Fight for Women's Rights Worldwide

[haha]

Hey everyone,

Some of the things that modern day women take for granted like the right to vote was very hard for our predecessors, who really had to lobby and fight for that right. I put this thread up to discuss some important people in women suffrage movements throughout history, not only the right to vote but also to have jobs after marriage etc. Even now there is a struggle for equality between men and women in the workforce. Some data i found showed that women in America (1997) earned 74 cents for every dollar that men make, and in Australia (2000) it was something like 84 cents for every dollar.

Just to get the discussion started i've included a timeline of when women achieved the right to vote all around the world (please correct me if there's a mistake somewhere). I think that in Australia one of the main women we have to thank for so many of our rights is Germaine Greer, becuase of all the tireless work that she did campaigning.

WARNING: the following timeline is very long so feel free to skim ;)

1776-1807
New Jersey - propertied women voted in elections from 1787, although they had the right from 1776; they lost suffrage when universal male suffrage was introduced.

1838
Pitcairn Islands

1869
Wyoming Territory

1870
Utah Territory - abolished in 1887 and restored in 1896

1881
Isle of Man - propertied women

1893
Colorado
Cook Islands
New Zealand

1894
South Australia - full state suffrage and right to stand for parliament

1896
Idaho
Utah

1899
Western Australia - full state suffrage

1902
Australia - white women gained the federal franchise
New South Wales (Australia) - full state suffrage

1903
Tasmania (Australia) - full state suffrage

1905
Queensland (Australia) - full state suffrage

1906
Finland

1907
Norway - economic qualification

1908
Victoria (Australia) - full state suffrage

1910
Washington State

1911
California

1912
Arizona
Kansas
Oregon

1913
Alaska
Illinois - limited to voting for President and offices created by statute
Norway - full suffrage

1914
Montana
Nevada

1915
Denmark
Iceland - women aged 40 or above

1916
Alberta
Manitoba
Saskatchewan

1917
Arkansas
British Columbia
Canada - federal vote for Euroamerican women in the armed forces and close relatives of soldiers
Estonia
Indiana
Latvia
Lithuania
Michigan
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota - presidential suffrage
Ohio - lost later that year
Ontario
Rhode Island

1918
Austria
Canada - federal vote for women of British and French extraction
Czechoslovakia
Germany
Hungary - limited suffrage
Luxembourg
Michigan
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Oklahoma
Poland
South Dakota
Texas - suffrage in primary elections
United Kingdom - married women, women house-holders and women university graduates aged 30 years or over

1919
Netherlands
Rhodesia - limited suffrage on the basis of a woman’s husband’s financial means, provided she was not married polygamously
Sweden

1920
Belgium - mothers and widows of soldiers who had died in World War I
Iceland - full suffrage
USA - however, in some states legal devices such as literacy tests and poll taxes were used to exclude Blacks from voting

1922
Ireland - full suffrage

1924
Mongolia

1928
United Kingdom - full suffrage

1929
Ecuador - limited suffrage

1930
South Africa - white women
Turkey

1931
Spain - but women lost the vote under Franco in 1936 and did not vote again until 1976
Ceylon/Sri Lanka

1932
Brazil
Thailand
Uruguay

1933
Portugal - women who had completed secondary or university education

1934
Cuba

1935
India - limited suffrage based on educational and income requirements

1937
Philippines

1939
El Salvador

1941
Indonesia

1942
Dominican Republic

1944
France
Jamaica

1945
Bulgaria
Guatemala
Italy
Japan
Panama
Trinidad and Tobago

1946
Albania
Ecuador - full suffrage
Liberia - property qualification
Malta
Portugal - women who were heads of household and married women who paid a certain amount of tax
Romania
Yugoslavia

1947
Argentina
Pakistan
Venezuela

1948
Belgium - full suffrage
Burma
Israel
South Korea

1949
Chile
China
Costa Rica
India - full suffrage
Syria - limited suffrage

1950
Haiti

1951
Antigua
Barbados
Dominica
Grenada
St Christopher (Kitts) and Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent and the Grenadines
Sierra Leone

