Talk

Advanced search

To wonder why women don't rule the world?

(91 Posts)
Imsosorryalan75 Thu 04-Apr-19 18:09:02

When you consider that the majority of crime, violence and war in the world is organised and committed by men.
I wish women had a chance of being in the driving seat for a change.

MIdgebabe Thu 04-Apr-19 18:12:31

But that’s why women don’t rule the world, if push comes to shove, the man with the biggest shove wins.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 18:24:42

Women in here can't agree on how many portions a chicken is... 🤷‍♀️ Imagine trying to agree on international policies.

Joking aside. There are women in a driving seat. We have female PM, albeit in a bad time, there are female presidents, CEOs, women are opening small business which later grow right, left and centre. Angela Merkel, Sheikh Hasina, Kitarovic and now Caputova and tens more women are presidents or PMs.
It's on a right path.

Tomtontom Thu 04-Apr-19 18:28:08

People need to be in power because they're capable, not because of their gender.

And our two female prime ministers have been hideously bad.

Alsohuman Thu 04-Apr-19 18:30:27

Having read some of the posts here open mouthed, I doubt it would be much of an improvement.

33goingon64 Thu 04-Apr-19 18:36:09

Tomtonton - have a look at manwhohasitall on Twitter and (hopefully) see your words in a whole new light.

Northernparent68 Thu 04-Apr-19 18:36:24

Which women did you have in mind ? Diane Abbott, Theresa may, the Labour mp who was convicted of perjury ?

PengAly Thu 04-Apr-19 18:38:47

How sexist of you OP. You don't fix an issue by creating another one.
In case you werent aware we should be striving towards a society based on equality not women above men or man above women. Sadly mumsnet seem to be lacking in their knowledge as they see feminism as man hating.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 18:41:11

@Tomtontom and @PengAly

Amen and Amen!

gamerwidow Thu 04-Apr-19 18:41:56

Traditionally women didn’t have positions of power because they are physically weaker and they have to look after the children.
This led to most of history where women were pretty much property belonging to their fathers and then husbands. Society is built for men it’s going to take a long time to turn those attitudes round but we will.

gamerwidow Thu 04-Apr-19 18:44:36

P.s. yes of course people should be given opportunities based on their abilities but we need to make sure we remove the barriers to women taking up those opportunities.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 18:46:22

I actually the society is ready. But women aren't.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 18:46:34

*I actually think...

PlainSpeakingStraightTalking Thu 04-Apr-19 18:52:19

The power behind the throne is far greater than that that sits upon it.

PengAly Thu 04-Apr-19 18:57:21

I actually the society is ready. But women aren't.

Why should women be in charge instead of men? Thats just fuelling sexism from the opposite angle. Women AND men should both be in charge. We will never progress unless society start agreeing equality is the way forward

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 19:02:28

Sorry @PengAly
I meant the society is ready for women in high positions. Not ONLY women. I agree it should be equal and based on skills and ability to do the job.

CountFosco Thu 04-Apr-19 19:11:14

It's on a right path.

Women have had rights given to them and taken away throughout history so we can't assume things are going to keep getting better. Victorian women had fewer rights than medieval women.

Women don't rule the world because men are on average taller, stronger and more violent.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 19:50:48

The patriarchy and mysogeny. Both of which can be seen in action on this thread already.

Alsohuman Thu 04-Apr-19 19:53:36

Or even misogyny.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 19:58:12

Thanks also. I knew it didn't look right! or even POYP

Alsohuman Thu 04-Apr-19 20:02:27

You’re welcome - and very, very reasonable not to take offence!

MockerstheFeManist Thu 04-Apr-19 20:08:47

Which women did you have in mind?

Prof Margaret Macmillan is a sceptic. The female leaders we have had have tended to be as much of a bunch of warmongers and/or social vandals as the men: Thatcher, Mrs Gandhi, Eva Peron, Golda Meir, the Dowager Empress Cixi?

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 20:19:24

Probably because they're trying to fit a conventional mould that would be publicly acceptable to the masses.

PaperFlowers4 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:30:26

Regarding female leaders, the whole system of leadership is designed by men, so the only women who rise to the top tend to be ones who play by the man-made rules exceptionally well, see Theresa may, Margaret thatcher etc.

