This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
3
2
In reply to SteveD:
Fixed that for you.
I'll get me coat.
> Wish I could climb some of the girls in my club!
Fixed that for you.
I'll get me coat.
2
In reply to krikoman:
Of course, using "like a girl" as an insult has no place. Having said that, there is no reason to deny that some girls do run, throw and climb in particular and gender characteristic ways. And even if they do not win races, they may get their confidence from other sources.
Of course, using "like a girl" as an insult has no place. Having said that, there is no reason to deny that some girls do run, throw and climb in particular and gender characteristic ways. And even if they do not win races, they may get their confidence from other sources.
In reply to Sir Stefan:
Like marrying rich successful men?
> And even if they do not win races, they may get their confidence from other sources.
Like marrying rich successful men?
3
In reply to krikoman:
It looks to me as if the ideas behind this video could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
My view is that if we want to move forward from the legacy left to us by past generations and their outmoded ways of looking at sex and gender, trying to get women to be like men as they used to be seen creates a rod for the backs of a lot of other people. There's nothing wrong with running or throwing awkwardly - people who can't run elegantly might be able to do other things well. And expecting boys or girls to conform to athletic expectations creates pressures on all of them that are just as bad as the ones traditionally placed on girls and boys separately. It's useful that people are talking about these things but the message put over by this video seems a bit muddle-headed to me.
It looks to me as if the ideas behind this video could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
My view is that if we want to move forward from the legacy left to us by past generations and their outmoded ways of looking at sex and gender, trying to get women to be like men as they used to be seen creates a rod for the backs of a lot of other people. There's nothing wrong with running or throwing awkwardly - people who can't run elegantly might be able to do other things well. And expecting boys or girls to conform to athletic expectations creates pressures on all of them that are just as bad as the ones traditionally placed on girls and boys separately. It's useful that people are talking about these things but the message put over by this video seems a bit muddle-headed to me.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
It may be tongue firmly in cheek, but for some it still rings true in this modern world.
Is it wrong for an individual to ham up their weaknesses to their advantage?
Unfortunately the world is not as enlightened as some UKC forum may expect.
> ooof...
> where to start?
It may be tongue firmly in cheek, but for some it still rings true in this modern world.
Is it wrong for an individual to ham up their weaknesses to their advantage?
Unfortunately the world is not as enlightened as some UKC forum may expect.
1
2
In reply to Andy Morley:
What do you think are the ideas behind the video then?
> It looks to me as if the ideas behind this video could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
What do you think are the ideas behind the video then?
In reply to Removed User:
But they probably watch Eastenders so aren't confused by the idea that girls can run.
> Well my two girls, (8 and 10) understand the message.
But they probably watch Eastenders so aren't confused by the idea that girls can run.
In reply to The Lemming:
I don't doubt that some girls get along by marrying rich, successful men, in the same way that some men get along by marrying rich women. (my grandad for starters... but I digress)
But is "marrying rich and successful men" really the first option that springs to your mind for a young girl who happens not to excel at running?
Maybe, as you say, the world is not as enlightened as some on UKC would expect, but for the most part it is nowhere near as unenlightened as you are making out.
I don't doubt that some girls get along by marrying rich, successful men, in the same way that some men get along by marrying rich women. (my grandad for starters... but I digress)
But is "marrying rich and successful men" really the first option that springs to your mind for a young girl who happens not to excel at running?
Maybe, as you say, the world is not as enlightened as some on UKC would expect, but for the most part it is nowhere near as unenlightened as you are making out.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Not mine as I am quite happy within my male skin.
However many young women want to marry rich famous personalities.
Maybe they should choose better role models. Is that my fault too?
> But is "marrying rich and successful men" really the first option that springs to your mind for a young girl who happens not to excel at running?
Not mine as I am quite happy within my male skin.
However many young women want to marry rich famous personalities.
Maybe they should choose better role models. Is that my fault too?
Post edited at 18:59
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Perhaps you should. It isn't actually necessary to find a retort - that you believe to be witty - to issues of gender equality that deliberately and cheaply reinforces the negative attitudes some people are trying to free the next generation from.
> I'll get me coat.
