|
Post by Jazz on Apr 29, 2010 5:50:30 GMT
I am still stuck on the language aspect, even if it can not be dissociated from the underlying issues. I see no reason to put an ad in the paper saying "actor wanted - must look good in a dress" -- actress is a much more efficient word. You are still stuck on the language aspect. It cannot be dissociated from the underlying issue. You talk of the 'more efficient word, actress". This word was determined by men. Far too much, if not all of the recent vocabulary of life (ie: the last 500 years)...was decided upon by males. It is only 'efficient' because your male mind immediately understands it. Women do not want this now.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 29, 2010 5:53:17 GMT
Mark, I was writing and did not see your post. Will reply.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Apr 29, 2010 6:15:44 GMT
I have to confess, on the issue of language relating to acting anyway, I am with kerouac on this. I really don't see an inequality between the terms actor and actress in this day and age.
Otherwise, I feel I have lived through enough prejudicial behavior against women in the west, anyway, to feel that words or labels are not as meaningful as action. I am wondering whether I am becoming jaded.
As a young woman in business in the last 25 years, I certainly encountered anti-feminism. (I was once - at 25 years old- compared to a racehorse....long story over a drink some day.) However I am confident that my daughters are far less likely to have a racehorse discussion.
I have been fortunate to work for companies with women in very senior positions. My daughters have seen these women as normal jobs that are open to them. The state of Arizona, despite having a current governor of questionable intellect (IMO), has had more than one woman governor... and a good one too.
While I still wave the feminist flag, we've come a long way in the US. When my mother was widowed in the late 60's, she was unable to obtain credit on her own without a male co-signer. So she ended up marching for the ERA in Washington. Even though the ERA never passed, her activism paved a little way for me. And my random activism paves the way for my daughters.
Interestingly, the ratio of of pay for women vs. men (at least in the US), hasn't changed since my mother marched in Washington in the late 70's. This is really sad. Now days, I care more about that than job titles.
I also care much more about the increase in radical muslim recruitment that encourages women to take steps backward. In my mind, this is the bigger discussion. The western countries have made major strides over the last 25 years or so...I think we have a big storm in front of us, and I honestly do not think we are prepared to deal with it.
I also think that for many of us posting, we experienced blatant discrimination at some point in the last years.. My daughters, or the current generation, may not recognize subtle discrimination. But those of us who did grow up in the last century do.
That was a ramble...I am tired after long flights today. I'm sorry if I don't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 29, 2010 7:34:32 GMT
I agree with Cristina about how much progress has been made and how much still needs to be done. I too am not in the least bothered by "actress", since that seems to be the polarizing word here. I too am shocked that women brought up in Western cultures put on niqabs/burkas whatever, while women in some Muslim countries are being pushed backwards. Compare photos of Egypt or Istanbul 40 years ago and now.
What I find interesting is Jazz's idea that French women are somehow more liberated because of Simone de Beauvoir. Well, excuse me, but she is not widely read and not much thought about. I am sure her influence would have been much smaller if she had not been associated with Sartre.
French women did not get the vote until 1946! They only got the right to open their own bank accounts (without a husband's signature) in the 1970s! I still remember being in a post office in about 1978 and a woman was not allowed to pick up a registered letter because it was addressed to Monsieur et Madame. Her husband was supposed to be with her.
French women too have come a long way since then, but there is still much more emphasis on physical appearance here than in N America. In May, every women's magazine has an article on losing 3 kilos before bathing suit season. Even the supposedly most feminist magazines are full of ads (of naked/nearly naked women) for underwear, perfume, beauty products in among a few articles on spousal abuse or how hard women work in some 3rd world country.
The number of women in politics here is low. I can't imagine in the States/Canada during an election campaign that a female politician would appear in a bikini on the cover of a gossip magazine, the way the Socialist candidate did here. Granted she probably agreed to it. Women's salaries are lower than men's for the same jobs -- except perhaps in civil service jobs where there are job classifications. Many more women than men work part-time, not always from choice.
