We should strive to remove all the inequality that we can, regardless of whether it has a basis in nature. The very same natural process you allude to was the reason behind differential treatment of women and men in the workplace, but that is no longer acceptable, and rightly so.
Yes we should be striving to remove all the inequality we can but unfortunately when it comes to childbirth some allowances have to be made. Women have to have time off to have their babies what other options could there be?
Some women wouldn't be able to express enough milk in one sitting to provide bottles for a whole day. Dad could very well run out of milk before mum gets home from work.
Doesn't have to be one sitting. Nothing to stop a woman expressing milk at work.
If I said to you, here, watch this enlightening video
Then in the first minute there was guy talking about how women deserved what was coming to them, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hang around to listen to the rest of the 15 minute diatribe.
I find it frustrating that the stats available are so basic tbh. As you have suggested there are various degrees of DV (none of it acceptable I hasten to add). Death is the most extreme outcome, but I would like information on the relative seriousness of incidents, whether they fall into the categories of physical or emotional abuse etc etc. It would give a much clearer picture of what is going on and would be helpful in devising campaigns to prevent it.
I would also be interested in what % of the reported male victims were subject to attacks by male partners. It seems to me if you extrapolate from the DV death figures then it would be about half (I am excluding those men killed in self defence). If that is true then there should be much more focus than I think there currently is on making DV an issue in the gay community.
As Flat_Eric has highlighted, this isn't only a male / female issue and the fact that it is presented as such means that sections of those subject to it are left with insufficient support.
You need to add in women victims of their female partners as well.
Yes we should be striving to remove all the inequality we can but unfortunately when it comes to childbirth some allowances have to be made. Women have to have time off to have their babies what other options could there be?
Are you constructing a strawman in which I'm arguing for the abolition of maternity leave?
As for prize money - just responding to you mentioning it.
Happy for clarity of maternity over levels of maternity pay as well.
Saying something comes across as being bitter equates to thinking it is being bitter IMO.
So the majority of women need 26 weeks to recover from childbirth?
Good job we aren't wild mammals who have to get on with it from day one I suppose!
Among most wild mammals, there is a large mortality rate associated with pregnancy and childbirth. So yes, it's a good thing we're not like them.
In terms of our bodies, it's even worse for human females. Nature is not perfect. It fixes problems like pumping a 7 pound ball of meat and bone through a tiny canal with half-assed solutions like allowing the massive skulls of children to contain soft, collapsible points. Also, we are bipedal, which means our anatomy differs significantly from that of most other mammals. It results in narrower hips.
Complications in pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death in human females. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition.
Saying something comes across as being bitter equates to thinking it is being bitter IMO.
Apologies, it wasn't meant as such, but what I have seen in the past is people holding it up as an example of where men suffer in comparison to women, when it really isn't a fair example to use. Women get more time off when they have a baby because they physically need it, not because they are trying to get one over men. I do think that the idea of transferable leave is a good one though.
So the majority of women need 26 weeks to recover from childbirth?
Good job we aren't wild mammals who have to get on with it from day one I suppose!
Some do, some don't. Better to enshrine in law enough time for those who do, with the rest free to return to work earlier if they so wish.
You need to add in women victims of their female partners as well.
You would expect so, but they are weirdly invisible in the death stats. Perhaps the numbers are sufficiently low to be statistically irrelevant, I don't know. It surely does exist, but perhaps not to the same degree. Again this is why I wish there was more detail to the DV stats available.
Yes we should be striving to remove all the inequality we can but unfortunately when it comes to childbirth some allowances have to be made. Women have to have time off to have their babies what other options could there be?
So time for labour to take place plus a bit of bed rest only?
That assumes that women cannot be strong enough to defend countries. Which is absolute BS. As for men being better at working, I'm sorry, what were women at home doing, not assembling planes, guns and maintaining agriculture? Because history books seem to indicate that's exactly what they did.
Does sexism still exist? Yes. However it seems women can be just as sexist about women's capabilities as men are apparently meant to be.
I still think her point is going over your head. She's not saying she thinks that - she's merely suggesting that that was the general view at the time of society/the powers that be. She's not saying it is her own opinion or that she agrees with it.
