young women - it's your world

Former Member · September 2006

lipsy wrote:

i don't think its fair to make this personal. its so easy for people to jump on mattliverpool bandwagon.

Ok, sorry.

I was taking into account his other posts, which are all the same as this and I do think he is a twat. But yeah, in P&D attacks on the person are bad. Whoops.

Former Member · September 2006

Former Member · September 2006

Yeah, old Maggie isn't a good example. I understand what you mean, though.

Skive · September 2006

Jim V wrote:

I think a more valid point is that people are attracted to power and money, at least some people - but society is set up to allow men to achieve that with greater ease than women.

How about the example of teenage girls being attracted to blokes who have cars. I've know plenty of girls who have said the fact a bloke drives or has a nice car is important. I don't know many blokes who'd say that - they'd be far more intrested in how nice her arse is.

My sister got chatted up the other day and found out the bloke was an army captain, she said that's one of the the things that attracted her to him. Not because she wanted his money, but because she said that he's obviously successful.

Jim V wrote:

To define it along gender lines, as if implying women are gold diggers and men hard workers is pretty sexist.

I didn't say women arn't hard workers, just that they often find powerful men attractive. As a bloke I don't find girls with power any more or less attractive than those without.

Former Member · September 2006

Knee High Stripy Socks wrote:

I think my point was something like, even when these "loophole women" slip through the net, they only do so because they have qualities usually associated with masculinity. In particular, the more ruthless and less compassionate ones needed to get to the top in business.

well if all the men at the top are ruthless and dominating then i think its understandable that women need to be like that in order to compete. i don't see that as a bad thing.

Indrid Cold · September 2006

Knee High Stripy Socks wrote:

I think my point was something like, even when these "loophole women" slip through the net, they only do so because they have qualities usually associated with masculinity. In particular, the more ruthless and less compassionate ones needed to get to the top in business.

Hm, it could be backwards though: These qualities being usually associated with masculinity because they're qualities that leaders and bosses usually need to have (or they wouldn't be in that position) and these ones are usually men.

EDIT: Lipsy got here sooner.

Former Member · September 2006

Former Member · September 2006

Do men (in general) feel threatened by women with power, because this goes against the subconscious gender roles? As in, men are supposed to be powerful and if a woman is powerful instead, this means the bloke can't fulifl the role he thinks he should be?

Former Member · September 2006

Indrid Cold wrote:

Hm, it could be backwards though: These qualities being usually associated with masculinity because they're qualities that leaders and bosses usually need to have (or they wouldn't be in that position) and these ones are usually men.

So men are just naturally more successful and society just reflects this correctly?

Former Member · September 2006

Skive wrote:

I didn't say women arn't hard workers, just that they often find powerful men attractive. As a bloke I don't find girls with power any more or less attractive than those without.

I'd say being a powerful woman would turn off a large number of blokes, in a lot of circumstances.

Skive · September 2006

So a woman is successful and get the top job in government and she'd accused of acting like a 'bloke'. What does a 'bloke' act like?

Somebody with power?

Indrid Cold · September 2006

sophia wrote:

Why? Why should you have to be ruthless to be, for example, a politician? Surely there are other skills that would be of value in public life, such as cooperation, compassion, empathy.....?

That's a whole another subject IMO... In short, you need to be like that because otherwise the ones who are like that will seem better for the position to the ones that matter. It shouldn't be like this, but it seems like it is.

Indrid Cold · September 2006

Jim V wrote:

So men are just naturally more successful and society just reflects this correctly?

Err, no. I practically said the same as Lipsy: These are qualities anyone needs in today's society to "rise", and since most people who "rise" are men, we tend to associate the qualities with men.

Former Member · September 2006

sophia wrote:

Why? Why should you have to be ruthless to be, for example, a politician? Surely there are other skills that would be of value in public life, such as cooperation, compassion, empathy.....?

i wasn't talking specifically about politicians. and being ruthless isnt the only quality a leader is going to have. but as the saying goes 'nice guys finish last' and being kind and considerate won't get you that far in business.

Former Member · September 2006

Former Member · September 2006

Skive wrote:

So a woman is successful and get the top job in government and she'd accused of acting like a 'bloke'. What does a 'bloke' act like?

Somebody with power?

Not sure how many MPs, for example, you've met but there are many men in positions of power who exhibit many 'feminine' qualities (sorry can't find a better way of putting that) and don't exhibit 'masculine' qualities.

So if men in positions of power can be both feminine or masculine
But women must be masculine

What does that imply about gender equality?

Skive · September 2006

sophia wrote:

It's a masculine defined version of what you have to be to be successful, and I think it's unhealthy, and it's designed to perpetuate male privilege.