So sure, there have been advances.Female cabin crew (can't call them stewardesses, I guess) no longer have to stop flying when they get married or at 42. (Probably even earlier at some point -- does anybody know?) There is still a long way to go in practical everyday life.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 29, 2010 9:27:20 GMT
But tell me, how equal do you want to be? Utterly and completely in everything? There are to be no differences between the sexes? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Or are you happy that there is some lack of equality, but only if it's to your advantage?
You want to same rights as me, you want the same pay as me when doing the same job, you want access to any Club, there are no 'male only' places, there are no 'female only' places, no female well lit car parking, you want to have the same rights over property, inheritance, voting, you want to serve on the front line in wars, you want to compete in the same events with males, ad infinitum? If it was up to me you'd get it, no problem. But on the other hand, don't expect me to treat you like a woman any more, don't expect that I'll open doors for you, help you lift things, repair stuff for you, say you've lost weight, compliment you on your clothes, watch Love Story, not burp in front of your friends, you can get your own hankies when you cry over Bambi dying, go out for romantic meals instead of to the pub to watch football, eat salad instead of steak etc.
In essence, if you want total equality, you can have it, but then you become sexless and woe betide you if you complain that no man treats you like a woman any more. The sexes are different, neither of us is equal to the other. At the moment it does seem weighted in favour of the male but I think if you go too far with it, you wont like the results. After all, you are more sensitive to things than we are and you'd notice the down side sooner than a male would. If you are equal to me, then I am equal to you and everything that you can do or have access to, is open to me as well.
It's the old Chinese proverb, be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 29, 2010 9:40:27 GMT
And by the way, I don't want sex tonight, I've got a headache, let's just cuddle instead.
Or shouldn't I inject a little humour into it?
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 29, 2010 10:02:10 GMT
...I'm slow tonight, will reply to your #34 later...!....#35 ;D
Mark: Blaming the Americans is a universal hobby and worthy of its own thread. Again, complex. I don't quite understand the trousers issue. But, I disagree with another remark in that I feel that feminism is very much a part of religion. As I felt at the time, there are a few OP's in your original OP. ___________________________________________________
No one should be side tracked or 'polarized' (!) by my comments on Actor/Actress. I spoke of this only because I have personal awareness and to stop from veering off into endless, vague generalisations. It was not meant to be a central focus of the thread. The designation appears to be important to quite a few of the actors that I know. ___________________________________________________
bjd: ....'What I find interesting is Jazz's idea that French women are somehow more liberated because of Simone de Beauvoir. Well, excuse me, but she is not widely read and not much thought about. I am sure her influence would have been much smaller if she had not been associated with Sartre....' ________________________________________________
I didn't express myself well here. The reference to Simone de Beauvoir was a portion of counteracting the opinions expressed by Mark and Writeon that the Americans were somehow the originator's of 'feminism' and its ill effects. (?) (#1,#2). I disagree. The most important point that I wanted to make was that 'feminism' (as we understand it, for the western world) originated in France and England in the 18th century. Time passed. Simone de Beauvoir was, in her day, a writer of note. Lover of Sartre, or not, she influenced a generation of women. Perhaps no one in France read her (?), but many women in Canada did. She was a great inspiration to me and many of my female friends at the time. Today, I understand that you think that she had minimal influence and is almost forgotten? I remember her.
Moving on from Simone...The larger issue is that feminism is significent far beyond English speaking countries and the limitations suggested in the OP. The movement has ebbed and flowed over centuries. Shall we even begin to discuss matriarchal societies? One example I mentioned was 18th century France because there was a flowering of powerful women at this time...the salons etc. We, in our individual countries, are in a new age...each different, I think.
Perhaps certain words or phrases are considered ridiculous. I don't know, or care. It doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 29, 2010 10:12:06 GMT
Of course there are differences between the sexes. Anybody who denies that is willfully closing his/her eyes to biology and psychology. However, I do think that when men and women are doing the same job -- whatever it is -- they should be paid the same. That there should be women representatives in political assemblies. Not that women politicians are touchy-feely, look at Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi, but it would be a fairer representation of population.
Just yesterday in the paper there was an article about village representation of women in India, where a quota system has been put in. In many of the villages where women have become the head, there is better access to water, indoor toilets and things which make life healthier and better. Of course, in many villages, the women are only mouthpieces for their husbands or brothers, and things continue in the same way.
