Pity Party For Soccer Moms?

They want flexibility but they also want equal pay, equal benefits and so on.

More whining cause they can't have their cake and eat it too.

This is pretty much just another example, of complaining no matter which way things turn out. At least the women have the option to try something different in the first place..but do all of them even have this option? The writer must be discussing women who will eventually have some other means of support - usually from, you guessed it, Mr. Wallet. What about the single woman who has no prospects of someone to fall back on, does not play the lottery, and is too ugly to pull an Anna Nicole? I have much more pity (and respect) for her, than I do the elite whining snobs the author must be talking about.

Why doesn't someone write an article about what would happen, if a man took two years "paternity leave" from his job. Is some idiot (like the writer of the article), implying that he would start back at his job as if he never left, "as opposed to" a woman in the same scenario?

-ax

Close the stock markets, cancel the contracts, halt all meetings, no more deadlines or earnings reports, it's baby time!

When Miss brilliant (I know, far less likely to occur then Mr Brilliant) is done being super mommy we can all start doing business again.

Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around your hormonal urges to have babies. If you OPT OUT - the world keeps on spinning. If you have some man to support your choice of baby time - good for you, you should be extremely happy. But business won't wait no matter how much you ballyhoo about it.

Happy Mother's Day to all the hard working mom's making their own choices and accepting the ramifications of the choices they made. You are a true inspiration to the world and deserve this day in your honor.

Deleted

Actually we already do paternity leave in Canada, Roy. The mother and father can split up to a year of "parental" benefits (administered as part of our unemployment insurance program). It's really the only fair way to do it.

Frankly it seems to work out just fine and everyone seems OK with the arrangement.

Women (and men) who read such articles and are moved to lament need only reverse the sexes and see how the sense of entitlement and privileged status is so glaringly obvious in the author's POV. It's so ubiquitous as to almost defy being able to quantify-- almost... but not quite.

Okay, so the author admits that she's putting words in women's mouths here...

"While they couch them in the language of choice and privilege, the stories they tell reveal not the expression of choice, but rather the existence of a choice gap..."

And of course... the big "duh" moment....

"... their attempts to maintain their careers on terms other than full-time plus were penalized,..."

Maybe that's why those women that were interviewed actually said that it was their choice. Because they were intelligent enough to realize that when you have a high profile career, with high income earnings, you are expected to have an extremely high level of commitment to your employer. Careers aren't part-time jobs; let alone day jobs. The big bucks are there for a reason. Because you want to compete, fight hard, and win for your employer... If you can't then there's someone else that can. No different than what any men in high profile positions have faced.

Alen posted:

"... their attempts to maintain their careers on terms other than full-time plus were penalized,..."

Maybe that's why those women that were interviewed actually said that it was their choice. Because they were intelligent enough to realize that when you have a high profile career, with high income earnings, you are expected to have an extremely high level of commitment to your employer.

Alen, you are correct. I fear that the relentless hype over this issue will lead to even more government programs and controls over hiring/firing/compensation.

In other words, we’re move away from a system where we are rewarded for working hard and providing ever better/cheaper goods/services to customers. We’re moving toward a system where we are rewarded for our effective application of political pressure.

And it will somehow be all the patriarchy’s fault when our economy falls on its face.

This article, and the discussion you guys have had up to this point, all reflect the lack of competition children are raised with now. Everyone gets a trophy, everyone wins, so no one has to try harder or make sacrifices.

Maybe RandomMan or someone else can verify this, but from what I've read in "Legalizing Misandry" (the authors are Canadian), ideological feminism has progressed more there than in the U.S. This is basically due to their somewhat different form of government, mainly that they do not have a 200+ year old constitution "etched in stone", so it is easier to change the law. The U.S. system has a few safeguards against this type of anarchy, but one wonders how long until they crumble to pressure from feminist totalitarians. For example, the presumption of innocence seems to have gone out the window, as far as alleged crimes by men against women.

In fact American ideological feminists art trying to emulate their peers in Canada, and have taken a few lessons from them. Also there is a whole chapter in the book, on the Marc Lepine killings in Montreal a few years back. He's kind of like the Virginia Tech guy, except he killed only women students during his rampage. So naturally the feminists spun it as "this is on a continuum", "men's violence toward women" etc. Acutually it became much more than a spin, there were huge religious and other memorial services across Canada, including at McGill University (where the authors of L.M. teach); and there was resultant significant amount of legislation to specifically protect women, introduced and passed. Also I think they still have something on the anniversary of the killings, like "End Violence Against Women Day" or something.

-ax

Note: the authors are professors at McGill University. It is amazing to me, that they even got any support at all to write the book, in light of the feminist strangle-hold on academia.

We don't have an official government sanctioned day of memory for it but it is covered every year like clockwork in all Canadian media.

As far as Canada being more misandric then the US it kind of depends as even to misandry Canada takes the softer gentler approach by comparison to the US.

