niledynodely

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NN is a fervent Christian who opposes feminism, > writes for the Daily Mail and Conservative Home on > subjects that include why men are getting a raw > deal, and has a pinned video at the top of her > twitter feed which comes dangerously close to > homophobia. > > It would be wise to understand that there isn?t a > debate to be had here, NN?s views are entrenched > (in the 19th century) and underpinned by religious > belief. She isn?t looking for discussion, she just > wants the entire sexual education system changed > to better reflect her personal options. She seems > obsessed with anal sex and seems to think there > was no homophobia in the sixties, seventies and > eighties (haha!). > > This - ?You can find out more about the resources > here: ? is just another link to the Values > Foundation, who are clearly working an agenda, > shall we say? And yes, I?ve read the link in its > entirety. > > > Mostly she?s just blaming the education system for > something that she?s fully empowered as a parent > to handle. > > TE44 is an anti-vaxxer; nuff said. Of course I think there used to be homophobia in the 60s, 70s and 80s - I don't know where you get that idea from. And there is still plenty of homophobia today. But it isn't coming from me. I don't think the approach we are taking in schools re: homophobia is the best one. There is a great deal of indoctrination going on and I would rather people accept gay people because they are accepting tolerant individuals than because they are indoctrinated. We are indoctrinating our children with ideologies rather than teaching them to be open minded and accepting. You only need to see the ire directed at people who hold conservative or traditional views to know that we are not teaching young people tolerance and acceptance. I think there is an interesting discussion going on although I don't think you are part of it! Someone raised the question of why I am here - it is because I want to know how other people think. I find on twitter you always end up talking to people who think the same as you so that isn't so valuable. Also there are not enough words for a decent discussion whereas here there are enough words. I'm not obsessed with anal sex but RSE materials do seem to be. That is why I keep banging on about it. Yes I would like to see the sex education system changed. For decades now we have had rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases, very high rates of teenage pregnancy, huge levels of mental health issues, and now we have young children confused about something as basic as their sex yet we keep doggedly ploughing on in the same direction. Yes I would really like to see it changed. This isn't about my children. I just have this weird thing where I really care about the world I live in and future generations.

Yes please everybody DO look at the evidence provided by The Values Foundation. It is in a linked google drive when you click on evidence as MOPS deescribes. There is mountaings of it. Look in particular at the letters written by parents at how upset their children have been when exposed to particular materials. But look at all of it and inform yourselves.

I don't have a problem with teaching being part of the discussion as long as they respect what my values are when talking to my children. Also I haven't seen ANY of the points I make mentioned in any of the resources and I have looked at a lot of the resources. Most of the attitudes I have seen expressed online are that if parents have more 'conservative' views (as I do) then the role of the teacher is to save our children from the dreadful brainwashing which will happen at the hands of their parents. But if teachers treat the sexual act with the care, love and respect that it deserves I am very happy for them to teach my children.

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Has anyone looked on the gov. site for RSE. > > Here's the link > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relatio > nships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-r > se-and-health-education > > I haven't read it all but know what has actually > been going on to date and I know that in the > Equality section of PSHE/Citizenship LGBTQ+ > equality, or contraception is not discussed in > some 'faith' schools as they have been allowed to > opt out which reinforces intolerance and a > dereliction of safeguarding duty in my opinion. > The National Secular Society points out that > 'faith' institutions may exploit loopholes. > https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2019/06/schools > -told-to-take-account-of-pupils-religious-backgrou > nd-in-rse > > Primary schools do NOT have to teach sex education > at all but they do have to teach Relationships > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relatio > nships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-r > se-and-health-education/foreword-by-the-secretary- > of-state > second paragraph Alice there is a distinction between the law which is sound, the guidance which is okay, and the materials which are produced, some of which are fine and some of which are dreadful. Most of the material comes under relationships. I have attended a Sex Education Forum webinar where the person giving the talk said that all the material would get through to the children somehow. So for example what comes under sex education will also be taught in health. Personally I have no issue with teaching about contraception stds etc etc in secondary school. All of this seems obvious. It is the other material which troubles me and there is quite a bit of it. You can find out more about the resources here: https://rsereview.org/resources/

