The "Status of Women" meme

My wife makes much the same comment: Formal feminism has done nothing to help her and a GREAT deal to hurt me, her husband.

I was once involved with the women's movement: I thought the ideas sound and reasonable. Bigots took over that movement and made it into feminism as it exists today.

One cannot help women by hurting men.

I do the househusband thing: Nothing wrong with that, except the feminists demand I must be a lazy good for nothing out to strangle my wife's abilities.

BAH!

The problem with present-day feminism is that it is a Godless "ism," like Communism, Socialism, Nazism, etc. It rejects "creation," the way things are, which is that the planet is populated by two sexes, equally important and definitely interdependent--something the fembos are hell bent on denying.

Original feminism didn't do this. As many others have commented on this blog, the courageous, intelligent, and militant first feminists were fighting, rightly, for women to be seen as complete human beings with inherent rights, including the right to vote, but never for a nano-second did they relegate their husbands, sons, fathers, brothers or children to second-class (or lower) status.

Feminism has been hi-jacked by some very strange fruit. Now it's all about exclusive rights for women, and the more anti-male, pro-lesbian, you are the better. Men have been relegated to the basement and children are seen as barriers to advancement and fulfillment, otherwise what's the "sacred" right to abortion on demand, euphemistically called "a woman's right to choose" all about?

Presnt-day feminism is about the politics of envy, not just penis envy, but envy of anything and everything the feminists "feel" they don't have and men do. Every male slight, put down, or abuse must be avenged by visiting upon men the same perceived humiliation they have experienced. There is no forgiveness or mercy here, no sense of a shared humanity with men, just a very strong sense of having been wronged which women's groups, heavily funded by government, wallow in. There is no moving forward, only being stuck in anger, bitterness, and revenge.

All I can say to men is: I include you in the human race and see you as valued and equal partners in life. My husband has equally shared in the raising of our two daughters, and we have been moving forward together by being accepting and forgiving of one another’s foibles. We have lived a counter-cultural life to refute the feminists' destructive fictions for years, and have found the adage “no good deed goes unpunished” to be true! But if we had to do it over again, we'd do the same thing.

As my dad always used to say, “Don’t let the [feminist] bastards get you down!”

So the big question is, have women as a group made more gains due to liberalism or conservatism?

I'm not talking bull-dyke man hating lesbian SOWS but the every day average woman.

"Present-day feminism is about the politics of envy, not just penis envy, but envy of anything and everything the feminists "feel" they don't have and men do"

Good one, batb. I find the feminists', and so many other activists, assertion that there is a white male conspiracy to exclude women, gays, and "persons of color, rather naive.

If you go to a job interview with a chip on your shoulder, no one wants to hire , or promote, someone with anger issues. They make very poor administrators, or employees.
Every company is a team, and team players get the promotions. In this sense, sport is a good analogy to life.

People are comfortable with the familiar, and will hire and promote from that group, that's common sense. The only way to break into the old boys club, or old girls, gays, colored, etc., is to demonstrate abilities and virtues the company must have, above average. Exceptional people get hired, and advance. Angry people, with "issues" rarely do, they're a risk.

Attitude is everything, the activists don't seem to understand that, and carry on inventing conspiracies where they likely don't exist.

My family Doctor from when i was a born to my early twenties was a Japanese WOMAN who got into and completeed Med School in the late forties and early fifties. I believe her family was interred as well. Can you imagine what she had to go through? I never had the heart to ask but she did mention in passing to my mother once that it was tough. She didn't want, need or expect any help from a diversity committee and is probably a better physician for the trouble. She did it by working hard and following her dream and was always a delightful person to deal with (although she did tend to overbook her appointments a bit).

Looking at female liberal politicians I see many women that have not achieved very much. Tokens if you will.
The NDP went with 2 female leaders that their only qualifications seemed to be their gender. 0 accomplishments and the accompanying electoral results.
Screeching Annie may be accomplished but she seems destined to go down as nothing more than a footnote. Sheila Copps achieved very little. All those years in politics and what? Any other "powerful" Liberal femal politicians?
enough

As mentioned before in a previous discussion, do not forget that these feminist activists exist only as feminist activists so long as they can convince (in this case) government that a problem exists. And if a problem exists, they will have no interest whatsoever in taking any action that may resolve the problem because their cause will cease to exist (and their self-righteous positions of activism will cease to exist.) They do not work for women; they work for themselves.