If women were in charge en masse (rather than the odd woman here or there) the whole system I suspect would look entirely different, though I’m not imaginative enough to describe what it might look like.

In every society men are more violent than women, this even holds true among the higher apes. Women just don’t seem to have the same drive towards pillaging and plundering and stripping the earth of all its resources to the same level that men do. Certainly, there is no evidence demonstrating such, in any society, across time and space. This itself is an explanation of why women don’t rule the world

Imsosorryalan75 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:32:27

Some of you are totally missing the point. Which is that men have had the power to make political, environmental and societal decisions for generations. Yes, we've had token women along the way but imagine a world where women are the majority in power.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:33:41

so the only women who rise to the top tend to be ones who play by the man-made rules exceptionally well, see Theresa may, Margaret thatcher etc.

What are these rules?

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:36:40

Well what are you doing for it OP?
Are you teaching your daughter to be aware of politics or at least what is happening in the world? Making her interested in it? Or yourself for that matter?

PBJtimedance Thu 04-Apr-19 20:37:58

There have been a number of women in power, quite a lot of ancient Egyption queens who had a lot of power and Elizabeth 1st. Ironically they still enjoyed war and did it just as often as the men 🤷‍♀️.

PBJtimedance Thu 04-Apr-19 20:38:51

Oh and queen Victoria who created the largest empire ever.....

Cushellekoala Thu 04-Apr-19 20:42:01

At the moment though the PM is female, head of met police is female, head of london fire brigade is female, medical director for london ambulance is female. I know these women dont rule the world but a generation ago , we wouldn't neccessarily have had women in all these posts. I'm not convinced TM is a great PM but not sure her male predecessor was any better by jacking it in when he didn't get what he wanted, and hiding in his poncy shepherd hut shed....and sadly i can't think of any politician male or female that inspires confidence at the moment. Sorry i know that wasn't the question!!

confusedfornow Thu 04-Apr-19 20:43:36

Because most of the technology we depend on was invented by men. Sorry but that's the truth.

And women are great at lots of things, and men at lots of things too.

Most importantly though, men are stronger and more aggressive, so if women did try to take over, we would be outplayed by men's superior physical strength.

PettyContractor Thu 04-Apr-19 20:46:41

When you consider that the majority of crime, violence and war in the world is organised and committed by men.

Most remarkable things, good and bad, are done by men. Men are more variable than women, extremes are dominated by them.

Random example: when you hear that someone caused a hazard to air traffic, by floating around in a garden chair with helium balloons attached, clutching an air rifle that was supposed to be used to pop the balloons so the chair could descend, the probability that this person will turn out to be a man is 99.999%. Women just don't do random stupid shit like this.

I've just googled, and apparently 90% of all Darwin award winners are male. The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it in a spectacular manner!

darwinawards.com/rules/rules.testosterone.html

Smakee offers an interesting theory: "I just might be able to answer the mystery that the vast majority of Darwin Awards contenders are male. I've studied evolution, and there is an academic theory that males are, in a sense, evolution's playthings. Far fewer males than females are needed to propagate our species. Males can therefore be used as an experimental breeding ground, as we are more dispensible. In most species females tend to be close to the average in physical and mental dimensions, whereas males are seen to display extremes more frequently. With human intelligence this also seems to be the case, as there are many more male geniuses, though this may also be due to the sexism rampant in our societies. On the other end, there are also many more idiots, who often end up qualifying for the Darwin Awards."

Jsmith99 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:46:53

It’s ironic that the left is supposed to stand for equality between the sexes, but both British woman Prime Ministers and the only woman German Chancellor have all led Right wing parties.

Alsohuman Thu 04-Apr-19 20:48:14

The left pays lip service while expecting women to make the tea.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 20:48:34

Confused - Do you think that more things were invented by men because they are more intelligent than women then?

PositiveVibez Thu 04-Apr-19 20:51:30

Society is built for men it’s going to take a long time to turn those attitudes round but we will

I agree with this very much. Women don't rule the world because Patriarchy.

I feel we have recently taken a step backwards were social media and pornography has made women into sexual objects for men to lust over.