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > child sex abuse is a huge problem in and outside > of school, this is a reality that I believe can be > overshadowed by vocal minority groups that > although divided outside of school, (gender > politics) are now involved with our childrens > education around relationships and sex education. > there are many children suffering silently while > the adults decide about games ans sexual positions > that may or may not be fun. Showing some how we*ve > become more open and tolerant and moved away from > that awkward silence of the past. I think there > must be room and respect for others. We*ve seen > cases of child rape in our schools along with > increasing numbers of sexual abuse. this is a huge > problem. the child must be the priority. > > https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/202 > 0/child-sexual-offences-rise/ Yes we have seen increases in child on child sexual abuse in schools. The idea of education is to provoke a child's interest and when they see cartoon videos of penises entering vaginas (Spring Fever) or legs splayed open with everything on view and when they see the free and easy attitude which adults around them have to sex I'm afraid that this contributes towards this abuse.

Mops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can appreciate the OP is coming from a position > of genuine care and concern, however I am worried > they may have misunderstood the context around > RSE. > > Let?s take this particular example of the dice > exercise and of anal sex being mentioned more > generally in RSE lessons in senior schools. Whilst > you could interpret this exercise as ?our > teenagers being taught how to have all kinds of > less traditional of non-reproductive sexual > interactions?, you could also see this exercise as > an educational opportunity in a safe space to > inform young people that there is no ?one? or > ?right? way to have sex; sex can take lots of > difference forms and means something different to > different people - what is key is consent. The > effect of this exercise would be the inclusion and > acknowledgment of sex for non-heterosexual > individuals. In the long term, this reduces > homophobia, discrimination and bigotry and > actively includes young people who identify as > LGBTQ+ or whose parents/ families/ carers may > identify as LGBTQ+. > > Sex is in pop culture, it?s all over the internet. > It?s on social media, in films, throughout song > lyrics. A lack of information has far greater > capacity to cause harm than any uncomfortable > conversations in an educational setting may do, or > even teaching a young person about something sex > related they hadn?t yet come across. > > I appreciate 13 may seem very young, but it is > important to remember (1) the typical exposure a > teenager of 13 will already have had, whether in > conversation, in pop culture or on the internet; > and (2) just because certain RSE topics are > designated ?13+? doesn?t mean they?re taught at > 13; they could be addressed at 16, 17 or 18. > > I hope you can try to see this from another > perspective, the same way I can appreciate you are > trying to protect young people in the way you > think is best. My advice would be that it is > important to think about how we can protect (and > include) all young people; not just those who act > like us or who share our own beliefs or sexual > preferences. Thank you Mops for engaging in a respectful way. I am familiar with all your arguments and read them all the time in the course of my research. They are the justification for the RSE approach. My own take on this is I'm afraid that there is a 'right' way to have sex and it would be a great thing to present this vision to our young people. I think this right way to have sex is in a deeply committed relationship with someone you know very well. I think sex should be about strengthening relationships first and then pleasure. I believe the pursuit of pleasure is no more likely to lead to real pleasure than the pursuit of happiness leads to real happiness). I don't think we should be leading young people to experiment with BDSM and anal sex, or whatever (to find out more about what young people are being encouraged to believe is normal check this article and link on the two links 'oh joy sex toy' and 'this one' in this article. This article is from Sexwise which is a recommended resource in the government guidance https://www.sexwise.org.uk/blog/can-lists-make-your-sex-life-better ) I don't think we should make anal sex seem normal, it really has some serious health risks and I think we should tell young people about this. The only reason we don't is because we are afraid of being homophobic but I think it is far more damaging to gay people to not properly inform them of the risks of anal sex. I think the vast majority of us just accept gay people without thinking to much about what they get up to. And to be honest my generation grew up by and large perfectly accepting of gay people without having to go through some sort of programme in order to accept them. I think the dice game could encourage young people to treat sex as a hobby to experiment with and I appreciate that for a lot of parents that is just fine. But I think we should treat sex as something almost sacred. I don't think it is just about consent. When I read some of these materials (e.g. Great Relationships and Sex Education by Hoyle and McGeeney) children are taught that they should not be judgemental about any sexual activity, they are taught that people have sex without any emotion and that is totally fine and they are also taught that sometimes people like a bit of pain. Personally I think all of these teachings are going to leave a young person (particularly a young women) extremely vulnerable. It would have left me vulnerable. I would not have known whether I liked what was happening or not. If I experienced some pleasurable sensation I would have understood this was a good thing. If I had an the same time experienced shame I would have thought that I had an attitude problem. But shame is a useful self-defence mechanism to alert us that we are doing something that isn't good for us. Yet these children will have been taught that they should not experience shame. I apologise for rambling but talking about sexual and emotional feelings is very complex. And I think these sorts of activities could leave children exploiting themselves, misusing their bodies and not even being aware that they are doing so. Alternatively this sort of stuff, especially taught to them by their school teacher could actually just put them off sex for a good while. We do know young people are having a lot less sex than my generation (I was born in the 60s) although they are having a much higher proportion of anal sex. Finally the real issue is that parents values and beliefs should be respected in the education of their children. This has been enshrined in UN law since the end of the WW2 (it was something Nazis failed to do). Those parents who, like me, think that sex should be treated as something special and sacred are having their rights ignored. By the way I would like to add I was brought up in an extremely liberal way and have arrived at the position I have through trial and error.