If I said to you, here, watch this enlightening video
Then in the first minute there was guy talking about how women deserved what was coming to them, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hang around to listen to the rest of the 15 minute diatribe.
It's a load of sexist claptrap.
Perhaps you can explain what I missed?
The psychology part.
Why don't you watch it... and then tell me the bits that are sexist? it's not up to me to do your work. But if you just want to stick to your own sources that only state your confirmation bias that's up to you.
The dude who's doing the talk is a professor of cultural studies(Phd) at Harvard and a NEUTRAL anti-sexist campaigner. He knows his stuff.
He is a creator of a gender violence prevention and education program entitled Mentors in Violence Prevention, which has been actively marketed to the U.S. military and various sporting organizations. So... not about women at all. He works with men for men.
No not at all. I'm just saying what other options would there be?
Both parents being allowed paid leave from work. If you want to establish equal status and respect as parents between each other and from the child, meaning less bitterness between partners, the child not favouring or blaming one or the other for being around/not being around, a real sense of unity and real shared responsibilities, then allowing both to have an active role in the child's development must surely make more sense than "you spend all day with him while I see him for 2 hours before he goes to bed, by which time I am tired and disinterested in entertaining my child after a long day dealing with intolerable adults just to support this little thing I barely see and know."
You would expect so, but they are weirdly invisible in the death stats. Perhaps the numbers are sufficiently low to be statistically irrelevant, I don't know. It surely does exist, but perhaps not to the same degree. Again this is why I wish there was more detail to the DV stats available.
the statistic isn't collected hence the lack of visibility.
A quick google suggests a similar prevalence in LGBT and hetero relationships.
Who is doing that though? There have been umpteen accusations of men playing oneupmanship and claiming they have it tougher than women, but I haven't seen any. I'm not saying they don't exist but the sole focus for some people in this discussion seems to be about an aspect of behaviour that isn't even present here! Most, if not all, of those accusations have been levelled at posters who have had no such problem with acknowledging women's issues or anything like it.
Bear in mind the topic of this thread is about a supposed backlash against feminism and why that might be the case. A few of us have suggested that as a movement it includes some hostility towards recognising that some men face some of the same issues as women and some men face their own inequality. Straight away this is seen by some as an attack against the validity of women's issues and a claim of superiority in victimhood on behalf of men. It is nothing of the sort. It is an attempt at explaining why feminism, as opposed to straightforward, genderless egalitarianism, can be problematic.
You, sir, are also deserving of a beverage of your choice at my expense.
Among most wild mammals, there is a large mortality rate associated with pregnancy and childbirth. So yes, it's a good thing we're not like them.
And it's even worse for human females. Nature is not perfect. It fixes problems like pumping a 7 pound ball of meat and bone through a tiny canal with half-assed solutions like allowing the massive skulls of children to contain soft, collapsible points. Also, we are bipedal, which means our anatomy significantly differs from most other mammals. It results in narrower hips.
Complications in pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death in human females. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition.
I can't believe that this needs to be pointed out.
Apologies, it wasn't meant as such, but what I have seen in the past is people holding it up as an example of where men suffer in comparison to women, when it really isn't a fair example to use. Women get more time off when they have a baby because they physically need it, not because they are trying to get one over men. I do think that the idea of transferable leave is a good one though.
Some do, some don't. Better to enshrine in law enough time for those who do, with the rest free to return to work earlier if they so wish.
Was being a bit facetious with the length of maternity leave as it seems to be more about parental bonding rather than physical recovery from childbirth!
No not at all. I'm just saying what other options would there be?
Other options to women having time off to give birth? Nobody has suggested such a thing. The issue being highlighted is that paternity leave is inadequate. Not only that but it reinforces the stereotype that child rearing is women's work and the expectation for men's involvement to be minor.
Both parents being allowed paid leave from work. If you want to establish equal status and respect as parents between each other and from the child, meaning less bitterness between partners, the child not favouring or blaming one or the other for being around/not being around, a real sense of unity and real shared responsibilities, then allowing both to have an active role in the child's development must surely make more sense than "you spend all day with him while I see him for 2 hours before he goes to bed, by which time I am tired and disinterested in entertaining my child after a long day dealing with intolerable adults just to support this little thing."
