Its not the men who are to blame, neither is it feminism.Instead its the narrow minded mentality of some people.A woman is a woman and a man is a man.Go ahead fight for equality (women ) - but dont leave behind what essentialy makes up a female.Fighting for womens rights is fine, but if they are going to leave behind all that is a 'woman' I see absolutey no point in it what so ever.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sarah Splendor: *
Perhaps most ironic of all is that the value of woman is measured by her looks. She is good for nothing else than sex. Maids for cleaning. Day cares and nannies for rearing children. What good is a woman to a man?
[/QUOTE]
Women have pretty much always been seen as sexual/reproductive objects centuries before the 60s when feminism came into play in the modern era.
The good thing about feminism is that it gave women more a voice and a chance to express themselves which was (generally speaking) denied to them in the past (kinda like how girls are expressing themselves in this thread :p ).
By the way, some work places are starting to offer their male employees a few months up to a year off when they have a child. I think it's called paternity leave. My mamoo here in Toronto is currently on a year's (paid) leave off from work from when his wife had her child. They are including it in the benefits in quite a few workplaces. It's all about trying to make it fair and equal. Men protested and they got the right to 'paid' leave.
Ravage, I think you can apply your point of women being picked over the smarter guys to ethnic minorities (both genders) who are usually picked over caucasion people who apparently have a higher GPA. Again, the logic here (on the part of the schools and employers doing the 'picking') is to make it more 'equal'.
Whether it's right or wrong, who knows. I'm sure there are desis and other ethnic minorities out there who have benefited from this process though.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MehnazQ: *
Ravage, I think you can apply your point of women being picked over the smarter guys to ethnic minorities (both genders) who are usually picked over caucasion people who apparently have a higher GPA. Again, the logic here (on the part of the schools and employers doing the 'picking') is to make it more 'equal'.
Whether it's right or wrong, who knows. I'm sure there are desis and other ethnic minorities out there who have benefited from this process though.
[/QUOTE]
i was speaking within the context of Pakistan. you honestly think that is the reason for doing this in pakistan where there is no incentive for 'equal' hiring?
I dont know. i doubt private companies in pakistan feel the need to have gender quotas, especially when that probably doesnt recieve government encourage, and would recieve a lot of negative press from society.
anyway.. i wasnt crying foul over it. even if they do do it for quotas, the fact that lesser qualified people get in does mean that you have a lesser qualified workforce.
Ravage, I didn’t realise you were speaking about Pakistan only. I was talking about the west. I have no idea what it is like in Pakistan and I have no authority to speak on that front.
Anyway, what exactly is feminism? How can one define it in 2004? We’ve accomplished more rights when it comes to education, work and social/domestic issues. So what makes a woman a feminist? Being anti-men may have been part of the characteristics of feminists in the 60s-80s … I don’t think it really applies these days. To achieve anything in this world, men and women have to work together.
What about all those women who quit their jobs after getting married? How do they fit into the mold? Or those who want to remain housewives yet have the ‘right’ to go to work if they choose?
:rotato:
hmm interesting topic (and logic)..
ravage, with the girls being picked, thats i think soem sort of a recruiting strategy. I know they do it here as well.. and its not just with jobs. My dad selects students for engineering.. and he says females do get first priority. There is a certain number of seats assigned to them.. when selecting students.. you dont see them personally, you only have their ID and score to go by.. and even if their enter score is below the guys.. they will get picked (not all but most of them do).. and the same is done when employing graduates :)
neways, the reason why i brought that up is because this strategy is used to encourage more females to take up fields such as engineering and building.. i highly doubt this is a feminism movement..
b/w why is equality of genders confused with feminism? to me they are two very different things. If equality means to be able to do the same thing as the opposite gender.. then i think thats rubbish (sorries)
and why is a women with a career and a solid background accused of being a feminist?? she's only doing what she has a right to.. no?
sheesh, my whole essay was a waste 
u two have already discussed all my points.. sucks haha
Originally posted by Sarah Splendor:
Add to that maternity leave. Helps explain the invisible glass ceiling. From a purely productive and capitalist view, why hire someone who's output is unpredictable? Why take on the hassle of finding temporary people when a woman suddenly and without warning becomes pregnant?