I think even where they will find out about all this stuff anyway how adults deal with sex will affect how children deal with it. If we do, as many of the curriculums do, treat anal sex as just normal regular sex, explain to them how to do it (as the resources do) etc they are more likely to engage in it (and this is what is happening). And I have yet to see resources which explain the full gamut of health risks which accompany anal sex. Similarly pornography. If we say to kids "cool, go ahead watch all the porn you like", they are much more likely to slip into addiction. There is loads of evidence to show that pornography acts just like any other drug on the brain - we don't encourage other drugs why encourage porn? Why not say to (young men in particular) if you watch loads of porn, you are going to find it much more difficult to get a hard on when you are with a real woman, you will find it more difficult to orgasm etc etc (all of which is true) it might actually discourage them from watching as much porn - to the benefit of their own sex lives. So why not provide young people with this sort of information? Besides the evidence suggests that comprehensive sex education actually has adverse effects on sexually transmitted disease and rates of teenage pregnancy so all this stuff about it being good for children is just hogwash perpetuated by sex ed lobbies who have a heap of money to make selling this stuff. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006417.pub3/fullhttps://www.institute-research.com/published-cse.php https://www.institute-research.com/published-cse.php

> > The OP has openly stated an opposition to > pre-marital sex, and believes that teenagers > should be actively discouraged from it. Good luck > with that, frankly. The realpolitik is that - > where sex is concerned - education and information > mean people are more likely to make good decisions > (remember we?re talking about adolescents here!). > The OP prefers the kind of education that prevents > sexual activity at all. That is both naive and > dangerous, and far more likely to result in > trouble. > I think if you give children boundaries it raises the bar. Also it is just I have a different idea of what sort of information we should be giving young people. For example I think we should teach young people that when they have sex with others actual physiological things happen which bond them to one another. This means that you can end up getting really attached to someone who you might not in fact be that well suited to. This bonding, which has been shown to happen also means that it is particularly distressing when you break up. Also there seems to be evidence that the fewer sexual partners you have had when you get married the more likely your marriage is to survive. And that people who have had fewer sexual partners actually enjoy sex more. We should teach all of this in a factual way backed up with data. Similarly I think we should teach children how masturbation and pornography can be addictive so they need to keep an eye on that. And we should talk to them, particularly to the boys about how the more you masturbate to pornography the more difficult you find obtaining sexual satisfaction with a real person. So if they want to go out into the world and really enjoy sex avoid porn. Even excessive masturbation can make it more difficult for you to orgasm with a partner rather than with yourself. Yeah so these are some of the useful things we could be teaching our children. I can think of other things too. And quite frankly I can't think of anything more likely to destroy sexual pleasure than having it taught to you by your teachers at school. And that is what we do. Insane.