For example, despite having a National sex offender registry here before AWA came to be in the US, ours is not public and does not include things like GPS or mandatory civil commitment hearings to put men who've already served their time away for a potentially life sentence with no chance of parole.

So you see, sometimes we take the steps down the feminist man hating path first, but the US throws in their own unique "the price of freedom" spirit when they do things.

I understand your point. I was referring more to the extent of the institutionalization of the misandry, via legislation etc., which seems to have "progressed" a somewhat further in Canada than in the U.S. Of course that is the authors' opinion, but they give lots of examples and hard facts, and scholarly analyses.

-ax

I think it's a hard thing to define, ax.
But Canada, politically, lets the protection of the minority trump the will of the majority when it comes to rights.

Unfortunately; women are seen as a minority in most cases, due to good lobbying from feminist groups, even though they are in fact the majority of voters.

So, this translates into the government providing more special programs for women, than they do for men.

The one thing to remember here, though, is that the government is not allowed to pass laws that discriminate based on gender. The constitution (Charter of rights and freedoms) has gender neutrality enshrined as a fundamental right, right along with religious freedom. (actually due to lobbying from feminist groups as well).

If enough people can make the case and have the cash to bring the cases to the supreme court, the laws that the government has passed in favour of women can be deemed unconstitutional, and the government is required to correct it.

All of these aspects, for example, were prevalent in the government deciding that gay marriages were legal but religious groups didn't have to perform them. I mention it because it is a prominent example that I think most people are aware of.

The supreme court found in favour of the minority, and found that defining marriage as two different sexes was gender discrimination and the government needed to revisit the laws so that it could fit the charter.

On a side note-- although I had no strong opinions on the debate myself, I was really interested in seeing how feminists reacted to the gay marriage debate... Many didn't like the idea, and wanted to fight it. I think they saw it as demeaning the role of wife/mother or something like that. On more than one occasion I pointed out to them that the root of their problem was their own philosophy. If they didn't agree with gay marriage, then they shouldn't agree with gender neutrality in government being in the charter, and therefore gender equality. The looks on their faces were priceless.

"But Canada, politically, lets the protection of the minority trump the will of the majority when it comes to rights."

"..this translates into the government providing more special programs for women, than they do for men."[yeah, like affirmative action, which is what they call it in the U.S.]

Quite so. Actually this is in a chapter called "Women's Rights vs. Human Rights". These statements above hold almost as well in the U.S., except some of the "safeguards" in the U.S. system prevent the minority from trumping the majority as much as has happened in Canada, even when the "minority" is women.

"the government is not allowed to pass laws that discriminate based on gender".

Yes, that is also basically true in the U.S., and is due to the influence of feminist groups here as well. But the authors show that effectively, discrimination based on gender (i.e. against men) occurs anyway - that essentially the laws protect women much more so than men (as least as far as their enforcement), and in fact in doing so *results in* discrimination against men. Of course you guys know the actual situation much better than I do since I don't live there.

-ax

I suspect it's pretty similar on both sides of the border. The discriminatory laws keep getting written, and there's not enough time or money to go around to try and show them all up as being illegal. But I did want to highlight that there is at least one tool that can be leveraged to try and make a difference.

There's no doubt that the situation is bad in both the US and Canada; otherwise we wouldn't all be here on this site.

PS: Sounds like a good book, ax. :)

Alen said: But Canada, politically, lets the protection of the minority trump the will of the majority when it comes to rights.
Unfortunately; women are seen as a minority in most cases, due to good lobbying from feminist groups, even though they are in fact the majority of voters.
So, this translates into the government providing more special programs for women, than they do for men.

It sounds like you’re saying that the government lets those who’ve politically positioned themselves as an oppressed minority, but in fact have elected officials' gonads in a vise, get favored treatment. No surprise there.

(By the way, I support constitutional protections of the minority even when it trumps the will of the majority. In the US it's the government's obligation to do that, though IMO that obligation is often shamelessly ignored)

From what I can glean from history, a major change in politics in the past 50 years is the rise of victimhood as a ticket to privilege. We shouldn't be surprised that promoting victimhood has become a major industry.

An objective definition of victimhood doesn’t exist, and when it comes to politics objectivity doesn't matter anyway. Politically speaking, victims are not the ignored and forgotten (anything but). Victims are those who have representatives that schedule themselves for daily appearances on the TV news to complain, and have powerful lobbying groups wining and dining politicians in Washington (or Ottawa as the case may be). Yes it’s a contradiction, and it’s an inherent flaw in the belief that the political system can provide fair and objective results.

Following is a quote from Joseph Belloc Sobran that sums up the situation nicely:

"EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE A VICTIM. And the paradox is that victim status accrues precisely to those who can acquire enough clout to make others afraid of them. Victimhood has become one of the fruits of power. Anyone can be an underdog; the trick is to be a registered, pedigreed underdog."

I can think of no "registered underdog” with a higher pedigree than feminism. The fear politicians (and everyone else for that matter) have of them is a direct result.

Deleted