Andrea

I suspect you do the female gender a disservice and I'm probably pouring paraffin on your female fire (because I'm a bloke) and what do I know because I've never been a female.

Take a chill luv, stop being paranoid, accept the differences in the sexes, sometimes accept the face value of results (whether in favour of females or males) and revel in the fact that if you ever have a kid and separate, you, as the female, will have a 90% chance of spendin each and every hour you like with your offspring.(That's more important that writin words on a piece of paper)

I'm off to get pissed and watch the scum suffer.

Dave (A human)

Indeed. Women under the pretense of persecution need look no further than Ray Parlour.

Dave,

Heavens, how many assumptions can one human fit into a couple of paragraphs?

"Pouring paraffin on your female fire because I'm a bloke?" Er, at which point did I indicate that I get irate because a man - as opposed to a woman - disagrees with me?

"accept the differences in the sexes" - erm, can we rewind a second? At what point did I say I didn't accept the differences in the sexes?

"Stop being paranoid" - er, where did I display this paranoia? If you read my previous posts on this thread, you'll find I was the one saying women didn't need the protection of the Orange Prize, and that the power in publishing didn't lay with men.

"Sometimes accept the face value of results" - see above paragraph.

"revel in the fact that if you ever have a kid and separate, you, as the female, will have a 90% chance of spendin each and every hour you like with your offspring" - erm, to revel in that fact - the flipside of the coin obviously being that men don't - would mean I was a prize bitch. Quite what it's got do do with what was being discussed I don't know.

"Take a chill luv, stop being paranoid" - I don't need to be either female or paranoid to find that irritating. Just human.

Take care
Andrea

<Added>

Incidentally, Dave, I didn't know men still tried to pull the old "call a woman irrational (take a chill, luv) so she'll be so busy defending herself against the charge that she won't realise you've no case", or indeed tried to switch her focus to what she does best (suggesting I should "revel in the fact that if I ever have a kid ... far more important ...") - quite bizarre that your argument turns to my reproductive capacity. Feel like I've stepped back 30 years

Sorry, IB, you've lost me there. Who is Ray Parlour?

Take care
Andrea

Please, please, if there is a God, of any form or description, please make me stop reading and make me not respond to this thread...
Have to go now...have to...

do not read this thread again, tc...do not read this thread again...

No, no, do. The more the merrier

Andrea, I can't...I'd explode....messy.

have...er...fun
tc

I've always thought that awards are a bit like clubs. When women complained about Gentlemen's clubs I always thought that they should just set up their own clubs if they wanted to. Similarly, I have no problem with men only awards, women only awards or any other group defining the parameters for their award. If it offends you then either set up your own awards or don't compete in those you don't like. At the end of the day these awards have a twofold purpose; to promote the sponsor and to advertise the books. No more, no less. Anyone who takes them any more seriously than that or reacts to their exclusivity is missing the point.
Also, I have to say that certain people in this thread seem to approaching the topic whilst carrying a large amount of personal baggage which they've allowed to creep into the discussion. I hardly think Ray Parlour's divorce settlement or child custody arrangements inform this debate nor do the dredging up of these topics do anything other than diminish the power of the arguments of those who brought them up.

Ah, so that's who Ray Parlour is. Thanks for enlightening me, Mac.

If the theme of Fathers for Justice is the debate here - and Dave & IB seem to want to take it that way - I believe that the discrimination against men in custody is outrageous, brutally unfair on men and very damaging to their children. (IB - I know from the whaling debate that you admire when people put their pen where their mouth is, so you'll be happy to hear that Fathers for Justice have previously received messages of support from me.)

I don't have to be the mother of sons to believe that, but as it happens, I am and I've no wish to see them suffer the kind of sexism that my mother did. Happily, they never truly will, because there remains the reality that - see Dave, I do accept that there are differences between the sexes - men are physically stronger than women, so will never know the physical intimidation women have (unless it's from other men, which you can hardly blame on us). As to emotional and cultural intimidation, neither men nor women now have the monopoly on that.