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nidelynodely - stop blaming the schools for stuff > that is your responsibility. > > If you want to indoctrinate your kids in such a > manner then you?re free to do so as a parent; > that?s your right. > > You?re literally blaming other people for things > that are your problem to handle. Home school your > kids or send them to a Catholic school. > > I find your insistence that everyone else fall in > line with your antiquated sense of right and wrong > frankly appalling. Unfortunately parents have no way of protecting their children from aspects of RSE which they might go against their religious or personal values. The right to do so was actually enshrined by the UN following the second world war because the last people who had tried to indoctrinate children against their parent's wishes were the Nazis and the UN was trying to prevent this happening again (see below). Much of what is being taught (and I have studied it extensively) goes against the values and beliefs of many parents - encouraging anal sex (evidenced by the largest proportion of people to engage in it being in the youngest adult generation), early sexual debut, treating sex as an activity to be engaged in for pleasure and health (rather than to strengthen a relationship). And so on. It is parents like me who are having our human rights violated. We are not the ones doing the violation. "Remember: UK law upholds the right of parents to guide the education of their children as fundamental and protected. This is particularly true of educational content which has a moral character; schools MUST NOT undermine the manner in which parents seek to bring up their children. Schools MUST respect the manner in which you seek to raise your children in accordance with your own religious or philosophical convictions." "

Other research is done by people with a vested interested in promoting sexuality education. Rather than looking at who sponsored the research (and btw thanks for your info I didn't realise that) it is better to look at the quality of the research and the research I have cited is rigorous and thorough. However if you want research by neutral providers please see this Cochrane Review. Cochrane reviews are regarded as the gold standard in all types of research. It confirms what I have said. Comprehensive Sexuality Education is not helping to reduce rates of STD or pregnancy - the purpose for which it was designed. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006417.pub3/full

keano 77 you are doing a better job than me highlighting what the issues are. Parents cannot realistically withdraw their children from any of this as it is integrated into the curriculum across a range of subjects. A great deal of this material would come under relationships education which they definitely can't withdraw their children from (although a judicial review is happening about this). They can withdraw their children theoretically from sex ed - but sex ed is incorporated into health ed so actually they cannot and I have heard the Sex Education Forum quite explicitly say that children cannot avoid any of the programme. The point is that it is about indoctrination and if this indoctrination is in keeping with the parent's views fine and good. But for a minority of parents it is not in keeping with our views (I do not want my child to think anal sex is okay, or that the primary purpose of sex is pleasure or that porn is alright in moderation for example) and there is little we can do. Democratic rights don't seem to cover those with more traditional views. One rather gets the feeling that they think such parents should have no influence over their children.

Unfortunately, to the detriment of our children, you are right.

