This guy is great at breaking through all the bullsh-t and stereotypes that perpetuate the status quo.
Printable View
This guy is great at breaking through all the bullsh-t and stereotypes that perpetuate the status quo.
Indeed he is. Quite interesting and funny.
Is that all you do? Watch feminism themed videos on youtube? Lol
Regarding the subject.. Usually when I have to remove aggressive women from the bar ( as security ) people often criticize it with lines like : "You can't be that rough to a woman!".
Point one, I can if they are clawing my eyes out, biting and trying to repeatetly kick me in my groin. Point two : that is equality. I treat them as I treat male customers.
The feminist won. :panic:
Lmao, this guy.
I don't get it. What do you want with this thread?
I don't get it either. He didn't say anything intelligent.
And egalitarianism is obvious, boring, old hat. :)
Since when do gay guy's opinions count?
LOL, no, I do many things and watch many things on YouTube, and sometimes I do watch feminist videos because I happen to be a girl who has actual self-respect and ambitions, despite my apparent lack of a penis. But thanks, really, for stereotyping me and making belittling, baseless assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seroquel
What makes you think she was a feminist? Most women who think women should be treated extra nice are also the ones who are old-fashioned and think that women should be taken care of, become housewives and stay at home raising children with their rich doctor husband. They don't identify as "feminists", in fact know as little about it as the vast majority. I think you did the right thing in treating them logically and equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
What, is feminism the new boogeyman? The new scapegoat for everything bad that happens, because nothing's more threatening and scary to society than a woman who isn't an object and a doormat?
He makes a valid point, that especially in the media, they are still trying to perpetuate old-fashioned ideas that men's stories are far more interesting than women's, so that there are vastly more male characters than female (even though women make up roughly half of the population), and men can be anything they want regardless of appearance but women should only be sexy, most importantly, and love interests. We would NEVER, EVER get away with the same amount of racism, why should we with sexism? Are we supposed to just ignore it and shut up (and go make sandwiches)? Unless the mods think otherwise and want to close this thread, I think the subject of feminism and gender equality is well worth talking about and bringing into the open, because few people want to admit these observations.
I'm sick of the assumptions that feminism (the idea that women are EQUAL to men, not better or worse) is about man-hating and being a hairy ugly lesbian (that's what conservatives have successfully indoctrinated people into thinking so that women are silenced from progressing any further). Anyone who thinks that women and men are equal is technically a feminist, male or female, gay or straight, adult or child.
By the way, men being constantly pressured to fit into the male gender role of being strong, not having emotions, not doing anything remotely "gay" (because gay is so evil and against gender norms) is also sexism. I tend to think that homophobia and sexism go hand in hand.
http://static.tumblr.com/shh9znz/Mnz...n_computer.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
I think you misunderstood what Unelias meant Deery...
When he said "The feminist won" I think he meant in the general sense - that they've won and he's treating women truly equally with men.
Also, I disagree with some of the stereotypes you're perpetuating above - in particular that men can be anything they want in movies/TV shows and women are forced to be sexy. It seems to me when that stereotype first started it was because women were always portrayed as weak screamers to be rescued by (sexy) male heroes. Now we have probably as many sexy female heroes as sexy male heroes, or very close. As well as countless shows portraying husbands as dumbasses who couldn't even tie their shoes without their smarter wives telling them how.
Male fantasy tends to express itself through images of strength and violence... as heroes basically. So you have the "guy movies". But women also have their "chick flicks". I think fantasy movies for women are romances.
I tend to agree with Europeans who have said "American women want to be men, and they want their men to be women".
Does equality have to mean going against your natural tendencies? Is it necessary for men to be housewives and for women to be CEOs and weightlifters in order for them to be equal?
In primitive societies it's natural and necessary for men to be hunters and warriors and for women to tend the home and raise children. Its using the natural tendencies of each to best advantage. Biological necessity... you protect the women and children... if a lot of men die in a war or hunting a mastodon, a single male can impregnate many women... in one night if need be!! If many women die, a single woman can only bear one child a year on average (excluding accidents like twins etc). So its obvious... the men fight and protect the women and children.
This is programmed into our DNA - and it takes millions of years for changes at that level. So yes, men DO tend toward pissing contests and violence, and women do tend toward child rearing and homemaking. Can they do other things? Of course... and not every man is Sly Stallone and not every woman is Kate Gosselin. And in a modern society where we don't face the daily threat of being overtaken by a neighboring tribe by force, we can freely ignore these inherited biological traits if we want to. But I also see a lot of feminists making fun of men for doing what comes naturally, as if they expect them to suddenly shed millions of years of genetic programming overnight and turn into Mr. Mom.
I'm not anti-feminist at all! In fact I"m totally pro feminist, but I just think mainstream feminism has missed a few things.
Example... one day I saw something on TV - this woman was all riled up about the statistics of women getting raped in prison. Women. What about the men who get raped in prison? Is that somehow less important? So where's the 'equality'? She seemed only concerned about women and not men. Too often I see feminism being used as a front for anger or aggression on the part of women. Thy say "we want equality" but many of them seem to really want revenge. Not all mind you, just many.
My only problem with feminists is that I haven't figured out how to get them to stop being hairy, man-eating butches and cook and clean for me. I never should have moved out of my moms house...
But since I don't want a man to cook and clean for me, I have no problem with men being feminists. That just leaves more objectifying for me to do.
Ah, well then in that case I take it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
While the female characters are written more strong these days (at least as a surface idea of strong), there's still this "token female" syndrome, and yes, the vast majority of them are still as sexy as the "screamers", but I see a lot of average looking, funny looking, fat, old men in movies and TV shows (with a level of charisma and personality that seems to be lacking in the female characters) being lovable despite their obvious inner AND outer flaws (where can we find women in the media that are fat and ugly but still adored?). There's also the fact that you can rarely find women with names talking to other women about things other than a male love interest (the "Bechdel" test). Even if the female characters are strong and smart, it's usually about a guy being the main character, 9 times out of 10.Quote:
Also, I disagree with some of the stereotypes you're perpetuating above - in particular that men can be anything they want in movies/TV shows and women are forced to be sexy. It seems to me when that stereotype first started it was because women were always portrayed as weak screamers to be rescued by (sexy) male heroes. Now we have probably as many sexy female heroes as sexy male heroes, or very close. As well as countless shows portraying husbands as dumbasses who couldn't even tie their shoes without their smarter wives telling them how.
