Theoretical Feminism

[legerdemer]

Our 4-wk paid leave for pregnancy leave is given equally to new fathers and mothers (at a large US state university). However, Pilot makes a good point regarding different demands on the sexes.

On the other hand, in meetings I am routinely still ignored when making points, only for some man making the same point a few minutes later to be given credit for my idea(s). And credit for my work has been attributed, by male administrators, to the men in my greater working group even when those men tried to correct the mistake. Should I insist on getting credit, I would be called shrill, a bitch, and worse. So I've stopped calling anyone on it.

Feminism has a purpose, and while that purpose may have been diluted in recent years - students half my age don't often recognize the need for feminism - I have plenty of examples that the need is still there.

And, with respect to the OP, you can voluntarily give away a right ONLY when you have it. If you don't have it to begin with, you can't dispense with it - you have no choice at all. I'd rather have it be my choice whether to use my right or not. This also applies to some of the points made by HP (and possibly Ogg) about the loss of polite and gracious behavior. In certain circumstances, I recognize the graciousness of a man opening a door for me. But only when that man recognizes my mental capacity is not lower than his because I happen to have a pair of boobs and lack testosterone.

Then what you were receiving wasn't equal opportunity or equality; it was favoritism. I think that's needed in the workplace, but I don't agree that it's a striving for equal opportunity or equality--it's a striving for favoritism to accommodate the difference in demands society places on the separate genders and family situations and to balance the greater needs of society.

A single employee without children (who, in the employer's perspective is the more "at work" of the two) isn't going to get maternity leave (so isn't on an equal basis to that of an employee who will get it), but when that employee is old and in a rest home, he/she will receive the benefit of people who raised the next generation. This is not in any way what feminists are talking about when they are talking equal opportunity, though--they actually are grasping for favoritism to accommodate their individual circumstance that has little or nothing to do with the employer's workforce cost/availability. They are choosing to see this as bringing the status of a woman up to that of other employees when, in fact, they want to overshoot the status of the other employees in benefit and accommodation. There are reasons to do this--obtaining equal opportunity isn't one of those reasons.

When I had my first child, I received, per company policy for the first child, a gift of four weeks of paid leave (!!!).

 

[sr71plt]

Our 4-wk paid leave for pregnancy leave is given equally to new fathers and mothers (at a large US state university). However, Pilot makes a good point regarding different demands on the sexes.

My point was that there are employees who don't get this perq at all. An obvious point of favoritism that has little to do with the business of the business, even if it's for the greater good of society. And it's not that it shouldn't be done--it's that it swings the issue over into favoritism, not equal opportunity.

 

[legerdemer]

My point was that there are employees who don't get this perq at all. An obvious point of favoritism that has little to do with the business of the business, even if it's for the greater good of society. And it's not that it shouldn't be done--it's that it swings the issue over into favoritism, not equal opportunity.

Agreed. I thought you gave a nice elaboration of when a perk benefits society at large.

Interestingly or not (and definitely off-topic), I think some countries in Europe go overboard with (mandatory) maternity and paternity leave. In Sweden, for example, employees take 2 years off when a newborn arrives. The job has to be saved for that person. On the other hand, there are few childcare options for parents who don't want to avail themselves of that leave - so everyone has no choice BUT to take the time off. This is not the most efficient way to use resources and the expertise of one's employees. Oh well...

 

[Handley_Page]

Agreed. I thought you gave a nice elaboration of when a perk benefits society at large.

Interestingly or not (and definitely off-topic), I think some countries in Europe go overboard with (mandatory) maternity and paternity leave. In Sweden, for example, employees take 2 years off when a newborn arrives. The job has to be saved for that person. On the other hand, there are few childcare options for parents who don't want to avail themselves of that leave - so everyone has no choice BUT to take the time off. This is not the most efficient way to use resources and the expertise of one's employees. Oh well...

Forgive my comment, but if it works for them . . .
What's wrong with it ?

 

[legerdemer]

Forgive my comment, but if it works for them . . .
What's wrong with it ?

(Why would I need to forgive your comment, HP? It is perfectly reasonable...)