Here are some more links to and information about various RSE resources which have been created for our children: It is worth noting that there is are significant differences between the law, which is sound, the guidance which is okay and the actual materials are sometimes very problematic. Unfortunately Relationships and Sex Education is no longer simply teaching children about periods. Here are some links and resources if you would actually like to know what is going on: See in particular pp.26-29 of the following book. www.transgendertrend.com/product/inclusive-relationships-and-sex-education-in-schools-rse/ If you check the Proud Trust's Sexual Health tool kit you will find 'the dice game' This is behind a pay wall but these are some of the contents: " ?Anus/penis: Sometimes called ?anal sex? this can be a pleasurable experience for the person inserting their penis and the person ?receiving? the penis in their anus. The internal clitoris and/or prostate gland can be stimulated through this kind of sex.? ?Anus/object: the anus can be pleasured by placing objects next to the anus or inside it. The anus responds to temperature, size and movement changes. It is important that objects used in sex are clean. Objects must be smooth, or have ridges, but must be retrievable!? ?Anus/mouth: sometimes called ?oral sex? or ?rimming?. It can be pleasurable for some people to experience giving and receiving oral sex to the anus. You can explore the anus with the tongue and lips by kissing, sucking and licking the area.? ?Anus/hands and fingers: you can touch, stroke or insert finger(s) into the anus ? this is called ?masturbation? or ?fingering.? ?Anus/vulva: some people enjoy pushing or rubbing their anus and vulva together as the warmth, pressure and moisture can be pleasurable.? ?Anus/anus: although direct anus-anus contact may be tricky to achieve, pushing anuses towards each other and buttocks against each other can be pleasurable. The warmth and intimacy of the contact could be enjoyable.? The above Dice Game is for 13 year olds upwards. The Proud Trust is substantially funded by our government. Here is an organisation called The BigTalk which appears to be providing (along with many other organisations) very confusing talk about sex and gender: www.bigtalkeducation.co.uk/rse-information-and-support-for-schools/sex-gender/ Again the following book provides lots of information about the terrible stuff out there re: gender www.transgendertrend.com/product/inclusive-relationships-and-sex-education-in-schools-rse/ Brook's traffic light tool normalises sexual intercourse under the age of 16 so for example if you look at this page it says that for the ages of 13 - 17 "consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability" is what they call a green behaviour i.e. totally fine. legacy.brook.org.uk/brook_tools/traffic/index.html?syn_partner= Brook on masturbation www.brook.org.uk/your-life/masturbation/ Brook teaching young people about Anal sex www.brook.org.uk/your-life/anal-sex/ Underage sex is also normalised in a book written by two very mainstream sex ed advisors Alice Hoyle (Sex Education Forum) and Ester McGeeny from Brook) their book Great Relationships and Sex Education is described in the TES as "destined to be on every sex educators shelf" (or some such) so it is really mainstream. It has activities for 13 year olds where they write down where it feels good to be touched and how the whole body is a potneial site of pleasure...it says "Emphasise that pleasure is a whole body experience that can involve all our senses whether we are experiencing pleasure through exercise, food, intimacy , playing music of having sex. Understanding what feels good in your own body can help you to maximise the enjoyable experience you have and communicate to others what you do and do not enjoy..." etc They have activities where they sculpt genitals in playdoh and so on. (harmless I suppose but what a waste of time!) A quote from the book where they discuss sex for 14 year olds upwards says things like: "You may need to encourage participants to think broadly about all the different ways people have intimate and/or erotic experiences on their own and with others including kissing, hugging, different kinds of touch, mutual masturbation, sex using sex toys , etc. Prompt with questions such as: What about sex for older people? Young people? Sex for people with physical disabilities? Sex with someone of the same/ different gender? Sex on your own" and then they end up making lists about some of the more extreme sexual practices that young people may have heard about...pupils are encouraged to avoid passing judgement. If you go on to the evidence section of the Values Foundation Website (which you can find under the word 'Initiatives)' you will find some letters from parents which shows how devastating what has been happening is for children. values.foundation/ But actually there is just loads of information under this section. Really useful information. So yes click on evidence and then go on to the google drive. Unfortunately RSE is no longer simply teaching our children about the birds and the bees. OP?s posts: See all

In the coming year schools are likely to be introducing a new RSE curriculum to their pupils. Originally it was to be launched in September 2020 but as schools are legally obliged to consult parents they now don't have to introduce the new curriculum until the start of the summer term September 2021. It is worth parent's while ensuring that they are consulted about the contents of the new curriculum as there are some dubious resources out there. Here is a link to a review of the materials for those who would like to know more https://rsereview.org/ For parents who would like to know more about their rights these have been outlined by The Values Foundation https://values.foundation/ Here is a website with links to resources which are less likely to sexualise children https://rseauthentic.uk/ If you have any questions please ask away. I research this topic.

No that is a nonsense about comprehensive sex education having a positive impact on levels of sexually transmitted disease and levels of pregnancy, and age of sexual debut. It does none of those things - those are myths perpetuated by the providers of sex education because there is enormous money in it. Here is a comprehensive review of the data and I can provide you with others.https://www.institute-research.com/published-cse.php Whether sex is regarded by young people as being like a super cheesy pizza or a sacred act between two people in love (and most ideally married although I acknowledge that is somewhat difficult to achieve!)doesn't just come out of nowhere but depends on what they are taught at school and how they are brought up. I would prefer my children to regard it as something sacred. Anyway if you would like to know more about what is happening in our schools a review of the resources has just been launched. It sounds as if your children are grown but still you might like to acquaint yourself with some of the resources https://rsereview.org/

