IDEAS

Abarmard, and all of you...

Thanks for your comments. I get we are over with this issue. So let's move on to another world's problem as my wife mentioned it last time.

As Azadeh put it, I am on a self-relization journey and my hores is my keyboard.

I often noticed in the western academic world there is no argumentative approach to teaching. The professor comes, gives a lecture, ask for homework/project and then leaves. No questions, no discussions or very limited ones, where in Iran we used to give our professors vegies by questioning even the obvious. They had to be very well prepared.

Look at this article the same way. I disturbed some minds and caused them to leave their comfort zone and come out and think loud. I learned a lot.

Thanks all!

Midwesty e aziz

Why would you think women would listen to those who say all men are evil? who are these women that you are speaking of?

I am sure that I am not getting this right. What is the power of those militant(?)women in our daily lives? Maybe I have been living in my town far too long to have noticed this anti men movement ;)

I would say not to worry too much:) Have a great Tuesday.

Dear Abarmard,

"Women’s independence took higher priority than staying loyal to the family as a whole."

You took this out of context. Let's walk through this again:

The facts:

1- There are many opinions in the society about the rule of men and women individually and in the context of family. (Do you agree?)

2- From which many of these opinions are influenced by Feminism (What Feminism? As Graig put it militant feminism the hostile to men, the one that demonizes men kind of feminism) (Do you agree?)

3- The most powerful voices of the society influence the law more profoundly(Do you agree?)

My opinion:

4- Since beating on men is nowadays seems more natural then militant feminism got momentum and by giving false messages (to bring happiness for women) pushed their agenda. (Is that possible?)

5- Then they influenced the law farther . (could this be possible also?)

END OF THE STORY

I don't know form where you get that I don't believe in women's right?

OK I got it:

You might think that militant feminism (As Craig put it and I have no other phrase to distinguish these people from other ones) equates to the voices of all women. (Do you believe that militant feminism represent women?)

As Azadeh also said, there are many voices in the feminism movement as some might not represent the women's voices. (This is your answer right there).

My writing was concerned about the radical movements inside feminism that would take over and make things worst than what they are now in terms of women's happiness.

Again does this have to do with women's right? If yes please let me know.

Giving women to choose is their right, but telling women all men are evil is not right. And if they don't believe it then we try to tell them you don't know better, look at our study, see! men come in 5 different packages, your husband fits right in the 4th one, so you better get out of your marriage right away or we have to take your kids away.

How does that sound? Do you like it?

I demand an answer!

Dear Midwesty

I assumed by the question mentioned in my earlier comment, that you are implying something against rights. I might be getting this wrong, but when you write:

"Women’s independence took higher priority than staying loyal to the family as a whole."

You are making an argument that by advocating women's rights, or feminism as you have mentioned, the women are not as interested to stay married! It's a bold statement.

Perhaps women should not stay married if they don't like to, and there is nothing wrong with that. The similar right has been given to men since the beginning of time. It assumes the submissive role for women vs equal.

I am not fit to judge about the justice system and the cases that men are found guilty while there are not. In most cases court doesn't look at gender but the defense or allegations, unless there are juries, which makes it another story.

I believe that I understand your frustration, but I don't believe that you are channeling them correctly. Perhaps your issue has nothing to do with feminism, but individual characters in our society?

Thanks Azadeh

I took note and the name of Carl Gustav Jung rings a bell. I might come back with a book review later if time permits. Any specific book title of these authors?

Take care!

Azadeh

You seem to be equating every statements against male chauvinism
practiced by many males as anti-male statement or "tone." 