The only "woman's work" remaining in our society is this make-work program of women's rights. Ironic? I certainly think so.

I say bravo to getting involved with a great guy who is 10 years younger. Age by the calender is not always a persons true age.

The coach is a right-winger. ...-

CBC | Sisters win legal battle, but fail to make boys’ hockey team

The twin sisters who won the right to try out for their high school boys’ hockey team after a long legal battle failed to make the squad after final cuts were announced Tuesday. ...-

jack's newswatch

Liberals are Losing ("gender balance" is a feminist shibboleth*)

By SHEILA COPPS - Toronto Sun - September 27, 2006

Excerpt:

Fry's decision to get out means the presence of women in the Liberal leadership race will be further marginalized.

Neither could win. But Fry's perspective as a woman from the West was important and provided some semblance of gender balance in the race. With at least two female candidates -- Martha Hall Findlay is now the only one left -- the Grits could have claimed gender high ground at the finish line. ...-
voy forums

*n 1: a favorite saying of a sect or political group. dictionary.com

david brown, your question is meaningless - have women advanced due to 'liberalism or conservativism'. You have to define your terms, for neither is a political definition, referring to either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, but to an ideology. And the Canadian Liberal Party is most definitely not an example of 'liberalism'. So?

Have women as a group made gains? Only within the first 'wave' of feminism, which itself was an expression of an important deeper change, the change in the economy from a heavy-labour requirement to a knowledge-based economy, which didn't require physical labour. I think this economic change should be acknowledged.

Please don't forget the basic democratic infrastructure of democracy, representative gov't, individualism, free speech, parliamentary gov't, rule of law, separation of church and state, was developed by men.

Our current state of affairs, is now heavily damaged by modern feminism, which has developed an authoritarian and rigid, centralist control over ideology. You can't dissent, you can't debate, you can't argue with a feminist, for like all authoritarian ideologies, they alone have access to the Pure Truth - and claim that there is such a thing as pure and final truth. Their ideology is divisive and filled with hatred and contempt. How does that help our society?

What has feminism done for me? ... maybe ask what has it done for the most.

To evaluate a movement or a program based on it's effects or benefits for oneself is not the way to go. Often in a democracy or a society, there will be memes or programs that help a minority.

ET,

Good answer, however, as many women are not feminists but do want to advance in such areas as equal employment, ministry and preisthood. My question still stands, which ideology better suits their purpose?

http://hallsofmia.blogspot.com/2006/09/whos-that-girl.html

Belinda's right there... in the Paris Hilton School of Feminism, that is.

Here's a contrast and comparison showing at core the flawed failure to evolve by today's feminists, Condi Rice and Hillary. One's a victim pimping feminist lackey and one's a woman of totally independent accomplishments that did it all by herself. Condi Rice has never played victim politics or asked for special consideration because of her gender or race. Rice never had the convenient advantage of a powerful husband to advance her career. Anyone really think if Hillary had never married Bubba, she's be a Senator in NY now?

The striking difference between these two women is what today's feminist harpies never want examined. Condi Rice, took advantage of Civil Rights and First Wave Feminist opportunities, got what she needed, then, made it on her own. She's long past the victim harpies in evolving as an individual.

Feminists, like dysfunctional parents, want women to be perpetually thankful and emotionally enmeshed. That's sick.

Women were inevitably going to flood the workplace and colleges with or without the feminists after WWII, in my opinion, because of the incredible prosperity and accelerated move from rural to urban. We owe more to Rosie the Riveter. NOW has taken far too much credit for the changes.

"(2) As a child conceived PRIOR TO "The Pill," I exist.
(3) As a child conceived PRIOR TO the advent of legal abortion, I exist. "

As a child born "Post 9i11", I too exist. [Hope you can read the LeetSpeak joke.] The advent of women's contraceptives and legal abortions hasn't killed off the next generation, obviously.

"Did the Status of Women help me get where I am today ? Did real-live women, fighting against all odds, help?"
So women who get help for discrimination they encounter, aren't real and live? And just because you personally haven't been assisted, does it mean no one, or future generations aren't being helped?

david brown, you still haven't defined your terms; namely, liberalism and conservativism. My point is that these have nothing to do with the current political parties of Liberal and Conservative. In my view, the Liberals are regressive and conservative! And the CPC are genuine liberalists.