Perhaps you should. It isn't actually necessary to find a retort - that you believe to be witty - to issues of gender equality that deliberately and cheaply reinforces the negative attitudes some people are trying to free the next generation from.
In reply to wintertree:
I think that the next generation will be able to look after itself quite with or without the help of us. In fact we are helping the next generation along with a continued depreciation of men, through humour, in current media such as mainstream adverts.
I think that the next generation will be able to look after itself quite with or without the help of us. In fact we are helping the next generation along with a continued depreciation of men, through humour, in current media such as mainstream adverts.
In reply to The Lemming:
So two wrongs make a right? Are you valiantly fighting back for us depreciated men with "witty banter" like yours? No need to fight the fight on my behalf.
The humour you describe in the media is doing nothing to help either.
> In fact we are helping the next generation along with a continued depreciation of men, through humour, in current media such as mainstream adverts.
So two wrongs make a right? Are you valiantly fighting back for us depreciated men with "witty banter" like yours? No need to fight the fight on my behalf.
The humour you describe in the media is doing nothing to help either.
Post edited at 08:53
In reply to thread:
There an interesting paper on a related topic here:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/identity.pdf
Broadly they find that:
1. In most couples the man earns more than the woman (to be expected since on average men earn more than women)
2. In couples where the woman has higher potential to earn than the men, she is more likely to drop out of the workforce early or reduce her earnings (by working fewer hours) than in couples where the woman has lower potential to earn than the man.
3. In couples where the woman does earn more than the man, she tends to do more housework than in couples where the man earns more than the woman.
4. Couples where the woman earns more than the man are less happy, report greater strife in their marriage and are more likely to divorce.
There an interesting paper on a related topic here:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/identity.pdf
Broadly they find that:
1. In most couples the man earns more than the woman (to be expected since on average men earn more than women)
2. In couples where the woman has higher potential to earn than the men, she is more likely to drop out of the workforce early or reduce her earnings (by working fewer hours) than in couples where the woman has lower potential to earn than the man.
3. In couples where the woman does earn more than the man, she tends to do more housework than in couples where the man earns more than the woman.
4. Couples where the woman earns more than the man are less happy, report greater strife in their marriage and are more likely to divorce.
In reply to The Lemming:
Sadly I don't think that's the case. I think my generation (I'm 32) have pretty much achieved equality and when I was growing up I didn't experience any sexism at all. I have been alarmed how many young people now are way more sexist than my generation ever were, and how limited girls now feel. I have been told by girls that I do a boy's job!! This appals me as I am sure we are going backwards on gender equality.
Sadly I don't think that's the case. I think my generation (I'm 32) have pretty much achieved equality and when I was growing up I didn't experience any sexism at all. I have been alarmed how many young people now are way more sexist than my generation ever were, and how limited girls now feel. I have been told by girls that I do a boy's job!! This appals me as I am sure we are going backwards on gender equality.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
This is an american study though, and I do think attitudes there are different to here
This is an american study though, and I do think attitudes there are different to here
In reply to girlymonkey:
When growing up in the 70s and 80s I too did not notice any sexism. But then people say I would not, being male. When I went to work, I never experienced unequal pay either as both sexes were paid equal.
I have worked in male dominated and female dominated environments too. Both were just as bitchy as the other, however one sex was more malicious than the other.
On the whole, from my perspective we're all equal. Things may change the higher up the economic food chain such as Board Members and politicians but there are considerably fewer of them compared to the ordinary everyday workforce.
Too many white knights fighting invisible dragons.
> when I was growing up I didn't experience any sexism at all.
When growing up in the 70s and 80s I too did not notice any sexism. But then people say I would not, being male. When I went to work, I never experienced unequal pay either as both sexes were paid equal.
I have worked in male dominated and female dominated environments too. Both were just as bitchy as the other, however one sex was more malicious than the other.
On the whole, from my perspective we're all equal. Things may change the higher up the economic food chain such as Board Members and politicians but there are considerably fewer of them compared to the ordinary everyday workforce.
Too many white knights fighting invisible dragons.