Yeah, I'm a bit sensitive when the topic of feminism comes up and I see women attacking men for stating their opinions.  It comes across more like bullying than debate, and it's a tactic that I do associate with militant feminists. So... sure... when I see women doing the same thing on IC, I jump to conclusions. Sorry if I'm wrong. And if you were wondering, I wasn't talking about you :)

ID beat me with this stick before when Sarah Palin was nominated. So in her case its not a one-off, and I'm not giving her a pass for trying to use feminism as a weapon against guys. And I found it *really* odd that ID was claiming Sarah Palin did the cause of feminsim harm. I'm sure she'd say the same thing about the successful women in my family. I wonder who ID thinks helps the cause of women in America, if not women who have been successful in America? I guess maybe women who haven't been very successful, and blame men for that? Is that the criteria? If so, in what way are they empowering other women? And empowering them to do what, exactly? Blame men for all their problems? Wonderful. Just what the world needs.

Do you equate
anti-racist statements by the blacks as anti-white statements?

I would if their tone came across as demonizing whites, yes. To use the same example from my last comment, I don't think many people would deny Malcolm X was a racist.I've never heard of anyone trying to make that charge against Martin Luther King, though.

Do you
know how, for instance, one could speak of the violence against women
in the family without stating the fact that this violence is
*mostly*(as in *not always*) committed by men?

Is it necessary to imply that all men are potential abusers of women? Or to make an assessment that somebody in the discussion may be an abuser of women, based on his stated opinions? How is that different than that author stating that all men are either rapists or potential rapists? And how do you expect to get genuine feedback from men about what they think, when every guy in the Western World has been conditioned by such tactics tojust goalong with the group-think, whether it's what he believes is right or not? Wouldn't it be better to let people speak their mind and then debate the issues with them? Isn't convincing people they are in the wrong better than beating them over the head until they say what they are supposed to say? 

Anyway, I have to go now. I won't be able to come back to the site for a while.

No worries :)

To be honest I regret commenting here. When midwesty posted I was hoping for a realistic discussion about the current state of affairs in the western world, not... whatever this has been.

Craig

In the paragraph about "this article," I was talking about the article called "Equality vs. Justice" by Midwesty. Sorry about creating this confusion.

You seem to be equating every statements against male chauvinism practiced by many males as anti-male statement or "tone." Do you equate anti-racist statements by the blacks as anti-white statements? Do you know how, for instance, one could speak of the violence against women in the family without stating the fact that this violence is *mostly*(as in *not always*) committed by men?

Anyway, I have to go now. I won't be able to come back to the site for a while.

Azadeh

Azadeh

What is most problematic in this article is the gratuitous assumptions
that it makes as well as its illogical and immature reasoning.

Article? You mean my comment? :)

To say
that *THE* feminist movement vilifies men based on the fact that a very
few feminists...

I don't understand this sentence. When the leaders of organizations like NOW and the leading practitioners of feminism such as professors in Women's Studeis programs at universities take such positions, you feel that they don't speak for the Women's Rights movement?If that's your claim then I have no problem with it. Most the women I know feel that crew doesn't speak for them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say most women in America feel that crew doesn't speak for them. But, they are still talking.

...that *are not even theoreticians of the feminist
movement* have said something like "all men are violators,"
demonstrates the author's BAD FAITH.

That book is very famous, and was something of a manula for feminists. The militant variety, at least. The publication of that book combined with an anti-male overtone in the feminist movement in teh late 1070s going into teh 1980s spelled the end of feminism as a mainstream movement in the United States. If you are aware of a more moderate version of a feminist movement in the US I'd certainly like to hear about it, because that would be very good news :)

How could one *define* the nature
of this progressive social movement using the anti-male
(misandric) statements that are made by a character in a novel or by a
very few feminists in flesh and blood?

Very few? Hmmm. Dunno. Seems like I've seen a bit of the anti-male tone right here in this thread. Just the vibe I'm getting!

Do we define the Civil Rights
Movement by what Louis Farrakhan has said? Of course not!

No, we define it by what Martin Luther King said. Some people go with what Malcolm X said. I see "Malcolm X" in the feminist movement in the US... no MLK to be found, though. 

And what is this preoccupation of yours with the lesbianism of some
of the feminist leaders?

Seems to go hand in hand with the misandry, Azadeh. It's not my "preoccupation". It's my observation.

