I'm still waiting for you to show us your face, Karen. Or does your religion forbid it?
Once, when commuting into London, I had an embarrassing moment. I was standing up, reading a book, and had just got to a very graphic description of the discovery of a severed head in a washbasin. I guess I must have turned pale, or given something away in my expression, because a nice lady asked, "Would you like to sit down?"
Maybe that was you?
I think Shirley that 'we don't have choices' is totally valid. As an example and nothing more my mother had me in 1940,following on from my brother in 1937. For whatever reasons Father vanished for the duration in 1942.
Times when Social Security didn't exist, so she had a choice of either handing us over to charities or taking care of us. Over the years I came to accept that her duty overcame any 'love' she felt for us.
Now I look at her memory with a lot more respect than I was qualified to do when younger. She worked because she had to, she worked in a school canteen because it meant she could bring food home in jars for the open-mouthed brats. We on our side were expected to try and bring in some income to the household asap, which in our case meant working weekends in the street markets from the ages of about 10 years old.
Did we care? No, it was good, the markets were hard and working conditions would have broken a million subsequent laws I am sure, but we brought some money into the house - and that made us feel good. At a time when the average working class bloke would have been lucky to earn four quid a week our combined thirty-bob was a decent contribution.
She worked, and we worked, and IT worked. Sure love and affection were in very short supply, but we survived and I think my brother and I became independent people quite early on, as we had to be.
Personally I can accept a parental love for a child as a philosophical notion, but having had no experience of it I can't really judge. However I really don't believe in 'love' as between two adults. There are too many separating issues and values between the genders. If you can just get on together as people I feel that's about all you can expect or hope for.
I'm seriously confused here - are you talking about single working mums or mum's with partners when you complain about the benefits situation?
If I'm reading this correctly, and I don't know if I am: you think that women with children whether they have partners or not, should go out to work and not be a drain on the benefit system?
I know you say you respect the decision for mums to stay at home if they so wish - but you seem, on the whole to want them to work? Taking into consideration practicalities - don't you think it is slightly more difficult for a single woman with children to work than a woman with a supportive partner?
Or, do you think, all things being equal, that the men who fathered the children (of the single women) should as a standard practice be in sole responsibilty for the children 50% of each week? Which to my mind, to be honest, is actually a fairer way of dealing with the issue.
Then what about the bloke who doesn't want to do the washing up? Or make the beds?
PS I do both - at least my own separate bed.
I remember quite clearly getting a contract job in Brussels and asking which secretary/typist(even) I could use, when they marched me to a desk where sat a small grey box. 'There's your secretary' they said. So a woman lost her job (presumably) and a bloke of advancing years developed a whole new world of incompetency!
I remember fondly the days of not having to worry about typos! This from a man involved in preparing material for print!!
In the good old days my secretarially trained wife (including shorthand which she still uses on the phone) would do an exhaustive check on spelling, grammar and communication on my books. Pity we lost the last one between ourselves!
Skills on both sides of the gender areas have vanished - and the jobs, with the arrival of the computer.
But was always thus. Just not so many people involved.
Norman,
5' 4½" Nobody ever took me seriously, except on the phone. It was all brought home to me when, at the age of 45, the lady in a Wolverhampton sandwich shop called me "Petal!"
I once came across a couple of motorists who had got out of their cars and started a fist fight. As I was wondering if I should intervene and calculating the odds that they might both turn on me, a very large man came along and took charge. He was big, though not necessarily in the greatest shape, but his sheer physical bulk gave him authority. He picked out the most aggressive of the two and told the other to stand aside and he would talk to him later. So he gave them both a good talking to, got them to shake hands, and both drove off, looking very relieved to have been saved from a punch-up that could have landed one or both of them in hospital.
Size does matter!
I'm waiting for Mike to answer on my behalf regarding the 'big men' thing. He seems to know best ;-)
It's actually quite comforting to know that Australian women considered GG as a tosspot.
Hmm, the skills level diminished for both men and women, didn't it? I usually only consider it in the context of men but, as you have rightly put, it got the women as well.
The bus thing - I don't get that. My relations (I'm thinking of Mum and 2 nans) would have knocked me off my seat if I didn't automatically get up for an adult - any adult - and that was into the late 1970s. I'd still get up today. I was well trained!
Does it again bring it back to the Good Samaritan 'do unto others' scenario. Everyman for himself in the UK or so it seems a lot of time.
How did you arrive there, Karen?
How can you be so judgmental on so little evidence?
One or two people quite like me, I believe. And even my dog is quite pleased to see me when I come home.
And come to think of it, that's a bit much from someone who isn't willing to show her face! ;-)
Penny Pollitt, who is from another Oz city, referred to her as the Melbourne motormouth so I will take experienced natives of that place's word for it. If you qualify, then it is yours too.
Giving places on transport disappeared in the 1970s in London and moved out into the provinces progressively. It is heartbreaking to see a healthy young buck who clearly works out and all, or a female equivalent, glaring at somebody elderly and infirm as though they are dirt on their shoe who really should not be on the same train.
At last, we agree!
I have been reading all this and laughing away to myself. However one or few small points if I may, and two regarding the physical size of men.
1) When a woman is looking for a partner, does she look for a taller or shorter man - or indeed one of the same height? Are women comfortable walking out with a shorter man than herself? Ordinary question. Ladies only please - if that is not too sexist.
2) Although there is a fair amount of evidence that small men are disproportionately to be found as despots - Attila, Napoleon, Hitler to name just a few, why is it that apparently (and I am sure Brian will correct me on this) the United States has only ever voted for a single President of less than 6 foot in height - Jimmy Carter being the exception?
Plus, claiming Germaine Greer as 'A Melbourne Motormouth' infers there are others - so please add me to the list.