1952
Bolivia
Greece

1953
Lebanon
Mexico
Syria - full suffrage, but after a coup d’état that year, rights reverted to the 1949 basis

1954
Belize
Gold Coast Colony/Ghana
Nigeria - federal suffrage for women in the Eastern Region

1955
Ethiopia
Honduras
Malaya/Malaysia
Nicaragua
Nigeria - federal suffrage for women in the Western Region if they paid taxes
Peru

1956
Egypt - compulsory voting for men but not for women
Honduras

1957
Colombia
Honduras
Singapore

1958
Iraq
Mauritius
Paraguay
Tanganyika/Tanzania

1959
Nepal
Nigeria - federal suffrage for women in the South

1960
Canada - discrimination against various groups ends
Central African Republic
Cyprus
San Marino
The Gambia

1961
Rwanda
Somalia

1962
Australia - discrimination against Aborigines ends
Bahamas
Monaco

1963
Iran
Kenya
Mozambique - limited suffrage for women

1964
Afghanistan
Libya
Maldives
Sudan

1965
Afghanistan
Burundi

1966
Fiji
Lesotho

1967
Seychelles
Zaire

1968
Nauru
Swaziland

1971
Gilbert Islands/Kiribati
Switzerland

1972
Syria - full suffrage

1975
Mozambique - full suffrage
Papua New Guinea
Portugal - full suffrage
Nigeria - federal suffrage for women in the North

1978
Tuvalu
Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) - full suffrage

1980
Cape Verde

1984
Jordan
Liberia - full suffrage
Liechtenstein

1994
South Africa - full suffrage

[thrawn]

I studied feminism at university, it wasnt interesting, it just sounded like a lot of waffle whinging about everything and blaming men for everything. Oh btw you make the point that women makes 84 cents to every mans dollar on average, im not sure if ur saying its a bad thing or not, but i just think it has to do with the types of jobs males/females typically take. Aslong as males and females get equal pay for doing the same job im satisified.

[Dementor Dave]

I studied feminism at university, it wasnt interesting, it just sounded like a lot of waffle whinging about everything and blaming men for everything. Oh btw you make the point that women makes 84 cents to every mans dollar on average, im not sure if ur saying its a bad thing or not, but i just think it has to do with the types of jobs males/females typically take. Aslong as males and females get equal pay for doing the same job im satisified.


Perhaps it sounds like "a lot of waffle whinging" to you, but Women's Rights are very important. Because if you allow discrimination against one, it will soon come against all. For the sake of every friend you have that is a minority of any sort, don't dismiss women's rights, or civil rights, or the rights of any other group. They are all of the utmost importance.

[haha]

Perhaps it sounds like "a lot of waffle whinging" to you, but Women's Rights are very important. Because if you allow discrimination against one, it will soon come against all. For the sake of every friend you have that is a minority of any sort, don't dismiss women's rights, or civil rights, or the rights of any other group. They are all of the utmost importance.
Well said Dementor Dave :tu: I think that since i go to an all girls school we looked at women's rights in a lot of detail and it's amazing how low women were treated. And it wasn't just women, it was also indigenous people as well who were discriminated against. They got the right to vote 60 yrs after white women did, so that kind of shows you the degree of segregation that existed.

[Fred Black]

Well, interesting you should speak of women's right because as much as as their rights have increased in the 1st world countries it has a very long way to go in some developing countries. Now if you don't know about John Mills, he was an MP in the 19th-20th centuary and he was very good at arguing for and against bills, acts, laws etc and he was extremely close to giving women the right to vote fifty years earlier than they did get it. You should have out on the dates that women got the right to vote in those countries as they do differ but when they first started having the vote in Britain (1920's i think) only rich, middle class women (because they were most likely to Vote for the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister was a Conservative).