No, I don't think that men only or women only clubs or associations should be abolished. If there are places where men want to sit around, watch sports on TV and burp,without having women around, well, let them. I think it's a fine idea that there are female-only train wagons or buses in countries where women are hassled.
You are confusing politeness or decent behaviour with "being treated like a woman". In your case, perhaps that means complimenting a woman on her appearance or holding open a door or repairing things. In some places, it means not being allowed to drive a car, being obliged to cover one's face and body in black polyester when it's 40° outside, or having to walk a few steps behind carrying a load on the head.
I am not arguing with your original OP that in many cases "feminism" or, as I think of it, political correctness, has gone overboard. I have no problem with the word "actress". I would not attend "gender study" classes. But I think that since, as you admit "it does seem weighted in favour of the male" -- it not only seems that way, it is -- men will also fight to keep it that way. It's a question of power. So women will push harder and sometimes seem to go overboard. The hope is that eventually a fair and more balanced system will evolve.
And yes, you can inject all the humour you want.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 29, 2010 10:17:32 GMT
Jazz posted while I was writing my answer to onlyMark. Jazz, the library in my town is named for Simone de Beauvoir. When I asked why, the director (a woman) said she was one of the few notable women writers they could come up with. I think they would have had a better choice in English literature, but that's a different thread!
|
|
|
Post by Don Cuevas on Apr 29, 2010 10:19:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 29, 2010 10:47:51 GMT
Probably, yes. I would expect so considering my experiences of Iran. And there was the report recently of some Mullah saying that women caused earthquakes. Probably his wife is that skilled the earth moves for him every time, who knows.
But I think that the issue of women's rights being trodden on due to religion is something we can all agree on. It is flat out wrong. I'm more considering where there is no religious influence (or is there ever not?) and certain ideas to obtain equality seem over the top.
I agree that the feminist movement didn't start in the USA, but it appears as with many things, they've adopted it, twisted various parts of it, exaggerated it and taken it to extremes of correctness. But I wasn't wanting to get into a blame game thing saying whose fault it is, if there is anyone anyway, more to see if that there are steps taken that are felt to be ridiculous. There is no doubt that feminism/equality is needed. But how far do you take it? That is what concerns me and makes me shake my head in wonder at who comes up with some of these ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2010 12:43:53 GMT
If we take things a few steps back to the animal kingdom and watch the behavior of various males and females, there are some pretty drastic differences as well. It would appear that in most speciies, males and females are not on equal footing. One or the other always seems to have the upper hand. And in our species? Are we not very successfully trying to resist our biological nature or are we evolving into a new species? Check back in about 500 years...
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on May 1, 2010 15:36:31 GMT
Mark: ...'But tell me, how equal do you want to be? Utterly and completely in everything? There are to be no differences between the sexes? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Or are you happy that there is some lack of equality, but only if it's to your advantage?
You want to same rights as me, you want the same pay as me when doing the same job, you want access to any Club, there are no 'male only' places, there are no 'female only' places, no female well lit car parking, you want to have the same rights over property, inheritance, voting, you want to serve on the front line in wars, you want to compete in the same events with males, ad infinitum? If it was up to me you'd get it, no problem. But on the other hand, don't expect me to treat you like a woman any more'...
Why not? (for the sake of argument)---Don’t I treat you as a ‘man’---While holding down a full time job, I raise your children, cook your meals, clean your house, do your laundry, calm your male ego for the sake of ‘your much needed peace’ and try to live up to your fantasies of a lover? You will be held up as a God if you take on any small portion of all of this extra work, while for me, it is a ‘given’, even though we both work full time. This is a comman situation. Why on earth would you regard me as 'less' of a woman?
Mark:...'The sexes are different, neither of us is equal to the other. At the moment it does seem weighted in favour of the male but I think if you go too far with it, you wont like the results. After all, you are more sensitive to things than we are and you'd notice the down side sooner than a male would. If you are equal to me, then I am equal to you and everything that you can do or have access to, is open to me as well.'...
It's the old Chinese proverb, be careful what you wish for, because you might get it...'