Post edited at 09:42
2
In reply to krikoman:
There is loads of sexism in the world still. Often people (not just men, although...) just don't notice it as they are too used to it. One example is how women on tv are judged for their age and looks to a greater extent than men are.
FWIW I earn more than my husband but we split chores and childcare more or less 50% each. However I am expecting to cut my hours or drop out early because I can't really be bothered, so maybe we do match the results of the American study.
There is loads of sexism in the world still. Often people (not just men, although...) just don't notice it as they are too used to it. One example is how women on tv are judged for their age and looks to a greater extent than men are.
FWIW I earn more than my husband but we split chores and childcare more or less 50% each. However I am expecting to cut my hours or drop out early because I can't really be bothered, so maybe we do match the results of the American study.
In reply to The Lemming:
One wonders why exactly you're on this thread.
Regardless, you're wrong. Easy example, gender pay gap of 17.8% in the UK (2012, by most measures it's dropped by .5-1% since then, but I couldn't find a good summary of more recent data). It is present when measuring within industries and at the same level of employment, but those figures are harder to quote without producing a wall of text. See here for an analysis of ONS data: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/research/B...
In terms of social attitudes to women, you only have to look at something like 'Gamergate' to see there's still a way to go.
In terms of physical activity, roughly half the numbers of women engage in physical activity outside of work compared to men in the UK. The number of women participating in sport has been declining for the last 10 years, as opposed to men where it has been broadly stable.
The WHO Report on attitudes to exercise in girls ( http://www.icsspe.org/sites/default/files/Girls.pdf ) identifies multiple factors as to why women do not exercise. It includes multiple important factors (lack of access to equipment or poor infrastructure, poor weather, existing obesity, things they would rather do etc). It is also mostly drawn from American sources. It also identifies that girls feel a "reluctance to get sweaty or dishevelled" and feel pressure to "to seek other activities associated with their preferred perceptions of femininity".
These are obviously just a few factors among many, but you need to account for why roughly half the numbers of women exercise, compared to men.
Yeah, except that WE are the ones who design the education programs, set the school syllabus and implement them, provide the PE lessons and the role models to which the next generation aspire. When has it ever been the case that one generation represents a clean break from the previous?
Again, from the WHO report: "The organisation of sports groups and programmes should be include women in key roles, such as coaching and mentors, and role models drawn from within local communities and schools". This is identified as one of the key areas that need to change to promote exercise inclusion for all.
So I have evidence and examples that show that women continue to be disadvantaged economically, socially and are less included in physical activity. I seem to be quite capable of seeing the dragons, could you explain how they remain so invisible to you?
> Too many white knights fighting invisible dragons.
One wonders why exactly you're on this thread.
Regardless, you're wrong. Easy example, gender pay gap of 17.8% in the UK (2012, by most measures it's dropped by .5-1% since then, but I couldn't find a good summary of more recent data). It is present when measuring within industries and at the same level of employment, but those figures are harder to quote without producing a wall of text. See here for an analysis of ONS data: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/research/B...
In terms of social attitudes to women, you only have to look at something like 'Gamergate' to see there's still a way to go.
In terms of physical activity, roughly half the numbers of women engage in physical activity outside of work compared to men in the UK. The number of women participating in sport has been declining for the last 10 years, as opposed to men where it has been broadly stable.
The WHO Report on attitudes to exercise in girls ( http://www.icsspe.org/sites/default/files/Girls.pdf ) identifies multiple factors as to why women do not exercise. It includes multiple important factors (lack of access to equipment or poor infrastructure, poor weather, existing obesity, things they would rather do etc). It is also mostly drawn from American sources. It also identifies that girls feel a "reluctance to get sweaty or dishevelled" and feel pressure to "to seek other activities associated with their preferred perceptions of femininity".
These are obviously just a few factors among many, but you need to account for why roughly half the numbers of women exercise, compared to men.
> I think that the next generation will be able to look after itself quite with or without the help of us.
Yeah, except that WE are the ones who design the education programs, set the school syllabus and implement them, provide the PE lessons and the role models to which the next generation aspire. When has it ever been the case that one generation represents a clean break from the previous?