[thrawn]

I should have clarified myself properly, the old feminism yearning for the vote, was fine in my point, otherwise there would have been no point in claiming a democracy, i was more referring to the "new age feminism"

[Dementor Dave]

I should have clarified myself properly, the old feminism yearning for the vote, was fine in my point, otherwise there would have been no point in claiming a democracy, i was more referring to the "new age feminism"

And what, do tell, is wrong with the "new age feminism"? (Before I carry on too much, please also clearly define what you mean by "new age feminism")

[haha]

You should have out on the dates that women got the right to vote in those countries as they do differ but when they first started having the vote in Britain (1920's i think) only rich, middle class women (because they were most likely to Vote for the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister was a Conservative).
If you could give me some exact dates I'll add them to the timeline. I tried to be as accurate as possible but i can't go through the history of every country as you can probably imagine :p

[thrawn]

post 1970s feminism.

[haha]

post 1970s feminism.
Honestly I still don't see your objections with the post 1970s feminism. So if you think that women fighting for euality with men, rights in issue such as abortion, keeping their own name after marriage, pregnancy in the workplace is "a lot of waffle whinging", I just want to know why?

[thrawn]

Women can still legally get abortions so why complain about that if u already can get it, unless you dont want to, keeping their own name after marriage is a load of waffle, its not like its a major issue in the world, and if people think it is then they really need to take a look at their priorities. Pregnancy in the workplace can be a load of waffle because it can also come down to individual choices between the woman and their employer. e.g if a woman wants to stay home with her kid for say 2 years, why should the employer pay her for 2 years when shes not working, its not beneficial, however for shorter periods of time pay for maternity leave is fine. Post 1970s feminism also focuses on housework, and high management positions of women in the workforce. When feminists focus on housework as an issue, its clearly running out of new material to whinge about and is a load of waffle, because who does how much housework and what not is dependent on each couple. The issue of high management positions might sound like a fairly credible cause until you look into it, because the people that are upset at it havnt even considered the possibility that these people could have been in their jobs for a long time, or considered that theirs a chance that perhaps males might be more suited to the jobs then a female would. I'm yet to encounter a workplace who hasn't hired someone for a position on the basis that they are female.

[haha]

The issue of high management positions might sound like a fairly credible cause until you look into it, because the people that are upset at it havnt even considered the possibility that these people could have been in their jobs for a long time, or considered that theirs a chance that perhaps males might be more suited to the jobs then a female would. I'm yet to encounter a workplace who hasn't hired someone for a position on the basis that they are female.
So you don't think that there are anyone out there who might have significant reason to fight for higher management causes. Have you really seen enough of the workplace (considering that you're only 18) to judge how a lot of the employers in higher management deal with women who apply for the position? And the thing about them being in their positions a long time is valid, but what if when they're retiring...do they automatically consider their right hand 'man'? And even if they were there for a while, are you saying that if a woman worked her way up, that doesn't count for anything?

I know that everyone's entitled to their own opinions on this, and personally i can't form an honest opinion since i haven't been in the workforce that much, but i just wonder why these women would fight so hard for 'waffle'.

[thrawn]

I'm not saying that if a woman worked her way up she shouldn't be considered for a job, I'm not saying that all males would be more suited to high management positions then females, but there is a chance, considering men have been running businesses for a whole lot longer.

Women fight so hard for the "waffle" because some-many of the women activists are a bunch of whingers who blame EVERYTHING on men, nothing is the womens fault in their eyes, as women are perfect according to them, so they blame everything on the men. When i studied it at uni our lecturer was a female and she was highly sexist, like some of them are, and blamed all of womens shortcomings on men.