I do hope this is changing and I will do my upmost to challenge these attitudes.

PositiveVibez Thu 04-Apr-19 20:52:01

*where

PaperFlowers4 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:52:55

what are these rules?

The rules encompass everything from political economy, to law, to governance, and all the philosophical thought which underpin them which can be traced back for thousands of years— Men invented all of it. Bar a few bits of feminist philosophy which has lately worked its way into the law (like marital rape being made a crime in 1991). Oh, and Ayn Rand.

Aside from that it’s men all the way down.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:53:26

If we are talking about politics, physical strength is really not a factor. Though it would be interesting if candidates had to battle for MP posts gladiator style.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:54:27

@PaperFlowers4 I was actually curious about a specific example

confusedfornow Thu 04-Apr-19 20:57:44

Ruggy?

No. I never said anything about intellect. But most things we take for granted would never have been invented by a woman because in the early stages at least, women have either not dreamt up the concept, or if they did would never have had the balls (no pun intended) to develop the idea.

Could you see any woman climbing abord the Wright brothers first plane? Not a chance!

I work in the Aviation sector, believe me, it's wall to wall testosterone here. I'd love more women to get into flying, but they're just not interested.

Nothing to do with intellect. Just simple lack of interest.

PaperFlowers4 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:58:13

@PaperFlowers4 I was actually curious about a specific example”

If you want specific examples, then start from Aristotle and keep reading your way up through the centuries. It’s all there.

Collectingcpd Thu 04-Apr-19 20:58:28

Because once they have children many either want to give up work completely or go part time. Last time I checked there weren’t any official part time world leaders, or even part time top positions in top companies. Women could easily rule the world if they chose to prioritize their families to 2nd place..........and we are a very long way off that happening.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 21:19:53

I was being sarcastic. I know it's nothing to do with lower intellect. Your premise is entirely wrong. Women HAVE invented many things but either their idea was appropriated by men and they took the credit for it and/or it hasn't been widely publicised. In addition, historically, women were prevented the opportunity/wherewithal to invent. It's literally got nothing to do with capability. You do know that there's no such thing as lady-brain, right?

Fr3d Thu 04-Apr-19 21:43:32

Err...for the inventors...Amelia Earhart? Grace Hopper? Stephanie Kwolek? Marie Cutie? When DD had to do a project on an inventor, I gave her lots of female ones to choose from grin

As to females ruling the world..or at least countries...They are! Jacinta Arden, Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Merkel, Teresa May, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Dalia Grybauskaitė, Erna Solberg, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, etc etc etc. Just need the likes of America to catch up a bit.

Fr3d Thu 04-Apr-19 21:44:07

Curie not cutie obviously!

confusedfornow Thu 04-Apr-19 22:00:00

FFS!
I never said women didn't invent anything!

Amelia Earheart was flying because two men invented, built and flew the first aircraft.

It's not a slagging match hmm

Hecateh Thu 04-Apr-19 22:00:31

AND because of the way things are set up the 'token' women are in many if not most cases those with a high preponderance of masculine traits. It's not that we need more biological women (although we definitely do) but that we need to value traditional female traits and values (cooperation, compromise, greater good, benefit of future generations) rather than or at least equal to traditional male ones based on physical strength, dominance and aggression.
None of the traits specifically belong with either sex but have a biological and hormonal preponderance that way.

Collectingcpd Thu 04-Apr-19 22:19:57

Fr3d I didn’t say there weren’t any female world leaders, just that there weren’t any part time world leader positions. And as 1/2 the women you mention don’t have children, I think it supports my point. If I didn’t have children I’d be working full time in a more senior position, and I could say the same for many of my female colleagues. I might even sit on the village council (which is made up on 60 yr old + men). But I don’t want to sacrifice family time; men, on the other hand seem very willing to do so.

Imsosorryalan75 Thu 04-Apr-19 22:21:29

"Because once they have children many either want to give up work completely or go part time. Last time I checked there weren’t any official part time world leaders, or even part time top positions in top companies. Women could easily rule the world if they chose to prioritize their families to 2nd place..........and we are a very long way off that happening".