Isn't Gloria Steinem heterosexual?

I don't know, but most the leaders of the National Organization for Women are "out" lesbians. and that's been true for 20 years.

Aren't the
majority of the feminists in the USA and around the world heterosexual?

Depends how you define "feminist" in an American context I suppose. I don't know any women who self-identify as feminists, anymore. I used to. Have there ever been any polls conducted at events NOW was holding, to find out?

Plus, there is more anti-male feelings among heterosexual women than
among the homosexual ones, as I think the latter often identify with
the males (I might be wrong here, though.) 

I think you are wrong on that. Maybe we can get some input from one of the psychologists who frequent IC? I've known a dozen or so lesbians over the years - mostly women who were bisexual but gay by preference, which presumably means they weren't hardcore lesbians right? - and none of them liked men. Gay men may relate to women better than to other men, but that doesn't seem to translate into gay women relating to men better than other women.

...

Craig:

For hatred of men, we have the word "misandry."

What is most problematic in this article is the gratuitous assumptions that it makes as well as its illogical and immature reasoning. To say that *THE* feminist movement vilifies men based on the fact that a very few feminists that *are not even theoreticians of the feminist movement* have said something like "all men are violators," demonstrates the author's BAD FAITH. How could one *define* the nature of this progressive social movement using the anti-male (misandric) statements that are made by a character in a novel or by a very few feminists in flesh and blood? Do we define the Civil Rights Movement by what Louis Farrakhan has said? Of course not!

And what is this preoccupation of yours with the lesbianism of some of the feminist leaders? Isn't Gloria Steinem heterosexual? Aren't the majority of the feminists in the USA and around the world heterosexual? Plus, there is more anti-male feelings among heterosexual women than among the homosexual ones, as I think the latter often identify with the males (I might be wrong here, though.) 

Midwesty:

I totally agree with Behnamjan. Please read his comments and ponder on them. I believe that it is in your best interest if you begin socialising with men who think like him, or stop being so much influenced by the ideology of the reactionary Fathers' Rights Movement that is at the core of the anti-feminist backlash since the early 1980's.

Also, as a psychotherapist analysing your writing and comments here, I believe that you are less concerned about the future of the humanity than about your own future as a man on the path of self-realisation. Please begin reading Carl Gustav Jung and Marie-Louise Von Franz, especially the parts on the Feminine and the Masculine, or Anima and Animus. I know you will appreciate these authors.

Now, concerning the "woman-centred laws." Aren't you thinking (without mentioning it) of the child custody laws? I believe that these laws are fair. They are fair because it is the woman who carries the child in her womb for nine months, feeds her with her blood's oxygen and other nutrition, gives birth to her (which is always a risky process), breastfeeds her, and remains her main caregiver for many years. The custody of a child should go to the mother (or both parents if she agrees), unless the mother is unfit and a danger to the child. The mother-centered laws in the Western societies are just and need to remain. The devil is in the details and those details need to be debated and solved. 

To finish with this subject, I'd like to state that, contrary to what you are putting forth, the feminist movement has not gone far enough in the USA. Imagine an "all-American family" like "the Obamas!" Is it not unjust and belittling that a grown and apparently independent woman like Michelle has adopted her husband's family name? Why? Is she a minor? Is she a slave adopting her master's family name as her black ancestors did? ........ And is it not abnormal that while it is Michelle who has carried her two children, has given birth to them, has taken daily care of them and keeps looking after them to this day as their main caregiver, it is the father, Mr. Obama, who has given his name to these children? The answer, in my opinion, is Yes, patrilineality is unfair. I think children should take their mother's name, and if the mother agrees, they could take their father's name as well. In case of single men or male couples who adopt a child, well, I guess they would give their own names to their adopted children (following an agreement with the surrogate mother.)

Obviously, the above statement is similar to opening the Pandora's Box here. But I have deliberately mentioned it to show you that the feminist movement has not really gone too far. Patriarchy is alive and kicking, and this was just a little example I gave you about its omnipresence in the Western post-industrial societies and in our collective psyche.