[haha]

Women fight so hard for the "waffle" because some-many of the women activists are a bunch of whingers who blame EVERYTHING on men, nothing is the womens fault in their eyes, as women are perfect according to them, so they blame everything on the men. When i studied it at uni our lecturer was a female and she was highly sexist, like some of them are, and blamed all of womens shortcomings on men.
Now aren't you doing the same thing? You are generalising on one experience you had and now assume that every woman camplaigning have the exact same attitude. You're saying that all woman who campaign are wrong and all men are right? And just because someone has been running a business for a long time doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best for the job, especially if there is a change in demand from the public, otherwise there would never be changes in management.

[dawningoftime]

The majority of women's activists do believe that men are to blame for the current situation of women. They think that women have been brainwashed into accepting their position. In my Communication Theory class we had a unit on gender communication (four chapters of male bashing). One theorist went so far to say that if a women takes her husbands last name she is loosing her identity. Women have to invent a language of thier own because all language is made by men and therefore oppresses women (I'm not making this stuff up). Employers don't care whether or not a women is a female or male. All they care about is hiring the person who can do the job best. That may be a man it may be a women, but they hire on qualifications...not gender.

[haha]

One theorist went so far to say that if a women takes her husbands last name she is loosing her identity. Women have to invent a language of thier own because all language is made by men and therefore oppresses women (I'm not making this stuff up).
I'll admit that there are women who go too far into the other spectrum, they have gone from women totally surpressed to women totally free and independant, while i think that we really should find a way to work together. One occupation which has is police officers and ambulance medical professionals. Most of the time, nearly all, there is one man and one women. If there are two men, then they might tend to get aggresive more times than they need to and ther isn't a woman to calm the situation down. And if there are two women then if the agressor is a male they might overpower them, simply because men are (generally) genetically stronger.

I also think that [I]if there is a person who claims gender discrimination is should be taken seriously, a not just thrown aside. You'll notice i said 'person' and not women, because my maths teacher (male), pointed out that men are sometimes discriminated against too in professions such as teaching and nursing.

[PLIMPY]

I think that women in the past had to work on changing the laws that kept women from being seen as individuals worthy of protection and rights even without being under the control of a man, but now women in many western countries are working on taking sexism out of society and the minds and hearts of the people in society, which is very difficult work. To some extent, in America at least, we are still doing the same thing with racism (not that there are fights to be had with the law, a lot of which now are over reproductive rights). I think it is important to note that feminism has brought us a long way. Women are now generally accepted in the public sphere, even if it is not neccessarily with full equality, at least most people do not believe that women are so pure and good that they should stay in the private sphere, for their own protection, and to restore men who must sometimes venture into the corrupt public sphere. Women have the right to own and inherit things, the right to have credit of their own, the right to choose to marry or not, and many many others.
In many non-"western" societies women are still fighting for legal rights to make their own decisions, to be protected by the laws, and hopefully one day they will recieve them too.

Originally Posted by thrawn
I'm not saying that if a woman worked her way up she shouldn't be considered for a job, I'm not saying that all males would be more suited to high management positions then females, but there is a chance, considering men have been running businesses for a whole lot longer. (Bolding mine)
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. You say that men and women should have an equal opprotunity, but then you say men might be more qualified because they have been running buisness longer. How does the fact that many men have been running buisness make any one man any more able that any one woman, unless the man has been personally running a buisness for a long time and the woman has no experience? It really just sounds like an issue that women have been fighting for a long time, you can't assume that women are going to fail if you never gave them the chance to prove themselves or gain the experience or whatever it may be.

Originally Posted by dawningoftime
One theorist went so far to say that if a women takes her husbands last name she is loosing her identity. Women have to invent a language of thier own because all language is made by men and therefore oppresses women (I'm not making this stuff up).
I don't think that a woman wanting to keep her own name is really going overboard. I think that many women fight for others to have the freedom to choose the life they want; I don't think most feminists would say that no woman should do housework, but rather that women should be allowed to have a job and maybe have their husband or signifact other take care of household duties or possibly share them. Men almost always keep their name when they get married, I personally don't have a problem with the idea of changing my name when I get married (unless he really has a horrible last name), but I don't think that a woman should be chastised or considered abnormal for not making that change.