Again, from the WHO report: "The organisation of sports groups and programmes should be include women in key roles, such as coaching and mentors, and role models drawn from within local communities and schools". This is identified as one of the key areas that need to change to promote exercise inclusion for all.
So I have evidence and examples that show that women continue to be disadvantaged economically, socially and are less included in physical activity. I seem to be quite capable of seeing the dragons, could you explain how they remain so invisible to you?
1
In reply to The Lemming:
From your perspective...isn't that a bit like white poeple (well meaningly) saying there ins't any racism to ethnic minorities? I remember hearing a black couple who moved to Lewes(?) saying they got told that, and were rather surprised and puzzed at the confidence with which it was being said.
How do you know there are? If girlymonkey has mentioned seeing what seems to be an increase in sexism, surely that means there could be a problem, no?
Certainly, studies carried out about attitudes amongst young people seem to suggest there may be a problem, unfortunately.
I think you may benefit from reading up on them.
> On the whole, from my perspective we're all equal. Things may change the higher up the economic food chain such as Board Members and politicians but there are considerably fewer of them compared to the ordinary everyday workforce.
From your perspective...isn't that a bit like white poeple (well meaningly) saying there ins't any racism to ethnic minorities? I remember hearing a black couple who moved to Lewes(?) saying they got told that, and were rather surprised and puzzed at the confidence with which it was being said.
> Too many white knights fighting invisible dragons.
How do you know there are? If girlymonkey has mentioned seeing what seems to be an increase in sexism, surely that means there could be a problem, no?
Certainly, studies carried out about attitudes amongst young people seem to suggest there may be a problem, unfortunately.
I think you may benefit from reading up on them.
Post edited at 11:27
In reply to The Lemming:
Knock it on the head you whinging wuss. You forgot to add 'white middle-class' btw. Also suspect you didn't mean 'depreciation', although it does seem rather apt oddly enough.
> I think that the next generation will be able to look after itself quite with or without the help of us. In fact we are helping the next generation along with a continued depreciation of men, through humour, in current media such as mainstream adverts.
Knock it on the head you whinging wuss. You forgot to add 'white middle-class' btw. Also suspect you didn't mean 'depreciation', although it does seem rather apt oddly enough.
2
In reply to Sally Bustyerface:
Hello Sally,
As I said before, neither of us are feminists. However you are the only openly overt sexist on this site.
Yes I am male, middle aged, working/middle classed and happy within my skin. And neither have I encountered any sexism within any area of work. Quite the contrary, I have always worked with assertive women who would never tolerate sexism from any source.
> Knock it on the head you whinging wuss. You forgot to add 'white middle-class' btw. Also suspect you didn't mean 'depreciation', although it does seem rather apt oddly enough.
Hello Sally,
As I said before, neither of us are feminists. However you are the only openly overt sexist on this site.
Yes I am male, middle aged, working/middle classed and happy within my skin. And neither have I encountered any sexism within any area of work. Quite the contrary, I have always worked with assertive women who would never tolerate sexism from any source.
Post edited at 12:04
1
In reply to The Lemming:
You must work in a very enlightened environment.
If you never encountered sexism in the 70s and 80s you must've been on another planet.
You must work in a very enlightened environment.
If you never encountered sexism in the 70s and 80s you must've been on another planet.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
You know as much about my real world daily life as I do about daily/working life.
Going off your last comment, then you must obviously work and live in a sexist environment. That is the only conclusion that I can come to, from your last reply.
I have lived and worked in environments where racism has reared its ugly head but I have never witnessed sexism at work. You seem to think otherwise, and want to ridicule this observation of mine by stating that I live on another planet.
> You must work in a very enlightened environment.
> If you never encountered sexism in the 70s and 80s you must've been on another planet.
You know as much about my real world daily life as I do about daily/working life.
Going off your last comment, then you must obviously work and live in a sexist environment. That is the only conclusion that I can come to, from your last reply.
I have lived and worked in environments where racism has reared its ugly head but I have never witnessed sexism at work. You seem to think otherwise, and want to ridicule this observation of mine by stating that I live on another planet.
In reply to The Lemming:
A rather obvious observation would be that just because someone hasn't witnessed something, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
A rather obvious observation would be that just because someone hasn't witnessed something, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
2
2
In reply to The Lemming:
Experiencing something and "witnessing" it, implying actually noticing it, are two different things.