Again, in a male dominated world, the majority of women are expected to take the part time roles, to take on the familial responsibilities, limiting their options for career progression in a full time capacity.

happyhillock Thu 04-Apr-19 22:27:01

The world would be a far better place if women ran it, men like to jump in feet first, woman try to talk over thing's and keep the peace, as the saying goes, all the trouble in the world is man-made.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 23:26:11

Happy - it's really not that straight cut. I quite like to jump in feet first, can't abide talking things through to death and am not arsed about keeping the peace particularly, in a work capacity anyway. Not that I look for conflict per se - I just don't take responsibility for patting everyone down. I'm a woman but I don't think in terms of masculine/feminine traits cos I think it's largely a social construct.

Collectingcpd Fri 05-Apr-19 08:54:55

Again, in a male dominated world, the majority of women are expected to take the part time roles, to take on the familial responsibilities, limiting their options for career progression in a full time capacity

I’m not sure I agree with this. With a couple of exceptions the women I know who work full time do so because they have to, rather than they choose to. They have to because they are the main breadwinner and often, in their field, and at their salary level, part time isn’t an option. Financially they could could sacrifice one or 2 days a week, but that isn’t an option in their role......and there are many senior roles for which part time or job sharing just isn’t an option. if your OH doesn’t earn enough to cover the bills what choice do you have?

Sure, many men do expect their partners to do most of the child care, but in my experience (and I’m referring mostly to high earning professional women) most women want to work part time, which by default means they will pick up most of the domestic chores.

PBo83 Fri 05-Apr-19 09:58:26

I can't help but feel that this thread hasn't descended into the man-bashing 'battle of the sexes' that the OP was hoping for.

The80sweregreat Fri 05-Apr-19 10:09:32

People always forget to mention the Queen ( UK) when talking about women in control. She is head of the Church of England and ina position of power ( even if she doesn't weald this power). Love or loath her she's still up there and just as important as the current PM and has been for years and years! There are lots of women in the top jobs but just not as many as there should be for many many reasons.
( knows I will get 'flamed ')

DGRossetti Fri 05-Apr-19 10:11:12

How much did Mrs Thatcher do for womens rights ?

I think the answer to the OP is right there ?

How much have any of the women politicians we've had, and have done to advance womens rights ?

The fact we have a woman PM who is quite happy to push through benefits legislation that contained the rape clause tells you all you need to know, really ?

Carry on voting Tory though - know your place.

confuddeledconfuddel Fri 05-Apr-19 10:13:31

I used to always think this, the world would be a much better place with women in charge. Then the shit show of NI happened. Arlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill have just brought the country back 15/20 years. I had hope women would be able to move forward but I've found they hold grudges worse than menangry

HappydaysArehere Fri 05-Apr-19 10:14:36

Well there is a female met police commissioner and a female prime minister etc etc

NiteFlights Fri 05-Apr-19 10:28:37

Because of patriarchy, misogyny and biology.

The80sweregreat Fri 05-Apr-19 10:28:49

Mrs T was a terrible role model for women but the Tories do give women the top jobs.
Labour haven't. Often wondered why?

SpamChaudFroid Fri 05-Apr-19 10:34:32

Because patriarchy.

The80sweregreat Fri 05-Apr-19 10:37:56

Lots of very strong women were around in the past too. Had to work harder at it ( and become more like a man) but they were around. Lots of very good women authors who tried to help the cause through power of words too.

SleepingSloth Fri 05-Apr-19 10:47:02

I want sensible, capable people making decisions, whether they are men or women. In many developed countries we do have women in power.

Again, in a male dominated world, the majority of women are expected to take the part time roles, to take on the familial responsibilities, limiting their options for career progression in a full time capacity.

I don't think it's a case of them being expected to, the women I know have wanted to take part time roles because they want to be at home with their children. To be honest if my partner said he wanted to be the one at home with our kids, I wouldn't have been happy. Being a parent is one of the most important jobs anyone could ever have. We need to make being a SAHP hold more weight than it seems to. It's not somehow lesser than working full time.

Dexra Fri 05-Apr-19 10:50:39

Because the structures put in place (by men) reward and promote men, and the odd woman who is prepared to demonstrate traits that are typically seen as masculine.

