sexist advertisment from Gap y

I don't see any venom either. Opinions, yes. Views coloured by gender and upbringing, yes. But wenom is another thing entirely. If you want to see venom, look elsewhere.

I think Jess, like me, finds casual sexism hard to stomach. The same as casual racism, because it is so harmful and we should be asking, demanding, so much more for our daughters and our granddaughters.

I can't get excited over this. If you don't like so-called gender stereotyping, ignore. Mothercare have been doing this for years.

Get your dgd a train set, and your nephew a doll if it bothers you.

And as for careers, there are plenty of female engineers and programmers out there. Female brickies are not si common, but twas ever thus.

Model sensible behaviour yourself and your dgs will hopefully follow suit.

What!!

I have been out all day being very sensible, what have I done?
(oh, flirting with G&Tea, well someone has to
He's a bit slow though, DH offered a whisky on our first date. I hate whisky.)

Science isn't really a girls subject is it miss?"
I can't think that can be true nowadays; there are as many, if not more, young women entering medicine as young men. Where I worked there was probably a fairly even number of women to men.

I agree that where manual strength is required, men for the most part have the edge, but not all engineering requires manual strength.

I genuinely,I so mean genuinely,do not know what you feminist are on about,I am utterly sincere on this.My close family include three great nephews and one great niece and two god daughters,ages from 9-18,the youngest god daughter,boxes and plays for the local football team,my nieces friends include boys as well as girls,she knows without a doupt she will be an architect.My own GC are one of each,but they are treated exactly the same,they are both Thomas the tank mad,they share a train set.What is the problem.We have absolutely no doupt at all the little girl will have the same opportunities as the boy,why the hell shouldn't she.

Leemw711 - what an awful thing to say. Regardless of your opinion of Dickie's posts, he is still entitled to express his opinion. I thought the whole point of this forum was to encourage discussion. That way some of us might be influenced to see an alternative viewpoint. It seems that you feel discussion should be closed down if someone's view does not accord with your own. None of the participants on Gransnet deserve to be on the receiving end of such patronising arrogance, so perhaps you should be the one to rethink your responses or post on another forum.

leemw711 Are you for real? such crassness I think your the one who should find somewhere else to post if you find Dickys posts offensive. This is the 21st century, not the 1800s.

Sadly Marmark1 society does not treat girls and boys and women and men the same.

You can be sad if you want,I'm not.Im confident and happy.and I think men are lovely,sometimes.I think women are lovely,sometimes.and I think we are all better off working together,each doing what they do best,the best candidate for the job.

I'v got it now,you people genuinely feel inferior.thats why you don't like words like actress and Mrs.Well,you can have two people of the same sex that will be very very different to each other.That doesn't make one inferior. Even animals of the same species will have different traits.Isnt it a good thing?What a world where everyone was the same.

Feminism isn't saying women and men are the same biologically, quite the opposite, that's a straw man often used by anti feminists. Women are persecuted because of their biology. But you're probably right Marmark, it's all in women's heads, nothing to see here...

Yes, men and women are different. What feminism used to press for was that they should be allowed to take on the careers, occupations and lifestyles that they wanted, without being told by the establishment that they would not be permitted.

By establishment, I mean two things. First the legal, political, educational, church and business frameworks which barred women from getting degrees or apprenticeships for the "male" occupations, or becoming lawyers, doctors, and priests. They even had no control over their own money, all of it going under their husband's control as soon as they married, or their children - a husband could make decisions about their education and welfare without consulting his wife.

Then the social framework, which closed its eyes to men with mistresses but labelled those mistresses as "fallen women" and ostracised them (read the novel "The crimson petal and the white" by Micael Faber) and condemned "unladylike" leisure pursuits like cycling, which would render them unfit for bearing children, and probably excite their baser passions too (read the novel "While the world is still asleep" by Petra Durst-Benning)

Also the attitude of the "man-in-the-street", who knew what he wanted in a wife - one who had his meal on the table when he got home from work, didn't argue when he spent the evening in the pub or the club, was compliant when he came home and felt like a spot of nookie. Then there was the attitude of the slightly more well-off that it was an insult to him if his wife wanted to have a career, "Don't I make enough money for you?!"