I hate chick flicks (as do most people), especially for its surprisingly misogynistic, corny writing, and chick flicks shouldn't be the only movies where women are represented at all (like "eh, lets just give the women a pink flowery gab fest, no one else will be interested in their stories but them, as a specific genre for an entire gender"). Not all women fantasize about romance.Quote:
Male fantasy tends to express itself through images of strength and violence... as heroes basically. So you have the "guy movies". But women also have their "chick flicks". I think fantasy movies for women are romances.
I don't have the natural tendency to be a girly housewife, that's just simply not how I was born. The fight here is not to force everyone to switch genders, but to open society up to different ways of living, where everyone can choose who they want to be, instead of being told that all girls play with dolls and all guys play with trucks and action figures. That's just as bad, forcing people to fit into typical gender divisions when not everybody feels that way naturally.Quote:
Does equality have to mean going against your natural tendencies? Is it necessary for men to be housewives and for women to be CEOs and weightlifters in order for them to be equal?
It's a damn good thing we don't live in a primitive society, then, because I don't want to be forced to sit around and raise children. The key word, here, is choice.Quote:
In primitive societies it's natural and necessary for men to be hunters and warriors and for women to tend the home and raise children.
Just like I'm not naturally inclined to be Kate Gosselin, I'm sure not all men are naturally inclined to be macho and find it so challenging to be Mr. Mom. In fact, Mr. Dads actually like to be around their kids. The way you talk about biology, as if it's inevitable, makes me feel like I'm an anomaly that doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. I simply don't feel that way when I analyze myself. I think people like to play up biology to try to connect it better with the way our society is run, when in fact society doesn't always run healthy or logically. Why spend so much time playing up the gender differences when maybe the truth is that we're not that different? Of course we have some obvious differences, and there are girly girls and macho guys who naturally exist, but why force it on everybody?Quote:
But I also see a lot of feminists making fun of men for doing what comes naturally, as if they expect them to suddenly shed millions of years of genetic programming overnight and turn into Mr. Mom.
I agree, it would be nice to highlight problems with both genders, but feminism is also an opportunity to talk about problems specific to women, where elsewhere they might be ignored. When talking about women's issues once in a while, it shouldn't have to be required to talk about men at every single point. I agree, though, that there should be more focus on men's issues, but that's also inhibited by the traditional idea that men should "man up" and not talk about any problems. There's a bit of a conundrum between you saying that men are naturally macho and shouldn't be forced to be "Mr. Mom", but saying that we should be more sensitive about men's issues.Quote:
Example... one day I saw something on TV - this woman was all riled up about the statistics of women getting raped in prison. Women. What about the men who get raped in prison? Is that somehow less important? So where's the 'equality'? She seemed only concerned about women and not men. Too often I see feminism being used as a front for anger or aggression on the part of women. Thy say "we want equality" but many of them seem to really want revenge. Not all mind you, just many.
Deery, the problem I see with you using yourself as examples of how you dont fit the "natural" female role is that you are only one person, not a representable sample size. Darkmatters is not talking about biology to say you shouldnt exist. If you think about it we are all anomalies in one way or another. (hi, Im a guy who detests pissing contests!) He is saying that despite whatever choice feminism strives to give, there is still going to be a natural tendency for the majority of women to be the way biology wants...and that it is ok for them to be that way if they want.
A vibe I get from feminists (in general) is that women who chose to be girly, or housewives are holding back the cause or are "weak". Its one thing to champion women having the option of not taking over that role, its quite another to degrade them for their choice.
What this comes around to is that, you are free to be however you want to be. Its ok you are not "girly" or you dont want to take care of kids. But dont get upset if the majority of women are not...either by natural tendency or by choice. Thats all.
Actually I would love to have a wife who made enough money that I could just take care of kids and be home all day, I hate going to work. :(
Oh lord... what have I done? :eek:
I got myself into a political argument again, and now I find I don't really have the strong desire to make long detailed answers. But I'll try... maybe I can wade through all of this.
Ok, at least now your responses are a lot better than the first one above. TBH, that one sounded shallow and vindictive and like I said, riddled with stereotypes. But this one is much better.
I'll try to cover your points concerning movie/TV stereotypes with this -
Obviously in the Action Hero realm females now hold their own against males, and can be every bit as shallow and sexy as their male counterparts always have been. It's completely unfair of you to just dismiss chick flicks because you don't like them. It's also unfair to assume "most people don't" like them. If I recall, Gone With the Wind was THE most popular movie until fairly recently. Also, if nobody liked them, there wouldn't be such a massive industry cranking them out.
Male fantasy tends to be sexual/heroic, while female fantasy tends to be about relationships. Are we even seriously arguing this?
REALLY?
(Sorry... couldn't resist! ;))
I think if a man or woman write a story or a movie, they should be true to hat they believe in and not pander to politically correct images unless that is what they believe in. In other words, I think it's appropriate that in stories written by men male fantasy predominates. And in stories written by women their fantasies predominate. Romance novels are a field vastly dominated by women - at least I believe so... haven't checked stats, but I'd be willing to.
Biologically, men have a strong tendency toward proving their strength and competing, and women toward nurturing and homemaking. Psychologically of course that needn't be true, and as we obviously both agree, many people go against type. Hell, you're probably more manly than I am!! Fortunately, in today's world that's no longer considered as shocking or wrong as it once was. Look at the way movie stereotypes have changed just since the 80's!! And also the way kids are being taught... I think a lot of progress is being made.
I also think it's totally fair that movies reflect society, and society itself isn't yet fully adjusted to these new ideas about equality. I know feminism has been around for over a hundred years, but I mean new in biological terms. As I said, it takes millions of years for changes to take place in a species biologically. And I think you misunderstood why I said that... it wasn't an excuse for why we should stick to traditional gender roles at all... I was trying to say that we're working on it, but it's hard to go against biological imperative. We can't expect changes to happen overnight.
I also feel it's vitally important that we don't completely turn our backs on important archetypes. The warrior/hero and the nurturing earth mother goddess as well as the young beautiful woman (and man) are deeply embedded in our psyches and we shouldn't try to remove them. Myths are vitally important, and those are mythological figures that we need to communicate with, not resist.