However, the fact of discrimination against men in child custody doesn't mean that centuries of rape, domestic violence, unequal pay for equal work, the glass ceiling, economic dependency, cultural marginalisation, sexual double standards, harrassment, women’s work and roles being denigrated, being excluded from "men-only" environments (not to mention the earlier ills of disenfranchisement, legal wife-beating etc - or indeed the fact that children were - until not so very long ago - the legal property of men, who were entitled to ensure that their wives would never see their children again, forget visitation rights) can be dismissed as "delusions of persecution" (ah, the old "accuse a woman of being irrational ...." again).

Take care
Andrea

Do you ever get that feeling that the topic is no longer about multitudinal literature awards and in-house back-patting?

My final word on women, is that their problem is their own, and they exist on an equal platform with men. Why do men get paid more? Even women will admit that most men have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. This makes us more aggressive in wage negotiations, and hence more likely to get that extra buck. Over-generalisation? Yes. Men do that a lot too, and it only aids our cause.

However, the fact of discrimination against men in child custody doesn't mean that centuries of rape, domestic violence, unequal pay for equal work, the glass ceiling, economic dependency, cultural marginalisation, sexual double standards, harrassment, women’s work and roles being denigrated, being excluded from "men-only" environments (not to mention the earlier ills of disenfranchisement, legal wife-beating etc - or indeed the fact that children were - until not so very long ago - the legal property of men, who were entitled to ensure that their wives would never see their children again, forget visitation rights) can be dismissed as "delusions of persecution" (ah, the old "accuse a woman of being irrational ...." again).

Dear God, what world are you living in? Have you been raped, domestically beaten, been given pay deliberately below that of your male peers, been denied promotion on no basis other than sex, and suffered from all the other medieval hob-nob you've listed there? Because you list it like a victim and wield what is essentially a bunch of out-of-date excuses as a weapon of righteousness indignation.

Rape isn't discrimination against women, it's crime, and even mentioning that word in this debate is completely idiotic and irrisponsible.

Let's be clear here. Reeling off a list of historic inequalities, which have been largely tackled, resolved, re-named, re-debated and re-iterated until every conceivable obstacle is instead pressed against the male of the species is the exact source of the paranoia of which we men speak. Depsite tackling the issue from every possible angle, women still get paid less. It's time women realised that it is up to them to negotiate their pay, not the government to do it for them via legislation. The glass ceiling is non-existant, with the % of high-flying females increasing with every passing day. The new phrases being coined about 'glass cliffs' pinpoints the fact that women are not choosing these jobs well in desperation to prove that they can do the role, and are hence giving female execs a bad name. Their fault, not men's.

I think we need to firm up what history is really for here. History is the path that leads to the present, and the blueprint for the future, it isn't a convenient punch to throw in reference to past problems which no longer relate to present issues. As long as women kep bantering on about a world which has long since passed, they will fail to fully take advantage of the equality their predecessors have won for them.

<Added>

So I lied, and it wasn;t my last word.




So sue me.

"Do you ever get that feeling that the topic is no longer about multitudinal literature awards and in-house back-patting?" IB, if that's the case, you certainly played your part in making it so.

"My final word on women, is that their problem is their own, and they exist on an equal platform with men."

"My final word on women" smacks of taking your ball home, but alright, this discussion can't go on for ever.

"Exist on an equal platform"? Men will always be stronger, making women vulnerable; women will always bear the children, making fathers vulnerable. Perhaps then on physical differences, the playing field is level. In cultural, economic, emotional terms I'd agree that the playing field is levelling - except that centuries of patriarchal practice are not overturned in three decades (and it was some considerable time into those decades that real change began). So women aren't likely to stop looking over their shoulder for those patriarchal practices just yet (and sometimes, yes, jumping at shadows); nor are those patriarchal practices likely to have been truly eradicated just yet.

