Is it even worth discussing what a colossal bellend Farrage is?(53 Posts)
Yes, but do do due diligence. For example as if he's a feminist. Talk about feminism. Ask if when you have children what he expects - would he stay home with them as a possibility? Would he be happy if you carry on full time work? My oldest got married. The groom's mother has always worked full time as a doctor. I have always worked full time. He will expect women to work full time in good jobs. That definitely helps. Had she married into a family of women who don't work or put careers second to men or who expect women to do more cleaning at home than men then you can see how problems might occur later.
'So I don't think it's quite fair to blame women who find themselves in this situation, really'
In my mate's case, she had doubts about his behaviour and even described him as 'chauvinistic' to me long before they got married but she went ahead anyway He is indeed a total plonker and I really don't know what she sees in him. I waver between feeling desperately sorry for her and wanting to give her a good shake!
Yeah but often the sexist attitudes only reveal themselves after you've had children. By which time it's too late. So I don't think it's quite fair to blame women who find themselves in this situation, really.
Also never marry the sexist men like Lotta mentions. Plenty of us talk these things through before we marry and only want non sexist feminist men - they do exist and have done for decades but you need to choose carefully.
It is depressing you're all right, But can I just say how it is still making me grin everytime I see this thread title come up in my conversations - and loving the adjectives: Belendious, indeed.
'Aside from the rambling, my point is that there is also emotional coercion for both men and women to conform to expected roles'
Very much so
My best mate had a baby 18 months ago. She took her full year's maternity leave because she wanted to. However, when the year was coming to an end, her husband expected her to want to stay at home with baby. She was itching to get back to work and decided to go back 3 days a week. She's a highly specialised NHS clinician, he is a deputy head teacher. It wasn't even up for discussion that he would alter his working hours in any way whatsoever, let alone go part time. And loads of people around them, all of his family for instance, act like her job is some pathetic little pin money time-filler, while he is the one with a 'career'. It's depressing how ingrained all of this stuff is.
I give you this little gem to while away your day.
…and when I say 'stopped working for a while' what actually happened was I exchanged an interesting and varied sort of work where I was free to take breaks whenever I wanted for the relentless and backbreaking work of caring for small children
Funny how our words betray our conditioning, isn't it. "stopped work" indeed
Latent sexism and economic factors aside, for women to work and men to let their careers take a back seat for a while both are going against society's expectations for them. Both must experience the guilt of not providing and not being at home with their children, respectively.
When I compare DH and I, either one of us could have worked or stayed at home when the decision had to be made 10 years ago. Neither one of us really had the option to go part-time, so it was a choice of childcare or one largely SAHP.
It was me who stopped working for a while and I think it was because I would have experienced terrible guilt if I hadn't. Looking back, I am glad I had those experiences, but at the time it made me rather unhappy. I am not suited to small children, having very little patience and a short attention span .
Aside from the rambling, my point is that there is also emotional coercion for both men and women to conform to expected roles.
"The number of women I know who hadn't experienced direct sexism and disadvantage through being a woman UNTIL THEY HAD KIDS is very high." You know I would have been one of these women saying that. I wasn't true. I just didn't recognise the sexism for what it was.
I actually think he is a bit more right than Blistory says. I agree that women suffer prejudice because we MIGHT have children but I think increasingly the challenge is once we have children.
As you look at women graduates they are more than half of GPs, lawyers etc. and it is all too easy to feel like the problem is solved.
The number of women I know who hadn't experienced direct sexism and disadvantage through being a woman UNTIL THEY HAD KIDS is very high. I think his focus on Mat leave is a good one - it is Mat leave that kills careers.
Of my NCT class of 7 only 3 of us have gone back full time. And 2 of us have effectively been edged out of jobs post mat leave - demoted and sidelined until they left.
The total lack of take up of shared paternity / maternity leave shows how far off we are for men doing this. I suggested my DP shared my Mat leave last time and he laughed incredulously. And this is someone who is not sexist - at least not until he considers the hit it would deliver to his career.
I sometimes wonder whether larry is Farrage. Can't imagine why.
'I have no doubt that it will only be once men starting taking significant time off that there will be any change to the culture of Mon-Fri 9-5 and presenteeism because employers will need to adjust. There's just no incentive to do so until men start asking for change. How thoroughly depressing.'
