"Day Without A Woman" - General Strike - March 8, 2017

PJ_Soul

Drowned Out said:

Kat said:

Drowned Out said:

Solidarity, sisters

Caution, NSFW. Chile photo has nudity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/68-exquisite-photos-of-women-resisting-around-the-world_us_58b88347e4b02a4e8ddb7314?

Aaawwww damn. The sad irony of having to post that disclaimer today due to the sexualization of breasts.
Thanks kat, really enjoyed those....heartening.

Ditto - amazing photos.
And yeah, too bad about the sexualization of the breasts in those couple of photos. Kat, if those had been men and not women, all else equal, would you have warned us? Just wondering. I don't know about Seattle, but topless women and men are equal up here, so if men don't need a NSFW warning, then I figure the women shouldn't either (just making a point - I do know why you said it... It's just sad that you felt you had to).

my2hands

I've decided I'm not voting for a male for any office in any election until women are equally represented in elected office. Regardless of party or position, this country desperately needs equal representation of females in elected office. If there isn't a female candidate on the ticket, I'm not casting a vote for that office.

US Senate - Only 50 women have been a US Senator since 1789. The first was 1922, with the first woman actually being elected in 1932. Currently there are only 21 female Senators out if 100 (21%)

US House of Representatives - currently there are only 84 female members of the house (19%)

US Governors - There have only been 40 female governors in the history of The United States, with only 4 (FOUR) current female Governors.

A huge majority of female elected officials are Democrat (shocker!)

jeffbr

my2hands said:

I've decided I'm not voting for a male for any office in any election until women are equally represented in elected office. Regardless of party or position, this country desperately needs equal representation of females in elected office. If there isn't a female candidate on the ticket, I'm not casting a vote for that office.

US Senate - Only 50 women have been a US Senator since 1789. The first was 1922, with the first woman actually being elected in 1932. Currently there are only 21 female Senators out if 100 (21%)

US House of Representatives - currently there are only 84 female members of the house (19%)

US Governors - There have only been 40 female governors in the history of The United States, with only 4 (FOUR) current female Governors.

A huge majority of female elected officials are Democrat (shocker!)

Interesting stuff, my2hands. I didn't realize only 50 women have ever been US Senators. Both the senators from my state are women, and at one point women held both senate positions and the governor's office, so I know we aren't afraid to elect women here. It is shameful that it is such a relatively rare thing.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

Kat said:

Drowned Out said:

Solidarity, sisters

Caution, NSFW. Chile photo has nudity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/68-exquisite-photos-of-women-resisting-around-the-world_us_58b88347e4b02a4e8ddb7314?

Aaawwww damn. The sad irony of having to post that disclaimer today due to the sexualization of breasts.
Thanks kat, really enjoyed those....heartening.

Ditto - amazing photos.
And yeah, too bad about the sexualization of the breasts in those couple of photos. Kat, if those had been men and not women, all else equal, would you have warned us? Just wondering. I don't know about Seattle, but topless women and men are equal up here, so if men don't need a NSFW warning, then I figure the women shouldn't either (just making a point - I do know why you said it... It's just sad that you felt you had to).

it's a fair warning. had an exec walked by my cube while I was scrolling by that pic, I would have been in deep doo doo.

mace1229

my2hands said:

I've decided I'm not voting for a male for any office in any election until women are equally represented in elected office. Regardless of party or position, this country desperately needs equal representation of females in elected office. If there isn't a female candidate on the ticket, I'm not casting a vote for that office.

US Senate - Only 50 women have been a US Senator since 1789. The first was 1922, with the first woman actually being elected in 1932. Currently there are only 21 female Senators out if 100 (21%)

US House of Representatives - currently there are only 84 female members of the house (19%)

US Governors - There have only been 40 female governors in the history of The United States, with only 4 (FOUR) current female Governors.

A huge majority of female elected officials are Democrat (shocker!)