You can't possibly know that at your age, unless you've got a child. These archetypal forms come upon us suddenly and irresistably, often against what we believe to be our nature, at appropriate times in our lives. Motherhood will change a woman drastically. Often a young woman who says things like what you did will have a child and discover that, not only does she love it with all her being, but she's actually quite an excellent natural mother. Having not been through that forging experience yet, you can't say how you'd react. Just as I'm not the most masculine guy, but if I find myself in a life-or-death situation I might surprise myself with how violent I can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Ok, I think I covered all the points I really wanted to, and I'm tired of writing now. :lol:
Okay. The reason feminists are generally man-haters can be deduced very simply.
We have basically no sexism in this society.
Women can have all the jobs that men can have.
Women don't get paid less than men.
The richest person in the world is a woman in fact.
Women are equal with men in this society.
Therefore there is obviously nothing left to complain about.
So the people who end up being feminists are the ones who hate men and want to be considered better than men, have more privileges than men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
See you're just ignoring the vast amount of women who are ugly and still loved by many.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
This is what all these man hating feminists do. They ignore everything which goes against their idea of a sexist society. So they can keep complaining about how women are treated as objects.
Here is some examples of ugly females who are still liked, and I'm only going by women I've seen in Australian media, but there is obviously going to be a lot in America too.
Denise Scott
http://www.makeupbycarly.com.au/Images/denise_scott.jpg
Judith Lucy
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/...b__300x300.jpg
Bev Killick
http://www.comedyacts.com.au/comedia...lick-thumb.jpg
Denise Drysdale
http://image.com.com/tv/images/genie...e-drysdale.jpg
Rebel Wilson
http://resources2.news.com.au/images...bel-wilson.jpg
Magda Zubanski (or something, not sure how it's spelt).
http://www.icmi.com.au/images/ACTIVITY-394.jpg
Since when is this done, in this day and age?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Yes some fathers don't want their boys to play with barbie dolls. Big deal. I don't think that should be forced on them, but I don't think it's a big deal.
LOLWUT!?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
He explains the genetic and evolutionary role in how sexes are expected to be, and he's suddenly saying you are some freak of nature that shouldn't exist?
Jesus....
Yes you probably are an anomaly. That's not a bad thing.
Anything which is a deviation from the norm is an anomaly.
You have the chance and choice to not be a stay at home mum.
Anyway, the reason for more women staying at home, I think, is that they want to. Likely because of the evolutionary aspect.
A lot of women don't want to work for their entire lives. So many women, and not stupid bimbos, that I've met have said they just want to find a guy to work while they stay at home and
take care of kids or whatever. Many don't want this. And it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, for them to go get a job.
No, we're not that different. There are a lot of differences. But we're both of the same species.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Nobody forces it on anybody. Or I should say society as a whole doesn't. There's obviously still some religious nuts and homophobes that hate if their child is homosexual, not fitting the norm etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
LOL well ok, there you have Tommo's rather extreme view.
I don't agree with a lot of that though Tommo... equality is still a long way off in society, though we are making huge strides. And while I was thinking the exact same thing about un-attractive women in movies and TV, I suspect Deery's right that there are a lot less of them than men.
But I think that's largely because of the longstanding ideal of the attractive woman. I don't think it's an entirely bad thing. It's quite obvious that the majority of women themselves believe a woman should be attractive... I don't think that's entirely social conditioning. Biologically (there's that dirty word again, but we can't escape it) men fight for the most attractive women. This holds true in the animal kingdom as well... some species the males fight over females who show the most attractive displays and in some species it's reversed (birds for example). Most women I know wouldn't dream of going out without dressing nice and doing their hair to try to look really nice. You yourself get dolled up and take pictures. (Um - I mean Deery, not Tommo!) There's nothing wrong with that.
I don't think it's entirely passe for a woman to look as pretty as she can and her man to be her protection in case other men try to do something inappropriate. And I hope women don't stop trying to be attractive! So I think it's natural that that archetype shows up in our movies etc. Maybe it is a bit overdone though... and I would like to see MORE women who are valued for other attributes, but we've been seeing it on the better shows and movies. It's at least a step in the right direction for us as a society.
I know plenty of women (me included) with self respect and ambitions, and they are not feminists. You judge others for making assumptions and stereotyping, yet you seem to do a lot of this yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
I've never been a fan of feminism...I cringe when friends make sweeping feminist statements on facebook or wherever. But just because I'm not a feminist doesn't mean I'm old-fashioned or believe in traditional gender roles either. You can't put a label on everyone.
I never understood feminism. It acts like the equality of women is not a well-established unconscious assumption for most people by now. It seems to perpetuate the world view it's so against.
Or the ones who disagree with the fantastically ignorant assertion that women are now completely equal in society.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Wow. Well, Australia may be vastly different in its media than the US (the US has been remaking Australian shows lately, just like UK shows, and I suspect that the society of the UK and Australia are similar). I saw a BBC show on once called "Rosemary & Thyme", about two older gardening women who solve crimes, and I thought to myself, "My God, they would NEVER do this in America. Two main women, talking to each other, who aren't young, skinny and covered in makeup because they're just there to sell the show with sex?" Those pictures shocked me, I really can't think of any American equivalents, except maybe Rosanne and Kathy Griffin.Quote:
Here is some examples of ugly females who are still liked, and I'm only going by women I've seen in Australian media, but there is obviously going to be a lot in America too.
Denise Scott
http://www.makeupbycarly.com.au/Images/denise_scott.jpg
Judith Lucy
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/...b__300x300.jpg
Bev Killick
http://www.comedyacts.com.au/comedia...lick-thumb.jpg
Denise Drysdale
http://image.com.com/tv/images/genie...e-drysdale.jpg
Rebel Wilson
http://resources2.news.com.au/images...bel-wilson.jpg
Magda Zubanski (or something, not sure how it's spelt).
http://www.icmi.com.au/images/ACTIVITY-394.jpg
In American media, I cannot think of a single female character whom I can relate to or who I would actually want to be. A lot of them are "tough chicks" (also token females) at first just to be politically correct (before they slip in their required anti-feminist message), and then eventually by the end of the movie fall in love with the main protagonist and are intent to be just behind him, all passive and quiet, staying at home or something while the guy has adventures that I would rather be doing. You have to search far and wide to find any media that defies these cliches (My Little Pony being a huge recent exception, created by self-proclaimed feminist Lauren Faust. There, did I ruin the show for you guys? PS, I'm very encouraged that that show is doing so well with male audiences, especially since Disney tried so hard to make "Tangled" more male-centric because they thought that no guys would want to see a princess movie, or a movie about a girl). I'm interested in animation, by the way, that's why I list all those examples.