LuYu Fri 05-Apr-19 10:50:50

It's depressing to see the same old arguments coming out, like 'women just aren't interested in physics/politics/[any other male-dominated field]', or 'look at these token women in power: they're actually just as bad as men'.

It would be very interesting to see how women in power behaved if they were not a visible minority working in a system devised by and for males. We take so much for granted about the way political structures operate and how we expect powerful people to work, but none of this is just the natural, default order of things: it's the result of centuries of male dominance. It's been arranged by men, for men, and it's no coincidence that many of the few women who've reached the highest levels of influence are not particularly sympathetic and sometimes outrightly hostile to women's rights.

The same goes for corporate structures, too. So many companies' working patterns, for example, are based on the traditional model of male employees who have no childcare responsibilities, especially at upper levels.

A class of people doesn't just switch from openly and legally being considered inferior (can't vote, can't graduate from university, can be raped by their spouse, can't own property etc etc) to being on an equal footing, especially as one of the physical aspects which has disadvantaged women is still very much a factor (pregnancy). I think it's way too early to be writing off female leadership as no better than or different to male leadership, or deciding that women just aren't into particular areas of influence or industry (from which they've been barred until the historical equivalent of ten minutes ago).

The80sweregreat Fri 05-Apr-19 10:54:31

I wondered how long till the Stay at home mums v working mums is brought up.
That's a long thread on its own without any clear right or wrongs and always ends up in a bun fight of sorts.
Some women can have it all ; others can't or really do not want to. It's probably a lot of reasons many women in top jobs don't have children!

Pengrin Fri 05-Apr-19 10:54:46

Take a look at AIBU, that’s why!

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Fri 05-Apr-19 10:55:44

I think women are their own enemies sometimes tbh.

No one will break barriers for us. We must do it and many of us are. Women are running businesses, running countries, inventing stuff, but it all comes down to...
Are women in general doing enough to get into that positions? Are women supporting each other? Are women telling girls that they can indeed be engineers, pilots, astronauts, scientists or politicians enough and actually support them in it?
When was the last time you bought a science kit as a present for a little girl?

No one will give us anything, just because. Women have to go and get it. So do the men. No one becomes a president, only because they have a penis🤷‍♀️
Are we expected to be at home and take care of families instead of a career? Unless the particular woman wants that, because there is nothing wrong with it if she wants it, well, I say fuck that. It shouldn't matter what is expected. What should matter is what we do and how we stand up to the wall of expectations holding many back. Do we break it down or just moan that it's there?

PregnantSea Fri 05-Apr-19 11:00:44

There are lots of women in positions of power..?

SnakeRattleRoll Fri 05-Apr-19 11:14:56

@InspectorClouseauMNdivision nails it, what is that quote? "Don't teach your daughters to chase glass slippers, teach them to smash glass ceilings". Very apt, we need to irradiate the vacuous reality TV star "idol" and teach girls you don't need to aspire to be famous just for the sake of it, we need to stop rewarding this fake "talent" and start pushing the idea that you can find reward in any job well done! That starts with the media. There are lots of clever and brilliant women in positions of power, in science, in engineering, in manufacturing, but we as a society prefer to show Love Island contestants, Katie Prices.

I teach my daughter to never give up, she falls down I tell her to get back up again, she can't do something I tell her to keep trying until she can.

If we can do more of this there is no reason Women can't "run the world", but why should it not be a mix of genders? Men and Women bring different things to the table, different working out methods and skills.

The problem isn't men, per se, but the type of men, not necessarily worthy of the job, but there on breeding and connections. This is the problem.

SnakeRattleRoll Fri 05-Apr-19 11:15:48

excuse the typos!

LuYu Fri 05-Apr-19 11:52:24

I think encouraging women to break barriers, stereotypes and expectations is always good, but describing women as their 'own worst enemy' is just another phrasing of the 'well, they just don't want to be in power' argument. It's the whole 'well, you could do it if you wanted to' thing.

Women are not to blame for the structural inequalities which hold them back. Men hold the advantage of precedent, the status quo: no, maybe nobody's giving them anything, but it's being held out with the expectation that they will take it.