In an ideal world it would be great but how would businesses cope with half its work force off on maternity leave?
Lots of parents work full time and still have an active roll in their children life, its about balance.
Among most wild mammals, there is a large mortality rate associated with pregnancy and childbirth. So yes, it's a good thing we're not like them.
In terms of our bodies, it's even worse for human females. Nature is not perfect. It fixes problems like pumping a 7 pound ball of meat and bone through a tiny canal with half-assed solutions like allowing the massive skulls of children to contain soft, collapsible points. Also, we are bipedal, which means our anatomy differs significantly from that of most other mammals. It results in narrower hips.
Complications in pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death in human females. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition.
Childbirth doesn't last 26 weeks from inception of labour.
I still think her point is going over your head. She's not saying she thinks that - she's merely suggesting that that was the general view at the time of society/the powers that be. She's not saying it is her own opinion or that she agrees with it.
Then she should state that more clearly. Nothing is going over my head, I'm quite literate since I do work as a sub editor. I am quite capable of reading things as they are. Perhaps not as they are intended without adequate further clarification. So further context needs to be provided there if that is not her actual opinion since that is not stated. So, keep your assumptions to yourself and let's deal with the black and white, okay? Thanks. As you stated, you aren't the poster in question so how about not speaking for her and respecting her right to respond herself? You know, the feminist ideal of respecting a woman's views, not going "what the little woman really means is..."
n an ideal world it would be great but how would businesses cope with half its work force off on maternity leave?
In an ideal world equality is everywhere and feminism isn't needed. If feminism is not based on the ideal of equality, then what is it for?
Other options to women having time off to give birth? Nobody has suggested such a thing. The issue being highlighted is that paternity leave is inadequate. Not only that but it reinforces the stereotype that child rearing is women's work and the expectation for men's involvement to be minor.
I believe men are entitled to more paid leave if their partner goes to go back to work instead aren't they?
Apologies, it wasn't meant as such, but what I have seen in the past is people holding it up as an example of where men suffer in comparison to women, when it really isn't a fair example to use. Women get more time off when they have a baby because they physically need it, not because they are trying to get one over men. I do think that the idea of transferable leave is a good one though.
Women were discouraged (to put it lightly) from entering the workplace at all using that very same biological determinist reasoning. I doubt the men of that age intended to "get one over on women" but the result was still unacceptable nonetheless.
Whilst it's true that there are natural and physiological reasons why maternity leave is required, there are also other reasons it is required which apply to both parents. Like any threat to the status quo, getting these reasons to be acknowledged is frustratingly difficult.
the statistic isn't collected hence the lack of visibility.
A quick google suggests a similar prevalence in LGBT and hetero relationships.
That is quite possible in general DV terms, and is of a piece with the lack of details in other areas.
However the commentary on the DV death stats provided did state "Women are almost exclusively killed by men" So in terms of the most serious outcome of DV it appears that woman on woman DV leading to death is pretty negligible.
Comments
Yes we should be striving to remove all the inequality we can but unfortunately when it comes to childbirth some allowances have to be made. Women have to have time off to have their babies what other options could there be?
Doesn't have to be one sitting. Nothing to stop a woman expressing milk at work.
If I said to you, here, watch this enlightening video
Then in the first minute there was guy talking about how women deserved what was coming to them, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hang around to listen to the rest of the 15 minute diatribe.
It's a load of sexist claptrap.
Perhaps you can explain what I missed?
You need to add in women victims of their female partners as well.
Are you constructing a strawman in which I'm arguing for the abolition of maternity leave?
Does she have to take an hour off work to take it home as well?
No not at all. I'm just saying what other options would there be?
Among most wild mammals, there is a large mortality rate associated with pregnancy and childbirth. So yes, it's a good thing we're not like them.
