# Forum About Russia Society  Статус женщины в России

## Martin Miles

Я читал в _Известиях_:  _Женщин среди государственных управленцев очень мало...  В России представительницам прекрасного пола относительно проще оказаться среди топ-менежеров компаний, чем в тех же США._ 
Что делать?

----------


## Звездочёт

> Я читал в _Известиях_:  _Женщин среди государственных управленцев очень мало... В России представительницам прекрасного пола относительно проще оказаться среди топменежеров компаний, чем в тех же США._ 
> Что делать?

 В каком смысле? Это плохо? Это хорошо? Почему нужно что-то делать?

----------


## Ramil

> Что делать?

 Переезжать в Россию )))

----------


## Zaya

> Я читал в «Известиях»:  _Женщин среди государственных управленцев очень мало…_В России представительницам прекрасного пола относительно проще оказаться среди топ-менеджеров компаний, чем в тех же США._ 
> Что делать?

 http://www.izvestia.ru/obshestvo/article3126064/

----------


## Martin Miles

> В каком смысле? Это плохо? Это хорошо? Почему нужно что-то делать?

 Известия: Дмитрий Медведев сказал, что это надо менять, да, "социологи давно обнаружили, что за женщин не голосуют именно женщины, полагая, что их место у плиты".   

> Martin Miles wrote:
> Что делать? 
> Переезжать в Россию )))

   ::

----------


## Zaya

> полагая

----------


## Юрка

> Известия: Дмитрий Медведев сказал, что это надо менять, да, "социологи давно обнаружили, что за женщин не голосуют именно женщины, полагая, что их место у плиты".

 А что хорошего внесут во власть женщины? Если только для статистики, чтобы было. 
Вот у нас в деревне местное самоуправление:
1) Староста - женщина. Получила от московского предпринимателя, скупившего 500 гектар земли, взятку за помощь в виде однокомнатной квартиры в райцентре, квадроцикла и ксерокса. 
2) Депутат местного самоуправления - фельдшерица. Ей за семьдесят. Хроническая алкоголичка. Провела предвыборную компанию под лозунгом: "не выберете и в этот раз - я вам покажу кузькину мать, я вам устрою, я вас полечу...". 
Проблема не в том, что во власти мало женщин, а в том, что там мало людей.

----------


## Hanna

I don't understand.....   ::  
Are there more equality problems for women in Russian than there are in Europe of the US... ?
What are the problem?

----------


## Ramil

No problem. The majority of Russian women simply do not want to be equal to men.

----------


## Martin Miles

> No problem. The majority of Russian women simply do not want to be equal to men.

 Думаю, что когда статус женщин высок, другие права человека тоже обычно крепки. Например, в "нелиберальном" Китае мальчик, жертва похищения, покупается за 6000 долларов, а девочка -  только за 500.

----------


## Zaya

> Думаю, что когда статус женщин высок, друг*и*е права человека тоже (порядок слов) обычно крепки. Например, в "нелиберальном" Китае_ ма*льч*ик, жертва похищения, покупае*тс*я за 6000 долларов, а девочка только (or всего лишь) за (порядок слов) 500.

  

> мальчик, кто - жертва похищения

 No, we don't use "кто" in this way, the sentence looked better with a comma. There are other ways of writing it. E.g. you can write "похищенный мальчик" and add a dash (—) after the word "девочка," but I don't think it's a big deal.

----------


## Hanna

Haha, the country where men are men and women are women....  Maybe you should use that as a tourism slogan. A lot of people of both genders are getting seriously bored with feminism.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Haha, the country where men are men and women are women.... Maybe you should use that as a tourism slogan

 Не мотив ли это западных мужчин, которые ищут русских жён (кроме их известной красоты)?

----------


## Звездочёт

По-моему, тема "женщина в политике" -- ловушка. Мы голосуем не за пол, а за программу политика. Если найдётся женщина, которая будет так же искушена в политике как и мужчина, то для женщины не существует никаких преград (кроме "мышиной возни"/интриг) войти во власть. Вопрос в другом: а много ли таких женщин?   

> [s:1l4n1kla]Этот - мотив ли[/s:1l4n1kla] Не мотив ли это западных мужей, которые [s:1l4n1kla]искают[/s:1l4n1kla] ищут русских жён (кроме их известной красоты) ?

  Сохранить предложение близким к оригиналу трудновато. Лучше переписать его, например, так: _А может быть, это и есть тот самый мотив, который, помимо известной красоты русских женщин, толкает западных мужчин/мужей на поиски русских жён?_

----------


## Zaya

> мужчин, которые ищут
>  красоты)?

----------


## Hanna

> Этот - мотив ли западских мужей, которие искают русских жён (кроме их известной красоты) ?

 Not sure exactly what this means. But rest assured my comment was simply a rather silly joke... Just ignore it.  
In Sweden where I come from, Russian guys have the image of being very macho, but I had never before heard that the women were supposed to be less feminist than women elsewhere! But that's what this thread seems to suggest... 
Personally I definitely have the impression that Russian women are  VERY tough and determined.  
I think the "feminine" image of Russian women, at least where I come from, hails from the past, when people immediately noticed that Russian women always wore dresses, while we wore mostly jeans or trousers... I haven't been to Russia for many years but I'd guess that this has changed.  
As for these international marriages, or rather the tacky *industry* promoting them.... well, I don't think it's a very good idea for me to express my opinion about those here. But those who have read my other posts can probably imagine what I think. I really don't like coming across ads for such services.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Not sure exactly what this means. But rest assured my comment was simply a rather silly joke... Just ignore it.

 Well, I had a bad day at the Cyrillic keyboard  ::  , but from your comments on the international marriage industry, it seems as though you were able to make a little sense out of my gibberish  ::  .

----------


## ekaterinak

> А что хорошего внесут во власть женщины?

 What bad things will they bring? / А что плохого?
Men have authority right now and though, they have not managed to make an ideal world. / Уже сейчас во власти находятся, преимущественно, мужчины, и тем не менее -- мир далек от идеала.      

> Проблема не в том, что во власти мало женщин, а в том, что там мало людей.

 Probably, there are more people than it need.   ::   ::   but I agree that their traits helped them to get power. Btw, chiefly, they are men. Maybe it is time to change the situation.   ::  / Вероятно, во власти вообще слишком "раздутый" штат сотрудников, но я согласна что, там действительно мало Людей. Между прочим, эти "сотрудники" -- преимущественно мужчины. Может, пришло время изменить ситуацию.

----------


## Ramil

If a woman ascends to power she gets the traits of a man. She wouldn't be a woman any more.

----------


## ekaterinak

> If a woman ascends to power she gets the traits of a man. She wouldn't be a woman any more.

 i.e. if a man begin to do housework he gets the traits of a woman, doesn't he?  Wouldn't he be a man any more?   ::   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  If a woman ascends to power she gets the traits of a man. She wouldn't be a woman any more.   i.e. if a man begin to do housework he gets the traits of a woman, doesn't he?  Wouldn't he be a man any more?

 Not to the extent a woman in politics would do, but yes.

----------


## ekaterinak

> Originally Posted by ekaterinak        Originally Posted by Ramil  If a woman ascends to power she gets the traits of a man. She wouldn't be a woman any more.   i.e. if a man begin to do housework he gets the traits of a woman, doesn't he?  Wouldn't he be a man any more?      Not to the extent a woman in politics would do, but yes.

 I cannot agree. Many years ago men were hunters. They shot off mammoths. Indeed, It was a hard job and it needs a manual power. A woman couldn't do it. A situation when women sat at home only was right for that time . Nowadays, nobody needs the manual power to have a comfortable life. Do you really think that women less clever, less skilful, less capable to manage people (it is a mental work it does not need the manual power at all)? What is it "the traits of a man" regarding policy? The power to kill the mammoths.   ::   ::   ::  
And another point. To sit home and to do housework is a very hard job! I think that a man who has boldness to do it is the best man!   ::

----------


## bitpicker

> I cannot agree. Many years ago men were hunters. They shot off mammoths. Indeed, It was a hard job and it needs a manual power. A woman couldn't do it. A situation when women sat at home only was right for that time . Nowadays, nobody needs the manual power to have a comfortable life. Do you really think that women less clever, less skilful, less capable to manage people (it is a mental work it does not need the manual power at all)? What is it "the traits of a man" regarding policy? The power to kill the mammoths.     
> And another point. To sit home and to do housework is a very hard job! I think that a man who has boldness to do it is the best man!

 And we shouldn't forget that in all likelihood the women sent off the hunters. There are strong hints that society in the Stone Age was matriarchal. And they didn't just stay at home either, they were the gatherers in 'hunter-gatherer'. 
In any case, while there are role-models and I think everyone should be allowed to choose their own role-model, preference for one personal role over another should not be the basis for an assessment of value or rank. If a woman feels she should adhere to the traditional role, that's fine, if she chooses to pursue a career, that's fine, too. Men, likewise. 
For what it's worth, the (few) Russian women I have met surely don't make the impression of being weak or meek, even those who do follow a traditional role-model, as well as those who don't. Not one of them ever gave the impression of accepting anything from any man just because he was a man.  
Robin

----------


## Ramil

> I cannot agree. Many years ago men were hunters. They shot off mammoths. Indeed, It was a hard job and it needs a manual power. A woman couldn't do it. A situation when women sat at home only was right for that time . Nowadays, nobody needs the manual power to have a comfortable life. Do you really think that women less clever, less skilful, less capable to manage people (it is a mental work it does not need the manual power at all)? What is it "the traits of a man" regarding policy? The power to kill the mammoths.     
> And another point. To sit home and to do housework is a very hard job! I think that a man who has boldness to do it is the best man!

 Nothing like that. But there are thousands of things a woman would do differently simply because she's a woman. I'm not saying that she would do worse, just differently. 
What I am trying to say is that a woman ascending the ladder of power would eventually start thinking the way men do, she would eventually start doing things the way men do simply because she wouldn't ascend a step higher if she doesn't - she's surrounded by men and in order to best them in their game she must accommodate her way of thinking. As a result we would see a man in a skirt on the top.

----------


## ekaterinak

> If a woman feels she should adhere to the traditional role, that's fine, if she chooses to pursue a career, that's fine, too. Men, likewise.

 I agree completely   ::   ::     

> But there are thousands of things a woman would do differently simply because she's a woman. I'm not saying that she would do worse, just differently.

 What did you mean when you mentioned the thousands of things? If it doesn't concern biology only It will not be right.   ::  
As for any mental work, for example, an employee must design a heating system. It is not important who is that employee: a man or a woman, in both cases they will use the same methodology and tools. I wouldn't say that they do it differently.           

> What I am trying to say is that a woman ascending the ladder of power would eventually start thinking the way men do...

 Why do you think that a woman and a man have diffirent way of thinking regarding any mental work? What does politician who is a man do that politician who is a woman wouldn't?

----------


## bitpicker

I would say that women and and men do differ in more than just biological respects. I think there is sufficient evidence that their minds tend to work differently. Is it upbringing? I don't think so, I think it is at least partly natural. This is supported by the fact that male and female brains are wired differently - more connections in the female brain between the hemispheres, more than just one area to process language for example. It would be pretty useless if this different make-up of the brain (no pun intended) did not result in at least some different functionality. What a waste of evolution...  ::  
It is a fact, for instance, that women have a much better chance of regaining speech after a stroke than men. Men have one language processor, if that's gone, then that's it. You notice that at work when women manage to be on the phone with someone, talk to a friend opposite them simultaneously and follow an unrelated conversation on the adjacent table, where a man usually is so overwhelmed by the general chatter that he can't even follow one - their single language processor overloads. 
It has also been shown that different ways to convey information, for example directions, are better suited to one gender than the other. Distances in measurements (250m), directional words such as 'left', 'right', temporal information is better for men, visual and geographical information (at the bakery, near the church, over the hill) better for women. 
That is not to say that this isn't a sliding scale. Theories abound as to why this is so, and why some women still describe their thinking like you would expect a man to do, and vice versa. But there are general tendencies which you can observe. 
Robin

----------


## Hanna

I agree with you. What has happened in Europe feels to me as if the male norm is now the norm for BOTH genders, whether you want it or not, and regardless of the fact that it forces women to behave in a way that actually goes against our nature.  
I am a manager at work (taking a break right now) and I normally have a team of male programmers working for me. It's a cut-throat environment: very hard and frankly, soul-destroying at times. The only way to get the job done in the way that my bosses expect me to, is to behave exactly as a rather tough man would. Only problem with this...  I am a rather feminine woman...  
As far as I know, at least I get paid the same as a man would. But frankly I am not so sure that business success is the way for MOST women to find happiness in life. I think I might have made the wrong choice.

----------


## starrysky

> "социологи давно обнаружили, что за женщин не голосуют именно женщины, полагая, что их место у плиты".

 *raising my hand* I voted for Hakamada for president in 2000-something. I knew she wouldn't be elected because, yes, it would seem that in Russia women aren't trusted enough to become a president. Then again, there has never yet been a female president in the US. I think it would be great if there were more women in politics - perhaps then wars would stop and more attention would be paid to social issues. I'm thinking about Scandinavian countries here. Or St. Petersburg - isn't it the one city where teachers are paid the best wages, unlike other regions?    

> What I am trying to say is that a woman ascending the ladder of power would eventually start thinking the way men do, she would eventually start doing things the way men do simply because she wouldn't ascend a step higher if she doesn't - she's surrounded by men and in order to best them in their game she must accommodate her way of thinking. As a result we would see a man in a skirt on the top.

 That's why we need more women in politics. The ratio men-women is roughly 50/50, so it must be the same in governing the country. Women are woefully underrepresented!! 
However, feminism does not seem to be very popular in Russia. I know that most of my female friends prefer men to pay for them when they go out on a date. My best friend actually got into an unplesant situation in the US when she and another girl were invited to go to the cinema by two guys. Naturally, they expected the guys to pay for them, and when they understood that that wasn't the guys' outlook they just... quietly slipped away. I suppose men in Western countries are used to feminism and don't try to be chivalrous any more. Whereas in Russia women still expect to be treated as "the gentle sex".    
To make a career in business or politics a woman needs to have some characteristics traditionally ascribed to men - she has to be active, assertive, confident and what-not. At my uni we had a gender psychology course, so we did this test and almost all of the girls were found to be "androgynes" (in the psychological sense), that is, to have both feminine and masculine psychological traits. The only girl who was 100% feminine was the silliest girl in the group - the only things she ever read were celebrity magazines and her only hobby was embroidery.    
(from wikipedia)  

> According to Sandra Bem, androgynous men and women are more flexible and more mentally healthy than either masculine or feminine individuals; undifferentiated individuals are less competent.[2] To some degree, though, context influences which gender role is most adaptive. In close relationships, a feminine or androgynous gender role may be more desirable because of the expressive nature of close relationships. However, a masculine or androgynous gender role may be more desirable in academic and work settings because of their demands for action and assertiveness.

  

> I agree with you. What has happened in Europe feels to me as if the male norm is now the norm for BOTH genders, whether you want it or not, and regardless of the fact that it forces women to behave in a way that actually goes against our nature.  
> I am a manager at work (taking a break right now) and I normally have a team of male programmers working for me. It's a cut-throat environment: very hard and frankly, soul-destroying at times. The only way to get the job done in the way that my bosses expect me to, is to behave exactly as a rather tough man would. Only problem with this... I am a rather feminine woman...  
> As far as I know, at least I get paid the same as a man would. But frankly I am not so sure that business success is the way for MOST women to find happiness in life. I think I might have made the wrong choice.

 I completely agree. I'm also more on the feminine side (I'm a woman, too   ::  ), which is to say, I'm not pushy enough or something.

----------


## ekaterinak

> This is supported by the fact that male and female brains are wired differently - more connections in the female brain between the hemispheres, more than just one area to process language for example.

 Well, everybody can see it in a microlevel with using of some special equipments. There are some different processes of data handling by the parts of the male and the femail brain. But we live in a macrolevel, where those differences are not appreciable, and the effectiveness of politics belongs to the macrolevel.  ::     

> It would be pretty useless if this different make-up of the brain (no pun intended) did not result in at least some different functionality. What a waste of evolution...

 Probably a human is not perfect yet. And maybe our brains tend to became similar. I suppose that nobody know a direction of evolution of the brains exactly : whether they tend to be similar or vise versa.    

> It is a fact, for instance, that women have a much better chance of regaining speech after a stroke than men.

 Btw, an ability for eloquence is advantage for any politician.   ::   ::   So...  ::     

> Men have one language processor, if that's gone, then that's it.

 I hope that it has a chance to change... see above   ::     

> But there are general tendencies which you can observe.

 I observe one general tendency that a woman and a man are more similar to each other than it can be seemed.   ::   
Thank you, Robin for your comments   ::   ::

----------


## Ramil

Politics is a rather dirty game without any rules. Not every male has the stomach for it, not to mention women. Anyone showing weakness (disregarding gender) will be cast out immediately. That is why only the meanest survive there.

----------


## ekaterinak

> Politics is a rather dirty game without any rules. Not every male has the stomach for it, not to mention women. Anyone showing weakness (disregarding gender) will be cast out immediately. That is why only the meanest survive there.

 Ok. Well, politics is a dirty game. But who did make it like this? Who are those meanest persons regarding gender? We’ve returned to the start point: it is time to change.   ::   ::  It is not bad that women begin to do political carrier and not only political. They say it is a harmful women’s emancipation, it is awful etc. But anyway women’s emancipation is the consequence of men’s behavior.  ::   The more injustice the worse result.   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Politics is a rather dirty game without any rules. Not every male has the stomach for it, not to mention women. Anyone showing weakness (disregarding gender) will be cast out immediately. That is why only the meanest survive there.   Ok. Well, politics is a dirty game. But who did make it like this? Who are those meanest persons regarding gender? We’ve returned to the start point: it is time to change.    It is not bad that women begin to do political carrier and not only political. They say it is a harmful women’s emancipation, it is awful etc. But anyway women’s emancipation is the consequence of men’s behavior.   The more injustice the worse result.

 Nothing will change. Politics will always remain mean and dirty. Women will have to play the same mean game in order to stay afloat. Women in politics has to be meaner and dirtier than men surrounding her. You're asking about who are these meanest persons? Well, just look at the top - who holds the power now?
I don't mind emancipation. Let them work wherever men work: mines, roadbuilding - everywhere, I just don't understand whatever for?

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by Martin Miles  
> In Sweden where I come from, Russian guys have the image of being very macho, .

 That's only because Swedish guys have become such feminized wimps! Russian guys are "normal."

----------


## DDT

> Nowadays, nobody needs the manual power to have a comfortable life.

  You only "think" this because you are not a man and you did not grow up as a man. You don't know what is like to fight for your position amongst peers from an early age as a male. You don't know what it is like to get a punch in the face because you looked the 'wrong way" at someone else.

----------


## Hanna

Well how about overhearing your boss announce to the world that you were only hired because you are good-looking (despite that being blatantly false) or having your looks judged every time you go out.  
Sometimes I seriously wonder if the moslem women aren't onto something rather clever when they cover up.  
It's a vastly unfair lottery or a game which everyone loses sooner or later. Many women live their entire lives hating themselves because they are less attractive than average.  
These feelings can hurt (I think) just as much as a punch on the nose.  
And with women working professionally they have to be competitive in exactly the same way as men despite the fact that it doesn't come naturally to most of us.    

> That's only because Swedish guys have become such feminized wimps! Russian guys are "normal."

  Well feminine or not -- if you say that to their face I think you might get one of the punches you mention in your other post! They tend to be very big guys, so I'd watch it.  
That said, feminism in Sweden has gone a bit too far in some instances, and it's true (IMO) that it's not exactly a turn-on to see a guy dusting the bookshelves in an apron..

----------


## ekaterinak

> Nothing will change. Politics will always remain mean and dirty.

 Politics will not change if men be there only. It is true. Also see below  ::     

> Women will have to play the same mean game in order to stay afloat. Women in politics has to be meaner and dirtier than men surrounding her.

 Btw, women’s influence is very often positive for any man. It is possible that rather men begin changing their way of business than women accept men’s.  ::     

> You're asking about who are these meanest persons? Well, just look at the top - who holds the power now?

 I am not asking. It was a rhetorical question. Well, anybody can see that there are mostly men at the top. Maybe it is a reason, why the game is so dirty. There is a lack of useful women’s influence.  ::   ::     

> I don't mind emancipation. Let them work wherever men work: mines, roadbuilding - everywhere, I just don't understand whatever for?

 I’ve got impression that we talk about the same thing by different ways.  ::   I can say that a place in the State Duma or in a parliament fits for a women better than any hard physical job.  ::     

> You only "think" this because you are not a man and you did not grow up as a man. You don't know what is like to fight for your position amongst peers from an early age as a male. You don't know what it is like to get a punch in the face because you looked the 'wrong way" at someone else.

 Excuse me. What did you mean? I hope you didn’t mean physical efforts, because I mean occupations which refer to a mental work (like politics, engineering etc.). In this point, indeed, I (and most of other women) have never swung with my (their) fists to get something. 
As for that “I don’t know what is like to fight for your position amongst peers from an early age”.
Men have one important advantage against women. It is that any man was taught from an early age what to do inside of situations, how behave yourself to get the best results. What would men do if they didn’t have experience like this? Women didn’t have that experience; women are grown up in air of double standards. On the one hand we must be tender, gentle, weak (like a little bird), we should concentrate our thoughts on children, perspective of maternity, marriage and so on. On the other hand we must be ready to earn enough money to carry about our children, parents and ourselves (I meant "себя самих" sorry for my English). It is very hard to run on the both roads. I would say that it is two equal carriers instead of one. Now most of men have only one. So I suppose that women’s life is not easier than men’s and any women's attempts to get a well-paid mental work are the natural way to facilitate women’s life. That’s why women will tend to politics and so on like this.    

> Well how about overhearing your boss announce to the world that you were only hired because you are good-looking (despite that being blatantly false) or having your looks judged every time you go out.

 Johanna, now I learned to look at it from other hand. If a boss cannot concentrate on his job it will be his serious problem.  ::   ::   ::     

> Sometimes I seriously wonder if the moslem women aren't onto something rather clever when they cover up.

 No, Johanna, life of a Muslim woman is easy if she is from rich or wealthy family. On other situation she is a human of the second quality for an agricultural job and a way of getting children. She is completely depended on her men (father, brother, family) mood. The mood of human can be changed too often to afford myself to be depended on it. 
I suppose that European (Russian too) women have a choice. It is a very valuable achievement!  ::     

> It's a vastly unfair lottery or a game which everyone loses sooner or later. Many women live their entire lives hating themselves because they are less attractive than average.

 Btw, nobody demands from any man to be attractive than average. I suppose it is additional point to say that men’s life is a bit easier than women’s.    

> That said, feminism in Sweden has gone a bit too far in some instances, and it's true (IMO) that it's not exactly a turn-on to see a guy dusting the bookshelves in an apron..

 What a wonderful view!   ::   It is not typical for Russia! Вот это аттракцион!  ::

----------


## starrysky

> Well how about overhearing your boss announce to the world that you were only hired because you are good-looking (despite that being blatantly false) or having your looks judged every time you go out.  
> Sometimes I seriously wonder if the moslem women aren't onto something rather clever when they cover up.  
> It's a vastly unfair lottery or a game which everyone loses sooner or later. Many women live their entire lives hating themselves because they are less attractive than average...

 That's so true. When I was working in a bookshop, one of our girls -- a very clever girl, a student majoring in history at the time -- decided to move up in the company and become a manager. So she went to all the interviews, and passed the tests, and finally she achieved what she wanted... Only to leave her new place after just one day of working. I don't know for a fact what happened but apparently she couldn't stand the appraising looks of the guys who worked there and all the whispering behind her back.   ::

----------


## Ramil

ekaterinak, what makes you think that women will do better than men in politics? 
They wouldn't probably do worse, but I'm not sure they would do better.

----------


## ekaterinak

> ekaterinak, what makes you think that women will do better than men in politics? 
> They wouldn't probably do worse, but I'm not sure they would do better.

 It will be bad if women be there only. I support equal rights for this activity only. If the result which we (people) have now is not quite good why will we (people) not taste another way? Women in politics is a variant.  Why not?  ::  
I like Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3han ... %C3%B3ttir), Helen Elizabeth Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark), Radmila Šekerinska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radmila_%C5%A0ekerinska)   I suppose that they are not the meanest persons.   ::

----------


## Martin Miles

Johanna wrote: What about having your looks judged everytime you go out? 
Forgive me for straying from the topic, but I felt the need to give the male perspective on the question of masculine admiration. It would go something like this: Men are always going to admire beautiful women and good looks don't last forever, so enjoy the attention while it's on offer. Men, for their part, are always flattered when a lady tells them that they are handsome. 
In the long run, I think all such questions boil down to the fact that men don't understand women and vice versa. Sometimes I think it was part of Nature's design. Other times I just quote the Bible: _Male and female created He them_, that is, there must be a reason why there are two sexes, a reason why we can't reproduce asexually as some plants and organisms do.

----------


## starrysky

> Johanna wrote: What about having your looks judged everytime you go out? 
> Forgive me for straying from the topic, but I felt the need to give the male perspective on the question of masculine admiration. It would go something like this: Men are always going to admire beautiful women and good looks don't last forever, so enjoy the attention while it's on offer. Men, for their part, are always flattered when a lady tells them that they are handsome. 
> In the long run, I think all such questions boil down to the fact that men don't understand women and vice versa. Sometimes I think it was part of Nature's design. Other times I just quote the Bible: _Male and female created He them_, that is, there must be a reason why there are two sexes, a reason why we can't reproduce asexually as some plants and organisms do.

 There's nothing wrong with admiration, it's a perfectly natural thing. I too admire handsome men, beautiful women, beautiful pictures, etc. Johanna's point, I believe, was a) to contradict the notion that women don't have to deal with competition; b) that it is _discrimination_ to hire somebody based on their looks. It's just as wrong as judging somebody by their skin. 
eta: Besides it's good to remember that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. 
I can add that if you don't understand women all you have to do is read John Grey's "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" (just kidding)  ::  He does have some good points, though. He'll tell you that women value compassion most of all, and surely that's a good quality to spread around the world. The bad thing about the absence of women in politics is that it makes the world unbalanced. Men often start wars, which I for one don't agree with. What was the point of Afganistan? I mean the Soviet-American conflict? Well, I haven't studied the question and I'm no historian, so perhaps there was some sort of obscure reason, but the point is that I want my views to be represented in politics! I am yet to live in this counrty. If ever I have a son, I wouldn't want him to die because some idiot has come to power and decided to send troops to Kuala-Lumpur! 
eta: Also, the best times in the English history were when queens were on the throne: Elizabeth I and Victoria. I think that's saying something. In Russia it's Catherine the Great.

----------


## Martin Miles

I don't think I misunderstood Johanna when she said: What about having your looks judged everytime you go out? 
More importantly, I think, ultimately, "the point of the Soviet-american conflict" was testosterone. It has good and bad effects. War is one of the bad ones.

----------


## starrysky

Russia has definitely never been the cutting edge of feminism and emancipation... (can you say it like that?) 
There were almost no Russian female writers in the 19th century. For me it's a big downer. I love books written by women because I can identify with their heroines much better. Women as portrayed by men are often rather strange and I can't relate to them - Anna Karenina, Emma Bovary... That's why I love English lit so much - Jane Austen, Charlotte, Emily and Anne Bronte, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot -- lots of wonderful women writers.  
Here we have only some children's books' women authors, like Oseeva and Brustein, some poets (poetesses?), like Akhmatova and Tsvetaeva, and some modern writers, like Tokareva, Ulitskaya, Rubina... Dontsova and Co aren't really worth mentioning. I read some stories by Tokareva - not bad, but I'm not a huge fan. As for the others, I'm yet to discover them...

----------


## Martin Miles

> I love books written by women because I can identify with their heroines much better. Women as portrayed by men are often rather strange and I can't relate to them - Anna Karenina, Emma Bovary...

 Very interesting comments. As a fan of literature you would know that creating a credible protagonist of the opposite sex is regarded as one of the greatest tests of a writer's ability. You will notice that Tolstoi wrote Anna Karenina  _after_ War and Peace and Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles is also I think a late work. I suppose only a woman can say how believable these heroines are, but clearly when you say you find them strange you are seconding my point about men not understanding women and vice versa. You probably know that Jane Austen never describes a scene where men are talking among themselves with  no women present. She felt that she shouldn't write about what she had never witnessed, but it also says something about how well a female writer can understand men and vice versa. 
'Poet' is used for both men and women. In the 19th century, they used to say things like 'authoress' and 'doctress' but nowadays, 'actress' is one of the only such forms in use. You can say woman writer or female priest (not priestess which sounds pagan). I wonder when the Orthodox Church will have female priests.

----------


## Hanna

> Originally Posted by starrysky  I love books written by women because I can identify with their heroines much better. Women as portrayed by men are often rather strange and I can't relate to them - Anna Karenina, Emma Bovary...   Very interesting comments.

 Yes, I agree with Starrysky's comment.  
Apparently this also works in cinema. A friend of mine studied cinema at university and one of the first thing she learnt (and told her friends about) was that people always must find somebody to identify with in a film. The most important thing is that the person is of the same gender. The second most important thing is that it's hard to identify with somebody who is much older than themselves.  
If it's true, this explains why films such as "Moskva slezam ne verit", "Lace" and "Sex and the City" have been successful. (And countless similar) All are built around 3-4 well-portrayed women  -- so there are several possible characters for female viewers to "identify" with. 
Compare with an action films which has *maybe* one woman in them... Who is mostly there for "decoration". And have you noticed how stupid these women tend to be? They always get themselves captured, tied up or trip and fall ETC!  Just irritating!  ::

----------


## DDT

> The most important thing is that the person is of the same gender. The second most important thing is that it's hard to identify with somebody who is much older than themselves.

 Yes, but mostly true for the average mindless non-thinking git! Intelligent viewers do not need these crutches.   

> If it's true, this explains why films such as "Moskva slezam ne verit", "Lace" and "Sex and the City" have been successful. (And countless similar) All are built around 3-4 well-portrayed women  -- so there are several possible characters for female viewers to "identify" with.

 But men do not watch Sex in the City because they find the premise of the show rather sick and twisted, though. Sex in the City is designed for only the most stupidest and unrealistic female audiences who usually have a self worth issue. At least Moscow doesn't believe in Tears has a strong man in it!

----------


## starrysky

> Very interesting comments. As a fan of literature you would know that creating a credible protagonist of the opposite sex is regarded as one of the greatest tests of a writer's ability. You will notice that Tolstoi wrote Anna Karenina  _after_ War and Peace and Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles is also I think a late work. I suppose only a woman can say how believable these heroines are, but clearly when you say you find them strange you are seconding my point about men not understanding women and vice versa. You probably know that Jane Austen never describes a scene where men are talking among themselves with  no women present. She felt that she shouldn't write about what she had never witnessed, but it also says something about how well a female writer can understand men and vice versa.

 Uh-huh. Jane Austen was criticized quite a bit by some for her portrayal of men, or non-portrayal of the political situation of her time -- Napoleonic wars. And, alas, Charlotte Bronte is rejected by many men as sentimental drivel. But this doesn't change the fact that the works of these authors appeal to women as no men's work does.   ::  Of course, all women are different, some don't like Austen, but being on a few boards devoted to these writers and especially! the screen adaptations of their novels, I'd say there's a fair number of very ardent fans. I do love a lot of things written by men but for different reasons. Women in them are mostly just beautiful appendices to men, as Johanna so rightly pointed out. They are not interesting characters with thoughts, views on life, etc. Even Anna Karenina -- as fully realised as she is -- her whole life is taken up with being dependent on a man's love, it's like she can't stand on her own, doesn't have any interests in life and so on. Jane Austen's women, although their lives are so centred on getting married, are interesting personalities in themselves. And I'm not even talking of Charlotte Bronte -- her heroines are models of independence.     
I wouldn't presume to say that Anna Karenina could never exist in reality or that she's a badly written, one-dimensional character. But I think she's not a common type.   ::  Perhaps her description lacks some traits that would make her more recognizable to women. Mind you, I read "Anna Karenina" about 10 years ago, so I can't pretend to remember it very well. I actually never was very interested in her and Vronsky's storyline, Levin's character journey and his love for Kitty were more interesting to me in teenage years. And I do like Tolstoy's other female characters, like Natasha and Princess Maria from "War and Peace" -- they're excellent, outstanding characters, and very believable. 
This is probably entirely off-topic, but a survey was conducted a few years ago which has shown men and women's differnt preferences in literature.    

> The novel that means most to men is about indifference, alienation and lack of emotional responses. That which means most to women is about deeply held feelings, a struggle to overcome circumstances and passion, research by the University of London has found.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/ap...ooks.booksnews   

> 'Poet' is used for both men and women. In the 19th century, they used to say things like 'authoress' and 'doctress' but nowadays, 'actress' is one of the only such forms in use. You can say woman writer or female priest (not priestess which sounds pagan). I wonder when the Orthodox Church will have female priests.

 Not in my life, perhaps.  ::  Thanks for the clarification, Martin, I did feel that 'poetesse' is not a word which is widely used in English, it's said in my copy of Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary that this is an old-fashioned word. Though in Russian "поэтесса" is perfectly normal.    

> At least Moscow doesn't believe in Tears has a strong man in it!

 There now!   ::   You've fallen into your own trap -- didn't you say that only gits have need of a character in a film/book to identify with? And who is that strong man -- Gosha the alcoholic?   ::  
(all this is tongue-in-cheek, not to be taken too seiously -- I do like Gosha despite his faults, he's a good guy). 
Seriously though, I can read a book/watch a movie where there are no characters to identify with, and might even appreciate it. Think "Crime and Punishment". Raskolnikov is as far from me as Katmandu, but I agree that it's a great book. Just not a favourite. I don't feel the compulsion to reread it many times. But for a book to become a classic there must be things which everyone can relate to -- universal cross-gender human feelings and emotions, if you like. I know of a few women who positively worship Dostoevsky. The writer Sue Townsend is one of them. 
After going outrageously off-topic, I'll add that I agree with those who said that politics is a dirty business. Or at the very least a very complicated one. When I tried last year to get my head around what happened in South Ossetia, it was positively spinning, until I ultimately gave it up as a hopeless business. But politics is extremely important as it affects our lives in a crucial way, so I still think that women must participate.

----------


## bitpicker

I, for one, have never understood that identification thing. I do not identify with characters in a movie or a book. I always remain a spectator. There may be characters I like or don't like, but I wouldn't call that identification. 
Robin

----------


## Ramil

Humans were animals once, there's no need to point out many instincts we inherited from our past. The natural selection has never fully stopped, just slowed down maybe. 
The gender role of a male is protection and provision of means for survival while the gender role of a female is childbirth and caring for the young. I did not invent that. Don't get me wrong here, I am a supporter of emancipation even though I think that this very thing made many women and men unhappy. The boys are brought up to be strong, they are taught to be protectors and getters. Our mothers tell us that we (boys) have to care for women since they are weak and need special attention. OK. When we grow up and facing emancipation we discover that women don't really need all of that. Errr... Ok. But then we also find out that women still are much more emotional than men. We are confused. We also think that there's no place for emotions in politics. Anybody remembers Cleopatra?
So, either women have to suppress all emotions and become cold and rational (thus removing all differences with a male politician) once they're in politics or they have no place there.  
I don't say that men are perfect politicians, in fact, i think it's impossible to be a good politician. You HAVE to break some necks when you are responsible for a whole nation. I insist on the last statement and I think there's no alternatives. You can't be good to everyone. I just think that men are more suited for breaking necks than women.

----------


## starrysky

> I, for one, have never understood that identification thing. I do not identify with characters in a movie or a book. I always remain a spectator. There may be characters I like or don't like, but I wouldn't call that identification.

 But if you like a character, there's a reason for it, right? You understand their feelings or what they're going through, because you might have experienced the same thing in your life or something similar. As we're all human beings, we can all relate to a character being sad, cheerful, indignant, or disappointed, or having any other feeling. With age, you come to experience more things, like jealousy, for example, which you might not have felt in childhood when you wouldn't really understand a character being jealous in a film/book.  
It's a staple of good writing -- describe things that people can relate to. I, for one, love it when the author tells us what the character eats, or describes the nature and the weather in an evocative, artistic way, so that I an actually hear the roaring and howling of the wind, the pounding of the rain on the window-panes, or maybe see the clear crisp air of an early autumn day... All these things give the work of art more realism, whilst still being seen through the author's eyes. And I can relate better to those things because I have experienced them. 
From Wikipedia: 
"Identification is a term used in literary and film studies to describe a psychological relationship between the reader of a novel and a character in the book, or between a spectator in the audience and a character on screen. In both cases, readers and spectators see themselves in the fictional character. 
Identification is usually supposed to be largely unconscious: a reader may be aware that she likes a given character, but not that she actually see that character as an alter ego, a version of her, or a projection of her aspirations for herself. It would be a mistake to think all heroes foster identification, or that all villains inhibit identification—many, perhaps even most, characters elicit some degree of identification on the part of the reader or spectator."

----------


## starrysky

> The gender role of a male is protection and provision of means for survival while the gender role of a female is childbirth and caring for the young. I did not invent that. Don't get me wrong here, I am a supporter of emancipation even though I think that this very thing made many women and men unhappy. The boys are brought up to be strong, they are taught to be protectors and getters. Our mothers tell us that we (boys) have to care for women since they are weak and need special attention. OK. When we grow up and facing emancipation we discover that women don't really need all of that. Errr... Ok. But then we also find out that women still are much more emotional than men. We are confused. We also think that there's no place for emotions in politics. Anybody remembers Cleopatra?
> So, either women have to suppress all emotions and become cold and rational (thus removing all differences with a male politician) once they're in politics or they have no place there.  
> I don't say that men are perfect politicians, in fact, i think it's impossible to be a good politician. You HAVE to break some necks when you are responsible for a whole nation. I insist on the last statement and I think there's no alternatives. You can't be good to everyone. I just think that men are more suited for breaking necks than women.

 Those are all very interesting thoughts. I'm not sure I even know what to say...   ::   ::  
Yes, I suppose you might be right about feminism not being SUCH a good idea. It has messed things up a bit. *ekaternak* also wrote about it:   

> women are grown up in air of double standards. On the one hand we must be tender, gentle, weak (like a little bird), we should concentrate our thoughts on children, perspective of maternity, marriage and so on. On the other hand we must be ready to earn enough money to carry about our children, parents and ourselves (I meant "себя самих" sorry for my English). It is very hard to run on the both roads. I would say that it is two equal carriers instead of one. Now most of men have only one.

 I agree with this. The woman now has to do EVERYTHING -- bring up children, work at an official workplace, and do all the housework. Not fair. But that wasn't the idea of feminism -- to make women's hard lives even harder.   ::   I believe the initial idea was to make men look at a woman with respect as _an equal_. Instead of that infamous formula, "Женщина -- друг человека". 
Women/females _are_ initially in a more vulnerable position than men/males because they are the ones who have to invest a lot of time, energy and resources into giving birth and bringing a child into the world.   From "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins (great book, btw): 
"Sperms and eggs contribute equal numbers of genes, but eggs contribute far more in the way of food reserves: indeed, sperms make no contribution at all and are simply concerned with transporting their genes as fast as possible to an egg. At the moment of conception, therefore, the father has invested less than his fair share (i.e. 50 %) of resources in the offspring. Since each sperm is so tiny, a male can afford to make many millions of them every day. This means he is potentially able to beget a very large number of children in a very short period of time, using different females. This is only possible because each new embryo is endowed with adequate food by the mother in each case. This therefore places a limit on the number of children a female can have, but the number of children a male can have is virtually unlimited. Female exploitation begins here."  
Of course, females don't agree with this state of things, since both sexes are interested in the procreation of children. So this is where the battle of the sexes starts. Women have long been protected by social institutions such as marriage from man having it the easy way and leaving the woman 'holding the baby'. Now family is treasured much less and that's a bad thing. Not just because marriage is better and fairer to the woman, but also because no one cancelled STDs yet. 
As for the politics, the only thing I know is that men make decisions which influence women's lives directly. It's not fair. If you've seen "Lord of the Rings", there's a moment when Eowyn draws a sword and tells Aragorn: "Women of this country have learned long ago: Those without swords can still die upon them." So men start wars (old men, I might add), but it's not only young men, soldiers, who die, it's civilian population as well. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, millions in Russia during WWII -- they were not responsible for the decisions of their military hothead leaders.

----------


## Ramil

I still don't think that the main reason of WW2 was testosteron. The world would be easier to live in if hormones were the only reasons for things.

----------


## Hanna

> The woman now has to do EVERYTHING -- bring up children, work at an official workplace, and do all the housework. Not fair. But that wasn't the idea of feminism -- to make women's hard lives even harder.  I believe the initial idea was to make men look at a woman with respect as an equal. Instead of that infamous formula, "Женщина -- друг человека".

 You forgot that she *should* do all these things AND still look great...!   ::   ::   ::  
Never mind the fact that a manicure takes at least an hour, gym takes 1.5h and it's hard to be productive and pleasant while you are starving yourself on a diet. ETC!! 
Frankly, feminism didn't really work out quite as intended, I think.. I don't know what the solution is.   The other side of this is: How does Feminism and the new role of women affect MEN? I think there are some very "mixed messages" to men about what exactly women want from them. Personally I am guilty of this too.    _I guess that it is not really realistic to expect a man to be both "sensitive, understanding" and "good at discussing feelings"... and macho and attractive in *that* way at the same time. (....anymore than there are "sexy" women who are interested in Formula 1 and icehockey....)_ 
And how does all this affect society in general?  
But do agree that female leaders are a LOT more peaceful and prone to co-operation and negotiation. Rather than taking to arms (=starting a war). Since wars are the cause for so much terrible suffering it must therefore be a *good thing with female leaders*.. But I am not sure I personally would like to be one...  
ONE LAST THING: How about this one... I am sure everybody has already heard it... Will men turn into women due to contamination of drinking water by "the pill"?   

> The fertility of a generation of men is being put at risk because a hormone found in the Pill is getting into drinking water, scientists fear. 
> Pollution due to the chemical, a powerful form of oestrogen, is causing up to half the male fish in our lowland rivers to change sex, research shows. 
> Experts believe the hormone could be getting into drinking water and affecting men's sperm counts. They say sewage treatment does not remove the chemical entirely from drinking supplies, although the water industry insists there is no evidence of a risk to health   ......  Full story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ing-water.html.

----------


## Ленивец

Back in university I had a professor who was engaged in humanitarian activities, including care for refugees from Chechnya. She said that people fled  having just what was on them. No much help was available so they went mainly to abandoned houses in the countryside. 
Inspite of the fact that many of them had university degrees, their lifestyle became very patriarchal. That was just the best strategy in those conditions. 
In the modern society the family and man/woman relationships will change. Mr. Engels keeps being right.

----------


## Martin Miles

Starrysky wrote: Women in them are mostly just beautiful apendices to men. 
That should be _appendages_.  ::   
Appendgage = Literally, something useless attached to a more important thing.
Appendix= Additional material placed at the end of the main body of a scholarly work etc., also a part of the human body. 
You probably know this but just got mixed up as the words are quite similar and have the same origin.   

> Of course, all women are different, some don't like Austen, but being on a few boards devoted to these writers and especially! the screen adaptations of their novels, I'd say there's a fair number of very ardent fans.

 True, but with all of these adaptations, I think that right now a reaction is beginning to set in against this 'Jane mania'.   

> Levin's character journey and his love to Kitty were more interesting to me in teenage years.

 That should be: _his love FOR Kitty._This belongs in the Anna Karenina topic in the culture section, but since you mentioned it here, I will say that  you are the first person I have heard express an interest in Levin's character journey. For many people (myself excluded) Levin, with his strongly held views on agriculture, is just a another way of saying boredom.   

> I still don't think that the main reason of WW2 was testosteron. The world would be easier to live in if hormones were the only reasons for things.

 Really? The world would be easier to live in if there were no hormones at all, but maybe it would also be a little duller   ::  .

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I still don't think that the main reason of WW2 was testosteron. The world would be easier to live in if hormones were the only reasons for things.   Really? The world would be easier to live in if there were no hormones at all, but maybe it would also be a little duller   .

----------


## Hanna

Someone mentioned Richard Dawkins and his books. 
Gosh I can't stand Dawkins! 
All he seems to be doing is piggy-backing off Darwin's existing work, and ridiculing people who believe in a higher power. What does it matter to him?  
I have seen a few interviews with him and i think he has a really nasty personality; making fun of nice and honest people and always manipulating those he's speaking with. 
Sure - religion has many faults and religious people often do stupid things. But that doesn't prove anything regarding Gods existence and it doesn't mean that self-indulgent, materialist hedonism is better. 
A lot of people in the UK really like Dawkins though.

----------


## Hanna

> It will be bad if women be there only. I support equal rights for this activity only. If the result which we (people) have now is not quite good why will we (people) not taste another way? Women in politics is a variant.  Why not?  
> I like Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3han ... %C3%B3ttir), Helen Elizabeth Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark), Radmila Šekerinska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radmila_%C5%A0ekerinska)   I suppose that they are not the meanest persons.

 Good examples Katia!   ::   ::   ::

----------


## starrysky

> Starrysky wrote: Women in them are mostly just beautiful apendices to men. 
> That should be _appendages_.   
> Appendgage = Literally, something useless attached to a more important thing.
> Appendix= Additional material placed at the end of the main body of a scholarly work etc., also a part of the human body. 
> You probably know this but just got mixed up as the words are quite similar and have the same origin.

 No, I didn't know about this, in fact, I didn't even know the word 'appendage' existed (well, maybe I saw it once somewhere but it didn't register), so thank you for the correction.   ::     

> All he seems to be doing is piggy-backing off Darwin's existing work, and ridiculing people who believe in a higher power. What does it matter to him?  
> I have seen a few interviews with him and i think he has a really nasty personality; making fun of nice and honest people and always manipulating those he's speaking with. 
> Sure - religion has many faults and religious people often do stupid things. But that doesn't prove anything regarding Gods existence and it doesn't mean that self-indulgent, materialist hedonism is better.

 I guess he would have been wiser to stay off religious topics. But "The Selfish Gene" is a very interesting book which helps to understand all sorts of things about human nature, the nature of aggression, etc. At least I certainly learned a lot thanks to it. He did not simply recapitulate Darwin's work, what he did was explain the workings of the genes in a very simple, non-technical language.   

> Frankly, feminism didn't really work out quite as intended, I think..

 It was carried a bit too far!  ::  As usual, the happy medium is difficult to achieve. But a lot has been done, I think. We are used to women today being on an equal footing with men, but just a few centuries ago it was quite different. 
Take "Pride and Prejudice", for example (heh, reverting to Jane Austen again). Here we have this family of Mr and Mrs Bennet and their five daughters. Because Mr and Mrs Bennet haven't been able to produce a male heir, after Mr Bennet's death the whole estate passes not to his daughters but to a distant cousin, Mr Collins. And Mrs Bennet and her daughters are left pretty much destitute on the street, unless the girls marry _well_. And you can be sure that Mr Collins, despite being a clergyman, is not going to be honourable and generous and refuse the inheritance. That's the law, eh? Would any woman like to be in such a position today? When all her property belongs to her husband and she can't dispose of any part of it? When she is forced to marry somebody 20 years older than her just because her young lover doesn't have a fortune and the family would never agree to their marriage? All those things are gone thanks to the emancipation of women. 
Henry VIII  strove to have a male heir that his first wife couldn't give him. She did give him a daughter but he was convinced that the country couldn't be ruled by a woman. In pursuing his heart's desire he divorced his first wife -- causing a disruption with the Pope and the Catholic church along the way -- and provided himself with a second wife, Anne, who, alas, gave him a daughter as well, which condemded her to death. Yet it was this girl, who became one of the most loved and famous monarchs of Great Britain - Elizabeth I. Yes, I just love this old movie -- "Anne of the Thousand Days".   ::   
Or I might mention the fact that in recent past even girls were considered undesirable in some Eastern countries, like China, which doomed them to being killed right after birth. 
So, yeah, to sum it up, I see feminism as a good thing, on the whole. A lot of people are just plain ignorant of its origins and the only thing they know is that it's stupid for a woman to take offence when a man is trying to be gallant and holds the door open for her. Yep, that's a bit ridiculous. But that's not what feminism is truly about.     

> The term Feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing more rights and legal protection for women.
> Feminism has altered predominant perspectives in a wide range of areas within Western society, ranging from culture to law. Feminist activists have campaigned for women's legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting rights); for women's right to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection of women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape;[1][10][11] for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; against misogyny; and against other forms of gender-specific discrimination against women.[12][13][14]

  

> ONE LAST THING: How about this one... I am sure everybody has already heard it... Will men turn into women due to contamination of drinking water by "the pill"?

 That's bad... I hope "The Daily Mail" is exaggerating a bit, though with the current state of ecology...    

> I guess that it is not really realistic to expect a man to be both "sensitive, understanding" and "good at discussing feelings"... and macho and attractive in *that* way at the same time. (....anymore than there are "sexy" women who are interested in Formula 1 and icehockey....)

 No, it's not. No one's perfect, so it's better not to expect that there'd ever be full understanding between men and women. John Grey (I swear I haven't paid been paid to advertise him   ::  ) talks very interestingly about it, but his book is basically a few good ideas which are repeated over and over again for 300 pages.

----------


## starrysky

> That should be: _his love FOR Kitty._This belongs in the Anna Karenina topic in the culture section, but since you mentioned it here, I will say that  you are the first person I have heard express an interest in Levin's character journey. For many people (myself excluded) Levin, with his strongly held views on agriculture, is just a another way of saying boredom.

 There's language interefernce for you. Since it's 'любовь К кому-либо' in Russian, I unconsciously used 'to' instead of 'for'.  
As for Levin... Well, since he expresses Tolstoy's own views on life, yes, it was very interesting. What would be the English for 'смысл жизни', by the way? The meaning/sense of life? It so happened that I read "War and Peace" only a few months ago, and I thought that I would've perhaps enjoyed Pierre's reflections very much as a teenager, since his journey is all about coming to terms with life and death.

----------


## Hanna

> Originally Posted by Johanna  I guess that it is not really realistic to expect a man to be both "sensitive, understanding" and "good at discussing feelings"... and macho and attractive in *that* way at the same time. (....anymore than there are "sexy" women who are interested in Formula 1 and icehockey....)   No, it's not. No one's perfect, so it's better not to expect that there'd ever be full understanding between men and women. John Grey (I swear I haven't paid been paid to advertise him   ) talks very interestingly about it, but his book is basically a few good ideas which are repeated over and over again for 300 pages.

 I read the first book in the "Men are from Mars" series a few years ago when I was engaged to somebody and didn't understand him very well at times. I also read an American book (forgotten title) that was a massive best-seller. It was  rather shamelessly about how to manipulate men to get what you want... I tried the "tricks" and they work amazingly well. A woman who can behave like those books suggest for the rest of her life will have no trouble with men at all..    *
The trouble is* that it's *really* hard to keep up the act, and after a while you start feeling very dishonest and uncomfortable, since you are essentially acting, not being yourself...  Lying and tricking somebody you love. I can't handle that. Well, maybe I should reconsinder my approach.. I am single while most of my friends are getting married or even having babies. (although that's mainly because I've been working too much...)    ::

----------


## Ленивец

In Russia the housewife's role is more socially acceptable than in the Western Europe. From the other hand, nobody objects against a working mother. Motherhood is just taken for a job, and a hard one. Parental leave may last up to three years by the law.  
Most men regard family supporting as their duty, no matter if their spouse helps or not.

----------


## Hanna

Frankly that seems like a good situation - each woman/man/family can choose what suits them.

----------


## bitpicker

> In Russia the housewife's role is more socially acceptable than in {the} (no article, it's a name) Western Europe. On the other hand, nobody objects to a working mother. Motherhood is just taken for a job, and a hard one. Parental leave may last up to three years by {the} law.  
> Most men regard family supporting as their duty, no matter if their spouse helps or not.

----------


## Ленивец

Thank you for the corrections, bitpicker! I understand all of them, but one - "by law" against "by the law". 
The reason is that the Russian law was meant, and I've also found an article in 'The Guardian' which uses 'the law' in the headline  "Should Roman Polanski be above the law?" http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...nch-government 
Could you expand more on the reasons?

----------


## bitpicker

'By law' is an expression which means 'guaranteed by existing laws'. You can use 'by the law' in reference to a specific, identifiable law. In your case I would prefer something like 'according to Russian law'. Here, again, there's no article because it refers to the whole body of law instead of a specific law which is part of that body. 
But here it is not so much a question of rules but of fixed expressions. 'To be above the law' is such an expression, you can't have it without the article. Likewise, 'by law' without an article means 'has a legal basis', for instance 'married by law' = married in a way which is recognized as a legal obligation as opposed to just a cultural or religious act. Yet there are other expressions with an article, such as 'to abide by the law'. 
Robin

----------


## Martin Miles

Starrysky mentions in an earlier post how men tend to start wars while women leaders might be more peaceable. One paradox that occurs to me, is that when women have equality with men they tend to have fewer children, so that some European countries are shrinking with regard to population. The population of Russia, even, is getting smaller every year by 700, 000. That's 11 million fewer Russians by the year 2025. So, serious wars, started by men, reduce the population temporarily, but emancipated women not having enough children has a similar, possibly worse, effect. Take your pick.  
Ramil, you misrepresent my opinion if you say I ascribe everything to hormones.

----------


## Hanna

I read some things about problems with the declining population of Russia. Apparently:  
1) There are some financial incentives for families to have children (extra govt stipend every month and increasing regulated time off after having a child to a year.) 
2) People from Central Asia and the Caucasus are still having lots of children - allowing more immigration from there "solves" the problem in a fashion.  
3) There has in fact been a small baby boom during 08-09.  
The debate in the UK right now is that it is the "wrong" people that are having children... The government want well-educated married people to have children. But those who have many children tend to be low-income, young single people who later might end up with problems.  
Same story across the world I think.

----------


## Martin Miles

The league table of international fertility rates makes interesting reading. In the top ten, with around 7 births per woman are mainly African countries along with Afghanistan and East Timor. Towards the bottom of the list are mainly Western European countries where women are emancipated. The average Italian woman has 1.2 children. The Russian rate is 1.35. Couples there are just not replacing themselves. Someone asked: When will Europeans realise the seriousness of the problem? _When they are all in their wheelchairs and there is no one to push._ 
Immigration seems to be a solution, but there is strong feeling against immigrants in Russia, мне кажется. And I could be wrong, but I don't think the attitude of other Europeans is too different. If you say that you  want only highly skilled migrants then you can be accused of promoting underdevelopment in the countries these people are coming from. Что делать?

----------


## Dogboy182

Who cares what her status is. (Deleted. L.)

----------


## starrysky

> Immigration seems to be a solution, but there is strong feeling against immigrants in Russia, мне кажется.

 There is, unfortunately. I think it's digusting but yes, skinheads/nationalists/neo-nazis, or whatever they are called, are spreading in Russia... In my city they were allowed to organize a demonstration on the 4th of November...  http://forum.academ.org/index.php?sh...5&st=0&start=0  
Women don't have a lot of children as they used to not only because of having to go to work but also because contraceptives have only recently (in Russia) become available. In the Soviet Union they were much harder to come by, like many other consumer goods. So today women are saying that they can't afford to have more children _and_ they're able to control this side of their lives. Our government has been trying to make women give birth to more babies. Various financial incentives have been put into practice and even at my uni we had a propaganda course for half a year all about "babies." And you know, it works. There was a sort of a baby-boom these last two years. Whether this policy is going to prove successful or not in the long run, I don't know. I suspect it might not. In Europe the standards of living are much higher yet there's the same problem.

----------


## Martin Miles

> So today women are saying that they can't afford to have more children and they're able to control this side of their lives.

  

> In Europe the standards of living are much higher yet there's the same problem.

 I do not believe that the real reason why emancipated women are having fewer children is because they can't afford to have more. If the cost of raising a child was the deciding factor, you would expect the rich to have more children than the poor; in fact, the opposite is true. Westerners are much better off than 100 years ago, but when they were poorer, they had more children.  
Probably emancipated women don't want to endure the discomfort of carrying a child for 9 months. Plus bringing up children also requires the input of time and energy. Maybe that's what they really mean when they say they can't afford it, but I don't think money is the real problem. 
Women should have rights over their bodies, but at the same time they shouldn't complain about being swamped by immigrants who are helping to solve a problem that has been created by the emancipated women themselves.

----------


## Martin Miles

I have been doing some reading about Russia's population problem as well. It seems as though the small baby boom of the last two years is due to the fact that in the 80s the Soviets had a drive to increase births, the extra girls born then are now having children of their own hence the bump. Demographers say that state efforts to increase births should be implemented when the number of women of childbearing age is declining, not increasing as it is now. Furthermore, the problem in Russia is more acute than in Europe because Russia has a much higher deathrate (mainly due to alcoholism; life expectancy for men is about 60).

----------


## starrysky

> Plus bringing up children also requires the input of time and energy.

 And money. Money for food, clothing, education, medicine, all sorts of toys, books, I'm not even talking about high-tech gadgets. Women of the past had a lot of children but they couldn't always provide them with decent living conditions. They just had no choice. Today it's quality rather than quantity which is first and foremost in parents' minds. I don't think that it's absolutely necessary to be able to provide your offspring with a new cell phone every month but there are certain ... eh societal expectations to be met with... No one would want their kid to have a poverty complex, or something.    
Yes, it's a complex problem which stems from many factors, not only money; some of them have nothing to do with emancipation, like the mother's health -- having children is extermely costly for the health. For example, the growing fetus takes away all mother's calcium which it needs to build its bones, which results in great problems with teeth for the mother. If she doesn't want these problems she has to take all sorts of vitamins and calcium, which also costs money, btw. 
Time is an important factor, as well, and it _is_ related to emancipation. Women have to work, ergo they don't have enough time to be with their children and can't afford to have more kids. But I'm pretty sure that that's down to men -- the majority of women would only love to sit at home and care for children, if their husband brough enough money... I'll not answer for all women, of course...  
In Russia it's almost all about money at the moment, I believe, or lack thereof, to be more precise. Women are often paid less than men. Maybe not always intentionally, especially if we talk about government organizations -- everyone's equal there. But it's mostly women who work in the least paid spheres -- they're teachers in schools and kindergartens, nurses, shop assistants. There's still this notion that man is the main bread-winner and employers know that. For example, no man will agree to a salary less than 20.000 rubles (this is just an exampe, many wouldn't agree to less than 30.000, 40.000 and so on). "I have a family to provide for!" they'll say. Whereas it's all right to pay a teacher in a kindergarten 7.000. If you get this much money you can do nothing with it, especially if you don't have your own corner and have to rent a flat/room. All that money will go just to pay for one room. Even if a woman has a husband who brings money, where's the guarantee he won't leave her some day or start drinking? Why would she have a lot of children in such conditions if she is able not to?   

> Women should have rights over their bodies, but at the same time they shouldn't complain about being swamped by immigrants who are helping to solve a problem that has been created by the emancipated women themselves.

 I'm yet to hear of a woman who has a problem with immigrants.   ::  It's skinheads who do complain, or rather, beat up innocent foreigners to death, and they usually don't yet have any children and don't understand the true meaning of words such as love, family, and peace, because they've barely left puberty age.

----------


## DDT

> Women are often paid less than men. Maybe not always intentionally, especially if we talk about government organizations -- everyone's equal there. .

 .[/quote]
I think it is intentional! Women are not equal when it comes to salary in Russia. My wife is a better teacher than I yet she is paid 2 to 3 times less than me. This in turn has changed the cultural values of Russians. Men are expected to pay for everything for a women when in their company. Every one knows that woman have little money, so a man is considered "scum" if he leaves the bar bill etc for the woman to pay.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Yes, it's a complex problem which stems from many factors, not only money;

  Agreed.   

> There was a sort of a baby-boom these last two years. Whether this policy is going to prove successful or not in the long run, I don't know. I suspect it might not. In Europe the standards of living are much higher yet there's the same problem.

 Agreed.   

> I'm yet to hear of a woman who has a problem with immigrants

 No comment. 
I hope never to see the day when Mother Russia becomes страна бабушек, but experts say it's heading in that direction.

----------


## Hanna

Very interesting to read the different perspectives on this.
It's sad that people view children as an expensive "accessory".  
I read an English papers' rundown on what it "costs" for a middle class family to give their children the "right" kind of upbringing. It was listing the cost hiring a nanny/au-pair. private schools, ski holidays, extra language and music tuition, sports equipments, designer wardrobes  and much more. 
After reading that, a lot of people (particularly from that background) might conclude that they simply can't afford to have children because the can't pay for all of the things listed... Or both parents work themselves half to death to be able to afford it..  
In reality most people in the UK can afford all the basics that a child needs to reach adulthood - just not the glamourous and prestigious extras.  
Pretty sick in my opinion.  If I had children I think I'd prefer to live somewhere where there is no pressure on them to become perfect little geniuses and consumers.
Ideally not in a large city either.

----------


## DDT

One more thing; I have been invited many times to go to clubs or bars with Russian girls but they don't ask to go with them because they like me as much as they know that if they are with a man they will have everything paid for. A stupid man can be broke quickly in Russia!

----------


## Martin Miles

Татьяна Голикова: "Пора вернуть мужчинам роль главы рода". http://www.izvestia.ru/obshestvo/article3136164 
Что вы думаете?

----------


## starrysky

> One more thing; I have been invited many times to go to clubs or bars with Russian girls but they don't ask to go with them because they like me as much as they know that if they are with a man they will have everything paid for. A stupid man can be broke quickly in Russia!

 This is strange. I can understand the situation where it is the one who invites that pays the bill but vice versa... Personally, I don't usually let anyone to pay for myself because I don't like to feel indebted to a person I hardly know. But it is true that it's standard practice for the man to pay in Russia. I think I have described on page one of this topic an awkward situation my friend got into in the US because of this difference.   

> Что вы думаете?

 Ничего хорошего.   ::   
As much I'd like to have traditional family values promoted, I'll not side with those dames. They are anti-abortion and anti-juvenile justice. I like abortion no more than the next person but I think a woman has the right to decide for herself what to do with her own body.   

> председатель думского комитета по вопросам семьи, женщин и детей Елена Мизулина призвала запретить аборты и пообещала не допустить создания ювенальной юстиции по западным образцам.

 Yeah, right. I think I'll show this article to my mum, she'll be irate.   ::  We live in a secular country, yet the church is getting too cheeky and trying to meddle more and more, introducing religious subjects at school, proposing anti-abortion laws, and so on. There has been a lot of discussion on my local forum lately and the majority of the forum population is vehemently against any such ideas, especially when it comes to abortion.   

> "Почему мы не можем ограничить аборты только медицинскими показаниями?" - под аплодисменты зала заявила народная избранница. Второй раз депутат Мизулина вызвала восхищение, когда пообещала не допустить создания в стране системы ювенальной юстиции по западным образцам. Мизулина сообщила, что прямо разъяснила в Европе - их система противоречит российским традициям и культуре: *"У нас дети - это послушание и уважение, а родители - любовь и забота. Разрешить нашим детям жаловаться на родителей - это причинить огромный вред обществу"*.

 Yes, we'll just look on as loving parents beat their children to within an inch of their life.   ::  Children don't even know sometimes that this is not normal parent behavior and that they should tell somebody. http://academ.info/node/12453

----------


## Martin Miles

> I'm yet to hear of a woman who has a problem with immigrants.  It's skinheads who do complain, or rather, beat up innocent foreigners to death, and they usually don't yet have any children and don't understand the true meaning of words such as love, family, and peace, because they've barely left puberty age.

  

> Татьяна Голикова: "Пора вернуть мужчинам роль главы рода".

 Думаете вы, что мужчина с ответсвенностью, например глава рода, чаще - честный гражданин?

----------


## starrysky

> Думаете вы, что мужчина с ответсвенностью, например глава рода, чаще - честный гражданин?

 Я думаю, что нормальные люди становятся умнее и мудрее с годами, и начинают больше ценить жизнь -- свою и чужую. Товарищи скинхеды, конечно, вряд ли когда поумнеют.

----------


## Martin Miles

Скинхед ли - мэр Москвы, Юрий Лужков?   ::    http://www.legalvizit.ru/02122007.htm

----------


## ekaterinak

Это совершенно нормально, стремиться сделать так, чтобы дворниками в наших дворах и рабочими на стройках были бы жители Москвы или подмосковья вместо граждан солнечного Таджикистана. Зарплата дворника по документам составляет около 25 000 рублей в месяц. Я уверена в Москве найдутся студенты, которые взялись бы выполнить эту работу за такие деньги. Что касается строек, конечно, эксплуатировать нелегальных мигрантов легче. Но и Путин В.В., и Медведев Д.А., и Лужков Ю.М. - настаивают на "...цивилизованных отношениях в сфере трудовой миграции..." А всякий порядок начинается только с четкого учета ресурсов. 
It is a normal tendention to give an opportunity for inhabitants of Moscow and of its neighborhood to be workers in Moscow instead of illegal migrants (for example Tajikistan migrants). An official wage of a yardman is about 25 000 rubles a month. I'm sure that there is some students in Moscow that agree to do job like that for this sum of money. 
Regarding building. It is obvious that to force any illegal migrants to work more is easier. But Putin, Medvedev, Luzhkov insist on "...a legal character of labour migration", and every civilization/well ordered life starts from precise accounting of resources. I don't know what author of http://www.legalvizit.ru/02122007.htm meant while he/she was writing it, but the result is too emotional. It cannot be considered like a serious text.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Это совершенно нормально, стремиться сделать так, чтобы дворниками в наших дворах и рабочими на стройках были бы жители Москвы или подмосковья вместо граждан солнечного Таджикистана.

 Больше людей нуждается в России. 

> I hope never to see the day when Mother Russia becomes страна бабушек, but experts say it's heading in that direction.

  

> I'm yet to hear of a woman who has a problem with immigrants.

  Нашёл одну.

----------


## Оля

> Больше людей нуждается в России.

 Ха-ха-ха!... А я, может, хочу в Великобритании жить!   ::  Так меня туда не то, что жить, меня даже в качестве туристки туда не пустят. 
LET'S TAKL ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEMS IN THE UK!!!   ::   
(Or maybe Russians who don't have as much money as Berezovsky are not humans for you Brits?)

----------


## Martin Miles

Вот аргумерты за и против миграции: http://www.izvestia.ru/russia/article3135943/

----------


## ekaterinak

> Больше людей нуждается в России.

 What did you mean? You phrase says that "More people (?than it had been before? This part may be added for context of the articles you had given in the links) need Russia." Are you sure in it?   

> Originally Posted by starrysky  I'm yet to hear of a woman who has a problem with immigrants.    Нашёл одну.

 Do you mean Russia that has the name which is female gender? It is very original! Don't forget that the USA, Britain, France, German, Belgium, Spain and.. the whole Europe can be described like that as well.  
And one modest addition. The illegual migration problem exists in the USA. BTW, the fact was mentoined in the article that you wrote down here http://www.izvestia.ru/russia/article3135943/.  

> А, например, в США дифференцируют подход - пуэрториканская преступность, колумбийская и так далее.

 The classification from trhe quote shows that the problem is very deep. 
What is the interest of yours to look for a woman who has a problem with immigrants? If it was not be like that you wouldn't write down  

> Нашёл одну.

   ::

----------


## Оля

> Originally Posted by Martin Miles  Больше людей нуждается в России.   What did you mean? You phrase says that "More people than it had been before need Russia." Are you sure in it?

 Are you sure in your translation? His phrase is clumsy, but it is completely clear. Where do you find in it "than it", "had been" and "before"?

----------


## Martin Miles

Захотел сказать: Россия нуждается больше людей.

----------


## starrysky

> Скинхед ли - мэр Москвы, Юрий Лужков?

 Khmm... No, he's not. It's one thing to try and resolve "the immigrant problem" legally and another to beat up people because of their race/ethnicity/nationality. I don't want Russia to become an outpost of Tadjikistan or China any more than anyone else... I love our culture too much. But I don't think it's likely too happen anyway. And the solution to it is in curbing illegal immigration and, most importantly, improving the standards of living. Besides, this 'problem' exists everywhere, as ekaterinak pointed out -- the US is swamped by Mexicans, France, Germany -- by Arabs, Great Britain -- by Indians?   
Here, in Siberia, it's more popular to talk about the Chinese. Though, for the life of me, I don't see a lot of Chinese in the streets -- a couple of students from Kazakhstan, and that's all...  
Анекдот: 
Решили однажды выяснить, как население Сибири и Дальнего Востока относится к китайцам. 15% населения на вопрос "Как вы относитесь к китайцам?" ответили "Хорошо". А 85% – "Халясё". 
Another variation is, the population was asked "Как вам здесь живется?"    

> Это совершенно нормально, стремиться сделать так, чтобы дворниками в наших дворах и рабочими на стройках были бы жители Москвы или подмосковья вместо граждан солнечного Таджикистана.

 Is anyone stopping them? As I understand it, illegal immigrants usually perform work that natives are too fastidious to do. In addition, giving work to foreigners from poorer countries is more profitable for the employer -- they don't ask high wages and social guarantees. That's why some companies, like Nike and Reebok, relocated part of their business to Asian countries (China, Pakistan, etc). Check out sweatshop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshops.

----------


## ekaterinak

> Захотел сказать: Россия нуждается в увеличении численности населения

 I suppose that it is true for many countries, not for Russia only.

----------


## ekaterinak

> Originally Posted by ekaterinak  Это совершенно нормально, стремиться сделать так, чтобы дворниками в наших дворах и рабочими на стройках были бы жители Москвы или подмосковья вместо граждан солнечного Таджикистана.   Is anyone stopping them? As I understand it, illegal immigrants usually perform work that natives are too fastidious to do. In addition, giving work to foreigners from poorer countries is more profitable for the employer -- they don't ask high wages and social guarantees. That's why some companies, like Nike and Reebok, relocated part of their business to Asian countries (China, Pakistan, etc). Check out sweatshop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshops.

 Для любой страны нет ничего хорошего в том, что производство перемещается в другую страну. Никто не спорит, это очень выгодно для работодателей, но для местного населения это означает одно: сокращение рабочих мест, безработицу, низкий уровень жизни, отсутствие развития технологий и прикладной науки. Возможно, что все эти последствия не произойдут одномоментно, но рано или поздно это приведет к такому результату. Вот почему, интересно, Китай выходит в лидеры? Да потому что там сосредоточено производство! Это миф, считать, что если завод/произоводство расположить в одной стране, то квалифицированных инженеров для него можно будет "воспитать" в другой. "Запала" хватит лет на 10-15, а потом - в производстве будут разбираться, а значит и развивать его, те люди,  которые имеют на этот завод "доступ", а не те, которые сидят за тысячи километров в офисах и думают, что руководят.   
Незаконная трудовая миграция не повышает уровень жизни, а наоборот, снижает его. Причём это "бьёт" по обеим группам: по группе местного населения и по группе тех же мигрантов. Для первых -  работадатели снижают уровень заработной платы, из за чего платёжеспособность населения падает, уровень жизни тоже. Для вторых - работадатели получают возможность использовать практически рабский труд. Через поколение мигранты становятся местным населением, угадайте, в какой уровень жизни они попадут?  ::  
Если это всё не регулировать, то начнётся "социалистический капитализм", когда работаешь как папа Карло, а зарабатываешь так, как будто работаешь на общественных началах.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Martin Miles wrote:
> Захотел сказать: Россия нуждается в увеличении численности населения 
> I suppose that it is true for many countries, not for Russia only.

 Это - русский форум. I will discuss conditions in Madagascar somewhere else. 
Permit me to remind you of the real issue here: 

> Women should have rights over their bodies, but at the same time they shouldn't complain about being swamped by immigrants who are helping to solve a problem that has been created by the emancipated women themselves.

----------


## Оля

> I suppose that it is true for many countries, not for Russia only.
> 			
> 		  Это русский форум.

 This is a forum about learning Russian language, for your information. If someone wants so much to talk about politics, there is a special section for that here.   

> I will discuss conditions in Madagascar somewhere else.

 Actually, ekaterina didn't say that you cannot discuss Russia conditions here. What she says was just a reasonable remark which very well fitted the discussion you offered. Your reply to her is impolite.

----------


## Martin Miles

I don't think you, Оля, are in any position to criticise me for being impolite. I remember you shouting at me in another topic. There was also a time you were following me around and taking every opportunuty to contradict me, with or without reason. I was provoked by some of ekaterinak's earlier comments but you seem not to have noticed them. Please try to be impartial. In any case the lady in question is an adult and should be able to speak for herself without the intrusion of third parties. 
Your distinction between a Russian forum and a forum for learning Russian where Russian issues are discussed seems like splitting hairs to me. And who is discussing politics? In general discussion there are topics about literature and film that could be placed somewhere else but I have not heard you complaining.   

> Martin Miles wrote:
> starrysky wrote:
> I'm yet to hear of a woman who has a problem with immigrants.Нашёл одну.
> Do you mean Russia that has the name which is female gender? It is very original! Don't forget that the USA, Britain, France, German, Belgium, Spain and.. the whole Europe can be described like that as well.

----------


## Оля

> There was also a time you were following me around and taking every opportunuty to contradict me, with or without reason.

 Dear sir, you seem to have a paranoia. I have no idea what you are talking about. Probably there was a discussion where I contradicted your opinion (I really don't remember it), but if you think I did it intentionally, you overrate importance of your person in my eyes.  ::    

> I don't think you, Оля, are in any position to criticise me for being impolite. I remember you shouting at me in another topic.

 Oh, you probably mean this post: viewtopic.php?p=219913#p219913 
Poor guy, you must be a very sensitive person if you took that line as shouting. However, anyone would have lost his patience if an obstinate guy from another part of the world would stubbornly try to prove that he and google know more about climate in the two cities where you spent all your life, and he has never been even in one of them. You've been "shouted" after a long bunch of polite and intelligible answers from people who really knew the subject. 
Anyway, regardless of me being or not being rude to you, it has nothing to do with the fact of impoliteness of your reply to Ekaterina.

----------


## sperk

all of a sudden this belongs in culture and history??

----------


## ekaterinak

[quote=Martin Miles]
Permit me to remind you of the real issue here: 

> Women should have rights over their bodies, but at the same time they shouldn't complain about being swamped by immigrants who are helping to solve a problem that has been created by the emancipated women themselves.

 [/quote:1uophs0i]
Martin, do you see the difference between two kinds of problems: the first is illegal migrants (level of a state) and the second is some problems of some woman with "their rights over their bodies"(level of interpersonal communication)? I've got the impression that they are the same for you. It is strange.   
And why do you not like emancipated women? Your posts show that you are offended by them. I'm sorry about this, but you don't have to fill youself any abhorrence. It is the road to nothing.
Good luck.

----------


## starrysky

Oi vei...   

> Если это всё не регулировать, то начнётся "социалистический капитализм", когда работаешь как папа Карло, а зарабатываешь так, как будто работаешь на общественных началах.

 Ну в Китае-то проблемы с низкой зарплатой не из-за иммиграции, а ровно из другой области -- перенаселенности. И их экономика наоборот на подъеме. Потом, я так понимаю, что "социалистический капитализм" это то же, что "капитализм с человеческим лицом" или "социальная демократия"? Джоанна описывала недавно в политике, как у них там все устроено в Швеции, когда нет ни чересчур богатых, ни слишком бедных, а политики зарабатывают столько же, сколько обычные люди -- так я бы хотела как в Швеции! Только у нас такое вряд ли когда будет, наверно.   

> However, anyone would have lost his patience if an obstinate guy from another part of the world would stubbornly try to prove that he and google know more about climate in the two cities where you spent all your life, and he has never been even in one of them.

 Well, this totally doesn't belong here but I took a peek at that topic... As I understand it from my friends who have been in St. Petersburg in winter and my relatives who live there, subjectively, it seems colder than it actually is because of the _wind_. When there's a strong wind, even -15 degrees Celsius would seem like -30. So even if the average winter temperatures in St. Petersburg are lower than in Moscow, they would seem harder to bear because of the wind and general humidity. Believe me, we Siberians know something about cold. We've had -25 for about a week already...    

> Women should have rights over their bodies, but at the same time they shouldn't complain about being swamped by immigrants who are helping to solve a problem that has been created by the emancipated women themselves.

 Well, you can't change it. There are a lot of advantages for women because of the emancipation and there's no changing the history... I personally think if there's a problem that should be discussed, it's _overpopulation_. We have now what, 6 billion people on this earth? Whereas it was only 1 bln at the beginning of the 20th century. Overcrowding creates many problems, like lack of food and other resources, which in turn leads to an increase in aggression and wars. Emancipation, or rather, advances in contraception, only help to solve those problems.

----------


## ekaterinak

> Originally Posted by ekaterinak  Если это всё не регулировать, то начнётся "социалистический капитализм", когда работаешь как папа Карло, а зарабатываешь так, как будто работаешь на общественных началах.         Originally Posted by starrysky  Ну в Китае-то проблемы с низкой зарплатой не из-за иммиграции, а ровно из другой области -- перенаселенности. И их экономика наоборот на подъеме. Потом, я так понимаю, что "социалистический капитализм" это то же, что "капитализм с человеческим лицом" или "социальная демократия"?

 Если вы сомневаетесь в пользе регулирования вопросов связанных с трудовой миграцией, попробуйте получить разрешение на работу в любой из стран Евросоюза или в Великобритании, или в США. Совершенно точно, что это будет сделать нелегко. А теперь задайте себе вопрос: "Почему эти страны поддерживают у себя такое законодательство?". Я верю, что Вы сможете на него ответить, и тогда Вам станет понятно зачем нужно регулировать эти вопросы не то что на уровне города (Москвы, например), но и на уровне государства. Причем это регулирование просто обязано быть достаточно жестким. 
Перенаселенность Китая отнюдь не единственная причина низкого уровня заработной платы/уровня жизни в этой стране. Проанализируйте историю СССР, США (причины Депрессии) и тогда Вам станет понятно что к чему.   

> Только у нас такое вряд ли когда будет, наверно.

 Заметье, что ни один иностранец не высказывает таких сомнений в отношении своей страны.

----------


## starrysky

> Если вы сомневаетесь в пользе регулирования вопросов связанных с трудовой миграцией, попробуйте получить разрешение на работу в любой из стран Евросоюза или в Великобритании, или в США. Совершенно точно, что это будет сделать нелегко. А теперь задайте себе вопрос: "Почему эти страны поддерживают у себя такое законодательство?". Я верю, что Вы сможете на него ответить, и тогда Вам станет понятно зачем нужно регулировать эти вопросы не то что на уровне города (Москвы, например), но и на уровне государства. Причем это регулирование просто обязано быть достаточно жестким.

 Я и не сомневаюсь в том, что миграция должна регулироваться законом (а не скинхедами   ::  ). Собственно, вроде законы-то у нас есть, может и недостаточно жесткие. Я всегда слышу, что в Россию, наоборот, сложно попасть -- много бюрократии и волокиты. Типа, не любят у нас иностранцев. Не знаю, может, неправда.   ::  Основная проблема в нелегалах.    P.S. Можно на "ты".   ::   По-моему, тут как-то больше на "ты" народ общается, нет?   ::

----------


## ekaterinak

> Я и не сомневаюсь в том, что миграция должна регулироваться законом (а не скинхедами   ).

 Вообще-то я про законы и про систему нормативных актов которые бы навели порядок в этой области раз и навсегда. Скинхеды - это совсем другая "песня" (если конечно можно это "явление" назвать таким поэтичным словом  :: ) я о ней даже не упоминала, и честно говоря - нет желания упоминать.   

> Собственно, вроде законы-то у нас есть, может и недостаточно жесткие.

 Законы у нас очень даже неплохие, но не всегда подготовлена база для их исполнения и отслеживания их исполнения. Но я оптимистично смотрю на это, наша страна движется вперёд и есть много изменений в лучшую сторону.   

> Я всегда слышу, что в Россию, наоборот, сложно попасть -- много бюрократии и волокиты. Типа, не любят у нас иностранцев. Не знаю, может, неправда.

 Иностранцев у нас очень даже любят. Везде по-другому смотрят на эммигрантов и иностранцев. Россия в этом плане на высоте.   

> Основная проблема в нелегалах.

 Причем в огромном и никак неконтролируемом их количестве. У нас полно людей, которые могли бы выполнять такую работу. Кстати, чем плоха работа сантехника (правда хороший сантехник - это действительно ценный работник!), дворника, рабочего??? Почти всегда рядом с домом, это как минимум одно преимущество - бежать по утрам никуда не надо! Если человек, например учится, или он приближается к отметке того возраста, когда работадатель предпочтет ему более молодого работника, ну чем плохо поработать в собственном дворе, благоустраивая его, за пусть небольшие, но всё же деньги? Кстати в городском хозяйстве полно таких рабочих мест!     P.S. Можно на "ты".   ::   По-моему, тут как-то больше на "ты" народ общается, нет?   ::  [/quote]
Здесь нет жесткого правила на этот счет. Кому как удобней. Учту твоё пожелание в будущем.  ::

----------


## Martin Miles

Ekaterinak, I don't abhor emancipated women. If I did, I  would not have started a topic asking why Russian women seemed not to have the same status as their western sisters. And starrysky, I am not trying to change history. Female emancipation has benefits for both men and women. What I was saying, was that in addition to the benefits it also has at least one less favourable consequence, namely, for whatever reason, emancipated women tend not to have enough children to maintain the size of the national population which then creates a need for imported labour. Earlier in the thread, Ekaterinak, I talked about the situation in some other European countries, so i was never trying to single out one country for special blame. If we discuss this question in a serious, mature and unemotional way, no one's feelings will get hurt. 
The question of overpopulation is important. Some economists believe that if you have more mouths to feed, you also have more hands to produce food and so on with. I would also note that, as far as the environment is concerned, the 1.2 children of the average Italian family have a larger carbon footprint than the lets say 4 of a Bangladeshi family. They are fewer, but they use up more of the world's resources. 
Olya, I am not the one who is self-important. You clearly tried to shut down this discussion when you wrote 

> LET'S TAKL ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEMS IN THE UK!!!   
> (Or maybe Russians who don't have as much money as Berezovsky are not humans for you Brits?)

 When I ignored you the first time, you tried again...and failed. If you want to tell people what they should and should not talk about, and where, and how, then you should try to become a moderator. Until that time, I will be guided by people who actually have authority. As for your attempts to contradict me at every turn, if it was just the Petersburg question, I might forgive you, but you know very well what you have done and the evidence is available.

----------


## Ramil

> ...why Russian women seemed not to have the same status as their western sisters.

 By the way, Martin, can you clarify what particular 'status' do you have in mind? What do you mean by this word anyway? The answer of your original question depends on that.

----------


## Crocodile

> What I was saying, was that in addition to the benefits it also has at least one less favourable consequence, namely, for whatever reason, emancipated women tend not to have enough children to maintain the size of the national population which then creates a need for imported labour.

 Hmm... the less people a country has the less services it needs, therefore having less demand for the jobs, and hence less imported labour.   ::   
I would agree with others who see a need for imported labour in people seeking more comfort for themselves (=better pay, working conditions, etc.) Whether that imported labour is legal or illegal that's another story...   ::

----------


## Lampada

> all of a sudden this belongs in culture and history??

 Если судить по названию ("Статус женщины" я поняла как "положение женщины"), то дискуссия на такую тему вполне могла бы быть об истории женского вопроса в России и культуре отношений между полами.  А так как тема приобрела какой-то размашистый характер, то я уже не знаю, где ей лучше быть.

----------


## Оля

[quote=Martin Miles]You clearly tried to shut down this discussion when you wrote 

> LET'S TAKL ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEMS IN THE UK!!!

 [/quote:7gzio9lr]
Dear Martin, you are so funny, really. It was 'clearly' for you, but not for others. I had no intention to shut down this discussion (and why sould I?). That sentence, and in that form, was just a joke which was, by the way, provoked by your incorrect Russian sentence (_больше людей нуждаются в России_) that meant, more or less, "More people want to live in Russia". So my sentence was a playful reply to your remark (as I understand it). And if you don't know, I can tell you that it's very hard for many Russians to visit the UK even as tourists (and at once you say 'more people want to LIVE in Russia', not just visit it), and that was the point of my reply. If you want people to understand you better, use the language you know better or add the English version to your post.
Actually, big letters meant 'addressing to all'. "Hey, all, I want you all to hear me, let's do such-and-such thing!.." And my 'shouting' was followed by a smiley, and it's strange that you didn't pay any attention to that.
Also, remember that Russians are more emotional and less bound by etiquette people than the English. If we shout or use big letters, it does not mean rudeness yet at all. If we don't intersperse our posts with remarks like "your post was brilliantly interesting, but...", "sorry for expressing my opinion which can be a bit harsh, but..." and so on, it does not mean that we have intention to contradict, offend or to be rude, either. If you want to learn Russian and are interested by Russia conditions and Russian society, you need to be less touchy and also more patient and open-minded then. You need to learn to understand if someone really meant to offend you or maybe has no idea that you feel offended about his remark/acts/behaviour. Otherwise you will always misunderstand people around you and be misunderstood yourself (as it often happens on this forum, let me tell you a secret, and not only because of your Russian).   

> As for your attempts to contradict me at every turn, if it was just the Petersburg question

 If you call that 'contradicting', you are very strange, indeed...   ::  
I was actually trying _to answer your question_. It was rather you who contradicted me in that thread (and not only me, and see now what starrysky has written above about the Petersburg weather) and then, in addition to all, called me a liar.  ::  By the way, you didn't answer my question in that thread, about the singer's name. I see now that this question of mine was a crime, too.   ::     

> then you should try to become a moderator.

 Actually, I think it wouldn't be any problems, if I tried.   ::    

> you know very well what you have done and the evidence is available.

 Listen, stop this arrogant tone which is ridiculous. I haven't "done" anything for which I should justify myself before you. You seem to be a person with too many hang-ups who likes to seek out enemies and ill-wishers even in places where there are only friends. You wanted to see me as your enemy here, while I didn't even know that, so now you almost turned me into one. Who is next?

----------


## starrysky

> Но я оптимистично смотрю на это, наша страна движется вперёд и есть много изменений в лучшую сторону.

 Слава Богу, есть еще оптимисты в этой стране!   ::  А то что-то поднадоел весь этот негатив про то, как у нас все плохо.    

> Кстати, чем плоха работа сантехника (правда хороший сантехник - это действительно ценный работник!), дворника, рабочего??? Почти всегда рядом с домом, это как минимум одно преимущество - бежать по утрам никуда не надо! Если человек, например учится, или он приближается к отметке того возраста, когда работадатель предпочтет ему более молодого работника, ну чем плохо поработать в собственном дворе, благоустраивая его, за пусть небольшие, но всё же деньги? Кстати в городском хозяйстве полно таких рабочих мест!

 Я считаю, что всякий труд нужен и благороден и должен хорошо оплачиваться, но тенденция почему-то такая, что менеджер в офисе (который полдня висит в интернете, пьет кофа и перекуривает) зарабатывает в разы больше, чем продавец в магазине или уборщица или дворник. Т.е. в плане часов и усилий, человек работает так же, или даже меньше, а получает больше. В результате кто ж захочет работать дворником? Не знаю, как в Москве, а у нас тут дворники 25 тыщ не получают.   

> Если судить по названию ("Статус женщины" я поняла как "положение женщины"), то дискуссия на такую тему вполне могла бы быть об истории женского вопроса в России и культуре отношений между полами.

 Кстати, хорошая идея. Кое о чём тут уже упоминалось, но вообще эту тему можно развить. *думает чего бы такого умного сказать* Будет время, погуглю.   

> What I was saying, was that in addition to the benefits it also has at least one less favourable consequence, namely, for whatever reason, emancipated women tend not to have enough children to maintain the size of the national population which then creates a need for imported labour.

 Maintaining the size of the national population is the last thing a woman would consider when planning her family.   ::  I would like to have, let's say, three children, provided the circumstances are right and health permits. But if it is to be the life of an average Bangladeshi family, no thank you.   ::   
Concerning the initial question, whether women in Russia are emancipated enough and enjoy the same rights and liberties that Western women do, yes, women here became quite emancipated during the Soviet times already, so nowadays I'd say there's almost no difference (I suppose this was already said at the beginning of this discussion). But feminism in Russia isn't quite so strong and there remain some vestiges of the older kind of men--women relationships. I do think it would be quite interesting to delve into the history and traditions as Lampada suggested.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Hmm... the less people a country has the less services it needs, therefore having less demand for the jobs, and hence less imported labour.

 If all age groups of the population declined at the same rate that might be true. When the birth rate declines, what happens is that the workforce contracts in relation to the sum of retired people. The pensions of retirees are, in effect, paid by the workforce, so if there are not enough people working, then pensions can't be paid. Furthermore, a population in which old people predominate is heading for eventual extinction. That's not my opinion, it's the view of leading Russian demographers. 
Btw, I have a personality of my own, so I am accustomed to being misunderstood. The Russian people, I am told, say that they too are often misunderstood. They should be glad, therefore, when anyone attempts to learn their language. But I would really prefer to talk about the status of women in Russia. 
Ramil, my question was prompted by an article in 'Izvestia' (the link is on page one) which said that Russian women are not as well represented in politics and big business as women in the West. So by 'status' I meant their degree of participation in the leadership of the country.

----------


## Ramil

> So by 'status' I meant their degree of participation in the leadership of the country.

 I don't see any problem then. Medvedev may complain about small number of women in politics, but in reality a rare woman would want to choose a political career. It's not discrimination of any sort but a simple fact that women in general do not want to go into politics. And I don't think anything should be done to change this situation, but this is my personal opinion.

----------


## Martin Miles

> It's not discrimination of any sort but a simple fact that women in general do not want to go into politics.

 So be it. Russia is different, as they say. And if Russians are often misunderstood, whatever others might think, I would not say that they are "strange", "funny" or "paranoid"   ::  .

----------


## starrysky

> It's not discrimination of any sort but a simple fact that women in general do not want to go into politics.

 How easily you decide for all women.   ::  Not so long ago it was thought that a woman is 'man's best friend' and nothing should be done about it.   ::

----------


## it-ogo

> Not so long ago it was thought that a woman is 'man's best friend' and nothing should be done about it.

 I suspect that the ambiguity of this phrase is missed in translation. 
I'd say that a woman is man's second worst enemy. After himself.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  It's not discrimination of any sort but a simple fact that women in general do not want to go into politics.   How easily you decide for all women.

 Have you perchance noticed me mentioning the words 'in general' and 'personal opinion'?
I've polled all women I work with about whether they want to make a political career, I've polled my wife and all her female friends. The universal answer was 'NO'. 
And a woman is a man's best friend, after all.  ::

----------


## Martin Miles

> starrysky wrote:
> Not so long ago it was thought that a woman is 'man's best friend' and nothing should be done about it.  
> I suspect that the ambiguity of this phrase is missed in translation.

 Пожалуйста, объясните.  ::

----------


## Martin Miles

I get it now. In English, "Man's best friend" (the dog) and "the best friend of a man" are different in form and meaning, but a Russian would say something like "лучший друг человека" to translate both phrases. Хм...

----------


## Оля

> but a Russian would say something like "лучший друг человека" to translate both phrases. Хм...

 Well, actually, in Russian "the best friend of a man" would be "лучший друг _одного_ человека" (if you mean a _certain_ man). Technically, you can translate it just as "лучший друг человека", but the context always dictates the exact phrase.

----------


## Ramil

> I get it now. In English, "Man's best friend" (the dog) and "the best friend of a man" are different in form and meaning, but a Russian would say something like "лучший друг человека" to translate both phrases. Хм...

 человек (a human) vs. мужчина (a male) - both these words can be translated as 'man' in English.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Well, actually, in Russian "the best friend of a man" would be "лучший друг одного человека" (if you mean a certain man).

 Actually, "the best friend of a man" in English would _not_ refer to a certain man, the article is indefinite. A man can mean one as opposed to two or three or men in general. The real distinction is between a man (any male person) and Man (a human being, humanity in general). My understanding is that человек can cover both meanings, but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong  ::  .

----------


## Martin Miles

Here is an example of the ambiguity that it-ogo mentioned http://otvet.mail.ru/question/857801/. He is right. The point gets lost in translation.

----------


## Оля

[quote=Martin Miles] 

> Well, actually, in Russian "the best friend of a man" would be "лучший друг одного человека" (if you mean a certain man).

 Actually, "the best friend of a man" in English would _not_ refer to a certain man, the article is indefinite. A man can mean one as opposed to two or three or men in general.[/quote:3paqjykd]
Well, certain was a wrong word, I meant "some": of some man. But I forgot about the fact that man in English usually means a male person, so my Russian phrase should rather be "лучший друг одного _мужчины_".   

> My understanding is that человек can cover both meanings

 Of course; even three. Человек in Russian can also mean a female person (although there is a joke: "курица - не птица, женщина - не человек"   ::  )

----------


## Martin Miles

> My understanding is that человек can cover both meanings
> Of course;

 That's my point. When a Russian says: Собака - лучший друг человека, it can mean "the dog is Man's (mankind's) best friend", or "the dog is a man's (a male person's) best friend." If he said: Собака - лучший друг людского рода, he would be more precise, I think. To translate it into Russian as the best friend of "some man" or "one man" would be wrong since "the dog is a man's best friend" would mean the best friend of _any_ man.

----------


## Оля

> When a Russian says: Собака - лучший друг человека, it can mean "the dog is Man's (mankind's) best friend", or "the dog is a man's (a male person's) best friend." If he said: Собака - лучший друг людского рода, he would be more precise, I think.

 On no, you understand it wrong then. If a Russian wants to say "The dog is a *male person*'s best friend", he'd say "Собака - лучший друг *мужчины*".
When a Russian says "Собака - лучший друг *человека*", it means that the dog is the best friend of *any person, of any gender*. 
P.S. Another example:
- Откуда ты это знаешь? (How do you know that?)
- Мне это сказал один человек. (Someone told me) 
This "один человек" can be a female person, too.

----------


## it-ogo

> Пожалуйста, объясните.

 Yep, you already got it yourself. "Человек" in that phrase refer to the Humankind rather than to a male person.  
Лучший друг человечества - собачество.
The man(kind)'s best friend is a dog(kind).

----------


## starrysky

> I've polled all women I work with about whether they want to make a political career, I've polled my wife and all her female friends. The universal answer was 'NO'.

 And how many of them would want to be surgeons or cosmonauts? The fact that the percent of women who would want to become politicians is small (in which I actually agree with you) doesn't mean that women should be looked on as incapable of doing this work, or that they shouldn't be *encouraged* to go into politics. There are few women in politics because of the general sexist prejudice in the society that politics is not women's business, that it's too dirty and what-not. It's due to the general mentality of our society, to its backwardness in terms of feminism, to those men, who would rather keep women out of politics, claiming that politics is dirty than let them in and try to change something.  
I have already mentioned it -- the same attitude was held by Henry VIII who maintained that England had never been and could never be ruled by a woman. Because of this opinion, and in his quest for _a male heir_ he beheaded two of his wives; poor Henry, if only he knew that his and Anne Boleyn's daughter would turn into the best monarch England ever knew and the time of her rule would be called "Golden Age." 
I am aware that perhaps our country can't have a female president at the moment -- though for all I know, this view has been thrust on me by our society. I'd love to see what Hakamada would do on this post. 
I am basically for balance in politics. You know, Yin and Yang.   

> Отличается ли и чем женщина-политик от мужчины-политика? 
> Женщины чаще всего выдвигают законодательные инициативы, которые близки интересам женщин и которые на практике часто предаются забвению в «мужском» парламенте.  
> Женщина-политик осознанно отождествляет себя с интересами, которые и традиционно, и по жизни принято считать специфическими «женскими интересами» или, по крайней мере, более близкими, понятными и насущными для женщин. Например, проблемы продвижения женщин на уровень принятия решений, защита прав женщин, вопросы образования, медицинского обслуживания, планирования семьи, детских учреждений, абортов и т.д..
> ...
> Мужчины в мире политики строят свои отношения в рамках: нападение - оборона. Когда в этот мир приходят женщины, отношения строятся по-другому, появляется больше шансов на диалог и сотрудничество. 
> ...
> Женщины считают: мы не должны пользоваться типично мужскими речевыми оборотами и традиционной политической культурой. Мы должны создавать свой язык, отражающий нашу жизнь и наш опыт, наши желания и цели. В политике необходимо женское мышление, женское начало.  
> Традиционный лидер в политике отличается авторитаризмом. Но это не модель для женщины. Ей лучше использовать свои природные качества - коммуникативность, умение слушать и распознавать важность чувств, способность на компромисс, ориентированность на результат. 
> Способность женщин рассматривать поступки в широком контексте, связывая один с другим, есть ни что иное, как проявление мудрости, суть которой в вычленении не только одной логической цепочки вещей и явлений, а способность увидеть взаимодействие по закону причинно-следственной связи многих логических цепочек. Именно этим и отличается женщина как особь человеческого рода. Таким талантом, конечно, обладают и некоторые мужчины. Тем не менее, как замечательно подметила Кэрол Гиллиган, профессор психологии (Гарвардский университет, США): «Женщины обладают большей нравственной силой, у них более высокие этические нормы и особая способность устанавливать и поддерживать хорошие отношения с людьми, т.е. все качества настоящего политического деятеля». 
> ...

 From here -- http://revolution.allbest.ru/political/00001429_0.html 
Here's a link to an article from "Izvestia": "Может ли женщина когда-нибудь стать президентом России?" http://www.izvestia.ru/comment/article1334238/ 
Some of the more sexist comments: 
Гот: Какая женщина? Какой президент? У нас до сих пор ни одного мужчины-президента (в смысле "признанного всеми руководителя государства") не было, а вы - женщину! У нее своих проблем полно (и биологических тоже), какое тут "президентство"! 
Прохожий: Мне кажется, у женщин полно и других дел, более важных, чем играться в политику...

----------


## starrysky

And a bit of history...   

> Первые декреты советской власти были в отношении женщин многообещающими. Их юридическое равноправие с мужчинами закрепила Конституция 1918.  
> Декрет О гражданском браке (тоже 191 признавал законным лишь брак, заключенный в государственных учреждениях, давая женщинам – впервые в Европе – право сохранять при этом девичью фамилию. *Декрет 1920 года – также, раньше, чем где бы то ни было – реализовывал феминистское требование урегулирования репродуктивных прав женщин: признал их право на аборт.* Закон о браке 1926 объявил законным т.наз. фактический брак (незарегистрированный, но фактически существующий), впервые в истории приравняв детей, рожденных в браке и вне его и введя «презумпцию материнской правоты» в признании отцовства (достаточно было заявления матери). До предела упрощена стала и процедура развода (по почтовой открытке в адрес ЗАГСа, посланной одним из супругов). Однако эти законодательные нормы не имели для женщин следствием равные с мужчинами возможности. Патерналистскую роль (отца, патриарха) постепенно брало на себя государство. Это иносказательно подчеркивалось активистками женского движения 20-х (И.Арманд, Н.Крупской, К.Самойловой, Н.Смидович, А.Коллонтай), заверявшими матерей в том, что социалистическое государство всегда поддержит их, независимо от наличия или отсутствия брачных уз. Материнство определялось как «социалистическая обязанность», которая должна была дополнять обязанность женщин трудиться наравне с мужчинами.  
> Эти установки, именуемые «решением женского вопроса», в реальности не освобождали женщин, но лишь усложняли их жизнь, хотя в общественных обсуждениях того времени это не признавалось. Эмоциональные связи семьи разрушались (экономическая база ее пошатнулась вместе ликвидацией частной собственности). Семейная нестабильность ложилась на плечи женщин и делала их партнеров еще более далекими от ответственности за близких. Ослабление семейных устоев, порожденное ориентацией женщин на включенность в производственную и общественно-политическую жизнь, вело к снижению рождаемости (не более 1 ребенка на семью). К 1930 ситуация стала критической, и в политике семейно-брачных отношений начался традиционалистский откат. *Концепция материнского и супружеского долга женщины вошла в оборот идеологического и политического манипулирования (постоянно готовящейся к войне стране нужна была высокая рождаемость). Сексуальность оказалась тесно увязана с репродуктивностью (в 1935 в СССР прекратилось производство контрацептивов).* В 1936 был принят закон, затруднявший развод; через 8 лет разводиться разрешили вообще только через суд. *В том же 1936 были запрещены аборты (кроме т.наз. «медицинских показаний»), что явилось поражением женщин в их репродуктивных правах.* Провалившее курс на «революцию быта» государство взвалило на плечи «свободных и равноправных» женщин двойную нагрузку, откупаясь от возможных упреков мелкими подачками (введением в 1944 почетного нагрудного знака «Мать-героиня», мизерной платой за содержание детей в яслях и садах). Традиционные функции разделения труда между полами успешно возродились и оказались мобилизованы в условиях постоянного дефицита потребительских товаров как до, так и после Великой Отечественной войны. В годы ее российские женщины начали заниматься теми видами деятельности, в которых ранее были представлены только или преимущественно мужчины (начальники цехов, руководители предприятий). Эти изменения прошли незамеченными со стороны государства, которое видело в женщинах лишь матерей и работниц. После окончания войны женщины оказались легко вытесненными из своего вынужденного положения лидеров в связи с возрастанием символической «ценности» мужчин.

 from http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/istoriya..._V_ROSSII.html 
Translating into plain English -- in the 1930s, the Soviet politicians, in view of the fact that population size started to diminish and the country was preparing for war (read -- was in need of 'cannon fodder') decided to turn sharply back from its feminist policies and ban abortions -- instead of trying to save those children already living and dying from hunger. Now it's the same situation -- the only thing some men in politics need from women is to give birth to more babies. The role of a woman is reduced to that of a sow.

----------


## Ramil

> And how many of them would want to be surgeons or cosmonauts? The fact that the percent of women who would want to become politicians is small (in which I actually agree with you) doesn't mean that women should be looked on as incapable of doing this work, or that they shouldn't be *encouraged* to go into politics.

 I only said that women in general do not want to go in for politics and I'm thinking that nothing should be done to change that.
By the way - two women I asked about it own quite a big company and have many men as their subordinates but even they said that politics should be avoided by normal people (of any gender, males too). Another woman said that all politicians are freaks (I can't do anything but agree with her  ::  ).

----------


## Basil77

> ..I'd love to see what Hakamada would do on this post..

   ::  Are you serious ??! Fortunately, you, most likely, shall never have a chance to see this.       
A very few people take that   b!tch   ::  seriously today.

----------


## starrysky

> Originally Posted by starrysky  ..I'd love to see what Hakamada would do on this post..     Are you serious ??! Fortunately, you, most likely, shall never have a chance to see this.       
> A very few people take that   b!tch   seriously today.

 Hmm... Hmmm-hmmm... What has she done to deserve such severe criticism?   ::   I certainly don't know much about her, but she appears to be an intelligent, sensible person.   

> they said that politics should be avoided by normal people (of any gender, males too).

   ::  That's strange. If normal people avoid politics, we can't expect life to get any better. Who is going to speak for you and your interests? Take Elena Drapeko, for example (for those who don't know -- she played the role of Lisa Brichkina in "The Dawns Here Are Quiet"). I watched a programme about her and her cat a few weeks ago, on the Culture channel -- she seemed a very nice, good, sensible kind of person. Quite normal by my standards.   ::

----------


## Оля

> Take Elena Drapeko, for example (for those who don't know -- she played the role of Lisa Brichkina in "The Dawns Here Are Quiet"). I watched a programme about her and her cat a few weeks ago, on the Culture channel -- she seemed a very nice, good, sensible kind of person. Quite normal by my standards.

 Of course in a programme about her and her cat she couldn't be anything but nice, good, and sensible. I saw her in some more serious broadcasts, and I found her not quite sensible. As they say, "everyone should do his own job". If someone was a good actor/actress, it doesn't mean that (s)he can be a good politician or even a good producer. 
The idea of Hakamada as President sound funny for me too.

----------


## starrysky

> The idea of Hakamada as President sound funny for me too.

 But... why?? *воздевая руки к небу*   ::  I can actually see her very well -- talking to Obama, making speeches at the G8 summits... She is an imposing kind of person. And taller than Medved, too!   ::    

> Of course in a programme about her and her cat she couldn't be anything but nice, good, and sensible. I saw her in some more serious broadcasts, and I found her not quite sensible.

 That may be -- I don't know what her position on various issues is, I only know that she's a communist. But the only person who is DEFINITELY NOT sensible on our political arena (in my opinion, of course) is Zhirinovsky. A thin book allegedly written by him was once thrown into our mail-box during the election campaign. It was such rubbish! He literally said that Russia needed a tzar and that he would be happy to fill this post!

----------


## Ramil

God, please no! Not Hakamada. I would sooner vote for Ksenia Sobchak.

----------


## it-ogo

Women are indicators of quality. If they don't want to go to politics then the politics is not so nice as it should be. 
On the other hand here in Ukraine we have many women in high politics but it is still not so nice...

----------


## starrysky

> Ksenia Sobchak.

 Let's keep this place clear of foul language...   ::   I suggest equating these two words to blaspheming and banning their use. Or using them in a reduced form so as not to hurt people's tender ears: K*S*

----------


## Crocodile

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Ksenia Sobchak.   [...] Or using them in a reduced form so as not to hurt people's tender ears: K*S*

 How about Ks/is (KSenIa Sobchak)? (Ramil will explain why..)   ::

----------


## Ramil

Why? She's such a nice girl   ::  And prettier than Hakamada too...   ::

----------


## Martin Miles

> Martin Miles wrote:
> When a Russian says: Собака - лучший друг человека, it can mean "the dog is Man's (mankind's) best friend", or "the dog is a man's (a male person's) best friend." If he said: Собака - лучший друг людского рода, he would be more precise, I think.
> On no, you understand it wrong then. If a Russian wants to say "The dog is a male person's best friend", he'd say "Собака - лучший друг мужчины".
> When a Russian says "Собака - лучший друг человека", it means that the dog is the best friend of any person, of any gender.

 Thanks, Olya, but I think we have lost sight of the point I was making: 

> I get it now. In English, "Man's best friend" (the dog) and "the best friend of a man" are different in form and meaning, but a Russian would say something like "лучший друг человека" to translate both phrases. Хм...

 Ramil's reply 

> человек (a human) vs. мужчина (a male) - both these words can be translated as 'man' in English.

 shows that I got the point and my linkhttp://otvet.mail.ru/question/857801/ demonstrates that Russians do indeed use the phrase I mentioned, exploiting the ambiguty of человек. That was all I was saying. 
I see now, though, that not everyone may realise that in English 'Man' when it means 'mankind' always begins with a capital letter. If starrysky had written: women were regarded as 'Man's best friend' I would have understood straight away, but she used a common letter leading me to think she meant _a man's_ best friend. Probably it was just a slip on her part. However you say it, though, it is hardly flattering to womankind.

----------


## Crocodile

> And prettier than Hakamada too...

 Not without the ten layers of make-up. So, I'd rather say the other way around.   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  And prettier than Hakamada too...     Not without the ten layers of make-up. So, I'd rather say the other way around.

 And younger  ::   ::   ::   ::   
Just imagine the final runoff with just two candidates remaining...

----------


## Crocodile

> Just imagine the final runoff with just two candidates remaining...

 Umm... I'm not a big fan of Home-2, so I wouldn't enjoy the yelling, the cat-fighting, or the inevitable "я думаю *то, что*".   ::    

> And younger

 So, you think Olga Buzova would do even better, wouldn't she?   ::

----------


## Hanna

> Originally Posted by starrysky  If someone was a good actor/actress, it doesn't mean that (s)he can be a good politician or even a good producer.

 Do you remember:  
Actor who became a president... Luckily Russia still exists on this planet.. but not thanks to his skills as a politician, in my opinion...!   
Nothing wrong with a change of careers, but some people should stick with what they do best.  _For the record Ramil --- you DO know a woman who is interested in politics. Me. Maybe some day._

----------


## Hanna

> Originally Posted by Crocodile        Originally Posted by Ramil  And prettier than Hakamada too...     Not without the ten layers of make-up. So, I'd rather say the other way around.     And younger 
> Just imagine the final runoff with just two candidates remaining...

 
In her job as a politician her looks are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.   ::   ::   ::   ::  
And what do you two know about make-up anyway, huh?    ::   ::  
I am not familiar with Hakamada., other than that I recognise her name. 
But women often have a peaceful influence on politics instead of getting carried away and wanting to show their muscles and prove their points through confrontational politics. 
But I do have to make one comment: Isn't Yulia Timoschenko very cool looking for a politician? I have no idea what her politics are, but I really respect her hairstyle and her choice of outfits. She looks like she is on her way to teach a class in etiquette, ca 1950...  ::

----------


## Basil77

> ..Yulia Timoschenko.. but I really respect her hairstyle..

 IMHO her wig looks pretty much like a steering wheel cover.  ::

----------


## Martin Miles

> In her job as a politician her looks are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

 Agreed, but voters are always influenced by irrelevant things like charm, charisma, and looks. 
 Earlier, you complained about being judged by your looks all the time. Here is a link that tries to explain why men and women alike attach so much importance to beauty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ood-genes.html 
It seems to me that the scientists don't prove the argument that good looks are a sign of good genes but it seems like a reasonable suggestion, since it has been shown that many of the other factors that make people atrractive to members of the opposite sex are really signs that they will make good parents, and pass on good genes. Of course the argument is not that we _consciously_ find people attractive because they look like good parents, but that Nature has progammed us to act that way. All this is a bit off topic, but never mind.

----------


## starrysky

I don't think a politician's looks play that much of a role... Berluskoni's preoccupation with his is ridiculous. When I choose a president I don't expect him to become my husband, you know. It is far more important how he/she behaves and speaks, and what he/she says. The offtopic here about politicians' looks has been mere joking. 
ETA: Unfortunately, appearance may play a role in elections to a certain degree. It is known in sociology that   

> In many cases, humans attribute positive characteristics, such as intelligence and honesty, to attractive people without consciously realizing it.

 As for the article, I'd say it's a bit questionable. Of course, appearance plays a role when choosing a partner but opinions vary so much as to what is beautiful and what is not... Some African tribes find it extremely attractive if a girl's neck has been stretched with metal rings for years and resembles a giraffe's neck. Or if their earlobes are hanging right to their shoulders...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earlobe_stretching 
In China, girls had to have their feet bound from the earliest years of their childhood so that they remained as small as possible. Their bones grew in a completely convoluted way. Sometimes their toes would decompose and fall off. And all for what? Why, some emperor said he likes small feet and so people started to belive it extremely beautiful.   ::  
See here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding 
Or see the "Russian Venus" by Kustodiev here -- http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%...sian_venus.jpg 
Thus, beauty and health/strength/agility do not necessarily go hand in hand. Think the peacock and his tail -- it's all about showing off and impressing the peahen but does it make its bearer less vulnerable to predators? Or good at finding food?    

> Beautiful people are healthier and live longer, according to a study of sex appeal.

 Yes, perhaps, but that's only because of the society's attitude, which places so much value on looks and thus may make these feel better about their appearance while others might suffer from depression because they do not conform to the accepted standards of beauty of the day. This attitude is entirely wrong and discriminatory, if you ask me...   

> No one disputes that symmetrical faces, such as that of Kate Moss, are more attractive.

 I beg to differ, I don't find her attractive in the least. And she's known for her problems with drugs and alcohol from what I've heard. The same may be said about Britney Spears. Good looks don't necessarily make one into a good parent. Morals do! 
Attractive partners are very far from being a good bet as potential husband/wives if their good looks aren't supported by some moral substance. Since they're likely to have crowds of suitors, they're more likely to commit adultery. "Сердце красавицы склонно к измене..." They're also more likely to have very high and unrealistic expectations of their prospective partners in life. Evidently, that above-mentioned female person -- khmmm... *cough*K.S*cough* -- has recently said that her requirements are so high that nothing less than a prince will satisfy her. 
The wiki article on physical attraction sums up nicely the various issues related to what is perceived as beautiful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness.

----------


## Martin Miles

> Agreed, but voters are always influenced by irrelevant things like charm, charisma, and looks.

  

> In many cases, humans attribute positive characteristics, such as intelligence and honesty, to attractive people without consciously realizing it.

 Exactly.   

> Good looks don't necessarily make one into a good parent. Morals do!

 When I used the term "good parent" I didn't mean it in that sense. 
] 

> Of course, appearance plays a role when choosing a partner but opinions vary so much as to what is beautiful and what is not... Some African tribes find it extremely attractive if a girl's neck has been stretched with metal rings for years and reminds a giraffe's neck.

 That should be: RESEMBLES a giraffe's neck. Your last link stated that some desireable features are universal, others specific to a certain culture and some individual.

----------


## starrysky

> That should be: RESEMBLES a giraffe's neck. Your last link stated that some desireable features are universal, others specific to a certain culture and some individual.

 Corrected.   ::

----------


## Martin Miles

Starrysky сказала ранее о русских писательницах. Александра Ишимова родилась в этот день ( 6 января, 1805 года). She wrote books for younger readers, including the prize winning "History of Russia in Stories for Children"  which is still in print and presumably could be useful for people learning the language. As a writer, she was admired by Pushkin, and has the distinction of being his last correspondent: he wrote to her on the day of his fatal duel. 
Read more in Russian:  http://www.elibron.com/russian/other....phtml_id=1126 
or English:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Ishimova/   
Александра Осиповна Ишимова

----------