Originally Posted by haha
I also think that if there is a person who claims gender discrimination is should be taken seriously, a not just thrown aside. You'll notice i said 'person' and not women, because my maths teacher (male), pointed out that men are sometimes discriminated against too in professions such as teaching and nursing.
I agree that men face sexism issues as well and that is important to remember. Men have to fight the sterotype of what it means to be masculine. One of my professors last year had a husband who is a physics professor, and he took off time to raise their second child, essentially paternity leave even though our school does not technically offer that for faculty of either sex, and he still faces issues in his department with people who have problems with his actions. Men also have to deal with the slow to change notions that women are the better childcare providers (including in custody cases) and that men cannot be sexually harrassed or assulted (or suffer from domestic violence).

[haha]

I don't think that a woman wanting to keep her own name is really going overboard.
I agree that if a woman chooses to keep her own name then that's her choice, but it's also going a bit too far to say that it takes away their identity, especially if they WANT to change it. What would really show that the world has changed in terms of it's sexism issues is if once a man changed his name to take the females name :D Now that i'd like to see.

Another point which some people may not know is that in my culture no female changes her name when she gets married. ( I'm from Bangladesh btw) My mum and every other female i know who's married has different last names to her husbands. And what's ironic is that a third world country can technically be seen as being more in touch with women's rights than Western developed countries. Although, that's not really fair to say, considering that the tradition (I think) originated from western culture.

[thrawn]

I'm not saying that I'm against women keeping their name after marriage, i have no issues with it whatsoever, but if feminists are saying that women need to keep their last names to be considered equal to men, is rather ridiculous. Plimpy my point about men running businesses for longer, is that if a man runs a successful business, i.e a big business earning millions a year, then usually he teaches his son how to run the business and teaching him all his secrets, making him potentially more suited to the position then a female. Also with high management positions, if the female wants to have children then its a bit of a problem, because I would think its rather hard to be in a high management position and raise kids at the same time.

I'm not denying what feminism in the past has done, and many good things have come from it, I just think that some feminists are now trying to turn it the other way, so that men are to be discriminated against, because they are so pro-female, not pro-equality. And yes men do get the worse end of the treatment in some cases, but so do women, but thats life, people just need to deal with it.

Btw my experiences wern't from one person, I've encountered many more.

[PLIMPY]

Originally Posted by haha
I agree that if a woman chooses to keep her own name then that's her choice, but it's also going a bit too far to say that it takes away their identity, especially if they WANT to change it. What would really show that the world has changed in terms of it's sexism issues is if once a man changed his name to take the females name Now that i'd like to see.
I tried to avoid saying that I agreed that it would take away her identity before (I was kind of hoping no one would notice :p ) mostly because I don't feel that way, but I think if someone does feel that way that it is a valid feeling/issue, but I guess maybe I'll take back what I said before about not thinking it being overboard, but I still agree that a woman has the right to keep her given name if she chooses. I was thinking the same thing about a man changing his name when I first posted. :rotfl:

Originally Posted by haha
Another point which some people may not know is that in my culture no female changes her name when she gets married. ( I'm from Bangladesh btw) My mum and every other female i know who's married has different last names to her husbands.
I had actually never heard that, it is nice to know. I wonder at what point that became a common practice in "western" societies.

Originally Posted by thrawn
I just think that some feminists are now trying to turn it the other way, so that men are to be discriminated against, because they are so pro-female, not pro-equality. And yes men do get the worse end of the treatment in some cases, but so do women, but thats life, people just need to deal with it.
I definetly don't agree with putting men down in any way, I think that we (society or what have you) should be striving for equality (and I personally think getting rid of a lot of stereotyical gender roles) not advancing one group at the expense of another, but I think that it is honorable that there are some people who are willing to stand up and try to fix the mistreatments they see in the world rather than just accepting them.