I can't even believe I'm reading this. Okay, so I had the same question (although as a devil's advocate rather than sincerely) and I asked a few deans about this one (with regards to med schools, grad schools, work places, etc).
Apparently, pregnancy is considered a disability in the United States, and as that excuse, pregnant women are not discriminated against (or well, not legally) when it comes to job opportunities and school admissions.
Knowing that even a woman is married does not allow an employer to take that into account...that she might get pregnant and have to leave.
Typically, in many jobs, there is maternity leave. So a woman would come back to work after a few months anyway. I've never been pregnant, so I really dont know how it works in every possible job situation. I do know that medical colleges, and graduate schools will allow a girl a year's time off even for her pregnancy. Many girls don't even take it.
You do realize that its very possible for a woman to be working up until the day of her delivery? And you do also realize that its possible at many jobs to cut down hours, or take an extended maternity leave? And you do also realize that options are available for time sharing and other such arrangements of working schedule so that a mother can perhaps leave a baby with her husband certain days of the week? And you ALSO realize that its possible to leave work for a few years and enter back in - even with intensive professions. It requires more work on the girl's part, but its totally possible. And you do realize there is a second factor to this whole equation...the husband. As husband and wife - there is give and take. You compromise, so does your husband. That is entirely possible too?
None of this means that to be a "modern" woman, she must give up her motherhood, wifehood, wagera. This does not mean that she can't have time to clean her house and make dinner for her family. Its an intense schedule, indeed. But a true "modern" woman with some brains and guts can totally take it on.
I always ask: Why the hell not?
Aishaa thanks for your concern, but I couldn't let a comment like that slip my feminazi eyes.
Interesting directions this thread is taking.
Mehnaz, good question. There's no one definition of feminism. Right now as far as I know it's in it's third wave. The feminism of the 70s was the second wave (I THINK). Anyway, the woman who's talking here, her name's Debbie Stoller. She has a Ph.D in women's psychology from Yale and edits Bust (the third-wave girlie feminism magazine).
So PCG, why are women, including feminists like Debbie Stoller, in this state today? And like she asks, what is the next step? Where do these women end up if they want to get married but can't or don't? And how does that change the role of women in the future? And what will happen to the institute of marriage? Do you think it should have some dependance in it? And if there is to be no dependance, what is marriage?
^ my question.. does one need to do a PhD so state the obvious?
it doesnt matter what her occupation or credentials are.. i think PCG explained it pretty well.
i know the questions were directed at PCG, but i thought id do some taang araaying… 
to answer why women are in a state like this today, in my personal opinion, i think if one doesnt prioritise their life accordingly, this is whats gonna happen. If the women in question knew that she would eventually want to get married one day and have kids.. she should have done something bout it earlier.. why blame feminism.. or watever. Its more about not knowing what u really want.. and then regretting it later in life
and about the institute of marriage.. i didnt get that part at all.. what do u mean? 
Sorry I jumped the gun.
So PCG, why are women, including feminists like Debbie Stoller, in this state today? And like she asks, what is the next step? Where do these women end up if they want to get married but can't or don't? And how does that change the role of women in the future? And what will happen to the institute of marriage? Do you think it should have some dependance in it? And if there is to be no dependance, what is marriage?
Alright, look chica. The tenents of feminism do not state that every woman MUST work. Rather its a choice. Some women choose a 9-5 job. Some women choose sporadic working times. Some women choose not to work and stay at home as housewives. Some bounch back and forth in time. Nothing wrong with any of these options.
So yes, to your first point - Debbie Stoller exists in the US, because feminism is not claustrophobic to women as their existence before feminism (where the only ladies who got to do anything fun were the rich ones with open-minded or careless husbands).
What is the next step? Even I as a feminazi, am open to that question. There is always room for growth and reshaping of any theory.
