Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Women and Society Watch

  • View Poll Results: when do you think women was happiest
    before equality(girl)
    6.25%
    after equality(girl)
    43.75%
    before equality(boy)
    18.75%
    after equality(boy)
    31.25%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, I just remembered, something my ethics teacher said about women and society. So don't stone me:rolleyes: if you disagree and personally I don't agree.


    here it goes.

    We were discussing about women before and after the sex equality bill(not sure what is called ). Obviously we were all defending the passing of the bill as a good thing, but my teacher likes to play the devil's advocate, so he says the bill has done worse to women in general than it helped. He said, before the bill was passed, women wasn't expected to work whereas now they do whether they like it or not( I am sure they do:yes: ), his main point was, by working women has lost that precious time spent raising her children, which is very important, as schools are good but children tend to learn more from their parents as they are seen as role models, modern society expect women to work(for an average family:yes: ). The importance of raising a children well is all to well known, not only could the women raise children but also look after the household and socialise among themselves, do charitable work together. So don't have to stay in the house the whole day but able to spent quality time with the kids(I am sure you all do anyway:yes: ), the important decisions can be trusted with the husband(Not sure:rolleyes: ), as you trust him that is why you married him.

    Obviously, my teacher only took this argument so we could argue so don't stone him either:rolleyes: . Just wondering if any one you are sympothetic to this argument, especially women:yes: .

    This argument also missed the importance of equality, which is very important......

    (might add a poll to this) :rolleyes:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Before, women were expected to stay at home and raise the kids. Now, unless they are with a very well off man, they have to go out and work. They have same amount of choices as before.

    It would be interesting to see if women are happier now that they pretty much have to have a career or were happier back in the olden times when they just sat at home, did the housework and raised the kids.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It certainly isn't as simple as that. There were both good things and bad things about feminism. One of the major problems of feminism is that it is too materialistic and devalues the women who wishes to stay at home.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand the poll.

    Women have greater freedom, greater independence and greater equality as a result of the sex equality bill. Hopefully in the future a more balanced approach to child-raising will be established but women cannot be expected to be the primary carers of children at the expense of their personal freedom and livelihood.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I don't understand the poll.

    Women have greater freedom, greater independence and greater equality as a result of the sex equality bill. Hopefully in the future a more balanced approach to child-raising will be established but women cannot be expected to be the primary carers of children at the expense of their personal freedom and livelihood.
    The poll is very general, just when do you think women was the happiest, before the equality bill or after the bill and the brackets indicates what sex you are.......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why is my thread always so dead.......:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is just a poor question, frankly. Equality has by no means been reached, and so the question is moot. Women are now expected to (and often want to, and have the right to) go out to work, but they also do the bulk of the childcare and housework (I think 90% is roughly the figure). Where is the equality there? If women are less happy after "equality" it is only because that "equality" is an absolute fallacy!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DR_X)
    This argument also missed the importance of equality, which is very important...
    The only equality that's important is equality in the eyes of the State. When the State starts insisting that people are viewed as equals by other people, it becomes nothing short of oppressive.

    If I don't want to employ a woman, that should be entirely my prerogative.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The only equality that's important is equality in the eyes of the State. When the State starts insisting that people are viewed as equals by other people, it becomes nothing short of oppressive.

    If I don't want to employ a woman, that should be entirely my prerogative.
    If the reason is sound .e.g She applying to be bouncer, you might be able to dismiss her as the job is unfit for a women.

    But generally I don't think you should be able to dismiss women just because they are women.....

    I know I have extremenised your argument, but some people want to kill other people what do you do let them.........
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DR_X)
    But generally I don't think you should be able to dismiss women just because they are women.....

    I know I have extremenised your argument, but some people want to kill other people what do you do let them.........
    Harm principle. Force is only justified where force is being illegitimately used against another person. That is a pretty consistent philosophical stance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Harm principle. Force is only justified where force is being illegitimately used against another person. That is a pretty consistent philosophical stance.
    Ok, let me think another example, Let's imagine you are allowed to dismiss a women for the job purely because she's women, imagine if that was universalised, people could be told off just because they are what they are, black people can't go to what school. man can't be teachers. Do you agree with this....


    If you do, I am out of words, because if you honestly think this can work as a model for society and at the end of the day, not finding the slightest amount of guilt in your heart then I say you are just as well justified for what you believe in, as at the end of the day, is what we feel is right and guiltless that promotes us to carry out certain changes in society.......
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DR_X)
    Ok, let me think another example, Let's imagine you are allowed to dismiss a women for the job purely because she's women, imagine if that was universalised, people could be told off just because they are what they are, black people can't go to what school. man can't be teachers. Do you agree with this....
    Sort of. If I decide to educate people, it should be on the basis of free agreement: I choose who I want to give my services to. I don't agree with it, no. There are a lot of things I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I believe they should be made illegal.

    I don't think the scenario you envisage would happen - people have choice and there is generally more than one supplier of a service. Still, just because someone offers something to one person doesn't mean I believe there should be an entitlement for others to get it too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Sort of. If I decide to educate people, it should be on the basis of free agreement: I choose who I want to give my services to. I don't agree with it, no. There are a lot of things I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I believe they should be made illegal.

    I don't think the scenario you envisage would happen - people have choice and there is generally more than one supplier of a service. Still, just because someone offers something to one person doesn't mean I believe there should be an entitlement for others to get it too.
    Like I said, if this is what you really believe and at the end of the day you wouldn't feel any guilt about what you have done, then is fine with me and should be fine with everyone esle also.

    But the UK government is democratic, basically, providing the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people(roughly 50% of the country is female) so if one day you can persuade enough people to your cause then that will be a day to remember......
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by DR_X)
    Ok, I just remembered, something my ethics teacher said about women and society. So don't stone me:rolleyes: if you disagree and personally I don't agree.


    here it goes.