I'm so sick of being called a man-hater for pointing out the obvious sexism surrounding me everywhere I look in the media, choking out any examples of women who are anything like me, as if I have to constantly prove that these examples exist (and trust me, they are EV-ER-Y-WHERE, probably ingrained into the psyche, especially apparent in rap videos and YouTube comments), making it even harder to progress.
Of course you didn't address any of the points Nina made in her post because I guess that would force you to critically examine your beliefs sooo.....
And yes I disagree with you so of course I hate all women.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
Yup its true Im an assssholeee
Maybe I was busy replying to tommo, but yeah, I hate your guts too and will find any reason at all to hurry and jump on you, even in seconds time.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Maybe the problem here is the big F word- feminism. People say they're all for gender equality, but as soon as you drop the big f bomb, which basically is supposed to mean gender equality, people are so lividly against it. That's why I thought that most women, including nina, don't want to be associated with the dreaded label, because they don't want to stir anything up and be attacked for standing up for it. "Oh no, I'm not that, I'm not a person who wants equal rights for women. I just want to have a good time." The media has successfully taken misandrist females and associated them with feminism, when actual feminism has nothing to do with misandry. Now feminism is just a slur used to dismiss women's equality while acting outraged over "reverse-oppression".
But I do see that it can be associated with bitchy women and that's why nina doesn't want to be one of those bitches. I guess that makes me a big bad horrible worthless bitch too. I've never met any women in my life who identified as feminists and also hated men. It's like the most deeply ingrained stereotype about feminists ever.
I decided to stop feeling pressured to shut up about this and went all out into the open about it.
Feminism seems too one sided to be synonymous with gender equality. I'm all for gender equality and will stand up for any ones equal rights but I'll never attribute this to "feminism".
Perhaps then I should identify as "humanist". I'm already a secular humanist anyway.
However, under the banner of "feminism", women gained many rights in this past century, especially in the 60s, so you would be ignorant to not associate the rights women do have now (even the right to vote and work) with feminism.
My biggest pet peeve is probably watching arguments over labels, and I'll never contribute to one. I identify with what I think, period. In reality, people who thought women should have equal rights could have called themselves whatever they wanted and it wouldn't have mattered, the only thing that mattered was their thoughts and actions.
I have to disagree with both Deery and tommo and agree with pretty much everyone else. I don't think all the egalitarian aims of feminism have been totally accomplished--if you live a sufficiently insulated existence that it seems to be so, congratulations. Meanwhile, human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual assault persist, and persist in affecting far more women than men, in developed as well as underdeveloped nations. Boys' clubs and glass ceilings remain largely intact in whole industries, and certainly in many individual companies. Women in many workplaces are still expected to put up with a certain baseline of innuendo, advances, or outright harassment from both clients and coworkers. Both public consensus and the law are on a woman's side in most of these situations, which is a strong social advancement, but neither institutional nor attitudinal patriarchy have been eliminated.
Women are, however, essentially liberated in the West, and have been for more than a generation. While still inordinately affected by certain social forces, contemporary Western women can hardly claim to be oppressed. In that context, feminism lacks relevance, loses coherence, struggles for both, and in doing so drifts away from any egalitarian impulses to which it may once have adhered.
In a contemporary context, expressions of feminism are rarely associated with any organized cause or movement, and more often a vague cry of loyalty to Team Grrl ("Except for all you bitches! You know who you are!") and/or a bid for not equal, but greater license than males in a given social or professional context, and/or a simple attempt at novelty to gain (usually male) attention. The aims of equal standing (largely accomplished) and empowerment of women in circumstances where they are still oppressed are better served by advancing a more inclusive humanism and engaging in specific outreach efforts, such as funding or volunteering at womens' shelters, without promoting the notion that only feminists need concern themselves with these issues.
I think feminism means something different to everyone. For me it's still a fight for equality. By no means is it "females are better than males".
I grew up in a household where it was to be strongly known that women are subservient to men, extraordinarily inferior in every aspect, and would require frequent discipline and control. I witnessed everything listed and beyond. I couldn't stand any of this, so much anger pent up deep inside. Without being able to hold on to a single idea that women are not subservient to men, I think I would have blown my brains out along time ago. It sounds stupid, I know, but just being able to grasp at such an idea, an idea that perhaps life is different beyond this fucked up household, kept me going through those years. "Feminist" and fighting for equality by nature.
I don't know if I made any sense. I stopped trying. :/
Oh my this got thread got rolling while I was sleeping.
Yes, Deery, as Darkmatters said it was not meant to be a personal insult for you. I apologize if you got that kind of feeling. I for one, do not like judging people. I have very broad views and I am ready to accept different approaches. Equility in all aspects is a good goal to pursuit, but somehow I think feminist movements have time to time hindered that progress by their own actions that raise ire in whole society, not just in men who do not want women to have rights. At least, that is how I usually encounter feminists around here ( I am talking about own experience here, not as the movement as whole ). They are often very aggressive, very absolute in their views. And unbelievably hard to discuss with, even if you agree. You all know this kind of people, I trust? Not just in feminism.
As Taosaur mentioned, those goals are not accomplished. Especially, when you take the whole world as goal, but I think things are pretty good here. If I recall right Finnish women did get right to vote as early as 1863 and right to be a candidate in 1906.
There is a big difference about striving to fix the real problems and bickering about trivial things in every media just to get recognization for your cause or yourself.
Ill admit I don't know as much about the subject as I wish I did. But that's the nice thing about conversations like this... we get to bounce ideas off each other and learn new things. Before Tausaur posted, I was thinking that the term feminism does seem a bit old-fashioned now somehow. Or rather it's associated with ideas that have pretty much served their purpose. Wait... before anybody lynches me - I mean the word seems to be associated with a fight against something like 50's era conventions. And also with a few too many angry militant feminazis who use it as cover for their anti-male rants. I like what Nina and Tausaur basically said, that you don't have to call yourself a feminist to be for gender equality.