Azadeh

Behnamjan

I think there's probably some merit to all forms of broad stereotyping. Couldn't somebody say "all Muslims are terrorists" and justify it in much the same way you just did with the way that woman labelled all men as rapists (whether figuratively or literally)? There's no room for such language - or such animosity - in a movement that aims to promote tolerance and acceptance.

I do agree that males have dominated human society for far too long, and have been responsible for a lot of repression of women but that's no reason to vilify all men in general. Isn't that called "misogyny"when men feel that way about women? And isn't that one of the things feminists are opposed to?

An Understandable Reaction

The way I interpret feminism is a tendency to reject male dominance and the patriarchal trend of history but this trend is changing rapidly in the modern world.

ID

Who demonized men and called them criminal and evil?

Who categorized men into those 5 groups?

It seems you are unfamilia with the history of feminism in the United States.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women%27s_Room

The Women's Room is a novel by American feminist author Marilyn French first published in 1977.

French was almost unknown among feminist circles before the
publication of the book. It has been described as one of the most
influential novels of the modern feminist movement. Its
instant popularity brought criticism from some well known feminists
that it was too pessimistic about women's lives and too anti men.

Book quote:  "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes"

I used that reference earlier because it's the one I remember most clearly from my previous research. You won't have to look very hard to find there's much more where that came from. Do a bit of research on Gloria Steinam, for starters. If you care enough to. If not, that's your business but it seems to me you don't really have much reason to be claiming nobody in the feminist movement demonizes men when in fact they do. Loudly and often.

Also, I thought it was pretty clear that Midwesty was asking a hypothetical question. If nobody uses the specific categories he made up, then there isn't a problem. Is that your assertion?

I am very sorry to have stepped into this!  

Me too! It's a no-win situation. Because, I do wholeheartedly support women's rights. But I don't support a woman's right to talk about me like I'm some kind of animal who belongs in a cage just because I'm male. And it seems like whenever this topic comes up itis dominated by women who think there's nothing wrong with that. You do realize that most American women actually like men, though, right? And that's the wall that militant feminism ran into in the US. That's why my mother and tens of millions of other women from here generation no longer calls themselves feminists.

Midwesty

Who demonized men and called them criminal and evil?

Who categorized men into those 5 groups?

I have never heard anyone categorizing men in that way! You are apparently dealing with some serious issues and I am very sorry to have stepped into this! 

You have said that you blame your ego for the problems with your relationship, but it seems more like low self-esteem and lack of self confidence than ego.

Good luck!

IRANdokht

Abarmard,

Well this is one of thoes cases that what is obvious to me I thought was obvious to everyone. Of course women are equal in rights with men that is obvious to me so I didn't need to reitterate that. But instead of reading my statement and telling me that by not saying something I don't beleieve in it, (I also didn't say for example I condemn killing innocent so I must be believing in killing innocent). Please read my writing again and tell me where in it  I said women shouldn't have equal rights?

This is an exert from my comments to Azadeh:

5- If equality for women means equal access (no discrimination), then it is justice not a blind equality, although it has the wording EQUALITY in it.

As a matter of fact, doing nothing about women's right is a natural resonse so it is not justice. Because men like to dominate, to stop men from domination you need a system. But that system is not to demonize men categirically. That's the part I have problem with, to say all men are criminal, if they display these signs they are this and if they display these signs they are something else.

Now let me ask you this question:

Do you thik it's ok to say all men are evil? Or being politically correct we say there are 5 types of men:

1- Hairy but ignorant

2- Short and sneaky

3- Nice but stupid

4- Tall and charming but unfaithful

5- Medium but mean.

Do you think you fit in any of these? Of course you say not but what if they forge you into one of these molds? Are you going to like it?

I am expecting an answer as I did yours.

Midwesty

To annihilate feminism? or to remove the laws that treat men as a criminal from get go.

