Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Are men at a disadvantage socially and economically due to 'bigoted feminists'?
Is Dominic Raab correct when he says that men are now at a disadvantage socially and economically?
http://www.dailymail....Feminists-bigots.html
He states that men work longer hours - but just about every woman I know in employment also takes a lead in child care, cooking and cleaning.
Furthermore, I can't think of many areas of employment (armed forces, industry, commerce, local government, police service, central government etc) where the upper echelons are dominated by women.
But would you say that Mr Raab has a point, or like me, do you suspect he may have posted that piece whilst slightly 'worse for wear' in the hours after a massive row with 'er indoors?
http://www.dailymail....Feminists-bigots.html
He states that men work longer hours - but just about every woman I know in employment also takes a lead in child care, cooking and cleaning.
Furthermore, I can't think of many areas of employment (armed forces, industry, commerce, local government, police service, central government etc) where the upper echelons are dominated by women.
But would you say that Mr Raab has a point, or like me, do you suspect he may have posted that piece whilst slightly 'worse for wear' in the hours after a massive row with 'er indoors?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG
I agree that in almost all adverbs which feature a family (or even a male/female couple), the man is 'the buffoon'. This extends to many, many sitcoms (the only exceptions that spring to mind are 'Miranda' and 'Absolutely Fabulous').
However, in the grand scheme of things - isn't it still a man's world? Aren't men more likely to reach the top of te tree in whichever field they apply themselves?
This may not be down to outright sexism, because many women take career breaks in order to have children...but that's the point - men can still 'have it all' - family AND career.
I agree that in almost all adverbs which feature a family (or even a male/female couple), the man is 'the buffoon'. This extends to many, many sitcoms (the only exceptions that spring to mind are 'Miranda' and 'Absolutely Fabulous').
However, in the grand scheme of things - isn't it still a man's world? Aren't men more likely to reach the top of te tree in whichever field they apply themselves?
This may not be down to outright sexism, because many women take career breaks in order to have children...but that's the point - men can still 'have it all' - family AND career.
The disadvantage for women popularised by the feminist movement had a simple formula that ensured all measurements showed women got the worst end of everything.
If the activity was primarily associated with men then it was "prestigious" and if traditionally associated with women it was "demeaning".
Feminism degraded childcare to the lowest of lows yet my most cherished times were those where I was able to be a home-dad with my kids.
In fact it was men who were denied the opportunity to enjoy this aspect of life by the prejudices of society. Men were expected to work to support the family. Many a man has lost his job to find he also lost his family because he could no longer fulfill that expectation.
If the activity was primarily associated with men then it was "prestigious" and if traditionally associated with women it was "demeaning".
Feminism degraded childcare to the lowest of lows yet my most cherished times were those where I was able to be a home-dad with my kids.
In fact it was men who were denied the opportunity to enjoy this aspect of life by the prejudices of society. Men were expected to work to support the family. Many a man has lost his job to find he also lost his family because he could no longer fulfill that expectation.
I think while the law claims to want no discrimination, but allows it if it is advantageous to the female, or indeed any other group, then the guy has a point. It's just another of those areas where you get ridiculed if you point out something others know to be so.
And no one can have it all. If you put effort into one area of your life, then you inevitably lose out on another.
And no one can have it all. If you put effort into one area of your life, then you inevitably lose out on another.
Regarding the portrayal of men in adverts etc. It's simply because it's not considered acceptable to portray women as idiots any more - they've always got to be seen as strong and competent - we can't have any negative stereotyping, or reinforcement of outdated gender roles.
However, many comedy situations call for a buffoon, a fall guy, or butt of the joke. That role therefore has to go to a man now basically because there's no one else available.
It's silly really. I always liked the advert with the dimwitted man who was incapable of operating the washing machine - the strong and competent wife had to come in and rescue the day with her Persil or whatever it was, and wash his t-shirt for him.
I always thought that managed to insult everybody - simultaneously potraying men as idiots while at the same time saying to the woman - 'That's right love, domestic chores are your area of expertise - don't ever expect a man to be any good at that kind of thing'.
However, many comedy situations call for a buffoon, a fall guy, or butt of the joke. That role therefore has to go to a man now basically because there's no one else available.
It's silly really. I always liked the advert with the dimwitted man who was incapable of operating the washing machine - the strong and competent wife had to come in and rescue the day with her Persil or whatever it was, and wash his t-shirt for him.
I always thought that managed to insult everybody - simultaneously potraying men as idiots while at the same time saying to the woman - 'That's right love, domestic chores are your area of expertise - don't ever expect a man to be any good at that kind of thing'.
that is not a valid argument.
they dont dominate the upper echelons of those industries, not because they are not capable, but because men wont let them!
for years women have been denied the same opportunities as men even as recently as the 70s...some women taking on those industries have be bullied, abused, laughed at, harrassed, scapegoated etc...and even years ago accused of being insane or a lesbian and sectioned!...the laws brought in to prevent this were invented for a reason.
marked change takes years...and just because people dont DONT do something, doesnt mean they CANT...given the chance...
they dont dominate the upper echelons of those industries, not because they are not capable, but because men wont let them!
for years women have been denied the same opportunities as men even as recently as the 70s...some women taking on those industries have be bullied, abused, laughed at, harrassed, scapegoated etc...and even years ago accused of being insane or a lesbian and sectioned!...the laws brought in to prevent this were invented for a reason.
marked change takes years...and just because people dont DONT do something, doesnt mean they CANT...given the chance...
most of the examples given are of speech...perfectly demonstrating the need to change the way people refer to certain things...
the old fashioned 'women and children first' if of course not fair...but without challenge it will never go away...
the ripples of passively negative terminology are subtley far and long reaching...
the old fashioned 'women and children first' if of course not fair...but without challenge it will never go away...
the ripples of passively negative terminology are subtley far and long reaching...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.