I think that you ignore that women's decisions can be equal to that of men, in other words, biased and closed.

Equal employment is so broad a term that it is meaningless. That's because it overlooks the fact that in 75% of employment, decisions are made based, not on merit, but on group-ism requirements. These include sharing the ideology and above all, fitting into a 'normative set', where you must not be obviously worse than everyone else but above all, you must not be better than everyone else. Merit flies out the window within this requirement for a 'normative set'.
Women are excellent 'keepers of the status quo', not allowing anyone in, who rises above that 'normative line'.

Therefore, I don't know what you mean by 'equal employment'. Surely you aren't going by numbers, i.e., that there should be an equal number of MPs by gender. That's ridiculous. Do you mean salaries? I'd agree but only for equal work and responsibilities.

As for the ministry and priesthood, I can agree, but, since I'm an atheist then, I stand outside that realm.

In reply to roger, that's precisely what we are doing, evaluating what feminism has done for our society. In my view, this second wave has deeply harmed our society, inserting a rejection of dissent, exploration, and rational analysis and insisting on a constant adversarial rage of women.

Before the feminist movement, men and young boys treated all women with respect. They never swore or used foul language in their presence, and any that did were soon reprimanded by other males in the crowd. They did not tell sexist jokes in front of women, hit women and so many other things that they did in front of men, or in male settings. Women wanted to be treated like men. They also wanted to act like men and started to discuss sexual partners, swear, use the F word, and other male locker room talk.
So, men started treating them like men. Lepine was a perfect example. Mass killings of men by men had gone on for years. (the valentine mob killings), told sexist jokes, swore, used foul language and left the playboys out in the open in front of females. Guess what, women didn't like it and started to cry harrassment, discrimination
etc and ran to the human wrongs commissions. But, surprise, women still used the old tactics to get ahead, still tricked old rich men into marriage, still tricked men by claiming they were pregnant. Then they claimed false sexual abuse of kids to get custody and huge settlements. The worst thing feminism did was allow women to kill their children, both pre and post birth. Whenever anyone tried to warn of future dangers of this, they were called bigots, homophopic, racists or other names, and ignored. Today there is growing evidence that some of those warnings were true. Evenutally someone will re-discover the research that was done on the dangers of abortion leading to an increase in breast cancer of women in their 40s or younger, and of the problems that would result in children being born to women who used the pill, being born of mothers using the pill and grandmothers who used the pill. This research (in the70s) predicted that within 3-4 generations there would be a great increase in learning disabilities and handicapped children being born. Think about it.

Dave - equal employment? Define exactly that in today's world. The right to be employed by gender?

I guess I can't be a priest. I can't be a rabbi either because I'm not Jewish. Who am I to dictate to the Catholic Church a disruption of their 2000 years of traditions. They aren't subsidized by collective tax dollars, thereby, forcing the unwilling to participate. They can assess their policies against their pew count. In the meantime, women are free to get their own congregations going if they want.

Taliban Jack, Cut'nRun Rae, BS, et al, are silent.

The "specter of Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban militia,", haunts women everywhere, including women in Canada.

Olivia Chow is silent. ...-

Militia spread across Somalia, arrest women
AP/MSNBC ^ | Sept 26, 2006

KISMAYO, Somalia - Men in machine gun-mounted trucks Tuesday quickly dispersed hundreds of women protesting radical Islamic fighters who have taken over this strategic port town and much of the rest of southern Somalia.

At least 20 women were arrested, according to relatives of the demonstrators who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals. The trucks carrying the men were flying the black flags associated with Islamic extremism.

The protests came a day after the militants opened fire on demonstrators, killing a teenage boy. Also Monday, Hassan Turki, a leader of the Islamic militia, for the first time acknowledged his forces had been bolstered by foreign fighters he called “our Muslim brothers.”

The group’s strict and often severe interpretation of Islam raises the specter of Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban militia, and contrasts with the moderate Islam that has dominated Somali culture for centuries. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709363/posts

Sheila Fraser:

Bio: Excerpt:

"She has promoted the use of plain language in the Office’s performance audit reports tabled in the House of Commons."