I have some small amount of data that it doesn't work for them as well as it could be. The sentiment, of course, is admirable - have mothers raise their kids in the first two years. The disadvantage from the workplace's POV is obvious - you lose a trained expert and have to replace that expert for a non-expert for two years, after which time and training you have to yank the job back and return it to the original employee. Costly in several ways.

Less obvious but equally problematic to the employer being granted the two years is the disruption in their own development, career and building of expertise. The mother also loses continuity, clout, camaraderie of the workplace, etc.

I don't bemoan the idea, mind you, only the inflexibility of the system.

And you probably were asking a rhetorical question, weren't you? That'll teach ya.

 

[Handley_Page]

(Why would I need to forgive your comment, HP? It is perfectly reasonable...)

I have some small amount of data that it doesn't work for them as well as it could be. The sentiment, of course, is admirable - have mothers raise their kids in the first two years. The disadvantage from the workplace's POV is obvious - you lose a trained expert and have to replace that expert for a non-expert for two years, after which time and training you have to yank the job back and return it to the original employee. Costly in several ways.

Less obvious but equally problematic to the employer being granted the two years is the disruption in their own development, career and building of expertise. The mother also loses continuity, clout, camaraderie of the workplace, etc.

I don't bemoan the idea, mind you, only the inflexibility of the system.

And you probably were asking a rhetorical question, weren't you? That'll teach ya.

I confess to thinking that 2 years Maternity Leave is a bit excessive.
A couple of years part-time or something, perhaps?.
We get a period of time off, for both sexes in some firms, I believe. But it is not a very long time.

Incidentally, I see you point about your ideas and their adoption and assignment to male staff. It strikes me that a rumour mill might help. If it's your idea and everybody knows it, you're in.
Or are you ?
73, HP

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

At some point in this modern - or at least present-day - era, intelligent people, and I take most of you to be that whether there are differences of view or not, anyway... ...at some point you're going to have to give up this idea that there actually IS a society of people today, or that 'there is inequality of opportunity/employment/pay scales/respect/and so on.'

Nobody has 'equality' - as you all know some are more equal than others. Who here is going to pretend that independent of some very fancy footwork you are being paid what that mistress of, oh god I'll not say (damn I opened my mouth now), and who writes children's books because of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY BASED ON MERIT.

Employment security went out the window when empty-headed thieves swallowed the Right Wing lunacy of 'austerity programs,' and destroyed just about every automotive manufacturing plant not filled with robots, in the US.

Capitalism went out the window when 'human unnoticeable' high speed co-located trading computers (fraud and robbery) and bailing out banks 'too big to fail' came into play.

As someone said here, people are what is important and relevant and 'male and/or female or other(!)' is in the words of the great Christopher Hitchens 'a deliberate politically-motivated false antithesis.'

Nobody actually 'gets an opportunity' today unless you are 'in the bag.'

Perhaps it is indeed some kind of poetic justice that quite a number of males who had well-paid jobs with job security, are seeing what it feels like to have no such 'opportunity' or decent treatment.

If you are a 'job slave' you are already a second class citizen in today's world.

Sure I know a few idiot couples left who are still living in the fantasyland of a half million dollar per annum salaried Wall Street or Madison Avenue etc 'job' they are jointly aspiring one or both of them to attain. Any kind of job like that these days means you're going to be the bunny in the headlights when some regulator starts looking into what is really going on with your firm!!

Executive boards pay those salaries to those they are setting up for the fall - when it assuredly must come.

And you cannot pick someone from the public spotlight and say 'oh here is what a successful woman looks like...' No. There are just too many stories going on underneath the radar. I can tell you things I know you wouldn't believe about any one of half a dozen big organisations - from the owner of the world's most expensive modern cruising yacht (the Maltese Falcon, owner the billionaire Elena Ambrosiadou), to the head of the IMF Lagarde or the Chair of the Federal Reserve Mrs Akerlof.

There is no such thing as 'equality' for men!!!

But for the individual, there is your own sense of worth. And that isn't for sale to the highest bidder, the shadiest bidder, or any bidder. And that's what gives you substance. You don't need, you don't require 'equality' from criminals. You need absolute personal integrity and substance, and substance is always about what you are inside. Substance, is not, how much money you earn, or what job you have.

And I'll tell you the main reason why: there MAY be an employer out there, one that is decent and financially well-founded, who will give YOU and JUST YOU a great job. But if there is, believe me they will be looking at what's inside you, not what's in your cv, or your university qualifications, or your bank account or even the fact that you have one, five or no, children.

And you still might have to be in their face a little to get attention; but that's the present world pulling focus away from substance all the time.

Trust me, you don't want equality; you want substance.

I know the concept of the feeling that 'society ought to be advanced and progressive enough to accept equality is important...' It is a reverie I sometimes have about some other world. YOU can treat people equally - that's where you have some control. The rest is difficult to enforce or even to recommend. Humans are flawed and most are in a manner of speaking, evil; unsaveable. And doomed.

 

[legerdemer]

....

Nobody has 'equality' - as you all know some are more equal than others. Who here is going to pretend that independent of some very fancy footwork you are being paid what that mistress of, oh god I'll not say (damn I opened my mouth now), and who writes children's books because of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY BASED ON MERIT.

Employment security went out the window when empty-headed thieves swallowed the Right Wing lunacy of 'austerity programs,' and destroyed just about every automotive manufacturing plant not filled with robots, in the US.

Capitalism went out the window when 'human unnoticeable' high speed co-located trading computers (fraud and robbery) and bailing out banks 'too big to fail' came into play.

As someone said here, people are what is important and relevant and 'male and/or female or other(!)' is in the words of the great Christopher Hitchens 'a deliberate politically-motivated false antithesis.'
......


But for the individual, there is your own sense of worth. And that isn't for sale to the highest bidder, the shadiest bidder, or any bidder. And that's what gives you substance. You don't need, you don't require 'equality' from criminals. You need absolute personal integrity and substance, and substance is always about what you are inside. Substance, is not, how much money you earn, or what job you have.

And I'll tell you the main reason why: there MAY be an employer out there, one that is decent and financially well-founded, who will give YOU and JUST YOU a great job. But if there is, believe me they will be looking at what's inside you, not what's in your cv, or your university qualifications, or your bank account or even the fact that you have one, five or no, children.

And you still might have to be in their face a little to get attention; but that's the present world pulling focus away from substance all the time.

Trust me, you don't want equality; you want substance.

I know the concept of the feeling that 'society ought to be advanced and progressive enough to accept equality is important...' It is a reverie I sometimes have about some other world. YOU can treat people equally - that's where you have some control. The rest is difficult to enforce or even to recommend. Humans are flawed and most are in a manner of speaking, evil; unsaveable. And doomed.

Yes, I agree. This is the ideal. Substance should be what we are all judged by. Too bad for us that it so rarely happens...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Based on my work history I never met any employer who had a clue about how they made money. They were obsessed about money but ignorant of the factors that affected costs. Nine times outta ten whats on the blueprint aint whats at the job site. And its one crisis after another fixing fuckups others create when they think about pussy rather than the job. Only God is better than me at working miracles when the shit hits the fan. I'm THAT good, and I got THAT good learning the hard way.

Like when the owner comes in my office late Friday and wants a train car load of Alabama river gravel for Saturday morning at 7 oclock. So I gotta pull a rabbit outta my ass to find river gravel and cancel the Monday morning delivery we contracted for, all because the owner changed the plan without notice. I found some by the way.

But magicians and fucktards get the same pay regardless of the problems and performance.

 

[sr71plt]

Forgive my comment, but if it works for them . . .
What's wrong with it ?

Who do you mean as "them"? The workers who haven't chosen to have children (having children not being any part of the business' business) and thus are not getting the protected two years off or even the advantage in terms of promotion on having stayed on the job gaining experience and making a contribution directly to the business for those two years, or do you think the "they" is the business that has to swallow all of the expense and absence of a worker for that time? Again, it may be good for society in the bigger picture, but it ain't equal opportunity--it's a favoritism that others than those choosing to have the children are paying for--in the immediate term.

This is exactly the "it's all about me" myopia I see in what many feminists see as "equal" treatment/opportunity.

 

[Handley_Page]

Who do you mean as "them"? The workers who haven't chosen to have children (having children not being any part of the business' business) and thus are not getting the protected two years off or even the advantage in terms of promotion on having stayed on the job gaining experience and making a contribution directly to the business for those two years, or do you think the "they" is the business that has to swallow all of the expense and absence of a worker for that time? Again, it may be good for society in the bigger picture, but it ain't equal opportunity--it's a favoritism that others than those choosing to have the children are paying for--in the immediate term.

This is exactly the "it's all about me" myopia I see in what many feminists see as "equal" treatment/opportunity.

"Them" referred to the nation as a whole.

 

[sr71plt]

"Them" referred to the nation as a whole.

OK, in the long term and to the greater benefit of some and cost to others. So, not in the realm of equal opportunity.

 

[legerdemer]

OK, in the long term and to the greater benefit of some and cost to others. So, not in the realm of equal opportunity.

Societies in general tend to have a lot of "what comes around, goes around" policies (sometimes out and out Ponzi schemes that nevertheless benefit the majority); social security is a prime example. So yes, not exact equality; but then, the US never passed the Equal Rights Amendment (last I checked, anyway).


And, to bring back the OP, that sort of applies - power exchanges in BDSM-type situations are, supposedly and ultimately, at the discretion of the person giving up authority not the person taking it on. That's not exactly how real life works, but it would be nice that it worked that way more often.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Yes, I agree. This is the ideal. Substance should be what we are all judged by. Too bad for us that it so rarely happens...

Props for making sense of that word salad.

I thought about saying something. Then I realized there were only three people posting with my point of view. So I'm gonna quit and save myself the headache.

Have a nice day.

 

[Trixareforkids]

On the other hand, in meetings I am routinely still ignored when making points, only for some man making the same point a few minutes later to be given credit for my idea(s). And credit for my work has been attributed, by male administrators, to the men in my greater working group even when those men tried to correct the mistake. Should I insist on getting credit, I would be called shrill, a bitch, and worse. So I've stopped calling anyone on it.

This is what always bothered me when I was in the work place. People treat you the way you allow them to treat you. I worked with some of the most chauvinistic men you can imagine, in Gov't contracting and power generation. I don't care who you are, if you do not treat me respectfully, I will call you on it every single time.

The only way to gain respect from someone who looks down upon you is to do your job well and not back down, ever. Now not every chauvinist is going to "come around" but they never will if they're not called on it, again and again and again. I worked well with all but one chauvinistic man, and even that one exception, though he didn't much like me, did respect my work and treated me with the same respect as the men because I would not accept less. Women who didn't speak up for themselves got quite different treatment, appalling treatment in my opinion, but speaking on their behalf did no good if they cowered or backed down whenever they were faced with him alone.

The only place I did not get equal treatment was in pay. I actually had one boss tell me that the men "needed more money to support their families." Hello 1950's! I was on my way out as I was preparing to relocate to another state, but I did explain to him why he would be paying the next woman, all the candidates for the job happened to be women, at the same or higher rate than the men and went to his boss and HR before I left to ensure that it happened. I'm still in touch with that boss by the way.

In my opinion, women stand in the way of equal treatment just as much as the men who look down upon them, by accepting less than they feel they deserve. As more and more women do stand up for themselves, the pockets of chauvinism will get turned out little by little and not until then.

 

[Sammael Bard]

Only in your dreams, girly man.

Don't ask, Jimbo, but it's even worse in there.

 

[legerdemer]

This is what always bothered me when I was in the work place. People treat you the way you allow them to treat you. I worked with some of the most chauvinistic men you can imagine, in Gov't contracting and power generation. I don't care who you are, if you do not treat me respectfully, I will call you on it every single time.

The only way to gain respect from someone who looks down upon you is to do your job well and not back down, ever. Now not every chauvinist is going to "come around" but they never will if they're not called on it, again and again and again. I worked well with all but one chauvinistic man, and even that one exception, though he didn't much like me, did respect my work and treated me with the same respect as the men because I would not accept less. Women who didn't speak up for themselves got quite different treatment, appalling treatment in my opinion, but speaking on their behalf did no good if they cowered or backed down whenever they were faced with him alone.

The only place I did not get equal treatment was in pay. I actually had one boss tell me that the men "needed more money to support their families." Hello 1950's! I was on my way out as I was preparing to relocate to another state, but I did explain to him why he would be paying the next woman, all the candidates for the job happened to be women, at the same or higher rate than the men and went to his boss and HR before I left to ensure that it happened. I'm still in touch with that boss by the way.

In my opinion, women stand in the way of equal treatment just as much as the men who look down upon them, by accepting less than they feel they deserve. As more and more women do stand up for themselves, the pockets of chauvinism will get turned out little by little and not until then.

Re calling people on things - sometimes it's easier to say than to do - circumstances make some things difficult. That said, perhaps I could use some more steel up my butt.

On the other hand, I negotiate salaries like a man, and teach all - men and women - I mentor to ask for what they're worth. And it works.

 

[Trixareforkids]

Re calling people on things - sometimes it's easier to say than to do - circumstances make some things difficult. That said, perhaps I could use some more steel up my butt.

On the other hand, I negotiate salaries like a man, and teach all - men and women - I mentor to ask for what they're worth. And it works.

Any circumstance where you're being treated badly will be difficult. Many people, men and women alike, don't speak up for themselves out of fear of losing their jobs. I've been poor, really poor, so that fear doesn't hold as much sway with me because I know I can live through it. Allowing someone to treat me badly, would change who I believe myself to be and that is not acceptable to me.

Teaching people how to ask for what their worth and hold their ground is a great thing, so many take whatever is offered and don't even realize they possibly could have gotten more. To me it's like car shopping. Do your research before you go, know what price or payment you want and walk if they balk. Salary is the same pretty much the same thing.

I was going to tease about the "steel up my butt" but I'll be good

 

[legerdemer]

I was going to tease about the "steel up my butt" but I'll be good [/QUOTE]

I expected a come back; it's Lit, after all...

 

[WritingCouple94]

OMG this is a wonderful place! Plant a thought - or a seed of a thought - and a couple of pages of intelligent discussion springs to life.

It will be our pleasure to reward you all with a deliciously erotic, deeply penetrative mind-fuck - once we have a story or two ready to post.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This is what always bothered me when I was in the work place. People treat you the way you allow them to treat you. I worked with some of the most chauvinistic men you can imagine, in Gov't contracting and power generation. I don't care who you are, if you do not treat me respectfully, I will call you on it every single time.

The only way to gain respect from someone who looks down upon you is to do your job well and not back down, ever. Now not every chauvinist is going to "come around" but they never will if they're not called on it, again and again and again. I worked well with all but one chauvinistic man, and even that one exception, though he didn't much like me, did respect my work and treated me with the same respect as the men because I would not accept less. Women who didn't speak up for themselves got quite different treatment, appalling treatment in my opinion, but speaking on their behalf did no good if they cowered or backed down whenever they were faced with him alone.

The only place I did not get equal treatment was in pay. I actually had one boss tell me that the men "needed more money to support their families." Hello 1950's! I was on my way out as I was preparing to relocate to another state, but I did explain to him why he would be paying the next woman, all the candidates for the job happened to be women, at the same or higher rate than the men and went to his boss and HR before I left to ensure that it happened. I'm still in touch with that boss by the way.

In my opinion, women stand in the way of equal treatment just as much as the men who look down upon them, by accepting less than they feel they deserve. As more and more women do stand up for themselves, the pockets of chauvinism will get turned out little by little and not until then.

Naaah. Women almost always treat other women worse than men treat women. I reckon because familiarity breeds contempt. Women share all their personal and private business with other gals, men do not.

 

[WritingCouple94]

If feminism is -- as so many say -- about the right to make choices, and you like this interaction with your husband and so choose to continue it, then there's nothing anti-feminist about it, particularly.

Ah, well, I agree that true feminism is about the right to make choices. However, there is a huge contingent out there that believes that feminism is about a woman's responsibility to live up to an ideal handed down by the generations who made sacrifices in order for us to be able to make the choices that they want us to make.

As sarcastic as that sounds, it is basically an exaggerated version of the outer conflict that I have to deal with on a regular basis. But, I put myself in the place that creates the conflict. I am a role model to impressionable women who need the encouragement to accept themselves as the feminists that they want to be. I don't mind that in my public life.