Soylent Green - I agree that I have picked an extreme example to shock parents - but I will add that there is an awful lot to choose from and I could have picked many other examples. I also agree that we simply don't know what our children's own schools will use and it is vital keep tabs on this. But all that aside having studied the material (and having done a number of rather dull you tube videos about it) the risk is I think that our children, will, as a result of RSE be more likely to engage in behaviours which won't do them any good. For example the youngest (reproductive) generation are more likely to enage in anal sex than any other generation. If you study RSE across the board you find anal sex consistently promoted. There is also a consistent emphasis on sex for pleasure, I would prefer our children to be taught that sex was a great way of strengthening an already very committed long term relationship. I would prefer that they did not regard sex simply as a way of obtaining pleasure and health which is what is found in the sex positive curriculum. There is also actual encouragement of masturbation across the curriculum - I really don't see that young people need to be encouraged to masturbate. So yes although this was an extreme example - the overall ethos of many programmes I think is not in anyway beneficial to our children.

The point isn't what they have seen or not seen. The point is normalising a whole range of behaviours. Kids may know a whole load of stuff but after half of these RSE classes I would suggest that they are more likely to engage in a whole host of behaviours. And I just don't think this benefits our young people in any way.

Greenhive in Nunhead is lovely and excellent.

I have for a while now been researching the material being created by sex education providers for our children. I think many parents would be horrified by the material. I am attaching an image from something called The Dice Game created by The Proud Trust. The Dice Game is for 13 year olds upwards. The material is behind a paywall: https://www.theproudtrust.org/shop/general-shop/educational-resources-secondary/sexuality-agender-v2/ The way it works is that the six sided dice has a word on each side, Vulva, Penis, Anus, Mouth, Hands/Fingers and Objects. The game is to roll the two dice and then the group will discuss what sexual activity is possible using the two words that face upwards. There?s a grid to explain what is the activity say when anus meets anus or when object meets anus. ?Every combination is worthy of a conversation? says the text and the risks are downplayed. I am attaching a small section of the grid which is all I can do - but I will put some of the text below. The grid says for example: ?Anus/penis: Sometimes called ?anal sex? this can be a pleasurable experience for the person inserting their penis and the person ?receiving? the penis in their anus. The internal clitoris and/or prostate gland can be stimulated through this kind of sex.? ?Anus/object: the anus can be pleasured by placing objects next to the anus or inside it. The anus responds to temperature, size and movement changes. It is important that objects used in sex are clean. Objects must be smooth, or have ridges, but must be retrievable!? ?Anus/mouth: sometimes called ?oral sex? or ?rimming?. It can be pleasurable for some people to experience giving and receiving oral sex to the anus. You can explore the anus with the tongue and lips by kissing, sucking and licking the area.? ?Anus/hands and fingers: you can touch, stroke or insert finger(s) into the anus ? this is called ?masturbation? or ?fingering.?? ?Anus/vulva: some people enjoy pushing or rubbing their anus and vulva together as the warmth, pressure and moisture can be pleasurable.? And so it goes on. Remember this is an activity for 13 year olds upwards. I have been trying to find a website where this material is brought together so that parents can know what is going on. The best I can find is this https://values.foundation/ Hover over 'initiatives' then hover over 'evidence' and you will be lead to a google drive. It is full of documents with material which you really don't want your children to see. If you have any questions please let me know. I have been researching this stuff a while.

I did a search for a central heating engineer at about 8.30 am when the central heating appeared not to be working. I contacted a number of engineers including Dave - he was the first to get back in touch - about 15 minutes later, he came to look at the problem about an hour later (or less) - it turned out to be a non-problem - although he had to spend a while checking various things. He just charged me the call out charge. If the central heating does go again I will contact him.