Also, IMO the whole breaking barriers rhetoric is getting old. It gives this false impression of a siege line of men across the room, standing between you and the prize, when it's actually a lot more complicated, like a huge jostling festival crowd you have to push through forever and ever, people stepping on your toes and spilling beer on you (often unintentionally) and you never seem to reach the clear open space you're expecting.

It's not a question (most of the time) of being met with outright obvious sexism, someone yelling 'get back in your place, woman!'. Instead it's a slow and constant slog against a million things, many of which you might not consciously notice but which still affect you: being ignored, talked over, patronised; being the only woman in the room, being conspicuous, at odds with the status quo; being judged more on your appearance and having your interpersonal skills distorted or exaggerated (eg you're too bossy, too emotional, too flirty); being seen as dominating a conversation if you speak 50% of the time; being held responsible for other people's emotional wellbeing; being immersed in a media where a female's appearance or childbearing status are often their defining factors; growing up seeing almost every single influential figure in certain fields as male; seeing other women laughed at or torn down for being ambitious or outspoken; having kids and constantly second-guessing whether you are seeing them too little (or too much); trying to work in conditions and facilities which are designed for men; being told you're your own worst enemy and all this would go away if you just tried harder.

It just wears you down. That's what I see, in this country, more than the big man at the door shouting NO in your face: initial optimism slowly abraded into weary awareness that it's not just one barrier, it's so many things. I don't really know any more if I want to raise my daughter with this 'yay, girls can run the world!' attitude. It's more like 'yay, girls are technically capable of running the world but very few get the opportunity and that's not actually their fault, but do give it your best shot, and by the way your behaviour and success if you do reach a position of influence will be taken as representative of all future women's behaviour and success in that field, so good luck with that'. Which is a less cheerful slogan.

Collectingcpd Fri 05-Apr-19 13:47:35

Spot on sleepingsloth
And this:
no-one gets to be president just because they have a penis.
DH’s boss is female. She easily works 60+ Hours a week. Her husband’s job is even more demanding. Her DC have been brought up Monday-Friday by nannies. There is no glass ceiling for women, just a choice about how much time they want to spend with their children. Women can be CEOs (and are)but not if they want to start work at 9 and finish at 3. It’s the ‘you can have it all’ lie. You can’t. You can’t have children (and be actively involved in their day to day life), and have a high flying career.

Dexra Fri 05-Apr-19 13:54:56

LuYu
Spot on

SpamChaudFroid Fri 05-Apr-19 13:59:51

no-one gets to be president just because they have a penis.

It certainly helps though. When my DSis joined the police force in the 80s, WPCs were at last awarded a bonus of a third of a house deposit. The male PCs bonus was double that, at 2 thirds, because "they have to provide for their family".

BloodyDisgrace Fri 05-Apr-19 14:13:09

I think it's because women say too many "sorries" and "excuse me"s and budge out of a man's way. First one needs to train oneself into thinking you have a right to be here, take space, and enjoy yourself. Or quite audible "I haven't finished yet!' at a work meeting. (had to do it only once, but it worked miracles ever since)

Imsosorryalan75 Fri 05-Apr-19 21:02:51

Why is my post seen as 'man bashing' hmm I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Just wondering what the world would be like if the majority of world leaders were women instead of men.
Maybe office hours would also be different if child rearing were seen as a more important job and the importance of flexible/family friendly hours. Instead of the typical 9-5 or longer roles that are more likely to be filled by male employees.

gamerwidow Fri 05-Apr-19 21:35:14

What would be even better is if child rearing wasnt seen as just a woman’s job and men took a proper share of the childcare role. More men need to be SAHDs and to go part time and take the career hit rather than it bring assumed the mum always has to. Men need to be supported at work to share the load of raising a family in the way women have had to. If needs to be as common for a man to be the main carer as it for a woman.

AngelsSins Fri 05-Apr-19 21:55:44

Because most of the technology we depend on was invented by men. Sorry but that's the truth

How do you know? Because history tells you? I suggest you look a little deeper. Women weren’t allowed to own a patent until fairly recent history, so any woman that invented something, had to have it registered by a man. Women also weren’t allowed bank accounts or to own property, were legally barred from certain industries where inventions might be created, could be legally sacked once married or pregnant but had no access to birth control. Men made it impossible for women to succeed.