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

2006 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is expected to table her Report in the House of Commons on 28 September 2006. The following is a brief description of the five chapters contained in the Report. ...-

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/cesd_cedd.nsf/html/06tdsep_e.html

Personally, I think instituations such as this commission are demeaning to women, and I think women have more than come into their own in their own right. At least in this country. Perhaps if the commission is working to further womans rights in other nations, then maybe the funding should stay.

There are a few things I know about women's lives since the '60s, or since the new wave of feminism has crashed over society like a tsunami.

1) When polled in 1990 or 1991, by the believe-it-or not leftist magazine "Homemakers," edited by Sally Armstrong (check out her feminist credentials), over 70% of Canadian women said that if it wasn't for financial need, they would prefer to be home with their children rather than working outside the home.

When Sally Armstrong's next editorial suggested that Canada needed a new women's movement to forward this agenda, REAL Women wrote back suggesting that there already was a women's group in existence that did just that and could they contribute an article about the group and about its agenda. "No deal," said Sally Armstrong.

2) The numero-uno health problem in Canada today is stress, for men, women, and children. As a stay-at-home mom when my children were young, except for a chronic shortage of cash and the stress that involves, I was never stressed out by having to balance work and home, or by not being able to stay with a sick child, or be wondering what my kids were doing after school--were they home, were they OK, where are they?, etc.

Frankly, I loved being home with my daughters. Far from drinking coffee, with my hair in curlers, watching the soaps, cigarette in hand (I admit, I did and still do drink coffee), as some CBC wag described his idea of "a stay-at-home mom," I was very active in my community, along with my girls.

When asked how my daughters got "socialized," I pointed out that I didn't tie them to their beds, that we got together with other mothers and kids, that they went with me shopping, to the old folks' home, to church, to movies, and other events--and, in fact, were probably better socialized than kids in daycare who spent the whole day with their peers, whereas my kids spent time with kids from two to 92.

Now that I'm working outside the home to help put my daughters through university (one of the costs of staying home with them), I've become far more familiar with stress, balancing home and work, and not having the kind of freedom I had then.

Official feminism has meant that many more opportunities are open to women, which goes along with higher expectations, definitely greater financial remuneration for women, and a whole lot of stress trying to keep all of the plates spinning. Most career women with kids are stressed right out.

So, it's an open question whether women as a group have made more gains because of feminism--I prefer that term, seeing as that's what we're talking about in this thread--to liberalism or conservatism.

I'm not clear that feminism has improved women's lives. Women have more career opportunities, can travel more, live in houses and neighbourhoods of their choice, dress better than I do, etc., so if these things comprise one's value system, I guess women are gaining.

If, on the other hand, spending more time with family, overseeing the upbringing of your children, impacting your community as a major volunteer by sharing your gifts and talents 'for free,' having the leisure of not having to do everything by the clock, etc. are important, then it's pretty clear that feminism has not been of particular help to your life; in fact, it in many ways has worked against women apire to this lifestyle.

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Ten. One to screw in the bulb, Two to lend moral support. Three to apply for a government grant. And four to march around loudly bemoaning how women are under-represented in the light bulb screwing industry.

http://imnotparanoid.blogspot.com/2006/03/im-feminist-now.html

The best thing about being a stay at home mom of pre school kids is, WHEN IT IS BLIZZARDING, THE CAR WINDOWS ARE FROZEN OVER, I COULD TAKE MY KIDS TO BED AND READ A STORY, HAVE A FUN BREAKFAST, WATCH T.V. WITH THEM, INSTEAD OF RUSHING TO GET DRESSED, SCRAPE WINDOWS, DRESS THE KIDS AND GET TO A DAYCARE CENTER AND THEN TO WORK AND WORRYING ALL DAY IF THE ROADS WOULD BE PASSABLE AFTER 5, TO PICK UP THE KIDS AND GET HOME. When the went to scool, I could look out the window and say, snow day today, lets play.

'Equal employment' as in there are no federal government jobs open to those who don't speak french?

That kind of Liberal equal employment?

Mary--Sounds great...There just isn't enough snow days anymore... :)

Mary, "Before the feminist movement, men and young boys treated all women with respect."