Hi Heft Well I wanted to find out if I was really alone in thinking the way that I do and I think that I am!! "Yes I want to work very much. I really > couldn't stay sane as a mother without it. But I > know it's different for everyone" I don't think it's a choice between working and not working...most women all over the world through all times have worked ....but as i keep saying I don't expect to have the same career as someone without kids - and I don't feel any resentment about that Women absolutely tend towards roles such as > teachers because it fits in with picking our kids > up from school. However this is changing. > I don't think women just tend to those roles cause of history. I think there is biology involved too and women do tend towards caring roles...I just did a quote earlier from a telegraph article I found about how women choose caring professions...and I think there is some sort of tendency there that won't change that easily. I realise of course women can and do do all kinds of things ...I am talking about generalities. The unequal representation of women at higher > levels of the workforce is a result of unjust > discrimination yes, among millions of other > reasons. Not least, as I've said, that men have > the jump on us by hundreds of years. But > Government taking seriously the fact the imbalance > is there is very important. I really disagree with this...I think we are unequally represented because the majority of women all over the world through the ages have prioritised childcare and therefore few have striven to be at higher levels of the workforce. And it seems to me that when women do strive to be there - they get there! There might be lots of discrimination going on (e.g assumptions that women are going to take time off, prioritise their children etc) but I see that sort of discrimination as understandable and perhaps very frustrating but not necessarily unjust. Is Motherhood a problem? Yes I suppose it is, how > sad. I dream of the day when just parenthood will > be a problem! Well that borders on the tragic! But I suppose it is what would happen if people en masse decided that the world of work and politics was more important Yes it's up to the state to sort this out, and > do you know why? Because if you let us do it for > ourselves it'll take forever. Businesses weren't > going to give men and women flexible working hours > unless forced to. Annoyingly people aren't going > to vote-in more women MPs unless they're given all > women shortlists, just like women wont be voted on > to 50% of Boards of big companies - even though > few of the people voting would admit to being > sexist. If you can't achieve equality through the > system as it is now then you have to change the > system. I am interested to know...I don't work for a business and I am not a career woman and I get the feeling you are ....in times of recession and when businesses have enough challenges anyway isn't it really impractical to have all the flexible working practices and maternity and paternity leave etc? Isn't that just going to make it more difficult for everybody? I certainly wouldn't vote in a woman MP just cause she is a woman. I might vote her in cause I thought she was a good MP. I think putting women in artificially will make for trouble in all kinds of ways. We will start feeling (if we don't already) that the women haven't got there entirely on the basis of merit which would be extremely frustrating for those who had got there entirely on merit. Also the women MPs we had didn't give women a good press...when Blair wanted a really grotty job done (like try to push through casinos)he gave it too a woman - I got the feeling that women weren't prepared to stand up to him as they should have done (career too important?). And how can there be 50% of women on boards when there aren't equal numbers of women to choose from? It just means that those who got there wouldn't be so good. Oh and also the women who are in parliament are totally different from me - they have prioritised their careers and handed over their childcare to nannies, and i wouldn't trust them to represent my views one bit. At least your old fashioned politician might have had a wife at home thoroughly linked in with the real world of families and ordinary people - the world the politician is supposed to be representing - and she would have been able to tell him what to do - your woman mp doesn't have that... Well if you thought you had had a good rant before....

apenn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With regard to questions 3 and 4, this gets to > that old debate about nature vs nurture. The > issue that needs to be addressed is that > regardless of where you stand on these questions > there should be equality of opportunity for all > genders for all jobs and types of work. The role > of government (question 8) is to create and > regulate an environment that enables this. Not an > enviable task! > > With regard to Brum's post above - fully support > the general message of your post, however it could > be argued that since men traditionlly hold the > "power" in our society, it is men that have > pigeonholed themselves into their roles and > women's roles are "inflicted" upon them. (Please > don't take this too literally!) Men can choose to > stay at home (albeit with society generally > looking sceptically at their choice). Often if > one parent is going to stay at home, the man > returns to work because he was earning more. And > why is that? Mother's who want to work can face a > lot of obstacles getting into or back into the > workplace. I think what it comes down to for both > genders is the need for - here it comes - good > work-life balance. > -A Hmmmm - I don't fully support Brums post - although i generally support it. I think i am keen to know if there is anywhere where women and men both participate equally in both realms. I just can't imagine women handing over the childcare role so whole heartedly to their partners...speaking personally I suppose I like help with childcare...lots of it preferably but I am not sure if I would be prepared to hand over my primary role. Maybe I am exceptional in that... I would be interested in other women's views on that subject.... re what a penn said ...I don't think we can assume that men have pigeoned themselves in that particular role. There some very interesting gender arguments which suggest that women are at the heart of society and they have given men status as a way of sorting of keeping them on board. Mothers need all the help they can get...men don't and if they don't have incentives like status then they will just wander off into the wilderness. In those sorts of arguments status has been given to men by women (perhaps their mothers ?) ...as for power well I am not too sure about where that resides...sorry ... apenn said not to take it too literally which is exactly what I went and did, but I think maybe what I am suggesting is that sex roles are not just determined by the social and cultural context in which we live and are unlikely to change as wholeheartedly as some would wish for....