Perhaps you were indeed lucky to work somewhere where no one person was sexist towards any other person - either at all or in your presence - but if there was genuine equality in terms of pay, promotions and opportunity at all levels of the organisation then youre employer must have been at the spearhead of the equalities movement, unless things have regressed significantly in the last 30 years.
> I have lived and worked in environments where racism has reared its ugly head but I have never witnessed sexism at work.
Experiencing something and "witnessing" it, implying actually noticing it, are two different things.
Perhaps you were indeed lucky to work somewhere where no one person was sexist towards any other person - either at all or in your presence - but if there was genuine equality in terms of pay, promotions and opportunity at all levels of the organisation then youre employer must have been at the spearhead of the equalities movement, unless things have regressed significantly in the last 30 years.
Post edited at 14:36
In reply to Tall Clare:
A further obvious observation is that we're all sometimes capable of remaining oblivious to things that are happening right in front of our noses.
(And a further further obvious observation is that the Lemming often comes across on here as someone more oblivious than most.)
A further obvious observation is that we're all sometimes capable of remaining oblivious to things that are happening right in front of our noses.
(And a further further obvious observation is that the Lemming often comes across on here as someone more oblivious than most.)
4
2
In reply to krikoman:
On the original link, the BMC is joining the 'This Girl Can' campaign.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/wiggle-it-jiggle-it-sport-england-launches-this-gi...
Awesome.
On the original link, the BMC is joining the 'This Girl Can' campaign.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/wiggle-it-jiggle-it-sport-england-launches-this-gi...
Awesome.
In reply to deepsoup:
I am indeed oblivious to many things in life. Not sure if this is my upbringing or the fact that I actively choose to see the positive, in all around me. Its not a bad state of mind to have, if you want a stress-free life.
And as for my employer, one was the Civil Service. I can assure those that have never worked in this area, this organisation takes officialdom to Olympic standards when it comes to following laws and rules.
In one shape or form I have always worked in the public sector and never for the private sector, which is why I have received equal pay and not witnesses sexism.
I am not stupid to think sexism never happens. I've just never witnessed it at work. I have witnessed sexism around me by the general public though, some of which has been graphically violent.
Maybe Girlymonkey has hit on something that I was not aware of, in that she states that younger people growing up today are becoming more sexist?
> (And a further further obvious observation is that the Lemming often comes across on here as someone more oblivious than most.)
I am indeed oblivious to many things in life. Not sure if this is my upbringing or the fact that I actively choose to see the positive, in all around me. Its not a bad state of mind to have, if you want a stress-free life.
And as for my employer, one was the Civil Service. I can assure those that have never worked in this area, this organisation takes officialdom to Olympic standards when it comes to following laws and rules.
In one shape or form I have always worked in the public sector and never for the private sector, which is why I have received equal pay and not witnesses sexism.
I am not stupid to think sexism never happens. I've just never witnessed it at work. I have witnessed sexism around me by the general public though, some of which has been graphically violent.
Maybe Girlymonkey has hit on something that I was not aware of, in that she states that younger people growing up today are becoming more sexist?
In reply to The Lemming:
I found this quite interesting which a friend shared on facebook, it got me thinking about an unmarried girl in my Spanish classes who'd sometimes come in from work wearing a wedding ring, presumably to stop people hitting on her at work, to keep things simpler.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/is-it-that-time-of-the-month-man#.lq...
I found this quite interesting which a friend shared on facebook, it got me thinking about an unmarried girl in my Spanish classes who'd sometimes come in from work wearing a wedding ring, presumably to stop people hitting on her at work, to keep things simpler.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/is-it-that-time-of-the-month-man#.lq...
Post edited at 21:06
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Sexism is so ingrained that so many people don't notice. For example, Mrs and Miss. Why is it of anyone else's business whether a woman is married or not? No one knows from looking at a man's name. Yet it is in front of her name. Why aren't all women called Mrs from birth?
I travel a lot for work and I am often asked who is looking after my children; their father of course. My husband also travels, but no one worries who is looking after his children, as he has a wife and obviously that is her job.