    We were discussing about women before and after the sex equality bill(not sure what is called ). Obviously we were all defending the passing of the bill as a good thing, but my teacher likes to play the devil's advocate, so he says the bill has done worse to women in general than it helped. He said, before the bill was passed, women wasn't expected to work whereas now they do whether they like it or not( I am sure they do:yes: ), his main point was, by working women has lost that precious time spent raising her children, which is very important, as schools are good but children tend to learn more from their parents as they are seen as role models, modern society expect women to work(for an average family:yes: ). The importance of raising a children well is all to well known, not only could the women raise children but also look after the household and socialise among themselves, do charitable work together. So don't have to stay in the house the whole day but able to spent quality time with the kids(I am sure you all do anyway:yes: ), the important decisions can be trusted with the husband(Not sure:rolleyes: ), as you trust him that is why you married him.

    Obviously, my teacher only took this argument so we could argue so don't stone him either:rolleyes: . Just wondering if any one you are sympothetic to this argument, especially women:yes: .

    This argument also missed the importance of equality, which is very important......

    (might add a poll to this) :rolleyes:
    thank you for being really sensitive in what could have been a really awkward debate. i really appreciate this.

    i would hazard that we don't fully have equality as yet. we have come a long way. a huge way in fact, but we're not there yet.

    if we are talking about life before the act and after the act alone, then i would say alot has changed, and i'm not sure it hinges just on this act.

    i would question what your tutor has presented: why does the position of caring and childrearing fall on women? is this biologically determined or a social construct of gender? if there is no proof either way, how can we say which is better? and if the caring role does turn out to be a social construct, then why are more men not staying home to child-rear and complete domestic work? and does this say something about people are or are not valued in society?

    further, have women entered the workplace specifically due to the equality legislation, or could there be other factors, such as in real terms wages have been decreasing, and people have actually been getting poorer, so more families are having to bring in two wages in order to keep the household going?.. also if in the 1970s when this law was passed, women entered the workplace in droves, it says something about their desire to have something other than a domestic role.

    imo, one measure of equality will be when the "caring" and domestic work actually reaches the 50/50 level, where there are as many men staying in to tend to children, elderly, disabled and partake in household chores as there are women. a second measure will be when the gendered pay-gap disappears, particularly for those industries which are thought of as typically feminine (and so have lesser pay).

    then we can actually start realistically talking about there being financial and work-based equality.


    for me personally, i am glad of the laws ensuring i can work on somewhat equal terms to men. there should be more done, but that requires radical societal change, rather than legislation.

    Pixie
    (radical feminist, but also a big supporter of people holding a domestic role if they so choose)
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by DR_X)
    But the UK government is democratic, basically, providing the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people(roughly 50% of the country is female) so if one day you can persuade enough people to your cause then that will be a day to remember......
    really? it's a representative democracy. my MP represents their own views in parliament. my MP does not represent my views, he doesn't even represent the views of most of the people who live near me.

    in reality how much power do you or i have to change the uk legislation or public policy?

    the idea of a representative democracy providing us with any form of choice, freedom or say is completely illusory.



    (Original post by L i b)
    The only equality that's important is equality in the eyes of the State. When the State starts insisting that people are viewed as equals by other people, it becomes nothing short of oppressive.

    If I don't want to employ a woman, that should be entirely my prerogative.
    by any chance are you a right-libertarian?

    what about being within a society which has freely undertaken the notion of equalising and organising to enable all members? this isn't about the state insisting anything, but about the collective agreeing that they will enable everyone to live as freely as possible... you can ban women from your organisation if you so choose, but you may find the community will prevent you from accessing as much food as you would otherwise... as this is a form of aggression against the female population of your community.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    thank you for being really sensitive in what could have been a really awkward debate. i really appreciate this.

    i would hazard that we don't fully have equality as yet. we have come a long way. a huge way in fact, but we're not there yet.

    if we are talking about life before the act and after the act alone, then i would say alot has changed, and i'm not sure it hinges just on this act.

    i would question what your tutor has presented: why does the position of caring and childrearing fall on women? is this biologically determined or a social construct of gender? if there is no proof either way, how can we say which is better? and if the caring role does turn out to be a social construct, then why are more men not staying home to child-rear and complete domestic work? and does this say something about people are or are not valued in society?

    further, have women entered the workplace specifically due to the equality legislation, or could there be other factors, such as in real terms wages have been decreasing, and people have actually been getting poorer, so more families are having to bring in two wages in order to keep the household going?.. also if in the 1970s when this law was passed, women entered the workplace in droves, it says something about their desire to have something other than a domestic role.

    imo, one measure of equality will be when the "caring" and domestic work actually reaches the 50/50 level, where there are as many men staying in to tend to children, elderly, disabled and partake in household chores as there are women. a second measure will be when the gendered pay-gap disappears, particularly for those industries which are thought of as typically feminine (and so have lesser pay).

    then we can actually start realistically talking about there being financial and work-based equality.


    for me personally, i am glad of the laws ensuring i can work on somewhat equal terms to men. there should be more done, but that requires radical societal change, rather than legislation.

    Pixie
    (radical feminist, but also a big supporter of people holding a domestic role if they so choose)

    I think if you look at the biology side of things thne yes, women contrubute to the child more than the man, women has always been associated with the caring role, especially with breast feeding, is almost expected of the mother to raise her child(with the help of her partner, if there is one), My personal opninion is that children are closer to their mothers(in most cases) so I think naturally the task falls to the mother but my view is very tranditional and as you have said a liberal view would share the task equally or even tilt to the male seeing how the women was preganant for 9 month.

    But i do believe women should be the care of children, if she strongly opposes then sent the kid to a day care centre or family.....
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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