You have a funny blind spot in your reasoning. While men were busy "respecting" women's rights to not hear bad language and only encounter open doors so they could get through without their hoop skirt tipping upward, the men also wouldn't let them vote, work most jobs, be highly educated, or seek birth control.

Saskboy: I posted this on the previous thread about listing 5 things feminism has done for me. Forgive if you already read it but my post applies here too:

I do not think anyone here is complaining about the original feminism. The one that gave women the right to vote and have equal rights. Have the choice to get out of the house, etc. Made you (Ted in the other thread) and other men better fathers. I think the complaints here are the rabid modern feminism that has caused many to hate men, forget about the importance of family, and forget about common decency and manners. The type that is no longer about equality but about an agenda of very few extremists that happen to get lot of airtime that is doing more harm than good. The type of feminism that does not recognize my "choice" to stay at home with my children because to them it is not a valid choice they agree with.

Mary, What's snow??? Is that the white stuff I trudged through, waist deep, uphill to school back in the dim times(last ice age)?? /sarc off

Saskboy, I believe Mary was refering to the second feminist wave. They all had the vote then and a guy could hold a door open without getting an earful of "I am Biatch, Hear me roar".

BTW, I participated in my children's lives not because of some feminazi agenda but because they were my kids too.

The respect for women,girls, generation I am referring to was during my lifetime. The change happened during my childrens lifetime. I did wear crinoline under the drindle skirts that were all the rage, but had no problem getting thru doorways. Girls dressing like sluts in school happened during my grandchildrens school years. I prefer my generation. Of course my husband loves the feninist movement. Whenever he sees a woman behind him, waiting for the door to be opened at a mall etc. he asks, Are you a feminist, if the answer is yes, he says open your own door, and slams it shut after he is in. The big discussion when my kids were in high school-smoking rooms in schools and yes, they were allowed. As standards in education, dress, manners, respect, went down, so did the ability of our yourg people to compete in society.

Saskboy,

There are two distinct movements involving women; one is the women's movement, the other is the feminist movement.

The women's movement work has been complete for 30 years - we can vote, acquire credit on our own, go into any faculty at university and go into almost every field of employment or stay at home caring for home and hearth. Our smaller size may limit job opportunites for some women, but not all.

The feminists, on the other hand, started their work about 30 years ago. Interestingly enough, they sprang into being around the same time government spending started going through the roof on all manner of things not their concern. A coincidence?

Feminists can only survive on gov't funding; therefore problems have to be large and drastic and only fixable through more and more money being tossed their way. So they make things up.

An example - It's unfair that a female working in the mail room doesn't make as much as the male techs and voila, employment equity is born, along with all of the long-drawn out commissions and reports and implementations and follow-ups. And guess who's on the gravy train, slurping up all the government funds? The feminists who invented the problem in the first place. And all the while, there's nary a mention that the only reason a woman isn't working in the male tech field is because she doesn't want to, not because she can't.

Of course, it isn't just feminists to blame for this sorry state; the damn fool politicians who bought their crap are just as much, if not more, to blame. They had the responsibilty and duty to spend the taxpayers' money wisely and failed.

Now, thanks to (hopefully) the first step in the elimination of the feminists' funding, feminism will die the death it so richly deserves.

saskboy: "So women who get help for discrimination they encounter, aren't real and live? And just because you personally haven't been assisted, does it mean no one, or future generations aren't being helped?"

Did I say that? And the "Status of Women" commission may or may not be made up of just women (who knows?), but what have they done of value?

One thing is certain: the Status of Women group started up very recently, within the last 25 years if I recall correctly. However, women had the vote, could serve in the Senate, could enroll in any faculty in college, and could work in whatever job took their fancy long before the SoW group was created. They could even kill their unborn children legally in Canada for at least a decade before SoW started.

So what exactly is it that SoW has achieved? How dare they equate their "achievements" with those of Nellie McClung.

Federal funding for SoW is a very recent thing... IIRC it started during the Chretien administration. Why on earth should any Canadian taxpayers' dollars go towards supporting this group?

It appears you did say that Candace.

==

"The type of feminism that does not recognize my "choice" to stay at home with my children because to them it is not a valid choice they agree with."