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Niledynodely - I would completely agree that there > is an economic as well as social value to what > women do inside the home. Aside from the obvious > caring roles, there are plenty of things that we > do voluntarily and/or within family networks that > have value. I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. > My point was only that I think women should be > enabled to earn money if they want to, and if the > only thing that prevents them doing that is a > child care issue, then it is a legitimate role for > government to assist with that issue. I also think > it is a mistake for a country to prevent women > working, either actively or by omission, since we > do actually need some proportion of the female > population to work in paid roles and to earn > money. But I would not for a minute say that the > work women (of which I am one) do in the home has > no economic value. Nor would I say that one has to > have an economic value to be of worth. A good > example is education - the old saying that if you > educate a man you educate a person, but if you > educate a woman you educate a family, has some > truth in it. A woman who can teach her children > manners, self respect, social awareness, good > diet, exercise, music, reading, a sense of the > history and culture of their country, develop a > curious mind and direct a lot of young energy does > huge social (well as economic) good. Hi Leaglebeagle thanks for your reply - I like very much what you say about the role of women. I am not sure about the extent to which the government can really help out with the childcare issue...I know that it is really good in Denmark but even there it is only after the first year. Also they pay really high taxes to have the system which they have and they have a very small population and country which makes it difficult to compare to us. I am trying to work out where I stand which is I suppose why I started this post. I don't think we could be stopped working - even by omission - too much of the world depends on us for that to happen. But I don't think that I agree with the feminist agenda that there should be equal number of men and women at the top levels as I explained in a previous post. There are women who make a conscious decision not to have children because they love their work or career so much and it seems to me those women can get to the top just as men can. Other women choose to have children and to put work in second place and in some way I think this type of mother and the above career woman has more in common with each other because we have both made choices and had to sacrifice something. Of course there are women who have kids and a proper career but either they are super efficient, special, organised people or else they are prepared to hand over the childcare role to someone else - but either way they are in a minority so I don't see how we can expect to see so many women at the top. About men and women and whether they choose the same type of employment I found something in the Telegraph March 30th - annoyingly I can't find it on the internet but it explains "women are more likely to work for a cause and men for money, according to a new study. Researchers found that women were 10 per cent more productive when their work was linked to something they cared about. Men showed no increase in productivity whether they worked for a noble cause or not. Scientists said men's attitude of working for monetary gain explained why they were paid more because women were attracted to work in lower paid sectors such as health care, education or charity" (reported by Richard Alleyne from findings of the Royal Economic Societ's annual conference). I am not sure whether you are very much in favour of the equality agenda but as I was mentioning about women and work I got onto it.

I want to reply to leagle beagle and katsu queen ...I'm a bit short of time (got to get something done for work!!), but just very quickly what most grabbed my attention was the idea of being economically unviable...you must have seen all those articles which have costed all the things which women do if they don't go to work. But even then I dont think things should have to be costed to be of value....I think that women who don't work outside the home contribute in all kinds of ways...I honestly think we would have healthier communities if there was less emphasis on women working...I haven't worked it all out and am being a bit hypocritical and will think these things through more properly tomorrow....

I see what you mean and you are probably right about that ...it is very tricky. But I do think that all the things we do while we don't work (like reading to kids in schools) should get more recognition.