Sometimes sexism is so subtle that you don't notice (or choose not to). If you can honestly say that you have not encountered sexism then I think you are thinking that it only exists in the format of wolf whistles and lewd comments. That is not what it is all about.
Sexism is so ingrained that so many people don't notice. For example, Mrs and Miss. Why is it of anyone else's business whether a woman is married or not? No one knows from looking at a man's name. Yet it is in front of her name. Why aren't all women called Mrs from birth?
I travel a lot for work and I am often asked who is looking after my children; their father of course. My husband also travels, but no one worries who is looking after his children, as he has a wife and obviously that is her job.
Sometimes sexism is so subtle that you don't notice (or choose not to). If you can honestly say that you have not encountered sexism then I think you are thinking that it only exists in the format of wolf whistles and lewd comments. That is not what it is all about.
4
In reply to stubbed:
Many use the term Ms these days. Why is it any ones business if you are talking to a Mr or Ms? Well because we are different!
> Why aren't all women called Mrs from birth?
Many use the term Ms these days. Why is it any ones business if you are talking to a Mr or Ms? Well because we are different!
In reply to Sir Stefan:
Ms is fine but it's still not the norm. It turns out (in my experience) it's also seen as reasonable to question a woman if she's married but hasn't taken her husband's surname.
Ms is fine but it's still not the norm. It turns out (in my experience) it's also seen as reasonable to question a woman if she's married but hasn't taken her husband's surname.
In reply to Tall Clare:
I'm still amazed to have received wedding invites in this day and age where 'Mr and Mrs firstname surname invite you to the wedding of their daughter...'
I'm still amazed to have received wedding invites in this day and age where 'Mr and Mrs firstname surname invite you to the wedding of their daughter...'
In reply to Tall Clare:
Mrs Cú Chullain has not taken my last name, I am not too fussed either way, she toyed with the idea before realising it’s a bit of a ballache and from a professional point of view probably a bit detrimental as she is quite well known in her chosen field.
Interestingly from her experience, it is mostly other women who seem to question her choice on this matter.
Mrs Cú Chullain has not taken my last name, I am not too fussed either way, she toyed with the idea before realising it’s a bit of a ballache and from a professional point of view probably a bit detrimental as she is quite well known in her chosen field.
Interestingly from her experience, it is mostly other women who seem to question her choice on this matter.
In reply to Removed User:
Are we now talking that tradition is now outdated and obsolete?
How now should we proceed?
Are we now talking that tradition is now outdated and obsolete?
How now should we proceed?
In reply to The Lemming:
People tend to pay for their own weddings nowadays, it seems, so it makes more sense to say (for example) John and Jane invite you to their wedding/request your presence/etc. The whole 'Mr and Mrs Jane give away their daughter' falls into the 'woman is object to be given from one person to another' tradition, which is outmoded unless the dowry involves a plentiful supply of goats and camels <cough>.
People tend to pay for their own weddings nowadays, it seems, so it makes more sense to say (for example) John and Jane invite you to their wedding/request your presence/etc. The whole 'Mr and Mrs Jane give away their daughter' falls into the 'woman is object to be given from one person to another' tradition, which is outmoded unless the dowry involves a plentiful supply of goats and camels <cough>.
1
In reply to Removed User:
Some parents still want to pay for their daughters wedding and some couples are still happy for that to happen. There's quite varied attitudes in society on such things so it's surprising you're amazed.
> I'm still amazed to have received wedding invites in this day and age where 'Mr and Mrs firstname surname invite you to the wedding of their daughter...'
Some parents still want to pay for their daughters wedding and some couples are still happy for that to happen. There's quite varied attitudes in society on such things so it's surprising you're amazed.
In reply to Tall Clare:
And from what I've seen starting from the engagement, build-up through to the Big Day, the whole event is about the woman. The spotlight is on her from day One till the Champaign Breakfast the day after. The poor groom is just there as window dressing for 'Her Big Day'.
I however, can't complain as I've been living 'Over the brush' for 18 years. I, or we, don't conform to the socially accepted norms of a century ago. I also know my place within our nuclear unit, and its not the stereotypical Top-dog.