Somebody on this board.. it was a week or 2 ago on another thread... said that if you're not feminist then you must hate women. That's not a good attitude, and I feel too many feminists think that way.
The extreme way of thinking like this is the core problem. In all things. Sadly, it seems to persists like a disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
When two seemingly extreme opposites are taken far enough the results usually are similar. If there is no light you cannot see a thing in the darkness. Too much light and you are blinded by it.
I was all for feminism when I thought it meant "gender equality," too. Unfortunately, it cannot mean that. The word is inextricably rooted in the feminine and femaleness, which is functionally equivalent to gender equality only so long as women and femininity are significantly disadvantaged in comparison to men and masculinity. Now, society is heterogenous and progress is not evenly distributed, but in general, we have been very near the tipping point since the mid-'80s. Also, not a lot of people are "lividly against" feminism, but I'll pick that up below.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
I would hazard that most people's first association with feminism is not misandry, but history class, or possibly a historical documentary on PBS. The reaction it provokes is less disapproval than befuddlement, slightly less than if one proclaimed oneself a Whig, but along the same lines. My experience of heterosexual women under the age of 50 or 60 who identify themselves as feminists, uncommon as they are, is certainly not that they hate men. Quite the opposite. Indeed, they are routinely so fond of the attention of men as to go out with three or four of them at a time and pick a fight with four or five more on any given night.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
I don't want to speak for Nina, and I say this with utmost respect and moderate arousal, but I've never known her to be afraid of being a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Lol fail. These are individuals who act this way. It has nothing to do with inequality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Except for biological inequality; that men want sex more (or at least more often) than women and that men are generally stronger than women.
Basically this (bold). Our laws state men and women are equal and are mostly treated as such. Just because SOME people decide they are better than women, does not mean there is inequality. You aren't going to change those people's perspectives. But the next generations will see it as the norm that men and women are completely equal and even more people in those generations would not even consider gender when applying for a job, for example. Just like no one even considers women voting to be strange now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
This is basically my main point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I missed this post, but I was going to say this.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Be a humanist. Fuck feminism.
Men AND women still have many of their rights violated.
There are still many things humans are not allowed to do without risking punishment from other oppressive humans.
Things that they should be allowed to do.
To be honest I think Deery just needs to get a life and put her energies into something creative and worthwhile instead of incessantly shouting that she has the right to put her energies into something creative and worthwhile.
This thread has been up for ONE day Xei. And ur already telling her to go do something else with the time she spends on this forum. Shame on you. Shame on you, Xei. :pissed:
On-topic. It occured to me that when i grew up with watching a lot of cartoons it was a huge part in the process of my psychological development. As an adult ur not really aware of it but when you put kids in front of a cartoon they see it as real life. And kids are just as likely to copy behaviour from cartoons as they would copy behaviour from other people. It's just in our nature. Now when animators make movies they might not consiously decide to stereotype the male/female to play certain roles. But it does happen. And then when the kid grows up and starts watching the media and still sees the same moral standards, or worsened. Then you have a succesfully brainwashed person until he learns his own values. My point is that media and tv play a big role in setting moral standards to life itself. We need to be aware of that and make changes where necessary . In the very least make sure kids learn the difference between the actual world and the world on screen.
What does it mean to be equal? To be of Homosapien class? Is it something subjective, and if so, why is it implied as an objective truth? Can being equal simply be a convenient idea for those that feel weak, or for those who feel sentimental for the weak? How can this idea of 'equalness', that over-generalizes all of mankind, be seen as a sound idea to the masses? If, however there being inequality in the world, should then, the idea of all people being equal be soundly refuted? Hehe
Not on the forum. In her life. Deery has an insane amount of pent up anger and it's my guess that feminism is her current outlet for it. I think that's stupid because feminism is obvious, and there are no binding constraints on women in Western society any more. It's an empty thing to focus on; it seems to me absurd to spend so much time arguing about your right to live your life as you want, instead of actually going out into the world and living your life as you want. I can't think of any motivation for that but anger, and it's a waste.
Equal does not mean that everybody is the same. Equal simply means that everybody should have equal rights. Do you disagree with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
I don't know. Why should everybody have equal rights? Will you be taking a subjectivism stance of morality to express this answer? If so, maybe it'll be of the weak vs protecting the weak mentality I presupposed? Tell me, Xei, this imaginative belief of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
By symmetry, I suppose. I recognise that everybody else is a human and so the natural thing to do is to give the same rights to each rather than different rights for some arbitrary difference.
The natural thing to do, huh. OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Is there a particular reason why you would not want all people to be treated as equal grounds? Just out of curiosity.
Great counterargument. I concede that my ideas have been thoroughly stomped upon by the Nietzsche wannabe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
B00B13Z R G3WD.
Your argument is invalid.
I doubt he has the mustaches to be.
Dthoughts : I have pondered the same thing. But instead of cartoons I have thought more of fairytales. When I was a child, fairytales were fascinating and fun. Now, when I think of them, as adult. Well.. they are shitty. They are full of all kinds of stereotypical behavior, racism, worship of monarchy and such.
But yeah, I think cartoons are a bit more "today" as you said :)
If it has nothing to do with inequality, then why does it more ruitinely occur to women? What definition of 'inequality' are you using?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I'm gradually coming the conclusion that all good arguments are based on symmetry ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I assume that he means not/un equal... >.>Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
As in people feeling this way.
But then if sex serves as an effective determinate of a persons likelyhood of being a victim of human trafficking, then how can we say that full sexual equality has been achieved?
Men are not the only people who are sexist, fyi. Women do it just as well if not better.
http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_talk/...K2G3c1Bdr0rTyt
Idk go talk to the human traffickers then.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
That's like saying, if unemployed people collect welfare and then get a job, but hate their new job, who's to say that they won't quit their job and go back to welfare?
Tommo did make a good point.. sex crimes are committed by sick people. Are you saying that depraved men (the ones who commit sex crimes) should victimize men as much as they victimize women?Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Sex crimes are also a reminder that sex reaches down into deep archetypal parts of the psyche, and can't be fully socially conditioned.
No. That's a sloppy strawman argument of a rhetorical question. I'm saying that by any sane definition of equality, sexual equality has not been achieved. If it had been achieved then sex would not be a meaningfull determinate of the probability of you being kidnapped and sold to be raped.
I really don't see the problem here.
EDIT:
The mechanism through which it happens is entirely besides the point.