Completely agree with this. And yes it is throughly depressing
Doctrine, that was the delightful Godfrey Bloom. I think he's been kicked out of the party now. No idea why, seems to me like he fits in beautifully!
Was Farage the one who said his wife was more biologically suited to finding the mustard? Or was that another of his bellendious cronies?
I said if women try to behave like men are encouraged to, by which I meant the sort of behaviour that bellendians like to regard as "what it takes to succeed"
I didn't mean any offence to women who relish their careers and also have children. I am one of those women, for a start
I don't think anyone said it was behaving like men, Laura.
He's rather sexist. I bet in both his marriages he has had a pretty unfair sexist set of arrangements at home.
But let us not say working full time as many of adore to do in work we love is "behaving like men". Plenty of us are more than happy to leave husbands and others to clean the house. Not all women want to be home all the time or for long periods.
Pinpoint post, Blistory.
He's missing the point - women don't suffer because they have children - they suffer prejudice simply because they MIGHT have children. It just happens to become more obvious once they do actually have children whereas it's more of a hidden prejudice prior to that. It's a much bigger issue that he thinks or than many realise.
The prejudice starts from the moment a woman of child bearing age attends the first interview and carries on every time promotion is considered. It's so ingrained that a lot of employers aren't even aware that they do it. Single, childfree man hoping for a partnership - not a problem. Single childfree woman hoping for a partnership - only after the employer has weighed up the risks of whether you might take time off for maternity leave, you might not come back, you might have more than one lot of maternity leave, you'll only want to work part time, you won't be ambitious anymore - suddenly offering partnership to a woman is a minefield that employers can't navigate.
As for women who don't have children - well, given that it can happen even in a woman's 40s, employers still consider the child free ones risky as well. So he's completely wrong that childfree women do as well as men and sexist again because he's not comparing like for like.
He is comparing a childfree woman to a man, not a childfree man, but any man, because children generally have no impact on a man's career. He's also missing the point that a childfree woman may have had to choose between a career and children, unlike the majority of men.
It's not going to be an easy change, not because of biological reasons, but because it requires an active change by men. Men actually need to do something about this such as taking parental leave and genuinely believing that they should be an equal parent.
Of course it's inconvenient as an employer to have someone take time off but it's a fact of life and the only way to stop women being penalised for it is for employers to realise that men are equally likely to require time off. But as I said, that requires men to actually take the time off, both at birth and for sickness, school plays, etc etc. I have no doubt that it will only be once men starting taking significant time off that there will be any change to the culture of Mon-Fri 9-5 and presenteeism because employers will need to adjust. There's just no incentive to do so until men start asking for change. How thoroughly depressing.
And yy to bellend. And that lets him off lightly.
Yes I agree Wilson. Except changing stuff for him means maintaining & solidifying white heterosexual dudes at the top of the pile. So anything that can change to make life more uncomfortable and more discriminatory against women, PoC, dissabled, gey/lesbians will be what he aims for.
Oh yy, completely agree his own bellendian sexism and ignorance is behind what he says it and that his gender expectations are bloody ridiculous. And the thought of him getting anywhere near power gives me the shivers.
I also wonder what the point is of a politician who thinks nothing can be changed - surely changing stuff is in the job description?
can't stop making words out of bellend
Yes scallops, totally agree.
...and for this reason I hope he is given maximum airtime leading up to the next general election. Once he gets outside his comfort zone of keeping all the darkies out, he will get himself into all sorts of trouble. Go Nige!
No, he's not worth the energy. I listened to him on the radio while calmly repeating (as I do with stroppy toddlers) "No, you are wrong. What you are describing is exactly the problem".
With a bit of luck his own ego will swallow him up and that will be that.
I think it is more than biology though for him. It is an overarching expectation that women give up having children (although I suspect he hasn't thought the consequences of that through) in order to have a career or forfeit their career when they do. And that expectation involves devolving all responsibility for having children and childcare away from the man. Because as he blatantly says that would suit him. Men maintain privilege.
It always amazes me when a politician shows such a lack of awareness of the political and of privilege and of structural inequality. It is his job to understand these concepts and he can't even get the basics right.
Or maybe he does unerstand all that and he just doesn't give a shit because women, well, they don't really matter.
Join the discussion
Please login first.