Some jobs are more female, because females naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; some jobs are more male, because males naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; simple as.....

Quote from dyslexic_banana

Some jobs are more female, because females naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; some jobs are more male, because males naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; simple as.....

Could you please explain that slowly to the halfwit Harriet Harman please.

Quote from Marx

From Yahoo Answers

I thought feminists didn't want a bunch of "perverted men" working as nurses or daycare workers? BTW, why do restaurants call waiters and waitresses "servers"? Half the time the waitr/ess takes your order and then another person serves you your food. So, the "server" doesn't even "serve" the food!

Well they don't want gender equality really; the fems just want to be sure that in whatever endeavor they choose they are given an advantage over any male who may have the same interest.
There are certainly differences in the sexes, and vocations must to some degree reflect that. For instance I think it is true that women are more nurturing (no, that doesn't mean that men are uncaring) and so I think better at things like supervising young children (nursery school, for instance). Men are physically stronger and more aggresive in nature and so better at everything from mechanical engineering to bull riding. It doesn't make sense to me that anybody---feminist, antifeminist, or somewhere in-betwen--- would expect every vocation to be equally divided between the two sexes.

Quote from Jake8

It doesn't make sense to me that anybody---feminist, antifeminist, or somewhere in-betwen--- would expect every vocation to be equally divided between the two sexes.

The only vocations the trollops wish to have 50/50 splits are those in which men currently form the majority; if this were to be achieved, they wouldn't then start campaigning to get more men into childcare. As the saying goes: "what's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine".

Although, if they DID achieve a 50/50 split, they'd then start campaigning for even more women to take up careers in such fields; God knows how many stupid reasons they'd muster up to supposedly justify such objectives.

Quote from Marx

From Yahoo Answers

Not sure I understand this post. Are you saying that women who are flight attendants, hostesses, etc., should not be considered equals to men? How do you define equality?

I think the guy is basically insinuating that women are WILLFULLY going for less well-paid careers, and hence seem less ambitious; that is to say, that they do not hold the same desires as do men, to 'reach the top', etc etc. I agree, SPEAKING IN TERMS OF AVERAGES.

Whereas, of course, feminists insist it is down to discrimination and social expectation; but, as I always say, men aren't women, and women aren't men. You can be a non-discriminatory as you like, but you can't FORCE women into the top positions; "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.....".

Good points, DB. But what about availability? Just as most labor jobs are filled by men, and service jobs by women, could it be that because of the biases (in both cases) toward the opposite sex that certain jobs are more readily available to one sex or the other? (Not saying this is right or fair, just an observation.) And when looking for work, and needing a job right now (as opposed to having the luxury of "taking one's time" to find "just the right job"), could it be that people are just taking the routes that are most easily accessible to them?

Though I want to make this clear: feminists are wrong to expect or demand equality in numbers...equality, in my opinion, is equal worth, not necessarily equal numbers. And when I say equal worth, I mean equal opportunity and equal individual inner (spiritual) value.

Quote from dyslexic_banana

You can be a non-discriminatory as you like, but you can't FORCE women into the top positions

I don't know, I think Harriet Harman will have a bloody good try.

IMO, affirmative action ruins the idea of "equal opportunity" and "equal spiritual and individual worth." It also increases prejudice and discrimination rather than eliminating it. It is harmful to both genders, in different ways.

Quote from TERA

Good points, DB. But what about availability? Just as most labor jobs are filled by men, and service jobs by women, could it be that because of the biases (in both cases) toward the opposite sex that certain jobs are more readily available to one sex or the other? (Not saying this is right or fair, just an observation.) And when looking for work, and needing a job right now (as opposed to having the luxury of "taking one's time" to find "just the right job"), could it be that people are just taking the routes that are most easily accessible to them?

Though I want to make this clear: feminists are wrong to expect or demand equality in numbers...equality, in my opinion, is equal worth, not necessarily equal numbers. And when I say equal worth, I mean equal opportunity and equal individual inner (spiritual) value.

I find it hard to stomach the idea that women feel discouraged from entering certain professions; definitely not highly-paid ones, or from rising higher in which. You can't go for five minutes in the western world, without hearing screams of 'girl power', or hearing about some positive discrimination quotas or plans. This is going to sound like I'M biased, but I find it far more likely that men will be discouraged from entering certain professions; and mainly through fear of what OTHER MEN will think of them. If a guy goes down the pub and announces that he's just got a new job in childcare, he can expect some piss-taking, I'm sure; whereas with women, anything goes. Wanna rise to the top? "You go, girl!" Wanna have a more normal career? That's fine. Wanna work part-time, and be a part-time housewife/mother? That's also fine. Wanna be a full-time mother? That's fine. Wanna live off a rich guy? Yep, that's fine, too.

It's men that are expected to adhere to gender stereotypes, in 2008, not women. When do you ever hear someone tell a woman to "be a woman"? Exactly......

Quote from brian44

I don't know, I think Harriet Harman will have a bloody good try.

Lol, yes, I think I was being too optimistic...........

Quote from TERA

IMO, affirmative action ruins the idea of "equal opportunity" and "equal spiritual and individual worth." It also increases prejudice and discrimination rather than eliminating it. It is harmful to both genders, in different ways.

But more harmful to the male gender, by far.

Quote from TERA

Though I want to make this clear: feminists are wrong to expect or demand equality in numbers...equality, in my opinion, is equal worth, not necessarily equal numbers. And when I say equal worth, I mean equal opportunity and equal individual inner (spiritual) value.

then that makes you a moderate feminist, not a N.O.W. radical