My point was to make you realize that you can't base social standards of gender equality on the acts of the criminally insane.
We can petition and lobby to change legislature on gender issues, but there's no way to reason with sexual predators and make them behave more fairly toward women.
I agree that there's not way to reason with them.
But since we're such an enlightened society, and we want women to be less subject to that crap, we recognize that the trick is to cultivate a culture that doesn't objectify women to make it less likely that those seeds of volition grow into a 'sexual predator'.
So failing one way to solve the problem, we find another?
Right?
Of course.. agreed on that.
I'm not sure it's possible though. Because the factors that make a person into a twisted psychopathic rapist aren't social issues so much as deep psychological damage.
I'm simply saying that statistics about sex crimes should not be considered as evidence of social mistreatment of women.
I was being nice and decided to just let things be. Besides, that symmetry logic fails on its own. Was I suppose to give a counter-argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Nietzsche? Haven't read his work.
Well this discussion is pointless otherwise. 'The logic fails on its own'; why are you spending your valuable time typing these things? 'Your logic fails on its own'. See, we could bounce pointless posts off each other all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
Well we are confronted with the premise that rights are necessary given that there exists more then one human being in the world. A behavioral system outlining what is and isn't proper behavior needs to exist in some form. I mean even if you don't think there is proper behavior, that is still establishing a behavioral system. I define rights are legally enforceable legally obligations and such obligations naturally fit under a behavioral system. So by what right does someone have to utilize force/coercion against another individual? How are they imbued with such a right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
Somii, how do you actually feel about gender equality, or do you only think in philosophical abstractions?
Isn't gender equality an abstraction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Why do you state that it is anti feminist for a main woman character falling in love with a man and getting married? Guess what. That's what normally happens in real life. I guy and a girl fall in love and have sex. How is that not stereotyping the guy? I think your examples suck.
Try telling that to a woman who was refused a job that she was more qualified for than a man. It has real-world ramifications. I'm just trying to get somii to talk on a more personal level and not just go around stomping on ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Well yes, abstractions can become concrete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
The Socratic method works wonders. That or Michael Jackson videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Socratic method is cool. And somii has sparked some good conversation using it. Guess I just wanted to see the real somii behind the mask. Prolly too much to ask, I know. And that's cool too I guess. Just a bit frustrating... like talking to a person who only responds by pulling fortune-cookie strips of paper out of his mouth and handing them to you to read. But he does make good points, even if he often does it in a somewhat uncool way.
Mayflow...keep trolling and you're going to get yourself banned. Off topic posts deleted, infractions given, back on topic. K thnx.
And in so doing, you're missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
We still haven't gotton to a definition of 'equality of sexes' though. So maybe I'm missing something.
There will obviously never be total equality between men and women due to the physical disparity between male and female. Political equality is pretty much a done deal in the West though.
Do you know if said woman was refused solely because she was a woman? There are a myriad of reasons for why something like that could happen--nepotism, rumors about her, the person hired had a better reputation/bigger name (although still less qualified), the interviewer did not like her attitude, or maybe it was even just her appearance (attractiveness [or lack thereof], stained/sloppy clothes, poor hygiene, etc.). These things aren't intrinsically sexist toward women, the same thing could happen to a man; that is to say, being refused a job that you were more qualified for than another person. Discrimination effects everyone, men as well as women. I agree that it is sexist to refuse a woman a job simply because a man applied for it too. However, you were victimizing women in your example. For all anyone knows, it was for any of the reasons I stated above. If the woman who was refused the job used the excuse that it was because a man had applied for it, she would simply be victimizing herself. Victimize yourself long enough and you really become a victim, whether or not a crime or injustice has been committed. I don't have enough real world experience myself just yet to claim that women have fully received the equality they were looking for, but personally I believe that many current-age feminists have gotten what they wanted but continue to victimize themselves in every scenario in which sexism could have played a role, thus sustaining the victim mentality--regardless of whether they are really victims or not. Maybe a majority of feminists really do just want equality and its simply the loud, verbose, abrasive nuts that want more than just equal rights that ruin it for them, but there are those for every group; think Westboro Baptist Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
edit: to clarify on my last statement, I meant that the Westboro Baptist Church ruins or at least gives many a very negative view of religion, and so that could be applied to misandrists that ruin it for true feminists.
How am I missing the point? Unless you consider rapists and sex traffickers to be a part of mainstream society, you can't use what they do as a measure of social acceptance of gender equality. They're not reacting to social conditioning concerning women's status, but to deep-seated psychological issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I think 'objectification of women' is actually programmed into our DNA and can't be done away with. I believe all we can hope for is legislation and corporate policy ensuring equal treatment, which we pretty nearly have, assuming it would be properly followed. We can't regulate deep psychological/archetypal concepts about sex, which are unconscious and not subject to 'conditioning' except maybe for avoidance treatment in conjunction with psychological treatment for sick individuals.
Ok, very good points all. But I think you missed MY original point. I said that in response to Laughing Man defending Somii's purely abstract/philosophical statements and my asking somii if he ever thinks in anything other than philosophical abstractions. And you're right, the example I gave was too vague and/or poorly worded.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
But all I was trying to do is demonstrate that while gender equality can be spoken of in purely abstract terms, it's also a very real thing that has a strong effect on people. I was basically asking his position, and whether his comments here are purely for the purpose of furthering discussion or if they reflect his actual stance.
If a woman was not hired and she believes it was solely due to the fact that she is a woman, there are mechanisms in place to take punitive action on the employers.
I already admitted that was a poor example.
You ignored the fact that I said "Except for biological inequality; that men want sex more (or at least more often) than women and that men are generally stronger than women."Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Everyone else pretty much handled my argument for me anyway. Cheers guys :)
I did a ctrl. F search through this thread and not once were the following mentioned:
- education
- overpopulation
I feel a bit ambivalent about feminism, but don't some of its core principles relate to the most important things humanity is currently facing?
Since the agricultural revolution humans have acted as if basic ecological laws don't apply to us. With control over food production comes a much higher rate of population growth and population density.
If women are relegated to a submissive role in society, bearing children is likely to be their primary function. The reproductive rate will in turn be higher when there is limited access to education for girls and women; women who are able to complete a college education are significantly less likely to have as many children as they would otherwise, and this is made worse by dogmatism stepping in the way of contraception.