Originally Posted by thrawn
if a man runs a successful business,i.e a big business earning millions a year, then usually he teaches his son how to run the business and teaching him all his secrets, making him potentially more suited to the position then a female. Also with high management positions, if the female wants to have children then its a bit of a problem, because I would think its rather hard to be in a high management position and raise kids at the same time.
I understand what you are trying to say now, but I guess I just don't understand why a parent running a company couldn't teach their children how to follow in their shoes, I guess I just don't understand a father running a company would say, "here son come into the office and I will show you how it is done, no (insert female name here) you go into the kitchen and your mother will show you how to make dinner." Maybe parents teaching many of the same things to their children regarless of gender is a place to start. As for having children and working, men have been doing it for a very long time, but I think that it probably for a different thread.

[haha]

I understand what you are trying to say now, but I guess I just don't understand why a parent running a company couldn't teach their children how to follow in their shoes, I guess I just don't understand a father running a company would say, "here son come into the office and I will show you how it is done, no (insert female name here) you go into the kitchen and your mother will show you how to make dinner." Maybe parents teaching many of the same things to their children regarless of gender is a place to start. As for having children and working, men have been doing it for a very long time, but I think that it probably for a different thread.
i was thinking the same thing. Why does the man who ran the business have to teach his son :huh: what if his son had no interest whatsoever in the business but it was his daughter who was business savvy. You can't then deny that the woman would have just as much right to run the business because her dad would have taught her everything she knows.

This actually made me think of an ad i saw, maybe other people have seen it too? It's for KFC and they were saying that the kids could choose weather they wanted a tonka vehicle or a my little pony as a gift in the pack. It showed a girl playing with the cars saving the princess, and the boy playing karate with the pony :D I thought it was really cleaver the way they did that, and the messages that they were conveying.

[thrawn]

The man usually teaches the son about the business, usually because thats the way its been done for centuries. What used to happen is that the men would pass on their inheritance to their son, not daughters because the world was different back then, and most upper class people are generally pretty conservative, and continue this tradition. I dont wanna go into this too much, because then you would have to take a look at gender roles etc, which is a bit off topic. And the reason why a daughter even if she was business oriented wouldnt be chose to take over the business is because in the conservatives eyes its usually the males role to run the business, and the daughter would have access to plenty of money as it was. Typically the daughters of high end business men are meant to marry the son's of other high end business men, who usually inherit their own fathers company.

[haha]

That's a very steriotypically way of looking at it (and some might even say sexist), and just because it's been done that way for centuries doesn't mean it has to continue to be done that way now. Traditions do change with time, and it's not an obligation for the head of a companie to naturally have to teach the son the ropes, and marry the daughter off to a man in charge of another company.

[thrawn]

I never said it was an obligation, I said it's what has happened in the past, and what still happens. Anyhow this is getting a bit off topic :P

[haha]

I agree with:
- yes it's happened in the past
- and it's getting a bit off topic :p
I disagree with:
- it's what still happens now (or has to happen now)

Ok now back to the topic of the thread...

[Fred Black]

In some countries particularly in some developing countires its the men who work and women who look after the house and that's how i viewed life as a child, but i grew up in London and realised that that was wrong as wherever i looked you could see women going to work too. However i soon realised why this may be different to some countries: In the UK there are a lot of jobs and a lot of money so the quality of life is good, but in third world countries there isn't a lot of jobs and poor pay and so men need to work hard jobs (in their opinion) to earn more money

[haha]

In some countries particularly in some developing countires its the men who work and women who look after the house and that's how i viewed life as a child
Yes that true. But also in developing countries, i learnt about how when the father dies because of the physical labour that they have to endure a lot of the time, the women have to try to earn money and because of their inexperience the family is in trouble. These are the families that companies like 40 Hour famine help, and they were telling us about it when they came to our school. Now their teaching the women how to make money for their family, so in time that might even change. You never know...