But wouldn't that be equally sexist? Shouldn't everyone vote for the best candidate, regardless of sex, race, religion?
And what would you consider equal representation? I would not consider 50% to be equal because politics attracts less women. You may argue that is a cultural thing that needs to change, and you could be right. But I would argue professions that require long hours and time away from home detract from women. Men feel more comfortable working late and being away from home than women. That is not meant to be disrespectful in any way, but shows the nurture quality women have, especially when they have families. When kids are sick who do they go to? When they need comfort who do they go to? Mom.
We are often compared to other countries, but one factor that is rarely mentioned is the work week. Many other countries work a lot less than here. More and more often people are expected to work 50-60 hour weeks or more, which does make it harder for a working mom.
Politicians spend a lot of time away from home, and a lot of mothers are not up for that.
I think you would see more politicians, more women climbing the cooperate ladder, a smaller wage gap if we stuck to a 35-40 hours work week like many other countries do.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

Kat said:

Drowned Out said:

Solidarity, sisters

Caution, NSFW. Chile photo has nudity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/68-exquisite-photos-of-women-resisting-around-the-world_us_58b88347e4b02a4e8ddb7314?

Aaawwww damn. The sad irony of having to post that disclaimer today due to the sexualization of breasts.
Thanks kat, really enjoyed those....heartening.

Ditto - amazing photos.
And yeah, too bad about the sexualization of the breasts in those couple of photos. Kat, if those had been men and not women, all else equal, would you have warned us? Just wondering. I don't know about Seattle, but topless women and men are equal up here, so if men don't need a NSFW warning, then I figure the women shouldn't either (just making a point - I do know why you said it... It's just sad that you felt you had to).

it's a fair warning. had an exec walked by my cube while I was scrolling by that pic, I would have been in deep doo doo.

Probably not, if you explained the context. Anyway, as I said, I know why she gave the warning, it's just sad that anyone feels it's necessary. Also sad that an executive would be mad about it. Kind of the whole point of this day, right? To stop that kind of thinking?

Ms. Haiku

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

I've decided I'm not voting for a male for any office in any election until women are equally represented in elected office. Regardless of party or position, this country desperately needs equal representation of females in elected office. If there isn't a female candidate on the ticket, I'm not casting a vote for that office.

US Senate - Only 50 women have been a US Senator since 1789. The first was 1922, with the first woman actually being elected in 1932. Currently there are only 21 female Senators out if 100 (21%)

US House of Representatives - currently there are only 84 female members of the house (19%)

US Governors - There have only been 40 female governors in the history of The United States, with only 4 (FOUR) current female Governors.

A huge majority of female elected officials are Democrat (shocker!)

But wouldn't that be equally sexist? Shouldn't everyone vote for the best candidate, regardless of sex, race, religion?
And what would you consider equal representation? I would not consider 50% to be equal because politics attracts less women. You may argue that is a cultural thing that needs to change, and you could be right. But I would argue professions that require long hours and time away from home detract from women. Men feel more comfortable working late and being away from home than women. That is not meant to be disrespectful in any way, but shows the nurture quality women have, especially when they have families. When kids are sick who do they go to? When they need comfort who do they go to? Mom.
We are often compared to other countries, but one factor that is rarely mentioned is the work week. Many other countries work a lot less than here. More and more often people are expected to work 50-60 hour weeks or more, which does make it harder for a working mom.
Politicians spend a lot of time away from home, and a lot of mothers are not up for that.
I think you would see more politicians, more women climbing the cooperate ladder, a smaller wage gap if we stuck to a 35-40 hours work week like many other countries do.

This is a very old argument that doesn't make sense. Men and women are responsible for child care. Women can work long hours. Our bodies don't shut down after 40 hours of work. If we have careers we can work all that needs to be done to get the job done. Women aren't mothers first, they aren't born hoping to be mothers. They are born to grow and learn and be engaged with life.

There is no reason for a women who wants to run for office to consider the path and walk down the path if it aligns with her career goals.

However, in order for a woman to be a professional who decides to be a mother she needs complete ownership of when to be a mother - which is what part of this day is about.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

I've decided I'm not voting for a male for any office in any election until women are equally represented in elected office. Regardless of party or position, this country desperately needs equal representation of females in elected office. If there isn't a female candidate on the ticket, I'm not casting a vote for that office.