It should be obvious how important these things are. And it could be said that a lack of reproductive freedom is a form of abuse. So even if there are aspects of feminism that aren't agreeable, it reveals an underlying problem and I sure as fuck want to see it addressed.
It's not just you. Lots of women (some men) talk about gender inequality in the workplace. If it happens, go to whatever labour regulator in your area and file a complaint. They'll follow up and you'll probably win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Ok, gotcha.
Cygnus, I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding your post, but in what way do females have limited access to education in the free world?
Well, you're pretty much right on the money (at least I've realized it before you posted it). I've been enraged about this stuff ever since I was 17, and sometimes wondering why. At least I've been taking productive steps (applying for jobs) since the thread's creation and trying to forget about what a shit storm this thread is. I don't know why my personality has developed an insane amount of pent up anger, and how I can get rid of it for good. That's why I also posted a thread in the Help board. Maybe once I finally get a job and can make some money, I'll find a real therapist and not just some pill pushing piece of wood. Or I'll get a medical marijuana prescription. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well this is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
In "primitive" societies men and women hunt together. All of our modern gender distinctions besides basic biology trace their origins to agriculture. In other words, it's not in our DNA, it's in our culture.
Lol IKR. I read that post and all I could say was wtf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Care to explain your point a little more clearly cygnus?
It really had no point to it. I thought it was going somewhere but it just didn't.
Yeah, that's right. They just left all the children alone, vulnerable to predators. That's why our species thrived so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
I would be genuinely happy for you if you could become less angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Maybe get out more? You'd see that most men are very respectful of women on this side of the Atlantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
I wasn't sure on this, so did a little googling, and here's what turned up so far:Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
"hunting is the labor of men and agriculture is the labor of women. Even here we see that the lines of division do not represent a dichotomy because men may participate in the harvest and women may participate in the hunt when portioning out the butchered game and preparing it to be eaten." - Just Genesis: The Origins of the Priesthood end of 4th paragraph
"The men hunted the larger game with spears and boomerangs; the women dug for roots or sought for insects and other small animals... " - Primitive society: the beginnings of ... - Google Books right at the top
Of course I was referring to dangerous hunting, not fishing or trapping rabbits. If you can cite anything saying differently, I'd like to see it.
So that's why lions are extinct?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Well, I admittingly boiled something quite nebulous down into a simple statement. But there is reason to suspect I'm right in this.
Neanderthal women may have hunted together with men - Chicago Tribune
Also in reading the arguments in the book Born to Run, it is proposed that the human form (not the male form) evolved into a long-distance hunter. He points out that in ultra-marathons (any race of 50 miles or more), there is no gender advantage. I have a few other sources I could share if you'd like.
I was looking around myself just now... can't find anything good just Googlin'. But keep in mind that humans hunted/gathered a long time before any agriculture began. I guess the main point, which I know isn't controversial, is that the more egalitarian model fits the nomad but not the settlement. That's cultural anthropology 101.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Ty for giving me your point of view, Xei. I didn't find it as pointless as you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
So, a behavioral system that outlines what is proper behavior and non-proper behavior (being that which doesn't constitute as proper behavior) must exist? Before I tend to the question of its necessary existence, allow me to point out the faults of one of your claims. This claim, essentially goes as follows: "If I don't believe that proper behavior exist, thereby outlining what isn't proper behavior, then I am establishing a behavioral system." There are two mistakes I see with this claim. 1) Not believing that something exists, is not the same as denying, thus outlining, the existence of something. For, to deny something, is to believe that something doesn't exist, which is the inverse of not believing that something exist. Even if the two meanings were synonymous, I assure you, the conditional logic used is invalid, which brings me to your next fault. 2) The antecedent of your claim, presumably, is based on what it predicates, synthetically as a consequent, from the subject of "a behavior system," meaning, Some behavioral systems outline what is and isn't proper behavior. Such systems, for the sake of convenience, I shall term as "Behavioral Morality." So then, it can be assumed that for behavioral morality to come into existence, which depends on the establishment of a certain behavioral system, any improper behavior outlined, must reinforce it's existence. Thereby, assuming a behavioral system to be the cause of what has been outlined. This type of rationale, unfortunately, is fallacious - particularly affirming the consequent. It doesn't follow that, because I committed B(outlined non-PB), that A(B system) was its necessary cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Now, to the claim that Behavioral Morality must exist. Behavioral morality, being a subjective and intangible system, is uncertain to be real in terms of objectivity. So, unless you're talking about a subjective fact, how can you make this claim, when it's unlikely that you've seen any evidence of its objectivity? Even existing as a subjective entity, the statement itself, affirmed as a necessity, lacks any valid support for us to deduce it as a true statement. So then, why should we rationally believe in such an extreme statement? As for your talk about rights being 'necessary obligations' that are enforceable, I ask, can such rights exist? Also, I don't see how they fit into a behavioral system in the context you've been expressing. (what the hell exactly is a 'behavior system' lol)
(Ty for defending me. I appreciate it. I think the others are conspiring against me :) )
Ok wait for it -Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
So, that's why Neanderthals are extinct? :cheeky:
I didn't want to post before reading the article you linked to, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't support your case. It would if there was evidence that cro-magnan women hunted large game alongside the men. But the article clearly says it was just Neanderthals. 1st 2 paragraphs:
So even the admittedly controversial claims say that our own ancestors did develop traditional gender roles from the beginning.Quote:
Could it be that Neanderthal females achieved an equality that is rare even by today's standards?
Some anthropologists make a case that our extinct female cousins hunted alongside the males during an epoch when our own ancestral women were gathering plants and doing other (essential) work. They argue that the appearance of gender roles was critical to humans' eventual domination of the globe -- and that the importance of the women of the Pleistocene period has been vastly understated.
Seems to me agricultural tribes would have some kind of fortification to protect women and children during war. I suppose nomadic tribes would depend more on mobility - evasion. I still suspect males would do the most dangerous work and protection of females and children would be paramount when necessary. Any small community surrounded by enemy tribes and dangerous animals would be foolish to sacrifice females and young for the reason I stated earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
A few of my thoughts, yet again.