[PLIMPY]

Originally Posted by haha
Some of the things that modern day women take for granted like the right to vote was very hard for our predecessors, who really had to lobby and fight for that right. I put this thread up to discuss some important people in women suffrage movements throughout history, not only the right to vote but also to have jobs after marriage etc.

In the United States, some of our more famous suffragettes were Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony, although sadly, none of them lived long enough to the passage of the nineteenth amendement, which in the United States granted national suffrage. It is probably important to also remember some of the early feminist thinkers such as Mary Wollestencraft and John Stuart Mill along with his more radical wife Harriet Taylor Mill.

I had a professor who saw feminism as a farily cyclical thing, that women would advance and then there would be a reaction to it. The French Revolution allowed women some rights even if not codified and that was takes away in the empire that followed.Women took up jobs such as midwifery and they are discredited by the predominately male dominated profession of physicians. She also saw Nazism as at least partially a response to the growing rights and roles of women following the First World War. She believed that we were going through such a period, although I don't suppose that that belongs here. I'm not sure that I have done her lectures any justice whatsoever, but I thought I'd throw the theory out there.

[haha]

In the United States, some of our more famous suffragettes were Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony, although sadly, none of them lived long enough to the passage of the nineteenth amendement, which in the United States granted national suffrage. A similar thing happened in Australian history, although it's not relating to women's rights. Sir Henry Parks who pushed for the states of Ausralia to become a federation for years and years died 5 years before it happened (1901). He died in 1896 :sad: sad really because of all the work he did. And the women did in your case.

[Aurora Evans]

... Oh btw you make the point that women makes 84 cents to every mans dollar on average, im not sure if ur saying its a bad thing or not, but i just think it has to do with the types of jobs males/females typically take. Aslong as males and females get equal pay for doing the same job im satisified.

The problem is that women don't get equal pay for doing the same job as a man - especially in professional occupations.

Thirty-five years ago, in Australia, it became illegal to pay women less than men for doing the same job. However, when it comes to salaries, the scales are still anything but even.

Marketing Manager
Male $89, 859
Female $69, 303

Sales Manager
Male $79, 939
Female $53, 398

Accountant
Male $61, 682
Female $49, 146

Australian Dollars. Statistics taken from the recent Australian Institute of Management survey. Results are due for release in 2005.

[haha]

Gender Gap Equality in Europe (http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2002/01/study/TN0201101S.html)

If you look at the above site then you'll see a table with figures on how the gap is closing in the EU but still none of the percentages go to 90%. The highest is 88.2% although it is good to see the percentages rising over time.

[English Girlie]

There are so many sexist inequalities and prejudices that still exist. Women are still prisoners of a cult of youth and beauty that does not affect men. Both sexes are expected to fulfil socially constructed gender roles that are not 'natural' but socially conditioned.

[haha]

And when you look throughout history you see that this has been the case for a long time. If you step outside the boundaries that society places then you are considered abnormal, a freak etc. But what's interesting is that different societies have differnt ideas on 'normal' so it's pretty easy to discriminate. Although to be fair, men do get discriminated against too, but just on a whole, not as much as women.

[PLIMPY]