The string of commenters obsessed with an apparent "second wave" of womens' liberation must have had some pretty horrible experiences with people claiming to be for equal womens rights. Considering that women aren't treated/paid equally in Canada yet, obviously we still need people working for equality at a government level. It's not a coincidence that womens rights took a huge step forward in the 20th century, just after they finally had the right to vote and run in elections.

Anyone telling a woman they can't stay at home with the kids isn't so much a feminist as yet another form of person looking to control women. It's unfortunate people are encountering that attitude. Has anyone here had that from the SWC?

Discrimination, rights and opening doors:

I'm moderately disabled. Most days I can get the door to our closest Tim's open, barely. On the days I cannot, I need to wait for someone to open it for me as there is no automatic opener. Men and children will open the door for me, women will not. I get the "LOOK" on asking ... followed by her breazing through the smallest crack she can fit through.

The same goes for opening the door on the way out. Two coffees in a tray in one hand, canes in the other. Who is going to hold the door for me? A man or a child: Once, last year, a woman, who glared at me for walking through the door she opened.

Thus, we most clearly have a problem in attitude, at least within Ontario.

We cannot have equality in Canada without having a change in attitude. Feminism as it exists fights any change in attitude. So, might I add, does Dr. Phil type conservatism.

Considering that women aren't treated/paid equally in Canada yet

Are we still flogging that dead horse?

Take one man and one woman with comparable education and family situation, put them in the same job and the wage gap shrinks to almost zero.

Because the average wage of all women is lower than the average wage of all men means nothing. Working in retail sales or clerical will never bring the same amount of money as work that is dirtier, more dangerous or requires much more knowledge. Those jobs are open to women and women don't want them.

I worked as a tech in my company; any woman could have applied. They didn't. Reasons I heard ranged from not having Alberta math 30 and not wanting to get it, not wanting to work the longer hours (overtime and travel), not wanting to get dirty, not wanting to learn harder things. They all thought they deserved the higher pay that came with the technical job, but weren't willing to earn it.

So, yes, in my company, there was a wage gap between men and women but it had nothing to do with some systemic discrimination. It had to do with choices each employee made about the career path they would follow.

Postedposted twicetwice byby canoenewscanoenews..

A smear job from CP, aka Canadian Press.

Mrs. Harper is quoted.

A Liberal floor-crosser is quoted, also. Not BS. ...-

PM’s wife promotes literacy as husband cuts funding
Laureen Harper was on the streets of Ottawa today, supporting a national program that promotes literacy among kids, just three days after her husband’s government cut nearly $18M from adult literacy programs. Full Story

PM’s wife promotes literacy as husband cuts funding
Laureen Harper was on the streets of Ottawa today, supporting a national program that promotes literacy among kids, just three days after her husband’s government cut nearly $18M from adult literacy programs.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/

Kathryn I agree. Although real wage gaps still occur occasionally, most companies are very careful to ensure that they will never be in a position to be accused of it. Many will actually overcompensate and put women, minorities, etc in positions that they are not qualified for. If a man applied with the same qualifications he would never get the job.

One of my relatives worked for a company that was accused of sexist hiring practices in the programming department. She was one of the few women working in the department. They kept all resumes submitted and detailed notes of all interviews, etc. The company was able to prove that very few women applied and of those even fewer were qualified. So there was no case.

All these feminists screaming sexism do not dare to look too closely before they accuse because they would find that many accusations are baseless. The feminists would have no reason to have the cushy jobs that allow them to point fingers and scream.

I think the bottom line for most employers and employees is that everyone just wants the best person for the job, not someone who fits some government determined profile. If I am trapped in a burning building do I care that the firefighter rescuing me is a green skinned hermaphrodite? Not at all as long as this person can get me out safely.

"more dangerous or requires much more knowledge. Those jobs are open to women and women don't want them."

What? Which jobs do you think women don't want?
Part of the reason women take jobs like you seem to dismiss because mostly women take them, is because they'll face less harassment from their coworkers than they would by taking a Highways, construction, military, "dirty" job.

Maz2, what? You don't at least enjoy the irony?

Saskboy,

Had you read my post, you would have seen some of the jobs women don’t want. Recently, I went to a retirement lunch for a friend of mine who worked for the sanitation dep’t. There were 3 dozen people there, all co-workers. The women were clerical staff while the men worked with the actual garbage- there’s another job women don’t want.