US Senate - Only 50 women have been a US Senator since 1789. The first was 1922, with the first woman actually being elected in 1932. Currently there are only 21 female Senators out if 100 (21%)

US House of Representatives - currently there are only 84 female members of the house (19%)

US Governors - There have only been 40 female governors in the history of The United States, with only 4 (FOUR) current female Governors.

A huge majority of female elected officials are Democrat (shocker!)

But wouldn't that be equally sexist? Shouldn't everyone vote for the best candidate, regardless of sex, race, religion?
And what would you consider equal representation? I would not consider 50% to be equal because politics attracts less women. You may argue that is a cultural thing that needs to change, and you could be right. But I would argue professions that require long hours and time away from home detract from women. Men feel more comfortable working late and being away from home than women. That is not meant to be disrespectful in any way, but shows the nurture quality women have, especially when they have families. When kids are sick who do they go to? When they need comfort who do they go to? Mom.
We are often compared to other countries, but one factor that is rarely mentioned is the work week. Many other countries work a lot less than here. More and more often people are expected to work 50-60 hour weeks or more, which does make it harder for a working mom.
Politicians spend a lot of time away from home, and a lot of mothers are not up for that.
I think you would see more politicians, more women climbing the cooperate ladder, a smaller wage gap if we stuck to a 35-40 hours work week like many other countries do.

Let's say you're right about women feeling less comfortable working late and being away from home than men (you're not). That seems to tell you that that makes it okay for women to not be properly represented in government (that would be around 50%), when in fact the answer to that would be that politics have to change to accommodate women, since our society needs to be properly represented in government even if it's not the most convenient thing in the world. However, since you're "off" on your assessment of women (and men, for that matter) in the first place, and seem to dismiss the societal/cultural sexism that creates the inequality, I suppose that's a moot point.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

Kat said:

Drowned Out said:

Solidarity, sisters

Caution, NSFW. Chile photo has nudity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/68-exquisite-photos-of-women-resisting-around-the-world_us_58b88347e4b02a4e8ddb7314?

Aaawwww damn. The sad irony of having to post that disclaimer today due to the sexualization of breasts.
Thanks kat, really enjoyed those....heartening.

Ditto - amazing photos.
And yeah, too bad about the sexualization of the breasts in those couple of photos. Kat, if those had been men and not women, all else equal, would you have warned us? Just wondering. I don't know about Seattle, but topless women and men are equal up here, so if men don't need a NSFW warning, then I figure the women shouldn't either (just making a point - I do know why you said it... It's just sad that you felt you had to).

it's a fair warning. had an exec walked by my cube while I was scrolling by that pic, I would have been in deep doo doo.

Probably not, if you explained the context. Anyway, as I said, I know why she gave the warning, it's just sad that anyone feels it's necessary. Also sad that an executive would be mad about it. Kind of the whole point of this day, right? To stop that kind of thinking?

That's right PJ_Soul.
If women want to march or protest shirtless I am all for that and support it 100%.

mace1229

None of you know any women who have chosen to put their career on hold to raise their children? That is hard to believe because there are a lot out there. And I don't see how there is anything sexist about bringing it up.
I never said women cant handle long hours or your bodies shut down after 40 hours. Please don't put demeaning words in my mouth.
But the fact is when faced with the decision to go back to work full time and pay for child care (which means seeing your children for about 2 hours in the evening before putting them to bed), far more women than men make the decision to put their career on hold so they can continue to raise their children themselves at home. That's not my opinion, that is a fact. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, and therefore how is it disrespectful or sexist? Stay at home moms probably work harder than most who have time to post on here.
And my point was, with any amount of women choosing to stay home it would mean than equal representation is not 50%.

And my question was never answered. How is voting for someone because they are a man not sexist? Would it not be racist if I said I didn't vote for Obama because he is black and I don't want a black man leading our country? How is what you said any less sexist than that? Vote for whoever is the best candidate, regardless of sex or race. But somehow you don't approve of that?

I wanted my wife to return to work after our first, but she insisted on staying home. I wouldn't trade jobs with her, and I think my job is already pretty tough to begin with. She works hard every day. And those commercials about moms not getting a sick day don't even know how true they are. And it took a lot of sacrifices to make that happen, date night is now strapping our kids into the shopping cart at Costco while we eat a pizza. How can anyone be offended by someone making that decision and sacrifice?

