Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As always, the televangilist Pat Robertson has something constructive to say on the issue of women's rights:

    "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

    What a joker...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Humra)
    i personally think women can! i've heard from many people that we have to "choose" between a "stable" family or their career. BULL*****! if men can supposedly have that, why can't women?
    Men can't. We either go to work and earn a living, spending relatively little time with our kids, or we stay at home and someone else has to do the earning. Nobody can spend a lot of time with their kids and have a proper careers, as there isn't enough time for it. Money is a necessity, so one partner has to have a stable career. I don't think it matters which one it is, but neither partner can have both lots of time with their kids and a fantastic career. Obviously women have the additiona burden that havign kids necessitates pregnancy, and for the first few years at least, women are better equipped, physically, to care for a baby. That and the maternal instinct generally being stronger, throughout nature, in women than the paternal instinct is, generally leads to more women choosing to look after kids than men.

    If both you and your partner want a careers, then you cannot also have kids. One of you has to give up the full time career in order to care for children.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lady_daisychain)
    what im trying to say is: its not women's fault that they have to deal with both family and careers- the reason why it is hard, is not because we are trying to do everything at once, ITS BECAUSE men are doing too little.
    Surely that's there choice, just as it's a women's choice how much they do. Men and women can both make a decision on how much they want a career. If neither are willing to put the career on hold, then don't have children. The fact that many men are not willing to put their career on hold means that women have a choice of either career or child, exactly the same choice men have if many women decide they're not willing to put their career on hold for children. It's a choice both partners have. The same choice for the man and the women. If men are doing too little, it's possible because women, due to the well documented more powerful maternal instinct, value having children more than men do, and are naturally better equipped (pregnancy, breast feeding, etc.) to look after them in the early stages.

    Yes, it's possible to bring children up with both partners working full time, but I know I wouldn't want to bring my children up like that. If that means I stay at home, then that's fine, but that's a choice both a man and a women can make.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Can women really have it all?
    No, I find that my 12" usuawlly doesn't fit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Surely that's there choice, just as it's a women's choice how much they do. Men and women can both make a decision on how much they want a career. If neither are willing to put the career on hold, then don't have children. The fact that many men are not willing to put their career on hold means that women have a choice of either career or child, exactly the same choice men have if many women decide they're not willing to put their career on hold for children. It's a choice both partners have. The same choice for the man and the women. If men are doing too little, it's possible because women, due to the well documented more powerful maternal instinct, value having children more than men do, and are naturally better equipped (pregnancy, breast feeding, etc.) to look after them in the early stages.

    Yes, it's possible to bring children up with both partners working full time, but I know I wouldn't want to bring my children up like that. If that means I stay at home, then that's fine, but that's a choice both a man and a women can make.
    yes- having children is a choice- but bringing them up isnt, its a responsibility that must be shared equally between the parents if women want equal opportunities at work.

    my parents both worked full time, my mum only had 2 weeks maternity leave and went straight back to work, i dont feel i've lacked anything a kid with a stay at home parent has. men just take it for granted as they simply EXPECT women to compromise THEIR careers in order to raise the children, men's roles are hardly ever thought to have needed adapting to the new situation (when couples have children). so in this sense- its not really much of a choice for women.

    i agree with the vital role mothers have during the first stages of during the eariler years doesnt mean they hold full responsibility of the child, and i believe legislation hasnt gone far enough to accomodate this. bringing up a child lasts for 18 years (according to the law), and simply because the mother is seen as more important during the first two doesnt make it right for the father to lose all sense of responsibilty thereafter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Women can't have it all to any different degree to that which men can't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lady_daisychain)
    yes- having children is a choice- but bringing them up isnt, its a responsibility that must be shared equally between the parents if women want equal opportunities at work.
    For me, personally, if the women involved wasn't willing to give up her work at that time, and neither was I, I wouldn't be having children. Yes, if both partners want children and to keep working, the responsibility must be shared equally. Many men tend to view themselves as not having to give up their career because many wouldn't be willing to do it. Therefore if their wives want kids, they do have to give up some of their work to do it.

    My personal choice is that I wouldn't want to bring a child up without a parent at home when they are. Nursaries are good when they're needed, but I wouldn't want to use one full time. I'd want my children to be brought up by a parent, not a nursary. I'd be prepared to do that myself, if I was prepared to have children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    For me, personally, if the women involved wasn't willing to give up her work at that time, and neither was I, I wouldn't be having children. Yes, if both partners want children and to keep working, the responsibility must be shared equally. Many men tend to view themselves as not having to give up their career because many wouldn't be willing to do it. Therefore if their wives want kids, they do have to give up some of their work to do it.

    My personal choice is that I wouldn't want to bring a child up without a parent at home when they are. Nursaries are good when they're needed, but I wouldn't want to use one full time. I'd want my children to be brought up by a parent, not a nursary. I'd be prepared to do that myself, if I was prepared to have children.
    Interesting, so you don't believe aristocratic and upper class couples (who send their children to public school) or working class women (who were forced to work - just to put food on the table) should have had children?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BellaCat)
    Interesting, so you don't believe aristocratic and upper class couples (who send their children to public school) or working class women (who were forced to work - just to put food on the table) should have had children?
    Notice the words "for me", "personally" and "I wouldn't be having children". I think it's absolutely fine for them to have children and do that, however I, personally, wouldn't. When/if I end up having children, it will be when either myself or my partner wishes to look after them. There's loads of evidence about children who were look after by parents rather than childminders do better at school, all the way to A level grades. Also, I personally like the idea of bring up my children as a family. But this whole argument is purely for *my* kids, and doesn't relate to anyone elses. There is solid evidence of the benefit of having a stay at home parent, especially during the early years (obviously when they go to school it's a lot easier to get a job).