In terms of our bodies, it's even worse for human females. Nature is not perfect. It fixes problems like pumping a 7 pound ball of meat and bone through a tiny canal with half-assed solutions like allowing the massive skulls of children to contain soft, collapsible points. Also, we are bipedal, which means our anatomy differs significantly from that of most other mammals. It results in narrower hips.
Complications in pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death in human females. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition.
Apologies, it wasn't meant as such, but what I have seen in the past is people holding it up as an example of where men suffer in comparison to women, when it really isn't a fair example to use. Women get more time off when they have a baby because they physically need it, not because they are trying to get one over men. I do think that the idea of transferable leave is a good one though.
Some do, some don't. Better to enshrine in law enough time for those who do, with the rest free to return to work earlier if they so wish.
You would expect so, but they are weirdly invisible in the death stats. Perhaps the numbers are sufficiently low to be statistically irrelevant, I don't know. It surely does exist, but perhaps not to the same degree. Again this is why I wish there was more detail to the DV stats available.
So time for labour to take place plus a bit of bed rest only?
Really?!!!
I still think her point is going over your head. She's not saying she thinks that - she's merely suggesting that that was the general view at the time of society/the powers that be. She's not saying it is her own opinion or that she agrees with it.
The psychology part.
Why don't you watch it... and then tell me the bits that are sexist? it's not up to me to do your work. But if you just want to stick to your own sources that only state your confirmation bias that's up to you.
The dude who's doing the talk is a professor of cultural studies(Phd) at Harvard and a NEUTRAL anti-sexist campaigner. He knows his stuff.
He is a creator of a gender violence prevention and education program entitled Mentors in Violence Prevention, which has been actively marketed to the U.S. military and various sporting organizations. So... not about women at all. He works with men for men.
The fact that you find him sexist is amazing.
Have you heard of the good men project?
Both parents being allowed paid leave from work. If you want to establish equal status and respect as parents between each other and from the child, meaning less bitterness between partners, the child not favouring or blaming one or the other for being around/not being around, a real sense of unity and real shared responsibilities, then allowing both to have an active role in the child's development must surely make more sense than "you spend all day with him while I see him for 2 hours before he goes to bed, by which time I am tired and disinterested in entertaining my child after a long day dealing with intolerable adults just to support this little thing I barely see and know."
the statistic isn't collected hence the lack of visibility.
A quick google suggests a similar prevalence in LGBT and hetero relationships.
You, sir, are also deserving of a beverage of your choice at my expense.
I can't believe that this needs to be pointed out.
Was being a bit facetious with the length of maternity leave as it seems to be more about parental bonding rather than physical recovery from childbirth!
In an ideal world it would be great but how would businesses cope with half its work force off on maternity leave?
Lots of parents work full time and still have an active roll in their children life, its about balance.
Childbirth doesn't last 26 weeks from inception of labour.
Then she should state that more clearly. Nothing is going over my head, I'm quite literate since I do work as a sub editor. I am quite capable of reading things as they are. Perhaps not as they are intended without adequate further clarification. So further context needs to be provided there if that is not her actual opinion since that is not stated. So, keep your assumptions to yourself and let's deal with the black and white, okay? Thanks. As you stated, you aren't the poster in question so how about not speaking for her and respecting her right to respond herself? You know, the feminist ideal of respecting a woman's views, not going "what the little woman really means is..."
In an ideal world equality is everywhere and feminism isn't needed. If feminism is not based on the ideal of equality, then what is it for?
You're not making sense either.
I believe men are entitled to more paid leave if their partner goes to go back to work instead aren't they?
Women were discouraged (to put it lightly) from entering the workplace at all using that very same biological determinist reasoning. I doubt the men of that age intended to "get one over on women" but the result was still unacceptable nonetheless.
Whilst it's true that there are natural and physiological reasons why maternity leave is required, there are also other reasons it is required which apply to both parents. Like any threat to the status quo, getting these reasons to be acknowledged is frustratingly difficult.
That is quite possible in general DV terms, and is of a piece with the lack of details in other areas.
However the commentary on the DV death stats provided did state "Women are almost exclusively killed by men" So in terms of the most serious outcome of DV it appears that woman on woman DV leading to death is pretty negligible.