But then I am the UKC male sexist flag-barer, or so some may think.
> People tend to pay for their own weddings nowadays
And from what I've seen starting from the engagement, build-up through to the Big Day, the whole event is about the woman. The spotlight is on her from day One till the Champaign Breakfast the day after. The poor groom is just there as window dressing for 'Her Big Day'.
I however, can't complain as I've been living 'Over the brush' for 18 years. I, or we, don't conform to the socially accepted norms of a century ago. I also know my place within our nuclear unit, and its not the stereotypical Top-dog.
But then I am the UKC male sexist flag-barer, or so some may think.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
The wedding, is all about the woman. You are welcome to argue your point against that one.
As for the stereotypical Top Dog, in the long and distant caveman past, the male was the head of the household. Times have changed about the roles within the home but a wedding is still all about the girl.
> What is this 'stereotypical top dog' and 'it's all about the woman'?
The wedding, is all about the woman. You are welcome to argue your point against that one.
As for the stereotypical Top Dog, in the long and distant caveman past, the male was the head of the household. Times have changed about the roles within the home but a wedding is still all about the girl.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
No I went to a few last year and it's not all about the girl, irrespective of demographic. You can see the traditions do hark back to the days when woman were property, that's Hardon's and TCs popint.... the best man speaks, but for the bride it's her dad, and still the 'giving away' of the bride. Personally, I think we can give a nod to past traditions while moving forward socially.
> Times have changed about the roles within the home but a wedding is still all about the girl.
No I went to a few last year and it's not all about the girl, irrespective of demographic. You can see the traditions do hark back to the days when woman were property, that's Hardon's and TCs popint.... the best man speaks, but for the bride it's her dad, and still the 'giving away' of the bride. Personally, I think we can give a nod to past traditions while moving forward socially.
Post edited at 14:27
In reply to MG:
Googlewhack!
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Weddinge+Faryres
> Weddinge Faryres
Googlewhack!
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Weddinge+Faryres
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
Are things going backwards?
My wife and I didn't have stag/hen dos, wedding lists, or speeches by the best this or that or anyone else, but find that the first of our brood to get married (if all stays on track!), and my youngest (by far) cousin have already planned all of that, more than a year in advance. It seems to be very formulaic (there have already been bended knees etc) and all about the photos, and I would be very surprised if someone doesn't get asked to "give" someone away at at least one of those events.
Not that we didn't put any effort into it, when we got round to it. We wanted a party for our families who, we knew, would want us to be happy and to celebrate the prospect of that, and had, by all accounts, the best wedding anyone who was there can remember. The weather helped, mind, and the guests saw to the rest.
Are things going backwards?
My wife and I didn't have stag/hen dos, wedding lists, or speeches by the best this or that or anyone else, but find that the first of our brood to get married (if all stays on track!), and my youngest (by far) cousin have already planned all of that, more than a year in advance. It seems to be very formulaic (there have already been bended knees etc) and all about the photos, and I would be very surprised if someone doesn't get asked to "give" someone away at at least one of those events.
Not that we didn't put any effort into it, when we got round to it. We wanted a party for our families who, we knew, would want us to be happy and to celebrate the prospect of that, and had, by all accounts, the best wedding anyone who was there can remember. The weather helped, mind, and the guests saw to the rest.
1
In reply to mbh:
Not really going backwards, I don't think, because none of this ever went away. It's not like society stopped having traditional weddings and they're now coming back. I would hazard to say that you're the exception rather than the rule.
Not really going backwards, I don't think, because none of this ever went away. It's not like society stopped having traditional weddings and they're now coming back. I would hazard to say that you're the exception rather than the rule.
In reply to MG:
Probably more things to sell to the bride, but actually I think a lot will want the groom to attend, double the audience to sell to.
Last few weddings I have been to the groom has hired a sports car rather than the traditional chauffeur driven roller.
> True but Weddinge Faryres aren't aimed at men, I think.
Probably more things to sell to the bride, but actually I think a lot will want the groom to attend, double the audience to sell to.
Last few weddings I have been to the groom has hired a sports car rather than the traditional chauffeur driven roller.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...