In Australia I recall quite clearly that most women thought she was a tosser, as they were more than capable of equality in very sense. Of all the feminist activists, probably the one who got the most respect was another Melburnian (fairly sure she was anyway) Helen Reddy with her 'I am Woman' song. Most Australian women I knew related to that much more than Germaine Greer.
Re women's jobs, I fear the biggest bit of legerdemain was the disappearance of Secretaries when computers came in, and then the 'replacement' job of 'Administrative Assistant' which rapidly slid down the respect and salaried role.
I have noticed in Western Europe mainly that younger women are far more aggressive and selfish than ever. Notably in London, where I was on crutches having had an operation for my knee, and another guy who was on a single leg permanently got on. The bus was crowded, but guess who got up to give him a seat? Me, and all the younger people and older ones male and female simply looked the other way.
That highlighted London at least to me, possibly reflecting British society as a whole? Here in the French village we occupy I am always deeply impressed at the way the locals look out for each other and notably the older members of the place - including me!
What you appear to be saying Mike, is that you don't really care about the wellbeing of your fellow man. That's got nothing to do with whether you are male or female, just what type of person you are.
I know plenty of men who adore their dogs or other pets. Who adore their kids and like the company of other kids.
And you are insistent that you know better than the women you are speaking to, that you know what they are like and how they are going to behave in any given situation. It's only because you've never been told to stop being so daft.
Are you going out fighting every day, challenging every man, having to resist the urge to climb trees and hunt? (Mind you, we are in France)
The 'spare part' argument is well worn - It carries about as much weight as women who 'can't' put petrol in car. They simply don't want to.
Wow! What one learns sometimes. However, given all mammals are closely related as our Y chromosome shows, the disparity between around 20 days for mice and rats through to a year and a half got sperm whales and a year and nine months for African elephants makes human a bit average. Well, unless we add together all higher primates and come to an average of about eight months which puts us just down in the list with the cow, bison. hippopotamus and moose.... That makes us really average and we all know how boring average is!
Then how do you explain the many, many women who cannot stand their own offspring from the first moment? It also, although a very tiny question on a world scale, goes back to your 'suspicious deaths' question and the fact that most perpetrators are mothers. Psychology is very divided on the bonding thing anyway. They use a lot of animal behaviour to explain it, whereby in most mammalian species the young are not as dependent as human babies (a few are more, but then they are not fully formed usually, marsupial put them in their pocket) but are precocial. It is the action of taking a newborn from birth to feeding position almost immediately that creates a bond. There is greater distance between those taken directly away and given to a wet nurse or nanny with a bottle than quickly to the breast. For the generation, our own particularly, where the 'bottle is best' instead of 'breast is best' motto ruled the roost we find the biggest dissonance between the generations. In many animals newborns often attach to the first responsive being they see which is how quite a few species cope with orphan births (parturitial or post parturition) with females (still) producing milk taking them on. So, as I understand it, we are responding to who feeds us first. I do not know natal psychology that well, in fact have hardly ever looked at neonates professionally.
As for the afterlife business, I share your pragmatic view but would add that you are all the product of the more abstract (non-corporeal) mind processes. Disassociate a 'soul' not only from the body but also from the mind and none of the life that was remains. As much as anything, nature is actually quite practical because it is all, ultimately, geared to survival. A perpetually surviving soul would have no need to possess a survival instinct since it is, as we are taught by theologians, indestructible. In short, what would be the point. The pope rounded it off nicely earlier this week by saying that of course our pets have souls and will be in heaven with us. Alone I would be causing the kind of population overcrowding that is attracting so much political attention at present: dogs, cats, ferrets, birds, amphibians, fish, reptiles and not to forget my bees. So the stupid man has kind of conceded that since we became humans beings, given he too says Adam and Eve are a metaphor, we have a couple of hundred thousand years over which primate species might be considered human, certainly around 40,000 in which we know they had burial rituals, thus afterlife beliefs from the forms of burial, and animal companions. The is heaven thus sounds like the London underground during rush hour but permanently with pet porcupines in the middle of the jostle, let alone the hedgehogs, venomous snakes, elephants, and and and. So where do the pet species begin and end anyway, so is he being species specific or excluding some animals. Such nonsense. I almost thank his nibs for that gem. I am certainly not going to heaven if there is one. I hate crowds and would prefer to have wide open spaces!
Breaking news!
Mike's just pointed out that women carry babies in their body for 9 months!!!!
I thought it was a couple of weeks???
Have I been getting it wrong? Did everyone else know?
God. I feel so stupid.
Don't even think about being a perfect parent! The most important lesson of growing up it to be aware that everyone, including Mum and Dad are fallible and no less worthy of love for that. Perfect parents, often unconsciously, set unattainable goals for children. Just be yourself. They will grow up to be what they will be in spite of everything.
Women carry their young in their wombs for 9 months. It requires a different type of body and results in a special kind of bonding. I believe that what we are has a everything to do with the body we inhabit. One reason I don't believe in an afterlife is that without a physical body, I would cease to be "Me." All that I am is the result of sensations experienced by my physical body.
I guess, from you, that was a compliment. Brother-in-law was an academic!
No, you shouldn't have avoided it. It makes some interesting points, though I suspect it might turn a bit GGish laterly and send you slightly woppie. But I agree with the general concept in that women are a construct of society.
Never blew a raspberry until I was at least 8, probably later. In Germany in the 1950s it still hadn't been invented :-(
I'm replying to Brian - Obviously, as a home-father/husband/parent you influenced them adversely.
I'm surprised with you being one of those learn-ed people, you didn't pick up on that, Brian. I was on to it like a terrier with a rat.