I think that a lot of people suffer from the perceptions of how society thinks that they should be or what they can or should do, and I think that this has gone on for quite a while. I caanot help but think that if a vast majority of women had honestly been taught to believe in themselves and believed that they deserved to vote and have a life outside of men and in the public sphere, then rights for women would have happened much sooner. You cannot ignore half of the population of the world unless a lot of them are willing to be ignored. It took the feminists and strong, public women and men to show women that they could question their role in society.
And as English Girlie was pointing out and haha added to, it is still going on, the perceptions of who we should be and what we can and should achieve play a large role in society. One of my high school teachers said that the reason that a woman will not become President of the United States any time soon is that women won't vote for her. It isn't even enough that women have to work against the antiquated men and the media images of perfection that are perpetuated by both sexes through the media, but also that women have to convince women that they are just as capable. I don't believe in voting or supporting a woman just because she is a woman, I hold women to the same standards that I hold men to and I think that having incompetent women in high positions isn't going to convince anybody that women are equally capable, and besides that, who wants to put someone in office who isn't going to do the best job for their constituency? and if I don't agree with her politics then I won't vote for her either. I think that judging all people without reference to sex, color or sexual orientation is the only way to really gain equality.
I have a roommate right now, who honestly questions whether women can do things as well as men do. She says that her mother has told her that all of the principals she has worked under when she was a teacher, if they were men, they were good, and if they were women they weren't as good. She questions whether women can hold positions of power, such as president or Prime Minister and be able to do as good a job as a man, maybe we just aren't biological as apt at such things. I cannot understand how any woman in "western" society today can question the abilities of women.

Okay, so I didn't mean to get so far off topic, but I felt the need to vent a little.

[haha]

I think that a lot of people suffer from the perceptions of how society thinks that they should be or what they can or should do, and I think that this has gone on for quite a while.
i would say thatit's gone on for the whole of history, because I honestly can't think of a time in history when there hasn't been expectations from society about how women should act. But, i irony is that now there's also some discrimination against men, although small. I've mentioned this before, but my maths teacher (male) was saying that a lot of people don't acknowledge the discrimination against male teachers and nurses.

[Cheshire_Cat]

Oh I just came back from my English class and guess what we were going on about..
Several people checked dictionaries for the defination of women...lets just say they were not very flattering some of them. I don't know how old the dictionary were though so it maybe a non-issue
For me it boils down to the fact that because it is so frequently debated that it is not equal yet. I have seen stats for amount of money men make to the dollar compared to women and it doesn't add up especially higher up on the scale not really with min. wage jobs or lower professional jobs.

I think a lot of girls are taught early on about gender roles not formally taught all the time but it gets in their brain. Kids hear TONS of stuff so they are probably taught from an early age how they should act. It maybe very underground now (1st world countries I'm talking since that is what I know) but it's still there-in the toys, media, games, books, words used. Heck even the - he's soo feminine...hmmm...that's a huge insult to women. Likes it really all that bad being "girly" Like I said it may not be balant Women aren't Smart like Man slogans but it's there everyday..if you actually think about what's going on.


Anyways...I think people just need to be conscience of it. Not to the point of over doing it so there's a reverse discrimination but enough so that one day when a man takes his wife last name no one even blinks an eye. No one even gasp when there a women president or higher CEO. That is the ultimate I would like. Complete tolerance.

[PLIMPY]

Originally Posted by haha
I've mentioned this before, but my maths teacher (male) was saying that a lot of people don't acknowledge the discrimination against male teachers and nurses.
I think that those issues to need to be discussed. The media also portrays the ideal man as having huge byceps and washboard abs, they aren't supposed to cry and they are supposed to be "macho" and "manly" with all of the things that they imply. I think that men too have the pressure to fit into the stereotypes. Which also makes people take some crimes against men less seriously because "they should be able to defend themselves" especially things like domestic abuse and sexual assaults. In the past in the United States at least, women were almost automatically given custody of the children if there was a divorce, and there have been fathers who have had to fight to get it so that both parents get equal consideration in custody disputes.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_Cat
Anyways...I think people just need to be conscience of it. Not to the point of over doing it so there's a reverse discrimination but enough so that one day when a man takes his wife last name no one even blinks an eye. No one even gasp when there a women president or higher CEO. That is the ultimate I would like. Complete tolerance.
I definitly agree.
P.S. :welcome: to the formus Cheshire_Cat

[haha]

Several people checked dictionaries for the defination of women...lets just say they were not very flattering some of them. I don't know how old the dictionary were though so it maybe a non-issue
Could you give some examples :huh: I've never thought about looking up women in the dictionary but i might give it a try tonight when i get home. And then compare it to what they say about men.