Do men despise women.

[Loomineer]

On another thread read comments about women not realising how much men despise them. It got me thinking how in my relationships I've looked back and thought god. They really despised me.

My best friend is in a relationship where to me her dp treats her like he despises her.

I am not a man hater by any means. I just wondered what other people thought.

In fact, sexist as it is, society already picks up some of the tab by giving statutory maternity pay to all employed women. It's pathetically small but it's at least something.

cailindana i don't agree that making men equally disadvantaged is the answer surely it would be better to try and make women less disadvantaged?

How would you do that lurker?

You really want to make it compulsory for men to take paternity leave? In that case you would also have prevented my partner from immediately going back to work and forced her to take her maternity leave?

This is anecdotal! But in my experience women i know have been glad to take their leave despite the obvious economic disadvantages and they were more than happy for their partners to go to work.

Perhaps the answer is to increase maternity pay and more tax breaks for those choosing to use child care?

I thought you were against society picking up the tab?

Society already does, but i'm sure it can afford to pay a little more for 26 weeks.

I'm sure it can too. I'm not sure it wants to though. There is an expectation that women will take on a caring role for little or no pay and if they do expect more pay then there is definite sense that women are being grabby and selfish.

I think if men were forced to take a significant amount of time off for every baby that attitude would change quite fast.

Ah, if only that disadvantage only lasted for 26 weeks.

What a wonderful utopia we would live in.

Well yes Chaos. The disadvantage isn't just monetary. Many women come back from maternity leave to find they are now on the infamous "mummy track." The assumption is that they won't be focused on their work any more so they're subtly given less responsibility, less opportunity to progress and less respect. That has massive implications long term.

Really weatherall? The fact that the person who didn't take the career break has an extra 12 months of relevant work experience under their belt doesn't count for anything then? Can it be anything that 'benefits society' or just having children?

Same above question about work experience to Cailin.

Isn't giving women who take time off to have children special treatment (eg being able to advance without the relevant experience) also discriminatory to others? Not just men either -not all women will have children or may have older children when they start work. You could argue that men would actually more predominantly disadvantaged in those cases because they would never get the special treatment.

Cailin, again, it seems like you resent being the only sex who can bear children. You don't have to take a long time out of your career if you don't want to. If you want financial security and advancement in your career then don't take too much time away from it.

7days, so are you saying that making flexible working options available is a bad thing? Iirc I think the right to request flexible working has been/is being introduced to everyone, not just women. As I said earlier, ime, more men work less overtime and turn down travel opportunities when babies come along than before they do.

Bumbley thanks for engaging in the debate with me. I'm not interested in debating with you any more as I keep having to repeat myself to you over and over and I'm finding it really frustrating.

See, I think that anyone "with more than half a firing synapse" would look at the similarities between other species in their class, see those similarities, deduce that it is unlikely that the males of other species are 'socially conditioned' to discriminate against the females and would therefore look a bit further into it rather than simply accusing men of forcing things upon women in our society. (unless, maybe, you were a creationist)

I'd expect someone with more than half a firing synapse to have some grasp of history of which you appear to be completely oblivious.

I've no idea why you think that it's 'unlikely' that men are 'conditioned' to discriminate against women, unless you think it's in their 'genes'? What other explanation do you have?

Whether males in the West now are 'socially conditioned' to discriminate is up for debate, I would say so given the data of males in power. However, I would also say that current discrimination in the West is much more subtle and more unconscious than formerly: hiring in their own image, not trusting a gender they don't know as well as their own, rather than an overt ban on women.

I think we are all socially conditioned to accept men in the highest places of power because that is the current status quo.

My observation that subjugation has been 'forced' on women is based on firm grasp of history and some grasp of contemporary non-Western cultures. To deny this is the case is gob-smacking. In ancient cultures, women had no rights, in some cases could not leave the house alone and were 'given' from their fathers to their husbands, a custom which nominally reflected even today in the father 'giving away the bride'.
In the UK, until the Married Women's Property Act in the 1870s,
women did not even have the right to money they entered the marriage with.

Until effects of the 19th c feminist movement kicked in in the West, women had no right to education, to vote, to independence. Even when universities started accepting women, they still could not leave with a degree. Oxford didn't allow women to matriculate until 1920! Fifty years after they first admitted women.

Why do I focus on history: because it shows how men in throughout human history desired the world to be set up, left to their own devices.

Are you denying that historically subjugation was forced on women? Do you think it happened by accident?

That will never happen, small business' are the countrys biggest employer and many simply can't afford to lose people for that length of time.

As for maternity pay, while Parliament may be mostly filled with very privileged men, i'm sure there are enough women M.P's and reasonable men their to force a change, if their was any appetite for it.

i'm sure there are enough women M.P's and reasonable men their to force a change, if their was any appetite for it.