A perfect example is one you gave yourself, the plane. It wasn’t created by two men, it was created by two men and a woman, their sister. But she’s the one who was written out of history so that people like you can believe that man can claim they invented everything.

longwayoff Fri 05-Apr-19 21:58:44

Er, I think you'll find we're too busy?

Fr3d Fri 05-Apr-19 22:13:41

I do think there has been huge change even in the last 30 years. Lots of dad's doing school runs around here, some SAHD's whose dw's work FT. Jacinta Arden having a baby and taking some maternity leave while PM. Having children doesn't rule out ruling! Ireland had female presidents for 21 years in a row, both of whom had children. Like everything, there will be good and bad male and female politicians.

The80sweregreat Fri 05-Apr-19 22:15:56

I know of two 'stay at home dads '. Kids are primary school age.

Most other mums are a bit suspicious of them. Comments such as ' being kept by his wife is wrong' ' kids need their mum' 'it's not right' etc etc. They will have as many barriers to do this as women will and I still see more females than males doing drop off at breakfast club.
Most men wouldn't want this set up although I can't see anything wrong with it myself.
Until there's a bit more equality and less judgemental thinking I can't see the bulk of child rearing being a mans job even if they might be better at it! People still think in a ' traditionalist way' more than you think.

Fr3d Fri 05-Apr-19 22:18:44

Thankfully it's a bit more open minded here, despite being rural and traditional in many ways.

BogstandardBelle Fri 05-Apr-19 22:19:01

Why would we want to? Seriously, what’s the advantage to ruling the world?

Fr3d Fri 05-Apr-19 22:20:25

Even the after school club has male and female staff, teachers are male and female and currently the TA's are all male

Fr3d Fri 05-Apr-19 22:26:01

Satisfaction from making a difference? Achievement? Get your name in the history books? The £££ and pension? Power? Liking for non-stop abuse and complaints?

AngieBolen Fri 05-Apr-19 22:32:26

Because women tend to want to be with their young children if possible, while men tend to want to go out and hunt/gather/earn.

Any parent in a senior position has had to delegate childcare to spouse/family/nanny because it's virtually impossible to do both.

When women can't or don't want to spend more time with their babies than be at work, (as has been the case for the majority of men in the past) then women will start to rule the world.

GoldenWonderwall Fri 05-Apr-19 22:46:26

LuYu fab post.

It’s so easy to say women don’t want success/ aren’t cut out for success/ don’t work hard enough for success/ are better behind the scenes than being the success and on and on. We can then feel ok with our lot and/or beat ourselves up about not trying hard enough.

When girls/women do do better than men en masse society whines that the system is too feminine, it holds men down, it’s unfair and unreasonable. When it’s the other way around it’s how it should be, it plays to everyone’s strengths, it’s fine.

If we want equality we’d need 100s of years of women making all decisions and owning all wealth and property to even it up before we start again on an equal footing. Really we want and society needs genuine equity of opportunity and we’re still nowhere near that.

Collectingcpd Fri 05-Apr-19 22:53:47

Maybe office hours would also be different if child rearing were seen as a more important job and the importance of flexible/family friendly hours. Instead of the typical 9-5 or longer roles that are more likely to be filled by male employees.

This will never work because there will always be people (male and female) who don’t need flexible working arrangements (because they don’t have children/elderly parents/something else) who are prepared to work 60+ hour weeks and climb the greasy pole.......I certainly know which ones I’d rather employ.

I’m really encouraged by this thread........I’m so tired of the ‘us against them’ battle that seems to be regularly trotted out, and how nothing is fair for women. Women do have equal chances, but they also have choices, and as many on this thread agree, until they decide that their job is more important than their children they aren’t going to conquer the workplace, and many of us are ok with that.

gamerwidow Sat 06-Apr-19 09:43:05

Women do have equal chances, but they also have choices

Do they though? Unless they have a partner who agrees that the woman's work is important as the man's work and they are prepared to share work at home 50/50 then women's choices are an illusion.

Fr3d Sat 06-Apr-19 13:36:13

You can choose who you marry (usually!)

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »