Gibberish of the day!

[Crissa]

Technically, they can't actually make more sperm without a male genetic code to put in it. So they can't exactly make more males yet. And human parthenogenesis is limited to cloning so far, no recombination or egg+egg combining.

Lastly... There is that women do the majority of the rearing. However, if you notice, no one asked if Pres. Obama could be president because he has two kids, yet they did ask if Palin could be VP because she has children. That's called sexism, and it exists in the real world, and we need to fight it.

-Crissa

PS: Palin was not competent to be VP for other reasons.

[Prak]

While I totally agree, Crissa, it's worth noting that many people are of the opinion that Obama isn't competent to be Pres... I myself don't think anything as extreme as that... just putting it out there...

[Josh_Kablack]

There is that women do the majority of the rearing. However, if you notice, no one asked if Pres. Obama could be president because he has two kids, yet they did ask if Palin could be VP because she has children. That's called sexism, and it exists in the real world, and we need to fight it.

I agree.

But there is also the flipside: If a husband chooses to stay home and raise his kids instead of working, he's a lazy bum. If a wife stays home to raise her kids, she's a homemaker.

[Crissa]

Yeah, until the homemaker tries to do anything else. Then she's a lazy bum with no work experience.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

Wow, guys, sexism cuts both ways! Who would have thought?

[Josh_Kablack]

Yeah, until the homemaker tries to do anything else. Then she's a lazy bum with no work experience.

-Crissa

Okay, time for an honest question. Please don't take this the wrong way, as I am honestly curious about people's opinions on this:

Assume you have a housewife/homemaker who stays home and raises kids, and after doing this for some time, she then applies for a job. Is it sexist for the potential employer to criticize (or outright reject her) for her lack of employment experience?

I would think that most employers would argue that they want the most qualified job candidates, and as homemaking yields no traditional credentials, they would tend not to see it as a qualification. Is this a fault? If so, is it the fault of the employer or of the larger society?

While it's certainly true that child rearing involves great responsibility and a number of skills that could be useful in almost any job, it's also true that there are fundamental differences between family and employment obligations. How do you think employers should value homemaking/child rearing as a potential qualification?

[Parthenon]

Well, you don't have to be qualified to raise a child. You just need to not be a registered paedophile or sex criminal and to do enough to keep out of the way of social services. There is also no supervision or any way to measure how well you do. You don't always need to keep a really clean house, cook well, manage money, organise or anything like that.

So, while to be a reasonable to good homemaker you need various skills, there is no real way to know if any individual homemaker has them.

I think the big thing is that there is no record or measure of their skills so it isn't a qualification at all. They are in the same boat as any first time worker. Its not that they are a lazy bum, its that the employer has no real way of telling how good they are so they are more likely to go with people who are a known variable rather than someone who could vary widely.

EDIT: wait a moment, looking back it looks like I am insulting homemakers. That wasn't my intention. Its an incredibly hard job and most of the people doing it do have all these various skills and responsibilities. But my point was that they will all be better or worse at the various parts and there is no way of telling how good any person is at doing the job they are applying for so someone with job experience will be a known variable.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Basically, kids don't make good references.

[Crissa]

Yes, but homemakers aren't allowed to say the various things they've done as homemakers on their resumes. Literally, mentioning these things will make their chances of being hired worse than if they leave a huge gaping whole in their resume.

That's sexism, right there.

And yeah, a father who did it will also lose experience. But they're not constant asked by society if they're capable of having a job and raising a kid, while a mother is.

And yes, sexism cuts both ways. That's what feminism is about. Being equal.

MRAs aren't about being equal, they're about making disingenuous arguments to foil any attempt at equality breaking down their patriarchal privilege that they don't want to admit to having.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Assume you have a housewife/homemaker who stays home and raises kids, and after doing this for some time, she then applies for a job. Is it sexist for the potential employer to criticize (or outright reject her) for her lack of employment experience?

No, its not. The rejection is due to a lack of skill. I know that taking a few years out of IT would pretty much torpedo my employment prospects. The problem is society still expects the women to do the staying at home.

I disagree with Crissa though. Putting 'raised children' on your resume is much better than a gaping hole. The hole just looks like you couldn't get a job and thats suspicious for an employer. Having something on there showing what you did with those years is a big improvement.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Usually you're expected to explain gaps in your work history (especially on resumes), so you might as well put down "homemaker."

[mean_liar]

I would say you're wrong here, Crissa.

Being a homemaker is not a negative unto itself, but it does mean that there is probably someone else more qualified for the position.

I'd consider it a positive for an office manager in a small office, but not for a structural engineer.

I also don't think its fair to hold that against the person, since being a homemaker should not be some wildcard that waives your relative inexperience. That said, I do think that society undervalues the role of the homemaker - the tax break for being a parent of dependents should probably be higher, or community role in child care heightened, but that's a separate argument from women being minorities in time/effort-intensive professions.

...

Society is patriarchal and favors men, but it also brings with it expectations for both men and women and their roles. The positive purpose of men's rights advocates is not to negate feminism but to highlight those expectations and perhaps alleviate their negative impacts.

I can buy the argument that for every Andrea Dworkin there's an equivalent male. That doesn't mean that feminism and men's rights are polarized crocks of shit so much as point out that these are deep-rooted issues of society that by their questioning nature upset the apple cart.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

To say something in Crissa's defense (that just sounds weird coming from me), she really shouldn't be expected to say too much about men's rights. As a woman, she is very experienced with the bullshit that women put up with, but she only knows male problems from a theoretical level. Really the best (and only) thing she can do for male equality is be okay with it (which she has stated repeated she's for both sexes being equal, so really she's doing her part pretty well.)

[violence in the media]

Wait a minute, Crissa's a woman? I know the name seems feminine, but why did I think that Crissa was a guy with a wife and a pony fetish?

[Heath Robinson]

Yeah, if Crissa is a woman then she's very good at projecting a masculine front. A skill that spending long enough on the internet tends to teach you, I'll admit.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

See, to me she puts out a front of being a spoiled rich princess, and I don't know why you guys find her masculine.

'Course, I live in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Women here tend to be fucking hardcore. Like "beat your ass then call the cops and tell them you started it and steal your stereo while you're locked up" hardcore. Seriously, most men here seem more feminine than the women that I deal with in real life. (Lago in particular, it's hard for me to assume he's male because he bitches like women from this area do).

[Parthenon]

Another thing that came up in a conversation about this topic:

Society's view of people having a right to have children does seem to get a bit silly at times. When we got a cat from the RSPCA we had to have a couple of home checks and a follow up check later on- just for a pet.

And becoming a foster parent is much harder. For most people (not celebrities like Angelina Jolie) you have to be of the same ethnicity as the child, you have to be a couple, you can't smoke, excessively drink, there are a huge number of checks...

It could conceivably be the case that being a foster parent could be a reasonable qualification: if you can show that you can have a stable household, be a parent figure and counsellor to the foster children and so on, checked by social services, then that is probably a better qualification than most managers have.

[Lich-Loved]

Hell, if you can't speak the country's language, I think we can agree that you should get no say in the country's policies...

You cannot seriously mean that. It's a joke, right?

[Crissa]

Early feminist history, as relates to homemakers. It's kinda like having a non-white name: The resumes with that information on them just tend to be called on less often.

And I do have a female spouse, which might confuse you at times. However, she probably has the highest hourly income of anyone on the board...

And I've seen discrimination cut both ways. When I was a kid, none of the guys could get office/front restaurant jobs because of sexism. The girl who I got the same PSAT score worked in the law office, the boy who I got the same score as pulled weeds outside. Literally. (There were three of us who got in the top national percentile in our highschool.) After university I did peer counseling and saw street kids. Girls would get help easy, boys would be allowed to languish; same skill sets. On the other hand, none of those girls ever would get the promotions, only the guys lucky enough to get the jobs.

So yeah, I've seen it.

-Crissa

[violence in the media]

And I do have a female spouse, which might confuse you at times.

I'm going to start calling you Varsuvius.

However, she probably has the highest hourly income of anyone on the board...

I'm not disputing this, but what does it have to do with anything?

[Meikle641]

And yes, sexism cuts both ways. That's what feminism is about. Being equal.

MRAs aren't about being equal, they're about making disingenuous arguments to foil any attempt at equality breaking down their patriarchal privilege that they don't want to admit to having.

-Crissa

Um, what? That's a lie right there. Feminism, by definition is about women.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

fem⋅i⋅nism
  /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
Use feminism in a Sentence
–noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.

Or how about what wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist

"Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference; that advocate equality for women; and that campaign for women's rights and interests."


Given it's often somehow taboo to claim that the 'patriarchy' may be getting slammed by sexism as well, it's hardly a problem for men to have an equivelant.

Frankly, you screeching out "MRA!" as a pejorative is just as bad as my proclaiming you a feminazi or some other bullshit. Men have just as much a right to having representation for our own rights as women do. Saying we don't is...guess what...sexism.

[Crissa]

And yes, sexism cuts both ways. That's what feminismFrankly, you screeching out "MRA!" as a pejorative is just as bad as my proclaiming you a feminazi or some other bullshit. Men have just as much a right to having representation for our own rights as women do. Saying we don't is...guess what...sexism.

Wonderful, nuanced response. Filled with privilege and fervor. Denying a movement's ability to self define, denying privilege... (question: What are eight out of nine supreme court members, the president, the vice president, eighty seven of one hundred senators, three hundred and seventy four out of four hundred thirty five representative?)

Reminds me of a complaint... 'Why is there a black history month?' The Jeopardy answer is, 'Alex, what are the other eleven months?'

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

So... did you miss the bit where that is exactly what Crissa said it means and not at all what you say it means?

The only way a doctrine advocating equality like that could be failing to advocate rights for men in some imagined area in which they lack is if they are actively advocating against womens rights in the same area. You know. That's the meaning of "equal" for you there.

And womens rights organizations DO advocate men's rights. Probably the biggest "mens rights" issue, and the only one I can think of that that is particularly significant is Paternity leave. And it is feminist organizations that lead the charge on Paternity Leave.

"Mens rights" organizations mostly dick around talking about "Masculinity", threatening women, and being total dicks in general. If a men's rights organization had ever done anything good, or actually had spokesmen that did anything other than appear as open opponents to feminism in various forums and media I might have some respect for them.

If they were remotely honest and not a bunch of conservative feminist baiters then I'd be expecting them to be dancing hand in hand with feminist spokespersons on air during news programs singing in one voice "Paternity/Maternity leave for all, yay! Abolish the glass ceiling so my wife can be bread winner and I can stay home, yay! etc..."

But instead they sit around blaming feminists for everything like the losers they are.

[Koumei]

When we got a cat from the RSPCA we had to have a couple of home checks and a follow up check later on- just for a pet.

Really? Wow. It doesn't work like that here. A former housemate got a cat from the RSPCA (there was a "get the landlord to sign this" form), then under a year later, got another, no check ups or anything.

And our mutt never needed to be checked up on - we register him, take him to the vet for his shots (last time, other dogs were worried due to all the animals and people and "it's a vet clinic! Oh no, last time I was here I lost my balls!" so he wandered around nosing at them, making friends so they calmed down. Very social. Then someone brought in a kitten. In a carry-cage thing. He was shivering with fear. Yes, big brave Jimmy, afraid of a kitten in a carry-cage) and that's about it.

[Prak]

Hell, if you can't speak the country's language, I think we can agree that you should get no say in the country's policies...

You cannot seriously mean that. It's a joke, right?

um... yes, let's go with that... now that I realize how stupid that sounded... though I do find something really wrong with the idea of someone going to a country, not learning the language, and expecting any real say in country policies...