PJ_Soul

Of course we ALL probably know plenty of women who have put their career on hold to raise their kids, and I bet most of us don't know a single man who has done the same (or maybe know one or two out of many who have, and they are considered "new age" or something, lol). That is a symptom of a sexist society. Of a society that was built on sexism. What you're seeing are women doing what they have to in a sexist society that was born, grown, and maintained over centuries. That is the whole point. Don't get me wrong. Women are indeed different from men because they bear and nurse children... but to me, that means society needs to adjust to accommodate that, not the other way around. And no, there is nothing wrong with a human being wanting to stay home with their kids. It's just that in many, many cases, the option are extremely limited and they are either forced to stay home or forced to work when they don't want to because of their children (that goes for women and men). Again, society was not built to accommodate women participating fully in it or to make decisions that work for them. It's time that changed. Society also isn't built to accommodate men who want to fulfill roles that have traditionally been considered female ones. That also needs to change.

mace1229

So if we can agree on that, how is it not reasonable to say as a result women will not be equally represented in the workforce and politics?
Or I guess we just disagree on it being the result of a sexist society that women chose to do so. I don't think so.

PJ_Soul

If you're talking women in government, it is neither here nor there IMO, because the population needs to be properly represented. There are a whole lot of women out there who don't have kids, want to work a lot with kids, have kids who are older and don't need the care, etc etc etc. More than enough extremely qualified women to fill out 50% of the government. That they only make up 21% of the Senate (probably less of Congress) is not because ALL the women are at home with babies, lol. There is a very complex web of reasons why women aren't more involved in politics, and the fact that they bear children is the least of them. Stigmas, opportunities, sterotypes, gender roles, old boys' clubs, and sexism are what is keeping better representation by women out of government, not our wombs.

Drowned Out

I recently discovered that nine Muslim majority countries have had female leaders. Found that interesting in the context of these^^ posts.

I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did.
I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues.
My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took.
She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt ..she's hoping a new career will follow...but man, it's frustrating knowing how this all works. Not fair at all.

drakeheuer14

Im curious to hear what some of you would consider to be a solution to this issue^?

All I can think of is not to have kids.

mace1229

Drowned Out said:

I recently discovered that nine Muslim majority countries have had female leaders. Found that interesting in the context of these^^ posts.

I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did.
I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues.
My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took.
She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt ..she's hoping a new career will follow...but man, it's frustrating knowing how this all works. Not fair at all.

What isn't fair about that? That when you have kids you are expected to take care of and raise them? No one said having kids doesn't require sacrifices.
We chose to do the same thing. If and when she re-enters work she will have lost 5-6 years. But we had a choice, to pay for childcare and have a stranger see our kids more than both their parents do, or make financial sacrifices so they can have that time and she can be the one to raise them. I see nothing wrong or unfair about making that decision and sacrificing her position in the work force. You cant expect someone to take 5 years off and still climb the cooperate ladder at the same time can you? That wouldn't make sense.
And I know my wife would make a better stay at home parent than myself. I love my kids, but she's just better at it.
When our first was born and slept in the nursery for the first time my wife woke me up and said "I think I hear the baby crying." I got up, shut the door, and crawled back in bed. In my mind the problem was solved. She asked if he was still crying, to which I responded "I don't know, but you can't hear him anymore can you?"
I would actually have preferred my wife to work, but her exact words were "I am not paying a stranger to raise my kids." And in a divorce, alimony is suppose to take into consideration of time off of work and putting a career on hold to raise children. If she got a crappy lawyer and you think she got the short end of the stick, I'm sure she'd still cash that check if it had a little extra in it to compensate for her sacrifices if you feel that bad about it.
I personally think it is demeaning when the attitude is mothers didn't have a choice or were forced into this position. They are not, and it is a noble sacrifice to put their children first. Like I said, Any double-income family has that choice, many decide not to take it. There is nothing wrong by deciding to be a mother over an employee.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

Kat said:

Drowned Out said:

Solidarity, sisters

Caution, NSFW. Chile photo has nudity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/68-exquisite-photos-of-women-resisting-around-the-world_us_58b88347e4b02a4e8ddb7314?

