seem to hate women just as much as the “men are trash” feminists hate men. Playing tennis with the blame for whatever the most topical grievances are, not actually trying to solve anything, just needing to be affirmed and agreed with.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending