Male/female - East Vs West

[Boo]

But your verbiage in the last para concerns me. You use the word liberation as though women are held captive to men as though they are a country seized in the course of a war and that's very emotive.

not in war but to be quite frank more like a dictatorship. Who decided that men had the right to dictate to women on anything?? Who decided that men could determine what women of any nationality should or shouldn't do or what their role in the world should be. IMO only a women has that right just as only a man gets a say in what he will do with his life. Simple fo rme to understand but then I am the one with people trying to dictate to me so a(*certain type of) man will probably see it differently, which is basically the problem all along.

[kat]

QUOTE Chiang Mai:

I'm still having difficulty understanding what it meant by the term "scapegoat" in this context. I listen with interest to commentary and views from both sexes from many nations - in my posts I have simply said that the source of the subject commentary was female, after all, would it not make sense that females would be the most likely to put forward the feminist view. Nothing untoward, hidden or pointed about any of that. Remember, this is not a personal issue for me as an individual so please don't try to pursue a track that suggests it might me since that doesn't really help the debate. END QUOTE

We were referring the the fact that you opened this thread with an excuse to have a bash fest at female posters. It's quite fine if "female commentators" inspire you to contemplate the threat or "invasion" of East vs. West for discussion, but if you are going to attempt to condescend to people you should at least be honest and responsible for basic statements. So, since you have difficulty understanding what was meant in "this context," we simply spelled out your own post for you.

For Damian:

I understand statements about political correctness running amok; in cases where this is true I agree. I think it does help to look at things in a rational manner, and to be honest. I think some of the comments here about legislating equality and political correctness are really about Affirmative Action and Civil Rights laws, in the North American context. It is common knowledge that laws change before attitudes. Not so long ago, it would've been rare for some people to even admit that SOME women or minorities could actually be in professional positions of authority over men, or power. It extends far further than just physical strength, such as a firefighter: if you are in an intellectual profession, your intellect comes into question as compared to men; if you are in a managerial position, your judgment is questioned, and on and on. There still ARE plenty of people as evidenced on this board that simply believe one group is naturally superior over another and have automatic rights over them. Before the legislation of equal opportunity, there was no guarantee that the "best" people were in the deserved jobs, either, because there was a lot of racial and "old boy" networks that ensured closed ranks into some professions. This is a well-documented, historical fact, at both the upper echelons and blue collar levels of society, so I'm not going to be sent on a detour to substantiate commonly known history (for those who may ask). The odd thing about complaints concerning legislation of equal opportunities, is that there is never any acknowledgment or possible awareness that the legislation exists because it WAS unfair, and was NEVER a natural occurrence. Everything was engineered toward the unequal opportunity, accessibility, and accumulation of wealth, from the private sector, to education, and public jobs. Society and those that benefited didn't have a problem with it, because at the time norms supported (AND legislated) that everyone knew their place, including women and minorities. The recent laws are simply a measure - albeit - imperfect, to rectify this, and neither one is "natural."

In Thailand, you see this at play in the reverse, with a small, stratified, caste-like system at the top, and a large peasantry at the bottom. Things will change, but according to the cultural mores in place here in regards to women, and those at the bottom. This is a paternalistic society whose core values are adverse to the idea of equality or inclusion. Things for women throughout Asia are still very much dependent on their rank at birth, in connection with the powerful men in their family or relationships. There are very few, free-standing civil rights for women. The problem I could have as a professional, educated, Western woman in the workplace, is that people's personal feelings could seep into the professional sphere, such as men believing that I should not be their boss. Without a civil code, we would see the kinds of things that occur in Asia to women without familial rank or protection. Personally, I feel very lucky to have been born a Western woman, and to have my rights as an independent, free-standing person coded in law.

In terms of personal relationships, for me it would be intolerable for someone to think they are my "boss, daddy, or father figure" simply because they are a man, because I feel that it is very infantalizing. I also feel that it is based more on insecurity than on any natural order of things, because at my most natural state sometimes I am more dominant about some things, and in other areas he is, which is the way I like it. To stifle what for me would be my own natural order with a predetermined "rank" would be to stifle not only interaction with him, but my sexuality as well, because part of that is the tension of unknowns and more organic power dynamics. When it's all been decided already, you sort of repress and shut these things down because of insecurity or fear, and actually deprive yourself of the full interplay of natural female/male sexuality. That's why many women say that a man who is wholly secure and confident of a woman's natural force of personality is also incredibly sexy. I also think that's why Western women are generally a lot more in touch and secure with their sexuality, because it's a trade off.

*EDIT - I'm in bold (had a problem with the quote function, sorry)

** One other thing, Damian: I hope you are aware that the high divorce rate in the West is not because of "who's the boss"; it's because of adultery, and the divorces are mostly initiated by women. At any rate, you can't compare to Asian because they are culturally not accepting of divorce, which nullifies comparisons.

Edited November 18, 2007 by kat

[meom]

But where I'm really sexist, is the man should be "the boss". Equal rights and opportunities are ideal and sound great, but in every relationship someone has more power than the other... that SHOULD be the man but often isn't in western culture, hence the unhappy relationships.

Damian

Not sure it's like that Damian. I think in most relations you share the power. Sometimes you're the boss and sometimes she's the boss. In a good relation there's no need for the kind of power struggle you refer to.

Except maybe about the remote control

[kat]

Yep, Meom, and what I'm saying is that it is actually BETTER for men in the long run - except for the remote control (which he gets during footie games, I know)

[blizzard]

for you damian , the high divorce rate in usa coz of poor financial s h i t not screwing non spouses.............lol.

were do you peeple get yrr information?

Edited November 18, 2007 by blizzard

[wudangtiger]

My 2c worth. Obviously men and women are not equal, anywhere.

1. There is the question of who gives birth and that period of time before it where it can be difficult to get around

2. There is no doubt that almost all societies have evolved different roles/behaviours partly as a result of that.

3. As a society gets richer, it is of course easier for a couple to share the load (and NO-ONE likes digging ditches)

4. Let's not confuse the liberation of women with questions of meritocracy. Thailand, like many other countries (not only Asian ones!) has a long way to go on meritocracy ...

cheers.

[blizzard]

hou do you know thai women dont like ditch digin? they choose to do it dont they..........lol.

[meom]

Yep, Meom, and what I'm saying is that it is actually BETTER for men in the long run - except for the remote control (which he gets during footie games, I know)

In the long run not much will change I guess. In the end men crave power and women crave the next best thing.. an erection and once that's established who cares who's on top

[blizzard]

do married women really have erections high on their list of priorities................lol

[DamianMavis]

Kat, what you wrote about the laws is fine. But you are making some assumptions of my relationship I think because you don't understand and I probably haven't explained well, heck Alex thinks Im the devil and to be avoided if I bump into him in person heh. My girlfriend is highly educated, a masters, a bachelors, 1st class architectures license with over 100 buildings built around the globe, 1st class hospital administrators (license? certification?) various business and economics certifications... probably forgetting something. She's also highly successful, she has worked for various large Japanese companies and done everything from architecture, large volume sales to countries, liason that meets with ambassadors regularly... anyway the point is, you cant be a woman like her and not be VERY strong. And that is the problem, she has had a very hard time with men. Japanese men are intimidated by her, alot of falang men seemed too weak and she was unable to respect them. A strong woman like her NEEDS an even stronger man, otherwise, she can never respect or love them. Then she met me. Now she is happier than she has ever been in her life. Don't mean to brag but its just the way it is. In business and with colleagues she appears to be the icon of strength, with me... well, she's different. She's able to let out her feminine side because my strength makes her feel softer... does that make sense? This is the woman nicknamed THATCHER (after Margaret Thatcher) by her subordinates at Japanese companies, she would make grown men CRY. No one could have imagined her as I know her, a sweet cute little ball of femininity.

And REAL strength means that a man doesnt have to control his woman, there is nothing I control about her really, sure I make decisions and demonstrate strength all the time and have strict boundaries but only a weak man tries to control someone to make themselves feel stronger. I don't need to do that. Truth is, I'm extremely sweet and loving, but also extremely strong and she needs both.

My attitude comes from my mother, the strongest woman I have ever met. I probably could never truly love a weak woman having been raised by such a strong one. People referred to her as a barracuda (in business). Unfortunately, she was so strong, that she never met a man she could have a lasting relationship with, too many weak western men.

Damian

[kat]

for you damian , the high divorce rate in usa coz of poor financial s h i t not screwing non spouses.............lol.

were do you peeple get yrr information?

I get my information from Public Policy Institutes and reports on Family Law and Meditation, and you??? Don't start with me blizzard, because you'll have a meltdown

In actual fact, many states do not require the reason for divorce to be filed, but over 80% are irreconcilable differences, and more than twice as many initiated by women. But yes, financial stress is also a major and related contributor.

Kat, what you wrote about the laws is fine. But you are making some assumptions of my relationship I think because you don't understand and I probably haven't explained well, heck Alex thinks Im the devil and to be avoided if I bump into him in person heh. My girlfriend is highly educated, a masters, a bachelors, 1st class architectures license with over 100 buildings built around the globe, 1st class hospital administrators (license? certification?) various business and economics certifications... probably forgetting something. She's also highly successful, she has worked for various large Japanese companies and done everything from architecture, large volume sales to countries, liason that meets with ambassadors regularly... anyway the point is, you cant be a woman like her and not be VERY strong. And that is the problem, she has had a very hard time with men. Japanese men are intimidated by her, alot of falang men seemed too weak and she was unable to respect them. A strong woman like her NEEDS an even stronger man, otherwise, she can never respect or love them. Then she met me. Now she is happier than she has ever been in her life. Don't mean to brag but its just the way it is. In business and with colleagues she appears to be the icon of strength, with me... well, she's different. She's able to let out her feminine side because my strength makes her feel softer... does that make sense? This is the woman nicknamed THATCHER (after Margaret Thatcher) by her subordinates at Japanese companies, she would make grown men CRY. No one could have imagined her as I know her, a sweet cute little ball of femininity.

And REAL strength means that a man doesnt have to control his woman, there is nothing I control about her really, sure I make decisions and demonstrate strength all the time and have strict boundaries but only a weak man tries to control someone to make themselves feel stronger. I don't need to do that. Truth is, I'm extremely sweet and loving, but also extremely strong and she needs both.

My attitude comes from my mother, the strongest woman I have ever met. I probably could never truly love a weak woman having been raised by such a strong one. People referred to her as a barracuda (in business). Unfortunately, she was so strong, that she never met a man she could have a lasting relationship with, too many weak western men.

Damian

OK. Damian; I didn't misunderstand you by the way, and commented on your girlfriend's education way back.

I was responding at length to some of the effects the "I'm the boss" attitude can have on relationships in general, using myself as an example, not your girlfriend.

But now that you explain it that way, yes I understand you better, and I can very much relate to your mother. In my own way, I'm just looking out for you Damian, as opposed to the muppets that I just put on ignore.

However, I would never refer to anyone as "my boss" except as an obvious joke, or within the context of a job. I think in the context of Asia, it's not a joke. But hey, in the full range of personal choice, there's nothing wrong with it. In my experience, though, it does seep out into the public and personality sphere, when women are expected to never contradict their man or disagree with him over factual things both inside and outside of the house. *In that case we are talking about more than just sexual repression (and I'm not talking about you here, just in general).

**But yes, I understand what you are saying, and on that personal level I know that you are right ..... boss

*spelling

***Although, I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger." That sets a whole competition in motion, whereby people really do start acting in roles, and sets up the man for a lot of pressure. But mostly, it can dangerously veer him away from his true self and masculinity, because he has to "prove" or play the stronger "role." Intelligent women can pick up falsehoods right away, and that's when it gets to be a turn off, maybe sort of what your girlfriend describes as "weak." But I view the false macho as the most weak and biggest turn off of all, mostly because it's not very intelligent.

Real men are so incredibly sexy in their natural state, which includes doubt, confidence, dominance, and the ability to acknowledge that their woman may be stronger sometimes, that their is absolutely NO NEED for a role.

Edited November 18, 2007 by kat

[xyborg]

<br />can someone plese teach xyborg the difficult process of correctly using the reply feature?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

And tell Tony not to be so petty!!

[TonyLeung]

damien, i have tried to read your posts in a couple of threads and its incoherent. are you on yabba or what?

[qwertz]

It's clear to me that equality of the sexes has different connotations to different factions.

I'm more sensitive to inequality, i.e. a man being led around by the nose by his woman or the woman treated like a doormat by her man.

To me, any improvement on the above scenarios would be a step in the right direction.

[chiang mai]

We were referring the the fact that you opened this thread with an excuse to have a bash fest at female posters. It's quite fine if "female commentators" inspire you to contemplate the threat or "invasion" of East vs. West for discussion, but if you are going to attempt to condescend to people you should at least be honest and responsible for basic statements. So, since you have difficulty understanding what was meant in "this context," we simply spelled out your own post for you.

Thank you Kat, I now understand the reference. Yes, I didn't do a very good job on that wording did I - the fact is that the catalyst for the original post was two different sources and I deliberately did not want to identify one of them since they hold high office on a well known social networking site in Asia and discussion about there views might have led to the post being deleted and me being banned. As it turns out that source was very open with her views and I now understand her viewpoint much better so that was really useful. I'm afraid the part about the two female house guests was fabricated in order to try to make my point better and it served its purpose but now understand viewers interpretation of it all.

[Pakboong]

Our particular reality is a 20 something Issan farm girl and a retired white guy. Reference to whether or not the girl was found in a bar or on the internet is entirely irrelevant. The roles that evolve in their particular relationship are likely to happen due to the retired status of the guy and the yet to get anywhere near retirement age of the woman. Once you have gone to school for 20 years and worked for 30 your attitude as to who does what to/for whom changes considerably. Conflicts often arise when the female in that relationship(could also be a male) wants to assume the benefits of retirement without paying the associated dues. A future is not normally granted, it is normally accrued by some kind of extended effort. I would say that a sex partner may qualify as effort but I would not make that arguement.

[kat]

We were referring the the fact that you opened this thread with an excuse to have a bash fest at female posters. It's quite fine if "female commentators" inspire you to contemplate the threat or "invasion" of East vs. West for discussion, but if you are going to attempt to condescend to people you should at least be honest and responsible for basic statements. So, since you have difficulty understanding what was meant in "this context," we simply spelled out your own post for you.

Thank you Kat, I now understand the reference. Yes, I didn't do a very good job on that wording did I - the fact is that the catalyst for the original post was two different sources and I deliberately did not want to identify one of them since they hold high office on a well known social networking site in Asia and discussion about there views might have led to the post being deleted and me being banned. As it turns out that source was very open with her views and I now understand her viewpoint much better so that was really useful. I'm afraid the part about the two female house guests was fabricated in order to try to make my point better and it served its purpose but now understand viewers interpretation of it all.

I appreciate your honesty; that clears up a lot.

[chiang mai]

It's clear to me that equality of the sexes has different connotations to different factions.

I'm more sensitive to inequality, i.e. a man being led around by the nose by his woman or the woman treated like a doormat by her man.

To me, any improvement on the above scenarios would be a step in the right direction.

I'm afraid I still don't fully understand the equality of the sexes issue, I just don't really see it as fully as others I'm afraid. I've spent forty years running large programs of work around the world and interviewing and hiring people in the process. With hand on heart I can honestly say that I have never considered gender to be an issue when it comes to filling vacancies or in considering someone for promotion, it's simply not a consideration. Perhaps most importantly I cannot recall instances where colleagues or co-workers have considered gender to be an issue and I don't recall ever having met an aggrieved female candidate who was rejected. I hear you say I must have led a sheltered life but that is far from the truth. I've lived and worked in a series of countries including USA, Europe, China and Hong Kong so I think my sample is quite broad.

What I have seen though and indeed been a party to is discussions with female employees who were constantly weighing up the benefits and merits of a corporate career with stopping work and having children - that's a tough one especially where the person in question is very capable. But what can be said about that - business has to go on and the idea of holding a position open for months or longer simply does not meet the business need.

I'm afraid that as far as employment and promotion is concerned the playing field for capable people in my view is very level and it has been for quite some time. Managers and Execs would be stupid not to recruit or promote a capable female over their less capable male counterpart. The other side of the coin however is where I have been involved in cases of dismissal and all too often where a female was involved the process was referred to lawyers on the basis of discrimination although none were successful.

Today there is a whole host of legislation on the books of most Western countries to ensure equality of the sexes and my personal experiences in business suggests that the process works well anyway. So it will come as no surprise that I don't understand why there is still so much talk about feminism and unfair treatment of women in the West. Could it be that it's just a fashionable topic at times, is something that existed years ago but things are much improved today, a bit like when the hippie movement died out, there were people twenty years on claiming to be hippies! I don't know. But what I do know is that people talking about the need for greater equality of the sexes are perhaps not helping them selves as much as they could - it gets in the way of doing stuff. It's a bit like having a cold and sitting in a chair all day saying I feel miserable.

Apologies for not understanding but it's what I see.

Edited November 19, 2007 by chiang mai

[siamamerican]

I'm afraid I still don't fully understand the equality of the sexes issue, I just don't really see it as fully as others I'm afraid. I've spent forty years running large programs of work around the world and interviewing and hiring people in the process. With hand on heart I can honestly say that I have never considered gender to be an issue when it comes to filling vacancies or in considering someone for promotion, it's simply not a consideration. Perhaps most importantly I cannot recall instances where colleagues or co-workers have considered gender to be an issue and I don't recall ever having met an aggrieved female candidate who was rejected. I hear you say I must have led a sheltered life but that is far from the truth. I've lived and worked in a series of countries including USA, Europe, China and Hong Kong so I think my sample is quite broad.

What I have seen though and indeed been a party to is discussions with female employees who were constantly weighing up the benefits and merits of a corporate career with stopping work and having children - that's a tough one especially where the person in question is very capable. But what can be said about that - business has to go on and the idea of holding a position open for months or longer simply does not meet the business need.

I'm afraid that as far as employment and promotion is concerned the playing field for capable people in my view is very level and it has been for quite some time. Managers and Execs would be stupid not to recruit or promote a capable female over their less capable male counterpart. The other side of the coin however is where I have been involved in cases of dismissal and all too often where a female was involved the process was referred to lawyers on the basis of discrimination although none were successful.

Today there is a whole host of legislation on the books of most Western countries to ensure equality of the sexes and my personal experiences in business suggests that the process works well anyway. So it will come as no surprise that I don't understand why there is still so much talk about feminism and unfair treatment of women in the West. Could it be that it's just a fashionable topic at times, is something that existed years ago but things are much improved today, a bit like when the hippie movement died out, there were people twenty years on claiming to be hippies! I don't know. But what I do know is that people talking about the need for greater equality of the sexes are perhaps not helping them selves as much as they could - it gets in the way of doing stuff. It's a bit like having a cold and sitting in a chair all day saying I feel miserable.

Apologies for not understanding but it's what I see.

I've experienced much the same in regards to women co-workers. I currently head a department of roughly 100 employees. I've never made a decision based on race or gender, nor have knowledge of others co-workers making decisions based on these factors. Middle management is well represented by females, but I have wondered why our exec staff is void of women. At the same time many minorities are members.

The conclusion I've come to is that it is a matter of numbers. With the exception of myself, the other execs have dedicated themselves to climbing the corporate ladder while their wifes stayed home and cared for the children. Few women choose a career in lieu of raising kids. Sure you can do both, but it's challenge to compete and the playing field isn't level.

I'm not stating sexism doesn't exist in the work place - just that it isn't the predominate reason why women don't hold an equal share of senior management positions.

[sbk]

Some off-topic personal posts have been deleted.

So far, this thread is nice and civil with some intelligent debate. Let's please keep it that way.

[a2396]

Theoretically, men & women should be equal in a relationship, with good communication and understanding leading to a consensus between both partners in making decisions. Unfortunately, the balance in the west, at least in USA, has tilted to women wanting to be the dominate part of the equation. IN GENERAL, I have found Asian women much more reasonable and willing to give & take and still keep their feminisim. American women seem to thrive on combativeness & competivie "one upsmanship". For me, I am looking for a supportive and harmonious companion, not a sparring partner. The percentages of finding such are much higher in Asia.

[PeaceBlondie]

But then I began to look at the downside of that progress and the possible negative impacts it has had - divorce rates are at an all time high, the family unit is no longer the sacrosanct unit it once was and troubled children abound. Not all 100% directly attributable effects but almost certainly attributable to some degree.

I'm afraid that generally speaking I am of the view that men and women are not the same, physically, emotionally and intellectually or in much of any other way really. I don't see that as a negative simply as a fact. If women are able to achieve a high office or success in business in the West, great and more power to them - let water find it's own level naturally I say but don't legislate to make it do so.

As already pointed out, feminism has not caused the divorce rates or the family unit to change; and there were many troubled children in the forced marriages of old. But I agree there's some relationship there.

Men and women are not the same physically, but they are about 5% different, anatomically. They are equal intellectually. Emotional status is driven by culture. Men and women are so similar that ideally, gender roles can be whatever you wish them to be. Women in the west and east will achieve a proper level, like water, when the laws protect them to find their level. Legislation is unfortunately necessary in both worlds because the patriarchy (control by males) was so pervasive as to be perversive.

I want my daughters to have the same chances for success as my sons have.

[t.s]

<br />can someone plese teach xyborg the difficult process of correctly using the reply feature?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

And tell Tony not to be so petty!!

and you still cant get it right

[sylviex]

Women in the west and east will achieve a proper level, like water, when the laws protect them to find their level. Legislation is unfortunately necessary in both worlds because the patriarchy (control by males) was so pervasive as to be perversive.

I want my daughters to have the same chances for success as my sons have.

Well said, Peace Blondie !

Yep, Meom, and what I'm saying is that it is actually BETTER for men in the long run - except for the remote control (which he gets during footie games, I know)

and YES ! Well said, Kat !

Secure, smart men understand this and are enjoying the flow-on in many ways.

There are some such farang men here in Asia, and some Asians, too.

I agree that Chiangmai appears to be talking about affirmative action/positive discrimination.

Sometimes social engineering can be good. In education, for one example - a largely female workforce - it is thought that greater numbers of male teachers would be highly beneficial to boys and male teens. Should we or should we not object to a deliberate balancing of the numbers of male & female teachers ?

[kat]

"Should we or should we not object to a deliberate balancing of the numbers of male & female teachers ?"

We should not.

Thanks for your comments Sylviex.

[DamianMavis]

damien, i have tried to read your posts in a couple of threads and its incoherent. are you on yabba or what?

Tony, for the love of God man! Don't mistake ME for BLIZZARD.

Damian

[sbk]

Thai Visa Forum Rules:

Excessive, aggressive posts against other members, moderators and admin; or flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is best defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, rants, and/or for launching personal attacks, insulting, being hateful, useless criticism, name calling, swearing and other bad behavior or comments meant to incite anger.

Posts have been deleted. Lets keep this civil and on-topic please.

[fennielyn]

damien, i have tried to read your posts in a couple of threads and its incoherent. are you on yabba or what?

Tony, for the love of God man! Don't mistake ME for BLIZZARD.

Damian

omg...damian..LMAO

[qwertz]

^

Let's not delude ourselves here, Blizz.

The trash you mention mostly comprises of folk who were already losers back home.

Thailand does however bring out the best in some people, both male and female and some losers actually find themselves there.

And do take note that many men who came as sexpats have married and become quite respectable expats with the passing of time.

Edit - sorry, this was an answer to Blizzard's post which has since disappeared.

Edited November 19, 2007 by qwertz

[blizzard]

canadian gurl i guess our posts got lost in cyberspace.............lol. can you post again