Which brings us back to the original point.

Chaos, it was Cailin who mentioned that society should pick up the tab - so do you disagree with that? Who should?

Forcing the man to take half the parental leave wouldn't work for some couples. The woman may not want to go back to work yet, she may still be breast feeding or she may have a lower paid salary (due to career choice not just because she's a woman!)

Men and women can share parental leave now. It will be interesting to see how many couples will actually take that up. I think that women will still probably choose to take maternity leave rather than return to work early tbh.

"The assumption is that they won't be focused on their work any more so they're subtly given less responsibility, less opportunity to progress and less respect. "

Certainly not where I work!

Twinkle, what history do you think I am unaware of? I'm wondering what the significance of the 4000 years that you keep referring to is.

What discrimination are you referring to in your second paragraph? I certainly think that some behaviour is genetically influenced. Do you disagree?

"I think we are all socially conditioned to accept men in the highest places of power because that is the current status quo."

Is being queen not considered a position of power?

Do you think all ancient cultures subjugated women? You may need to check your historical facts there.

I also think you need to recognise that there are biological influences at play. How/why do you think men came into positions of power in the first place?

Capt, that you think men despise women? Even though there are women MPs without the appetite as well? Do you just think that any group who disagrees with you despises women?

Many women come back from maternity leave to find they are now on the infamous "mummy track." The assumption is that they won't be focused on their work any more so they're subtly given less responsibility, less opportunity to progress and less respect. That has massive implications long term.

Exactly. Some women are side-lined after childbirth, it really depends on the culture of the industry.

In other cases, returning to work turns out to be financially unviable given the high cost of childcare, or women find they cannot find full time jobs within their profession that tally with family hours, and are forced to work part time, even though they may have the desire and the hours available work longer. Ironically, according to Bumbley, she's experienced that herself, she said she has turned down various opportunities within her industry as she wants work that fits in with childcare. As all working mothers are looking for such positions, and there are not a huge amount available unfortunately, she may find it takes her longer than she imagines...

Bumbley I don't understand how you don't see that you are arguing that women choose to be oppressed and that because they haven't been able to completely throw off male exploitation of them during child bearing incapacity/greater dependence that this is a natural and perfectly acceptable way of doing things.

I don't understand the circular arguments of "oh yeah, that's bad and women shouldn't have to tolerate that but I'm not going to support real measures for equality because the state shouldn't find feckless breeders, nor should men and nor should businesses so although it's sad really the only thing that can be said is women shouldn't have babies unless they are prepared to be subjugated"

Twinklestein, who's fault is it childcare is expensive? Or jobs that fit around your family life are hared to come by?

what history do you think I am unaware of? I'm wondering what the significance of the 4000 years that you keep referring to is.

All of it apparently.

What discrimination are you referring to in your second paragraph? I certainly think that some behaviour is genetically influenced. Do you disagree?

Discrimination against women.

I've no idea what behaviour you're referring to, so how can I comment?

Is being queen not considered a position of power?

Seriously?

Do you think all ancient cultures subjugated women? You may need to check your historical facts there.

Of, for example, Greece, Rome, Israel, Babylon, Egypt -

Egyptian women had slightly more independence socially and economically than other ancient cultures, however it was a patriarchal society and they were not seen as equal to men. Outside of being a servant or a prostitute, there were no opportunities to earn money. Women could only become Pharoahs in very special circumstances with the backing of powerful men.

There are enlightened instances through history, particularly in small tribal societies, some of which had matriarchial, but they are the few exceptions that proved the rule.

I also think you need to recognise that there are biological influences at play. How/why do you think men came into positions of power in the first place?

You think biology got men into positions of power? Really? If you're talking about sheer brute force, that's probably true in some cases. Otherwise, it's laughable.

Whether you see men's historical domination as nature or nurture it is an undeniable fact of history.

Twinklestein, who's fault is it childcare is expensive? Or jobs that fit around your family life are hared to come by?

That's a complex question, but the short of it is that government measures to prioritise cheap state childcare has a huge impact on women's ability to return to work. In Sweden where state childcare is comparatively cheap, women go back to work much more easily & the female employment rate is higher.

The UK's new flexible working policy came in in June 2014, which, actually suit a lot of people not just working mothers, we'll have to see what the effect is.

If the U.K was to adopt the Swedish model it would cost £2.2bn a year!

Interesting.

As you have the figures to hand.

How much would it earn in tax revenue?

How much would it save in in-work benefits?

How much would it save in out of work benefits?

You dont have to go off work. I have done two 2 week maternitys twice and would go back sooner if allowed. Iam married and dh is just as much a parent as me so its not at all strange him doing all the baby raising. Its his baby after all! There is nothing to stop all women doing this if they wish.

I don't know why you would think i have those figures to hand, i'm not your researcher, can't you find these things out for yourself?