I think I agree with you once again, but I don't think the problem is laws that protect women (from men presumably) - I think the problem is the current interpretation of some of those laws. And I think the main issue behind that is not the laws themselves but the militant feminist movement which has defined the "proper" way for courts and society to protect women. And militant femenists very much do think men are the problem. A very large percentage of the women at the forefront of the feminist movement are man-hating lesbians. That's a problem! You can't get men on-board with a movement when you pre-define men as the enemy lol.

I had an argument with one of my wife's friends about this back in the 1990s and she demanded I prove it. So I did. I used internet search engines and simply typed in the names of some of the most outspoken feminists in the US and printed out the results. Top feminists writing books in which they say "All men are rapists, and that's all they are"? Is that something a majority of women in the US will sign off on? :o

I think if women's rights advocates in the US want to kickstart feminism again - it lost almost all of its momentum here in the 1980s - they need to eject all that deadwood from the past and start fresh with some leadership which knows how to promote women's rights without alienating not only 100% of the male population but a solid majority of the female population as well. No movement can make progress without popular support. 

Dear Midwesty

You ask " are women equal to men?"

Please do not make a mistake about our physical forms vs our Rights. Women and men should have equal rights, period.

further info

I think I didn't do a good job on defining the objective of this article. What do you all think it is?

To annihilate feminism? or to remove the laws that treat men as a criminal from get go. When it comes to men against women, the law has prejudice. There are a lot of studies attached to any decisions that court makes against men.
Many of these studies are with no scientific backbone but to please feminists because there is nothing nowadays easier than bashing men.

Although feminists do this primarily to make women happier (the best case), but the decline in women's happiness tells us maybe pure feministic policies aren't the answer.

Is it better to go back and revise thoes policies or continue blaming and bashing men even more?

IRANdokht,

This article that I wrote a while ago and it came up just yesterday, it came up at the worst possible time when I am trying to reconcile with my wife who is a very independent woman and who is the love of my life.

My ego, where I taught I didn't have one, broke up my marriage and I am the one to blame. The circumestance that made me write this article has changed since then.

Anyways, I read your comment first and I agreed with most of it that's why I didn't elaborate. Plus, my long comment about Nature and natual response was also covering ofwhat you brought up.

You had a good point about happiness and as you said it is a state of mind and can be indepent form the outside influences.

The report exactly points out to your comment. However I didn't get the impression that it says that we are done and everything is fine.

It exactly says since women now have more choices they are more stressed, worried and consequently less happy. The report indicates that since feminisim started from the same point as this women's study in this report started, then there might be a relationship between feminism and number of unhappy women.

The cause might be since feminism has empowered women then they got more choices, more exposure and perhaps more trouble.

This is what you said and what the report indicates. Both of you are same and right...but the report doesn't indicate any thing about the cause of this unhappiness, however you think they are men. That's why I said the blame game here won't help. You have to bring men on board too. As MLK did with civil right movement and I covered it in another comment.

I am trying not to be too repeatious but I agree with you and Azadeh on the effect of feminism and what caused it to start and what it has accomplished so far. One I don't undrestand is why some feminists think men are the root cause of any problem for women.

Midwesty

I wrote "Happiness is relative" and your response to me is that we should avoid blaming men?!  

That was rich.

You responded to insults from a man with more care and respect than you did to a respectful response from a woman. Thanks for providing the proof for my argument. We have a long way to go before men and women are treated equally and with the same respect.

IRANdokht

X-PC

I think feminsit movement is becoming counterproductive by pushing the envelop too far.

During college years when I was working in a work-study program as a computer consultant, part of my resp. was to monitor and roam around our school library and see if anyone is abusing the computers or internet.

During one of my patrolling, I saw a balck teenager browsing through some pronographic sites. I stepped in and said either get out of this site or get out of the building. He was cooperative. As I was leaving that section, his uncle who was probably doing the same thing but couple of computers father down, stopped me and asked me what happened. I realized he was an adult, same age or older than me. I told him the story.