In which case, if the pendulum has swung too far on certain issues (your ladies clubs, your Fathers for Justice) then perhaps its even stevens. So our accusations of sexism are no more delusional than yours.

I'd disagree with you that men get paid more because of - or only because of - their aggressiveness in wage negotiations. I'd say the reality is that, when kids arrive, someone has to make accommodations in their career - and that's usually women, which has a knock-on effect on their earning power, leaving women economically vulnerable. That's going to be a permanent problem, as long as children are being born. So if fathers want to claim their stake in the rearing of children, they have a responsibility to be part of resolving the problems bearing them creates for women. And if you insist on a father's rights, that means you too.

And now I'm taking my ball home too. Unless, Dave, you have anything further to say, in which case I'd be happy to respond.

Take care
Andrea

Sigh.

"Dear God, what world are you living in? Have you been raped, domestically beaten, been given pay deliberately below that of your male peers, been denied promotion on no basis other than sex, and suffered from all the other medieval hob-nob you've listed there? Because you list it like a victim and wield what is essentially a bunch of out-of-date excuses as a weapon of righteousness indignation."

Okay. Do you seriously think I would discuss with you here whether or not I've been raped etc? Get real. You raised the issue of Ray Parlour - have you been divorced, taken to the cleaners and been awarded a brutal custody settlement? I have just as much right to raise the examples of others in support of my argument as you do.

I don't list those things as a victim, I list them as facts, and I have a perfect right to do so, when you list such things as "ladies nights in pubs, ladies own insurance, women-only awards" as you have on other posts.

Rape, domestic violence "medieval hob-nobs"? Dear God, what world are you living in?

"Rape isn't discrimination against women, it's crime, and even mentioning that word in this debate is completely idiotic and irrisponsible."

Don't put words in my mouth, listen to what I say. I didn't say rape is discrimination against women. If you want to get specific, the discrimination is in not seeing rape as an abuse, which until very recently it wasn't. In which case, it is perfectly responsible to raise it in this debate.

"Let's be clear here. Reeling off a list of historic inequalities, which have been largely tackled, resolved, re-named, re-debated and re-iterated until every conceivable obstacle is instead pressed against the male of the species is the exact source of the paranoia of which we men speak."

See my previous post - point is, I reiterate, centuries of patriarchal practice can not be overturned in a matter of decades, and it is not surprising that women are still looking over their shoulder and, albeit, sometimes wrongly, jumping at shadows. In saying these issues have been "largely tackled" you are admitting yourself that they have not been fully eradicated.

"Depsite tackling the issue from every possible angle, women still get paid less. It's time women realised that it is up to them to negotiate their pay, not the government to do it for them via legislation. The glass ceiling is non-existant, with the % of high-flying females increasing with every passing day. The new phrases being coined about 'glass cliffs' pinpoints the fact that women are not choosing these jobs well in desperation to prove that they can do the role, and are hence giving female execs a bad name. Their fault, not men's."

See my previous post.

"I think we need to firm up what history is really for here. History is the path that leads to the present, and the blueprint for the future, it isn't a convenient punch to throw in reference to past problems which no longer relate to present issues. As long as women kep bantering on about a world which has long since passed, they will fail to fully take advantage of the equality their predecessors have won for them." Those "predecessors" don't feel they have fully won equality, so I find it strange that you cite them. However, again, see what I have to say about centuries of history and women looking over their shoulders.

If we're going to be clear about what history really is and it's function, let's be clear that history (especially recent history) influences our present.

Take care
Andrea

"Because you list it like a victim and wield what is essentially a bunch of out-of-date excuses as a weapon of righteousness indignation". "Righteous indignation" - seems to me I'm conducting a perfectly reasonable discussion with you (in the face of taunts from both you and Dave about my mental & emotional state) about sexism, being happy to make my points and debate your counterpoints. Seems to me like the "righteous indignation" is all yours

<Added>

Oops, IB, that was supposed to be an addition to my previous post. Still, I daresay you realised that.

A poor attempted deflection, but noted nonetheless.