I agree with much of this. Some women I know are in a state of permanent exhaustion. We are biolocally different and there are reasons for this. Some of these reasons are evolving.
Bjd, that would make a good thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 15:51:15 GMT
Certain little changes in life show the differences between men and women. When France abruptly changed from a 39 hour work week to a 35 hour work week, the men devoted the extra 4 hours to leisure and pleasure; the women used the time for housecleaning and other family 'duties'.
Nobody forced either sex to decide how to use their time. Why did this happen?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 15:59:51 GMT
Jazz, your reply paragraph starting - Why not? (for the sake of argument)---Don’t I treat you as a ‘man’ - and ending - Why on earth would you regard me as 'less' of a woman?, the 'you' you are referring could well be different to me. What I mean is that I was talking personally and I'm wondering if your 'you' means men in general or me personally. The reason I ask is that I live a role reversal life whereby my wife works and I stay at home bringing up the kids, washing, cooking etc, doing all those things you mentioned - apart from holding down a full time job. So my wife doesn't do any of those things a 'normal' woman might do, she works and I do more or less everything else.
But if you are meaning men in general when you refer to 'you' then I agree that a lot of women get the shit end of the stick. That beggars the question though of why do they put up with it, with a male like that? I bet they didn't start out with that attitude of doing everything as well as a job. So how did they let it happen? Again, maybe another thread.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 16:01:05 GMT
I was writing as kerouac was posting, so either great minds think alike, or fools never differ.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on May 1, 2010 16:43:49 GMT
Jazz, your reply paragraph starting - Why not? (for the sake of argument)---Don’t I treat you as a ‘man’ - and ending - Why on earth would you regard me as 'less' of a woman?, the 'you' you are referring could well be different to me. What I mean is that I was talking personally and I'm wondering if your 'you' means men in general or me personally. The reason I ask is that I live a role reversal life whereby my wife works and I stay at home bringing up the kids, washing, cooking etc, doing all those things you mentioned - apart from holding down a full time job. So my wife doesn't do any of those things a 'normal' woman might do, she works and I do more or less everything else. But if you are meaning men in general when you refer to 'you' then I agree that a lot of women get the shit end of the stick. That beggars the question though of why do they put up with it, with a male like that? I bet they didn't start out with that attitude of doing everything as well as a job. So how did they let it happen? Again, maybe another thread. I was speaking generally. I had an idea of your situation and I have never been married, nor have I had children. I was trying to question why ,if women attained these rights, that you would say they should no longer expect to be thought of as women and perhaps not longer be treated in small special ways. You and Kerouac pose a great question with your, 'how did they let that happen' and K's, ...'Certain little changes in life show the differences between men and women. When France abruptly changed from a 39 hour work week to a 35 hour work week, the men devoted the extra 4 hours to leisure and pleasure; the women used the time for housecleaning and other family 'duties'. Nobody forced either sex to decide how to use their time. Why did this happen?'... I don't know but I'm sure the answer is not simple. Mark: 'I was writing as kerouac was posting, so either great minds think alike, or fools never differ.' Dare I answer? ;D
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 17:12:45 GMT
You may.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on May 1, 2021 13:49:46 GMT
Luckily I did not have to click on the first article in Google News when the second article gave me the necessary information.
'Game of Thrones' actor Esmé Bianco sues Marilyn Manson, accusing him of sexual assault
Marilyn Manson Sued for Sexual Assault, Sex Trafficking by ‘Game of Thrones’ Actress Esme Bianco
|
|
|
Post by questa on May 1, 2021 23:19:49 GMT
In Australia women have been accepted into the fire brigades for years. The title Fireman switched to Fire Fighter without any angst from either side and little kids can still tell you they want to be a fire fighter when they grow up, like Mummy.
Male nurse is still used, as is male midwife, mainly to let patients know that all males aren't doctors and all doctors aren't males.
The word "midwife" comes from Old English where the "mid" means "with". Thus midwife means the person, male or female, who stays with the woman ("wimmen")for the duration of labour, birth and the first few days. The Wife is indicating the woman having the baby but the mid-wife indicates the experienced woman who assists in the birth. That is why men can be midwives without creating a word storm.
Copied from "Pregnant individuals" thread
|
|