Aaawwww damn. The sad irony of having to post that disclaimer today due to the sexualization of breasts.
Thanks kat, really enjoyed those....heartening.

Ditto - amazing photos.
And yeah, too bad about the sexualization of the breasts in those couple of photos. Kat, if those had been men and not women, all else equal, would you have warned us? Just wondering. I don't know about Seattle, but topless women and men are equal up here, so if men don't need a NSFW warning, then I figure the women shouldn't either (just making a point - I do know why you said it... It's just sad that you felt you had to).

it's a fair warning. had an exec walked by my cube while I was scrolling by that pic, I would have been in deep doo doo.

Probably not, if you explained the context. Anyway, as I said, I know why she gave the warning, it's just sad that anyone feels it's necessary. Also sad that an executive would be mad about it. Kind of the whole point of this day, right? To stop that kind of thinking?

well, I know my work culture, and it wouldn't be acceptable. in my office, we often have outside business partners walking through and they have a clear view of my screen.

I get in shit for just being on THIS site.

PJPOWER

Drowned Out said:

I recently discovered that nine Muslim majority countries have had female leaders. Found that interesting in the context of these^^ posts.

I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did.
I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues.
My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took.
She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt ..she's hoping a new career will follow...but man, it's frustrating knowing how this all works. Not fair at all.

Not fair that all men between the ages of 18-25 have to sign up for a draft into the military either...but that's neither here nor there...How many men during WW2 and the Vietnam War were forced to put their careers on hold to risk uncertain death against their will? I'd rather pay to ensure their medical care before even considering contraceptive or abortion funding(not that there are too many left from WW2, but any veterans should be first in line in my opinion).

mace1229

My comments from yesterday and this morning were my reaction to the negative views on stay at home moms. It seems women's day and the march weren't focused on women at all, but women in the work force instead.
People seem to think stay at home moms didn't have a choice, and should be at work supporting the fight for women. That is so wrong. The mom who gives up her job and career to focus on her children does more than a lot of you would ever know. This week alone several negative comments were made in the break room about stay-at-home moms (mostly by working women) only to have them look at me and apologize or rephrase their comment before I could respond. The focus here seems to be to lift up the hard working women and fight for higher pay and to not let family get in the way of your career. That is great, but why not applaud those who chose to give up their career for the sake of their own children. And it is a choice, I know many stay at home moms and all gave it up as their own choice. Even comments that imply they stayed at home because of family culture, or even worse that they couldn't get an equally paying job are so insulting, which was said several times at my work this week (and implied once or twice on threads here). I think that is the most noble thing a working mom can do. And allows me to go to work and not worry how my kids are being taken care of because I know the only person in the world who can love a kid more than a father is the one taking care of them right now.

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

My comments from yesterday and this morning were my reaction to the negative views on stay at home moms. It seems women's day and the march weren't focused on women at all, but women in the work force instead.
People seem to think stay at home moms didn't have a choice, and should be at work supporting the fight for women. That is so wrong. The mom who gives up her job and career to focus on her children does more than a lot of you would ever know. This week alone several negative comments were made in the break room about stay-at-home moms (mostly by working women) only to have them look at me and apologize or rephrase their comment before I could respond. The focus here seems to be to lift up the hard working women and fight for higher pay and to not let family get in the way of your career. That is great, but why not applaud those who chose to give up their career for the sake of their own children. And it is a choice, I know many stay at home moms and all gave it up as their own choice. Even comments that imply they stayed at home because of family culture, or even worse that they couldn't get an equally paying job are so insulting, which was said several times at my work this week (and implied once or twice on threads here). I think that is the most noble thing a working mom can do. And allows me to go to work and not worry how my kids are being taken care of because I know the only person in the world who can love a kid more than a father is the one taking care of them right now.

but wasn't the whole women's march to do with equality in the work force? it was called "day without a woman". wasn't that the whole point? there's nothing wrong with staying home. if my wife and I could have swung it, we would have done the same. Not sure why anyone would shame that. but this march in particular was to highlight how important they are in the workforce, and deserve equal treatment and equal pay.