You wrote that women chose certain jobs because they’ll face LESS harassment from co-workers. You really have to get a circle of stronger female friends if they’re getting harassed no matter where they work. Additionally, you might want to ask them what their definition of harassment is.

I worked in a traditionally male industry and job for years and never once was harassed. Yes, a few men told gross jokes and one or two comments were made towards me, but I never felt harassed because feeling harassed would make me a victim and I am assuredly not a victim. I was around a few men with poor manners, soon set straight.

A month or so ago, I wrote of attending a sexual harassment in the workplace seminar. I saw something very odd there. All of the women in their 20s through mid 30s had not only seen sexual harassment, they all had it happen to them. The men had also seen it. Not one person over that age had seen it or had it happen. Why do you think that might be?

I believe it’s because the younger ones were raised in a climate of everything being harassment and everyone is a victim of something. Which, when you stop to think about it, can’t possibly be true and is a terrible way to live your life – the women raised to believe that all men are pigs just waiting their chance to harass them, the men raised to believe they’re monsters.

Anyway, the next time one of these weak women you know has a major case of the vapours over some harassment that isn’t, do her a huge favour and tell her to get over herself.

Kathryn, yes harassment is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but you just admitted you experienced it. Although due to your strong nature you didn't put up with it.

What kind of treatment would you have expected from coworkers had you been a plumber, carpenter, rig worker, or sanitation worker?

Saskboy, I admitted no such thing. I ran into one or two boors, hardly the same thing as harassment. And actually, strong nature has nothing to do with it - if you allow people to treat you badly, you will be treated badly. If people allow themselves to used as doormats, why should we pretend they're victims when they are clearly volunteers?

Are you saying that plumbers, carpenters, rig workers, or sanitation workers are inherently more poorly behaved than men working in the industry I worked in or anyone other field of work? I hope not; jobism (I just made that up) is such a nasty trait. BTW, my friend the retired sanitation worker is a perfect gentleman.

"people allow themselves to used as doormats,"

That sounds a bit like blaming the victim, to me.

"...workers are inherently more poorly behaved than men working in the industry I worked in or anyone other field of work?"
There are some fields well known to women where its a boy's club. Not knowing your field I can't say.

Saskboy, People who do nothing to insist on a standard of behavior towards themselves are volunteers to me, victims to you. As those views are complete opposites, there's nothing more that can be said on this topic. I'm out.

"Considering that women aren't treated/paid equally in Canada yet

Are we still flogging that dead horse?

Take one man and one woman with comparable education and family situation, put them in the same job and the wage gap shrinks to almost zero."

Kathryn, as you well know, this is simply not the case. Do you think we are all stupid, that none of has any experience or data to go by, and that you can make any false suggestion you please and that people will just swallow it on your say so? Think again.

"An example - It's unfair that a female working in the mail room doesn't make as much as the male techs and voila, employment equity is born, ... "

You know, Kathryn, this too is false. You've cleverly shifted things, from a clerk to a technician, which as you well know is not a valid comparison and isn't said to be a valid comparison under any employment equity or comparable worth policy or legislation. You can get dishonest columnists like the Globe's Jeff Simpson to claim that this does happen, but it doesn't, and I think you know that. Nice try though.

The 50's were hard on women. That is because jewish directors wanted to create a unrealistic model of a women. They created women that were treated as bad as the Taliban treats their women.
In the 60's when I grew up I always assumed women were smarter than men. Most of the 50's ideals I grew up with were dinosaurs that I never believed.
There has always been the double standard that is still around today somewhat. As we get older you find the whole double standard thing was a farce.As I get older too I realize American dream is just that for 80% of the people,a dream. Not too real. The American culture is very backward compared to Canada. A lot of freedoms that were fought for in the sixties in the states we already had in Canada. Now politicians esp Tories are desperate to brainwash us like Americans are.
If you let they'll win. We can't let them. Women in Canada are I think better off and better educated than their American counterparts. Most American role models for women are actresses and news reporters. Not much to choose from. There is a good program coming on CBC about anti war demonstrations mostly in the states. I will watch it you should too. You Tories are so backward in your thinking and ideas about women that I am suprised you know how to procreate. As I have said before not much thinking out in Tory land.