In my private life, I want the "fantasy" of being an obedient (if petulant) wife - not because I feel I should be that way, but because it is a massive turn-on. I get my fill of having the full rights of personhood in the outside world. I just need a place where I can talk about - and get acceptance of - my desire to have a private space where I can be on my back looking up, held down as I struggle to resist and fail.

Sitting in my psych armchair I'd say that perhaps you enjoy it because it seems your husband desires you so much that he acts this way. And let's be honest, this is a common desire/fantasy for probably a lot of women, and there's nothing wrong with it. If your husband was forcing you to do something you don't want to do, then that's another problem, but that doesn't quite sound like the issue here.

My husband acts the way he does because I reward him handsomely for doing it. I give him a space to take advantage of a woman in ways that he has no right to (except that I have granted him the right). It is a desire that he has because he's a guy, but being a man of principle, and having respect for women, he doesn't feel an entitlement to act on those desires. (He is tapping me on the shoulder and saying that this isn't quite right. But he'll have his turn to say it his way later on).

No one has to be all one way all the time. You can lead at some times, follow at others, demand at times and request or submit at others.

Sounds like you and your husband maybe need to hash this out though. Perhaps he doesn't *want* to be the dominant one all the time. That can get tiring and/or boring. Maybe you can switch up sometimes, or maybe he just wants things on a more equal footing.

Yes, true, except for the part about needing to hash it out. We've hashed it out. He would rather have me on a more equal footing, but so long as I make it worth his while, I get to be more submissive than he would prefer that I be.

We switch it up from time to time but he actually has very little need for being submissive so "switching it up" means being equal partners sometimes.

It is a dual sacrifice. He gives me more domination than he would prefer to give and I give him an outlet for things that has no right to expect from a 21st century woman - including some things that I don't like to give.

There is a paradox. I like giving that which I do not like to give - because I absolutely love the pleasure of seeing him enjoy something from within a deeply guilty conscience.

 

[WritingCouple94]

Part of our theory of marriage:

No one gets everything they want in a partner or in a relationship, but there is pleasure to be had in accepting those things that aren't quite what you want. There is also pleasure to be had in giving what you don't want to give and seeing your partner enjoy it, knowing that you are sacrificing for him/her.

In some sense, we are consensually abusive of each other. Yes, that is probably an oxymoron. It is extremely difficult for us to talk about this side of ourselves with our friends. That is why we are here.

 

[WritingCouple94]

(I wish there were a better icon that I could use to indicate that it is my voice rather than hers or ours, but this is the closest to a "his" icon that I can see in the list).

She has a need to experience terror in a safe environment. In order for it to be effective, there has to be some risk of it going too far. It sometimes has to hurt too much, last too long, take too much advantage. The safety can't be complete or the thrill isn't strong enough.

So, part of my "job" is to know how much she can take and to go beyond that - far enough that it is too much but not beyond some theoretical point where it ruins the thrill.

Yes, in return there is an intoxicating effect of having a wife who will do just about anything if I tell her to do it - and push the right buttons in the process. It is very satisfying to see the look on her face when I make her pay the price.

What she didn't mention is that the whole thing appeals to a dark side of myself that I would rather not admit that I have. In fact, I would rather not admit it to myself. She has a knack for stoking the fires of an inner sadism and making it so enjoyable that I can't resist letting it out.

She likes a side of me that I do not like - a side that I would rather keep closed off. However, if she is going to draw it out of me, I'm damned well going to indulge it.

(One of us likes hyphens much more than the other. Obviously it is the one who does most of the typing).

 

[WritingCouple94]

... And, to bring back the OP, that sort of applies - power exchanges in BDSM-type situations are, supposedly and ultimately, at the discretion of the person giving up authority not the person taking it on. That's not exactly how real life works, but it would be nice that it worked that way more often.

I disagree to some extent.

Discretion is shared.

If you would have me take up the burden of authority, you must put more authority on the table than you wish to surrender and it will be my decision how much of it I wish to take. I must have the freedom to get it wrong and your willingness to forgive me if I do.

That is my price.

This is also necessary for you. Otherwise you won't be scared out of your mind - the way you want to be scared.

Perhaps that's just us.