Women who can't or don't get married: must it necessarily be the fault of feminism? Could it not possibly be their own fault? Maybe they're not being flexible enough to make room for compromise, which is essential in marriage. Is that feminism's fault or is that the individual's? Maybe there are social issues at hand. Consider all the working women who are pakistanis and they have dark skin. Very dark skin. Terrible facial features according to desi standards. Is it feminism, or is it Pakistanis' perception of beauty that is at fault? There are too many confounding variables involved.
How does it change the role of feminism in the future? How the hell do I know? Does it look like I'm holding a crystal ball? But we can certainly speculate, can't we?
What will happen to the institute of marriage? Alright woman. Lets look at our Islamic countries where Islam is "upheld" and women are at home for the most part. How is the state of marriage there? You don't think married couples have serious psychological issues? You dont think spouses cheat on each other? You don't think kids are raised in a hostile environment where emotions rather than rationality take lead?
Give me a break. The institute of marriage will always remain intact, as it always has. There are too many benefits to marriage for mankind to give up on it completely.
Dependence? Specify your question on dependence. What is depending on what? I dont understand what you're asking there.
ok ive been thinkig... did u mean marriage = dependance?
to answer why women are in a state like this today, in my personal opinion, i think if one doesnt prioritise their life accordingly, this is whats gonna happen. If the women in question knew that she would eventually want to get married one day and have kids.. she should have done something bout it earlier.. why blame feminism.. or watever. Its more about not knowing what u really want.. and then regretting it later in life
Right on woman. Many ladies throw marriage in the "I'll do it later box", and never get around to it. Its one thing where a girl has a support system in her family that might possibly lead to a semi-arranged marriage (not forced, but where a girl would meet a guy through parental connections - not the "typical" dupatta-clad girl serving chai scenario necessarily). Many girls don't have this system, even if they are desi. So what to do?
Well, why not have some balance? There is time for work, there is time for play. I'm not talking about clubbin' and picking up men at a bar. I'm talking about passive husband-hunting. A female is at a college, workplace, whatever. Doing her career thing. She has eyes. She has an environment. She can keep her eyes open, befriend men as she befriends women. She can find someone compatible. Have a few discussions. Open up the subject to marriage. See where it goes. In a mature fashion of course. Have a friend moderate the whole thing, if you feel that's "religious". Whatever. But, there is nothing that says a girl can't manage her own work, and developing marriage plans.
Whatever happened to the concept of "balance"? Here, have a ying-yang.
nahi nahi. never mind. I'm bored with this topic. I think Stoller did a good job of laying out what's gone wrong so I'll leave it to the expert. PCG, read between the lines (her lines), look at it from another perspective, or whatever. I think her question about the next step is an important one. Anyway, time to study for my exam on judaism. yes im running away with my tail tucked between my legs, or however you wanna see it.
^ thats the word PCG —> balance :k:
thats whats missing in these females (and men who are hitting 40 and not married either)
it has nothing to do with femnism.. its to do with lack of organisational skills, prioritising.. and failing to know what you really want.
People who complain about never having the time to find that person to get married to, blaah! have my life (ok dont.. i quite like mine the way it is.. some people say i dont do enuff work :halo: ) .. but what im saying is, as PCG said, you always have the opportunity to meet people and talk to them, within religious boundaries, if thats a concern..
but hey, Ms PhD, doesnt even have do deal with all the issues we must (not saying she doesnt have her own problems), but what was stopping her from finding someone and having kids earlier in life?
P.S. You see a 50% divorce rate as evidence of the sanctity of marriage incredulous? with celebrities and their multiple marriages as role models, common law becoming a recognized relationship, and what not... think again dear lady.
P.p.s. I think many of your points are moot simply because Stoller's comments were regarding with mostly white women in a western society who don't approach marriage in quite the same way as we do. And Sadzzz, you missed the irony. But anyway, the reason Miss Ph.D. did not get married wasn't because she put marriage and kidson the back burner. From listening to her get frustrated, what I got was exactly what I wrote down. Read again to understand why she didn't get married.
^ but that never stopped u from getting married.. did it? so why do others take it to heart?
sure it happens.. u win some u lose some... but why be so afraid of the unknown and regret it later? whats the point of living if you're not ready to take risks
and celebrity marriages do not count.. they're in a league of their own.. i sometimes wonder why they even bother