I don't think it is. Empathy Compassion are all well and good in small quantities but you can't be powerful AND be a pushover.

I just think that men fit more easilly into that role, Maggie proved that women can do it too.

Former Member · September 2006

Indrid Cold wrote:

Err, no. I practically said the same as Lipsy: These are qualities anyone needs in today's society to "rise", and since most people who "rise" are men, we tend to associate the qualities with men.

No, I meant that men have these qualities in abundance, and so succeed because they have these qualities. I was trying to show that men have more power than women.

Former Member · September 2006

Jim V wrote:

Not sure how many MPs, for example, you've met but there are many men in positions of power who exhibit many 'feminine' qualities (sorry can't find a better way of putting that) and don't exhibit 'masculine' qualities.

Like who?

Former Member · September 2006

Skive wrote:

I don't think it is. Empathy Compassion are all well and good in small quantities but you can't be powerful AND be a pushover.

I just think that men fit more easilly into that role, Maggie proved that women can do it too.

Maggie proved that ONE WOMAN can do it (emphasising, not shouting

), because she showed male qualities. What you've said is what Sophia was saying - using one loophole woman as an example that just because one has, every other woman should be able to as well.

Skive · September 2006

sophia wrote:

But why are they the qualities you need to succeed?

Because the strongest have always succeeded. Give me one example anywhere in the animal world where living creatures get the top through 'being nice'?

Indrid Cold · September 2006

Knee High Stripy Socks wrote:

No, I meant that men have these qualities in abundance, and so succeed because they have these qualities. I was trying to show that men have more power than women.

(Directed at Sophia too)
I know what you meant, I just threw in the idea that it might be the other way around. I didn't say I believed it nor that I didn't; just an idea to think on.

Former Member · September 2006

Former Member · September 2006

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Like who?

I'm hardly gonna start naming names (which again shows a little the need for people to pretend to have certain qualities), but I'm just making the point that it plays into a certain sexist attitude to imply that people have to be ruthless or macho to succeed. Meeting people who are very successful it's often strange to realise that this isn't always the case, by any measure - but it's implied that it is.

Which tends to reinforces the myth that it's men who are successful as a majority not due to oppression, subdugation and disenfranchisment but through nature.

Skive · September 2006

Knee High Stripy Socks wrote:

Maggie proved that ONE WOMAN can do it (emphasising, not shouting ), because she showed male qualities.

Who says that ruthlessness and agression are simply male qualities?
They're human qualities, that both men AND women are free to exhibit.

Indrid Cold · September 2006

Jim V wrote:

Which tends to reinforces the myth that it's men who are successful as a majority not due to oppression, subdugation and disenfranchisment but through nature.

That's not what I said at all. Just making this clear.

Indrid Cold · September 2006

sophia wrote:

I'm not saying anyone should be a pushover; but if we're talking about political life, there's a lot of characteristics besides ruthlessness and aggression that would be of value to public life, and a lot of those are "feminine" characteristics; but sadly, we live in a male-dominated society that has determined that masculine characteristics are more socially useful and valuable than feminine ones.

Now I could say that this is a generalisation; who says ruthlessness is a male characteristic? I don't think I'm ruthless, and I've heard of (and known) women who were ruthless, and men who weren't ruthless or agressive.

Former Member · September 2006

Skive wrote:

Because the strongest have always succeeded. Give me one example anywhere in the animal world where living creatures get the top through 'being nice'?

Group bonding and pack loyalty are all seen as successful models of animal survival - only very few creatures live alone with social bonding. The term 'survival of the fittest' wasn't used by Darwin or modern evolutionary scientists - in fact recent studies have shown that evolutionary development often encourages more empathic and supportive behaviour.

'Survival of the fittest' was actually the term used by Herbert Spencer who believed that poor people were destined to work in factories or mills, shouldn't be properly educated and should never be given any support - rather left to die if they couldn't survive themselves.

That level of industrial cruelty has never exsisted in nature, and the term was popularised not because of any evidence but because it suited mill owners as an excuse to justify the mass deaths in their workhouses.

Former Member · September 2006

Indrid Cold wrote:

That's not what I said at all. Just making this clear.

Sorry, know that - just taking something to a final point

Former Member · September 2006

Skive wrote:

Who says that ruthlessness and agression are simply male qualities?
They're human qualities, that both men AND women are free to exhibit.

Reading back, what I should have written is that Margaret Thatcher displayed the qualities that all the men in the top jobs seem to display. So yes, maybe it is dependent on posessing these qualities rather than being male with these qualities. It still seems an unfair bias though, with far more male politicians and men in top jobs.

(I need a synonym for 'qualities'. Traits?)

young women - it's your world

Comments