    Moreover, to counter your examples, many upper class people don't send their children to boarding school, as most of the top public schools now accept day school students and most are solely for day school children. Plus I don't see "sending children to boarding school" and "being upper class" to have particularly much to do with each other. As for working class parents, surprisingly both partners having full time jobs is actually less prevelent among working class people than among middle class, professional people. Seems counter intuitive, but true. Middle class people are more likely to have long term career plans that they don't want to interrupt for children, whereas many working class families live on the income from just one parent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    as fairly sizeable ammount to dig into there, but sadly all of which i'll have to take issue with.

    to the militant femenist, i'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Well, in a society run by men when women's place was the home, it was extreme. It's only not because times and values have changed. You're trying to judge something almost 100 years ago and think that the people then thought the same way, when naturally they didnt.

    women DID want the same oppurtunities as men, there is no question about that. The femenist would never have been motivated to do anything if they weren't pushing at the boundaries of their rights and finding them constricting -they wanted to do things, so to do them they tried to change the rights which held them back.

    now you're just contradicting yourself. You want equality in the home? Women get treated vastly better in the legal system. Then you say you want the state to recognise 'the different responsibilities women had' and other various differences, and then say you want women treated 'exactly the same'! How can you say you want difference and similiarity? Which one do you want?

    the 'society need revaluation', as you should have realised, is nothing to do which how you replied to it. your comment here was utterly irrelevant.

    my comment that women are now basically men both in action and values is something you clearly agreee with- Women can be masculine, as so on- thus i ask you to point out the clearly difference between men and women that existed even 50 years ago.
    also, have you ever considered that the idea of 'femenity' is a male construction altogether, and that when you do 'femenine' things you are playing along with a male stereotype? As Simone de Beauvoir said 'a female is not born a woman, she becomes a woman'. She is not refering to growing up or some other 'rights of passage' sentimental *****, she is saying that 'femeninity' is pushed upon a woman by a male-led culture, which is obviously true. Now that females have abandoned being women, they have become men (as in gone from females with supposed 'female' values, to females with supposed 'male' values) in escaping their confinement as women. In short, women have become men. Dare to disagree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BellaCat)
    Defend them from whom? From you? Somehow I don't think you're much of a threat. I asked you what 'values' men had that women were emulating. You failed to respond.
    defend them from attack, clearly. and if i am no threat, pray tell, why are you even arguing?

    I answered your question, thought clearly it did not satisfy you. Okay, again. Pre-femenism, the values a female should aspire to were that of being a paragon of virtue - you know the thing: chaste, charitable, lady-like, courteous, blah, blah blah, blah. With femenism, women wanted the same rights as men, thus wanted the whole general sameness with men, who they perceived as having a better life. In fact, i can barely be bothered to finish my point, but women took on the values of male society. Look at attitudes to sex, what is virtues, the workplace, and so on -females just act the same as men.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    im so glad someone made this thread!!!

    i am an AAA student, in the second year of a law degree, hoping to attain a first. i am almost fluent in 4 languages. for a career i wanted to do the BVC and become a barrister. then i also considered doind the ACA and becoming an accountant. both are feasible options but the post grad study means i will be about 24 when i qualify

    however i am a woman. i want babies. i want to concieve easily, so i need to be married by age 25. also im Catholic and i want to marrry a man who is as strict as myself, and im having enough trouble finding guys to date while im young and pretty let alone older and starting to wrinkle.

    so this means, due to my biological clock that i need to celebrate my freedom while im young. i want to travel. so it means when i graduate, i will work somewhere crap for a year, then travel, party then come back married, then commit to my family and babies. as a catholic, i cant use birth control so i expect many babies.

    when im old and withered and my babies have grown up, then i can apply for ACA
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slarti)
    defend them from attack, clearly. and if i am no threat, pray tell, why are you even arguing?

    I answered your question, thought clearly it did not satisfy you. Okay, again. Pre-femenism, the values a female should aspire to were that of being a paragon of virtue - you know the thing: chaste, charitable, lady-like, courteous, blah, blah blah, blah. With femenism, women wanted the same rights as men, thus wanted the whole general sameness with men, who they perceived as having a better life. In fact, i can barely be bothered to finish my point, but women took on the values of male society. Look at attitudes to sex, what is virtues, the workplace, and so on -females just act the same as men.
    you're saying femininity has been a male construct imposed on women.... so the pre-feminist virtues like chastity aren't male constructs? its a pity men can do what ever they like, without being analysed as to why they are doing it... whereas if a woman wears a suit, apparently she's trying to emulate the opposite sex, if she is assertive, she is seen as abrasive, thus trying to be as aggressive and teststerone-driven as a man...

    chastity was imposed upon women by men fearing the promiscuity women's sexuality characterised. women were seen as possessions, a commodity, therfore if you owned a woman, you owned her sexuality, hence the negativity associated with 'wanton' women, or women who wanted to be free of society's constriants regarding sex. a 100 years ago, it was imperative that women remained within the social boundaries fixed by men, which meant conforming to men's ideals of what women should be like. now- women have a greater choice of how to live their lives, how to dress, or behave, to an extent, have greater freedom to choose a way of life suited to them, not suited to men's convenience.

    anyway.... i just believe women should be able to live the way they want without being labeled as wanting to be a 'man', or a traditional subservient housewife--- the same should be said for men who may want to emulate feminine characteristics. the greater sexual freedom allows us to make decisions, without having traditionalist bigots putting women down for acting like men...copying men.... as if we are a mere body part of the supreme masculine physique.

    i think subconsciously men feel threatened by some women trying to gain in on their ground, and castigate them for it- perhaps to make themselves feel worthier- who knows?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.