He replied, where are you from? (saw my accent) and waited for no answer and bomborded me with the words, that I am an ugly white ass who just jumped off the boat, landed on this soil and trying to take advantage of blacks who has lived here for 400 years and have accomplished a great deal and worked hard to get equal rights and we are all responsible for 200 years of slavery happened here.

All because I didn't want a teenager look at porn on a public computer at a public library in public.

Irandokht,

The blame game is one thing we should avoid. Women problem is humanity problem not only women's problem. I know we are not there and have empathy for women who work hard but don't get to play hard.
As an Iranian expression says it well, the smoke coming out of this fire will goes into everybody's eyes, men or women. That's what we need to focus on. Disenfranchising men will not help anyone.

SamSamIII

I dmire your efforts to take care of your princess. I would do the same thing if something like this happens.

I agree that Iranian men have a huge ego problem. An ego is a huge problem by itself but having a huge ego problem is another thing I can't imagine. 

Iranian men urgently need education on this.

Nature and a Natural Response

Nature is perfect. There is nothing that humans can add and improve upon it. Anytime they do, they screw it up. However a natural response, or instinct, has no moral value. Lions eat when they are hungry.

Men's ego, domination, abuse is part of being alpha, a natural behavior to survive, no moral value in it and nothing human about it.

Men who like to empower women, educate themselves to give women equal access to resources, and avoid any abuse in any shape or form, are one that went beyond the call of nature. This is of human value and this differenciate us from other species.

Women use up some resources to get educated (this is good and we must continue. It's their fundamental right). Then they go to work and use some resources as they are assigned to job, plus more responsibility and results are expected from them (Good, they are human being like rest of us. We should avoid dscrimination in all shapes and form). 

Then couple of years on a job, a modest salary and saving, they get married, they get baby and then they quit working. I've seen this many times. This is natural, and the natural response from the employer is, that he tries next time not to hire female workers because all the resources and training he gave them has not brought him such a great return on his investment. (this is natural but of no moral value. and it is not good behavior from the employer but it's his natural response)

Feminism came to tell people at the beginning to give women equal chances, and that's great. An educated and independent women would raise a much better and mentally healthy family. (We all agree on this so far, aren't we?)

Then the feminists realized despite all the efforts they've made to make equal chances available to women especially in education, they were not getting proportional results at workeplaces.

They realized they need to push harder, and the flaw started from here. Now they are blaming men for every single problem that feminism is encountering. Much of the same thing happened during civil movement in the US from 60s till now.

We have someone like MLK who was as much a balck's righ advocate as a human right's advocate. He didn't try to exclude black's right from the human's right but to include all humans in it. That's why his campaign was so successful because his movement was inclusive.

Compare now Al Sharpton who blames whites for every signle problem that balcks have now.

Happiness

My personal belief is that, while recognizing that happiness is a very subjective matter, it still makes sense that women are generally less happy now, despite all the changes that feminism has brought to our lives.

  Women back then might have had more peace of mind = happiness because they were less exposed to the world, less was expected from them, and they were only women and mothers. Now they have to the responsibility to be as good as men outside the house and sometimes they are the breadwinner of the family, meanwhile the primary responsibility of being a good mother/wife is still there, deep down inside they want to do a good job in this responsibility and whether they like it or not they have to also compete in the male dominated world.  

I remember when men had the responsibility of being the sole breadwinners of the family, they were treated like mini Gods, they were super badakhlaq and A holes,  no one dared upset the master.. Because he works, he gets tired; he is the father of the family. Now women are doing that job + their main job and still get almost no recognition.

  Another reason of less happiness might lie in “ignorance is a bliss”, the less you know, the simpler your life is and this could give an illusion of happiness. Women then did not have access to the same level of education, they knew less so they had to worry less.    