Women are now admitted to the universities and the professions, they are equal financially and in law. They now (only recently) have equality in the church, that philanthropic institution whose founder stated that there was no differentiation between men nor women under God. They can do in law whatever job they choose to, they make family decisions, they are not to be discriminated against.

What takes a lot longer than the legalities is the residue of hundreds (thousands?) of years of social acceptance that might is right and leads, and the weaker follow. It was the norm that the "stronger" sex which made war and trained with weapons and beat the rebellion out of anyone who argued with them has the monopoly of certain behaviour and preferences, and the "weaker" sex, which bore and nursed the babies and made the meals and clothes had the monopoly of other traits.

The media and the retail trade, with their frilly pink for girls and their macho gear for boys are still continuing the stereotyping. Most children grow out of it, but it still lingers - how many (female) GNers were horrified at the tales on here of rats and spiders?

Well said as always Elegran it is incredible how many clearly miss the point that while equality has come a long way in the last 50 years, it still has a long way to go in some people's heads .
It is within living memory for all of us, surely, having to get husband's signature fior credit agreements, wife's salary not being taken into account for mortgage applications, women in leading roles in society, women clergy, equality in the professions....the list is endless. It's not rubbish about being called actor/actress or Mrs. that not only trivialises it, but misses the point altogether.
Equal does not mean identical but just as we now no longer tolerate the colour of a person's skin, or their religion being factors in their ability to function at the highest level, we have to ensure that gender is not an obstacle.

Cants stand r a t s. Spiders dont bother me unless they are huge and dark.

There is still a big problem with men not being attracted to very bright women. I think that that is a huge problem actually, and it is rarely talked about.

JessM. I think times have changed and there just isnt the attitude of being told in scholls that certain jobs are just for men, Could be wrong.
I do know form first hand experience however that some teachers have not heard of certain jobs, so how can they promote them at all to both sexes?

There is still a big problem with men not being attracted to very bright women. I think that that is a huge problem actually, and it is rarely talked about
(probably because it is so last century?)
Have to laugh!
Why should a bright woman be bothered? Are highly intelligent women attracted to the sort of man who would hold that point of view?
That sort of attitude I thought died out in the 50's!!

Of course bright women are bothered by that.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3726001/Men-don-t-fancy-clever-women-unless-attractive-Male-daters-line-sand-intelligence-turn-off.html

What really scares me is the fact that while some things have improved for women as a class, some things have gotten a whole lot worse, due largely to the pornification of our society.

It's driven by misogyny, doesn't matter how you dress it up that is the root cause. Look at how rape victims are treated to this day, what was she wearing, why did she walk home alone etc. There was a front page the other day that headlined how much a young, murdered woman had drunk the night she was brutally murdered. Out and out victim blaming.

Some of the coverage of the Olympics has been depressing, female judo fighters being called cat fighters, constant references to female athletes husbands and children etc.

We have a long way to go and attitudes need to shift for this to happen. As I said before we should be demanding more for our daughters and granddaughters.

Haven't bothered to read the link obieone - Daily Wail. Says it all. Post me a link from the Economist or the FT saying the same and I might give it the time of day

No, bright women are NOT bothered by that in my experience - it simply smacks of 19th attitudes! Blue stockings and all that

I think it is a huge deal.

From a feminism point of view, as well as from a society point of view.

Well I wouldn't want anyone to worry their pretty little head about it

"Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses"

But it isnt actually funny is it. It isnt about women who are not pretty, it is about those who are too bright for mens' egos to cope with.

But the point is, no intelligent woman would be flattered to be hit on by Neanderthal man. And in your funny way you manage to insult both sexes by your observation