Showing that feminists don't all hate heterosexual male sexuality

An interesting discussion on it which I watched ages ago after seeing it mentioned on here.

Oh if only I’d made the right choices.
Are those ‘most economists’ men perchance?

Not the one I read. She makes a good point that the data can be misleading as a pay gap could reflect that a company is taking on lots of junior female graduates, which seems very possible given that young women earn more than young men and the gender gap in education is still widening.

iea.org.uk/gender-pay-gaps-are-not-the-result-of-discrimination/

Ah yes, the special old fashioned wave of feminism that holds that women should really just settle into caring positions, it's a better financial decision to hire men, and what on earth are women complaining about anyway.

Second wave feminists tend to identify that as 'supporting the patriarchy' but I suppose 'old fashioned' works pretty well to describe being desperate to maintain the status quo and keep women in their place.

Excuse me, I wasn't aware this was a feminist web site? Its a site for mums, hence, MUMSnet.

Actually, despite the name it's (primarily) a site 'by parents, for parents' - of both sexes. Feminists are generally only too happy to have fathers taking their responsibilities seriously.

Oh Alison. Please don’t try to tell the well educated, experienced feminists of Mumsnet, that you know better than them. It’s probably best if you read a few of the threads on the FWR board and you might have a better understanding of what feminism is, before you try to school them. I’ve learned so much from them and you could too, if you take the time to learn.

The first thing you might learn, is the fact that Mumsnet actually welcomes all women, even the ones that don’t want to have children and I know it’s a shocker, but we also have male posters and people who identify as trans.

Thats your personal experience, its not systemic.

There are systemic biases. The assumption you make that the woman will be more of a 'financial risk' than the man is an example. My company is supportive of its staff who are parents (spearheaded by women but I'm glad to say also benefitting men)- so, they've benefited from skills retention.

You're on the feminist board, Alison. But good luck in your quest to overcome the scourge of women's rights.

And i would say im an old fashioned feminist, whos ashamed of what i see it becoming. Theres no one size fits all definition of feminism,

I know of senior partners who wouldn’t even employ a woman of childbearing age if the option of a (less qualified) male candidate was there.

Thats your personal experience, its not systemic. Nevertheless there will likely be reasons why this is the case. The reason is likely financial risk rather than just 'liking' men better than women and being sexist.

You're on the feminist board, Alison. But good luck in your quest to overcome the scourge of women's rights.

I just don’t really understand why people go to the effort of coming to a feminist website to tell women that they don’t need feminism.

Excuse me, I wasn't aware this was a feminist web site? Its a site for mums, hence, MUMSnet. I happen to believe that feminism in its current form is, and will turn out to be very damaging to mums and children alike, so I have just as much right as the next person to be here and state my views thanks.

That's a particularly good, comprehensive piece, Quentin

Thanks Quentin

Meanwhile, the same PP implies that as well as gender bias at work being down to women’s choices, they are also bad mothers for going to work (criticism not levelled at fathers).

It can’t be both can it? Simultaneously choosing poorer employment opportunities and choosing work over your children? Do women also choose to take on the majority of domestic chores and caring for vulnerable/elderly relatives too? Choose to forgo a decent pension for these reasons? How often have I heard of women doing nearly all of the care for elderly parents when her adult brothers consider themselves too busy at work?

Choose to get vilified in divorce proceedings for expecting a share of the wealth accumulated by a husband who was enabled to work and earn well by her domestic sacrifice, or if in a non-married relationship, potentially leave with nothing to show for her efforts at all?

Like pp said, choices aren’t made in a vacuum.

pumbaas just copy the link from the address bar and paste it
I've not seen that thread, sounds interesting

I know of senior partners who wouldn’t even employ a woman of childbearing age if the option of a (less qualified) male candidate was there.

contexts.org/articles/what-gender-is-science/

I don’t know how to link to the thread with the times article about the study with the IDENTICAL CV sent to veterinary practices (Identical apart from a male/female name of candidate). Male named candidate on average offered 8% higher starting salary and were more likely to be viewed favourably for a senior/managerial position. The bias was worst from employers who didn’t believe in gender bias/pay gap.

The rationale being that education and high earnings are a means of escape in more oppressive countries but that given free choice many women
It's true schmurf but the rationale is actually that computing is seen as a safer cleaner career choice as it's in an office. and therefore more appropriate for a woman

‘Choices’ are hard to make in a vacuum. And have very little to do with the inherent hiring and promotion bias in many industries. In banking we used to say ‘congratulations on your new penis - oh I mean job’ when the chap in line took an available promotion over the far more experienced, capable, and eight times as many women who had applied for the same role. It was never a surprise that the 23yo male was promoted over all the available women. Just predictable. And predictably irritating.
Indeed in a different career as a single woman, my promotion had gone to my male colleague (with two years less experience in role) because her has a wife and child to support’. And yes. He actually said that when a separate colleague asked why x and not y.
Oh if only I’d made the right choices.
Are those ‘most economists’ men perchance?

The rationale being that education and high earnings are a means of escape in more oppressive countries but that given free choice many women don't make the same choices as men.

Do you deny that a pay gap exist? Or do you believe that is just women's choices?

I thought most economists believe it to be down to choices?

I'm sure I read that in more patriarchal societies (e.g. India) women are more likely to choose STEM choices but in more progressive societies they choose more traditional roles (I think it was in Sweden).

Females are the safest they've ever been in history yet go on about how they're less safe???

How would one even measure that, on a global scale? How has the person making that statement come to that conclusion? I mean, we're all arguably safer from infectious diseases than we were even a century ago, but as current events demonstrate "safe" is always a relative concept where that's concerned. Other than that I see no indication that women are any safer than we've ever been.

Oh we had those scrimp. Except turned out Alison hadn't read them and the findings were not quite as portrayed oh and there were only 2, not hundreds

I’m also waiting for a man to be accused of going to work to avoid spending time with his children...?