One more thing, ID

Before I forget... are you claiming that men treat women the same way they treat other men at work? Or that women treat men the same way they treat other women at work? Because if so, I couldn't disagree more! Guys can say some pretty nasty stuff to one another when they are upset about something. They don't treat women like that, though. It's a huge no-no for men to get aggressive with women, even if they had an inclination to. Likewise, I've seen women behave quite cruelly towards other women, but I've never seen a woman provoke and antogonize a guy like that.

From personal experience, I've been quite nice to women who screwed up pretty badly and tried to find a way to help them out. Purely because I wanted to help them. With a guy who makes the same types of mistakes, I'm more likely to get hardnosed, even to the point of trying to make him quits his job if he can't improve his performance. And (alos from personal experience) I've been on the other side of the desk with my female boss counselling me after I effed up something awful and I know damn good and well she wouldn't have been smiling and treating me nicely if I'd been a woman.

We just don't have unisex work places, and we probably never will because men and women are not the same. Nor should they be the same.

ID

Are you comparing a male manager/executive to a any female or to a
female manager/executive?

Yes, I thought I made that clear. I've never seen a man cry at work but I've seen women cry at work.

I have never seen a female manager/executive
show any emotional outburst because if she cries, she's too emotional

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I had a female boss break down in tears (of joy) when she told her team she was pregnant. She and her husband had been trying for quite some time. On another occassion I saw a female executive walking around the office with tears running down her face after her husband had told her he wanted a divorce. Nobody had any problem with it, in either case.I'm not sure it would have been as well accepted if males in the same positions had broken out in tears for the same reasons. What do you think? I think other men would be much more disapproving.

You know what, though? I'm not sure. I saw infantrymen in my unit in the US Marines sobbing like babies after they got "dear john" letters from their wives or girlfriends. I also saw Marines crying from grief. As I recall the reaction was nobody "noticed".

...and not fit for management or if she shows any sign of rage she's a
b*tch. Being assertive and aggressive in the place of work is only
considered a positive trait for men.

I agree with you on that one. Displays of anger are somewhat OK for men. Not for women. As displays of emotional fragility (like crying) are OK for women, but not for men. I honestly think those attitudes are part of human nature and cannot be changed. But I don't have any evidence to back that up.

You say that's a hardwired type of perception? Why should it make a
difference in the work place if people were to be treated equally?

Well, see, that's the part I agreed with midwesty on. Treating people equally doens't mean you treat people as if they are all exactly the same. At the workplace, I would say treating people equally means everyone gets the same opportunities according to their abilities. If a male manager breaksdown in tears at a staff meeting and the powers that be decide that has undermined his authority with his subordinates, do they have a right to withold future promotions? Keep an eye on him to see if it's a recurring pattern? Etc? Same with a woman who acts in an aggressive or hostile manner towards her subordinates, and they aren't reacting well to it? Is management obligated to treat her the same as they would treat a male, even if they know that their employees have had a much more adverse reaction to her behavior than they probably would have if she'd been a guy? I just don't think you can pass regulations to cover everypossible circumstance.And most especially when it comes to sexuality, because males and females very much DO have different stes of typical and "acceptable" behaviors.I think in the examples I just gave, an employer has a right to think the people in question have demonstrated decreased ability to do their jobs, on an individual basis.

We're not talking of an intimate setting where male and female roles
are naturally different. Being hardwired for chauvinism is not a good
excuse.

I completely disagree with you that it is only in "intimate" settings where men and women have different natural roles. I think men and women have had different roles to play since humans first started walking upright. And probably before that, too. I think it'd be stupidity to pretend that's something we can change with education.

I won't be able to change anyone's mind and honestly, as a woman
engineer I have dealt with these issues in real life way too often and
as far as trying to convince people who refuse to see it, been there
done that enough times that I won't be spending any more time on this
thread.

Yes, I'm sure you've spent a lot of time trying to convince both men and women to see it. Because most people don't agree with you on that one. Not in today's workplace, at least.

ex PC

You said:

I'm not sure that would be the case if a male manager/executive broke down in tears! I think he might even lose his job.

Are you comparing a male manager/executive to a any female or to a female manager/executive? I have never seen a female manager/executive show any emotional outburst because if she cries, she's too emotional and not fit for management or if she shows any sign of rage she's a b*tch. Being assertive and aggressive in the place of work is only considered a positive trait for men.

You say that's a hardwired type of perception? Why should it make a difference in the work place if people were to be treated equally? We're not talking of an intimate setting where male and female roles are naturally different. Being hardwired for chauvinism is not a good excuse.

I won't be able to change anyone's mind and honestly, as a woman engineer I have dealt with these issues in real life way too often and as far as trying to convince people who refuse to see it, been there done that enough times that I won't be spending any more time on this thread.

Thanks

IRANdokht

ID

Let me ask you why is it that Reagan and Bush (both senior and W) have
shed tears on occasions and it was seen as a humane emotion but when
Hillary choked up (didn't even cry) while speaking she was criticized
for being too emotional a woman and not fit for presidency?  You think
they treated her like they would a man?

Who is "they"? I'm not even familiar with this episode you are talking about, so I won't comment on it. In the work place, I've never seen a man cry but I've seen women cry at work and nobody thought the worse of them for it. I'm not sure that would be the case if a male manager/executive broke down in tears! I think he might even lose his job. I think this has more to do with human nature and our views on masculinity and femininity, and in this case it's much more acceptible for women to cry than for men to. On teh other hand, I would guess that a man losing his temper at work is considered "ok" to some degree, but a woman might get a bad repuation if she makes a habit of chewing people out and snapping at people when she's in a bad mood. 

Do you want to reverse the traditional male/female roles in human society as well? Good luck with that, because I think that one is hardwired.

I am not a Hillary supporter, but that's all I could think about
when you said "glass ceilings" are a figment of my gullible mind.

That's not what I said. I implied it is for  the most part an excuse on the part of individuals, and an ideological tool (weapon?) when used by militant feminists uring their indoctrination programs. That particular one is one of the least objectionable.

And speaking of Hillary, did you notice how NOW never came out against her and her husband Bill, when his long track record of making sexual advances (or worse) on female subordinates came out? What *better* showcase for sexual harassment could their possibly be than teh President of the United States having pending court cases against him as well as accusations from numerous women who worked for him in the past? But the National Oraganizatioon for Women had nothing to say.

ex-PC

Thank you for the personal information. I am sure you're very proud of the ladies in your family.

Let me ask you why is it that Reagan and Bush (both senior and W) have shed tears on occasions and it was seen as a humane emotion but when Hillary choked up (didn't even cry) while speaking she was criticized for being too emotional a woman and not fit for presidency?  You think they treated her like they would a man?

I am not a Hillary supporter, but that's all I could think about when you said "glass ceilings" are a figment of my gullible mind.

Thanks again

IRANdokht

See?

ID got sold that bill of goods by 1970s era militant feminists that I was talking about earlier.

ID, every woman in my extended family is successful. Every one. None of them has ever complained about a "glass ceiling". I've never even heard any woman in my family use the term, let alone complain about it happening. My 90 year old grandmother went back to school after having 4 children and then  started her own speech pathology business (back in the 1950s!) and she made millions by the time she retired in the 1970s. One of my aunt's still runs that business today. The rest of the women in my family work in the corporate world.

Are the women in my family special? Unusual? So gifted their talents can't be ignored? Maybe it's just because they are white? Seriously, what kind of nonsense are you programmed to spit out to explain away the womenin my family?

That's the problem with the feminist movement in the US. They got what they wanted, and instead of being happy about that they just got louder and more extreme with their demands. If it could be proven that there was absolute equality between men and women in the US, it wouldn't be enough for them. They would then call for remedial action that favored women over men, to compensate women for past discrimination. Even though the vast majority of women in today's work place (and in today's marriages for that matter) have never endured the adverse conditions that used to hamper American women.