Education of women. I think this is a problem only in countries where education is hard to come by even in the basic level. Poor and war torn countries, so to speak. I have not noticed much of a problem in a western democratic country with women and high degree education. True, they possibly do not want children to mess their educations, while their at it, but at least they do it knowingly. It is a good point though. Changing strongly rooted traditions and problems, including human rights and women rights, begins with proper education to both genders. Cultural impact in most countries is just too great to change it fast. We are on the way. This goes hand to hand with reproductive freedom as in these countries long tradition of big families and high rate of infant deaths basically forces women to bear a lot of children. They probably are amazed that there are women in our cultures who can simply not to have child, if they so wish.
I won't take much part on that ancestral behavior of our race, but I have few thoughts. What we know that being a mother is quite hard written in woman. I know many who once decided that they will absolutely not have a child, on basis of myriad of reasons. As years rolled by, they gradually changed their opinions and now I think all of them have children. Now, of course, there are other reasons than just the biological one. Pressure from society and people around them or an idea that this is "right thing to do" in some ways. Things like that. Things are never that simple. ( Which makes the process of understanding them very treacherous and hard )
In animal kingdom, though, it is not a cold fact that the male does the hunting. In many species the female is more suited or stronger and bigger than the male so it does the hunting. In some cases both do, like in most birds species. Roles are easily reversed if scales of power shift. Pretty much all in this life is about what you are capable of. Humans have merely developed things like morality, ethics, laws, traditions in order to fight this natural order. I couldn't imagine that there was any predator in animal world that shows mercy for the weak.
For existence of morality or behavioral system. Well, I have never been a big fan of concept of morality. Right or wrong, good or evil as such. But I don't think you can find a human society where rules were not invented and enforced. It just happens. In order to control large masses of people with individual minds there must be rules if there is to be functioning society. I don't say I approve it, but that is just what naturally occurs. In primitive cultures there are usually less laws and more traditions, which effectively serve as rules. A strong hold of tradition has prevented many things in different cultures, it still does. Naturally, we cannot talk of laws and traditions without digging up religion, which has had a great impact in rules and laws everywhere and in their justification. But I won't dive deeper into this before this turns into yet another morality or religion festival.
Now, for more personal opinion. As I said before, I don't like to judge people or separate them to treat them differently based on attributes I can see before I talk to them. What happens after that has to do with what they have done or let out of their mouth. Too often people confuse this to have something to do with those attributes I saw before. Ie. gypsies around here are very quick to start shouting for discrimination. I face it almost on weekly basis. If you don't let them in to the restaurant because they are too drunk, they take it to the police as discrimination of their race.
Now as we talk of women, I don't see much difference in them in any area compared to men. Yes they are usually weaker physically and have usually different mental approaches. From experience, however, I can say that there is couple of things that women generally are very unsuitable of. ( I bolded the experience so nobody will be jumping on my throat as me being chauvinist. Also, exceptions apply, as in all things).
1. A soldier. If we crunch numbers I have trained myself or seen being trained something around 140 female recruits. You can chop 80% of them out in the first two months or so. Those who continue have usually troubles and need counseling. Naturally, it is harder for women, because they are in constant, hard male peer pressure. But I assure you, if you do your things well there is no reason your fellow soldiers would not respect you. The start is hard. Only in rare cases there are spectacular women in the army, at least here.
2. Security/protection jobs. This contributes pretty much to the fact that women are physically smaller and weaker than most of the men and less aggressive. Police women you regularly see, fine women most of them are. I know many. But still around here there is never a patrol of two females. It is always male and female. This, however, is not because women would be incapable. It is because of the world around us. Especially male customers usually have hard time accepting there is a female police, giving orders to them. But the reason women are often denied or dropped out is simple. These jobs ( police, firefighter, guard, bouncer, soldier above etc.) are highly demanding both physically and mentally and carry a weight of responsibility. They only take those who are capable of acting in those situations. Sadly, without any sexism, I can say that men often are better in them. Women applying there need to understand that concept. Not to blame other people. I know this sounds a little rough, but that's how it is.
Lastly I will comment women in martial arts, since that is where I see them most in action. Again, I admit, I know many tough, tough women there. They are impressive in every way you can think of. But I also know that most of the women have a hard time to overcome the obstacles in their head than men. Men are usually more aggressive by nature, women have to think a lot in order to hurt other people. I see it daily. They are afraid more to hurt themselves or the other. But if they get their mindset in order, they are literally beasts ;) because many lack the physical force a man can rely on they develope technically very well. Also, after they constantly fight with men 40kg heavier than they, they toughen up.
*Waterfall of text suffocates you*
http://troll.me/images/wtfdidiread/w...read-thumb.jpg
lol. This is true but I wasn't just linking to a headline. I linked it because it did in fact go on to apply the points to humans (as you noticed), and although it didn't support the strength of my first statement I thought it had some interesting points to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
"Our ancestors, on the other hand, may not have gone after much big game, says Adovasio. In fact, the fossil record hints that not all meat was hunted. At some hominid sites, animal bones show signs of having been gnawed first by other, fiercer creatures.
He believes that a more appealing picture -- Paleolithic man (not woman) as macho hunter -- is partly a product of 20th Century culture."
Women Now Earning More Bachelor's and Graduate Degrees Than Men
Quote:
According to a new Census report released on Tuesday, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2010, more adults over the age of 25 than ever—30 percent—have bachelor's degrees. And women are out-achieving men when it comes to earning both bachelor's and advanced degrees (as I noted before, some schools even have affirmative action programs for men).
Women began outnumbering men in college enrollment in the early 1980s, and since 1996, they've earned more bachelor's degrees. Data from this latest report shows that for adults aged 25 to 29, 36 percent of women have earned a bachelor's degree or more, compared with only 28 percent of men. But this is the first year women are earning more advanced degrees than their male counterparts. Only a decade ago, men held the majority, 55.4 percent, of advanced degrees. According to the current data, 10,685,000 working women over 25 hold master's degrees, law degrees, doctoral degrees, and other other graduate degrees, compared to only 10,562,000 men. However, there's still room for improvement. Women still lag behind in business, science, and engineering graduate degrees.
So what does this mean for men, and for the so-called "mancession"? Most of the jobs lost during this current recession have been lost by men, and the unemployment rate is 9.3 percent for men and 8.3 percent for women. With employers wanting a more highly educated workforce, one implication might be that women will have an slight edge when their résumés cross a hiring manager's desk. But, although this isn't a competition, and a generation of poorly educated men isn't exactly a good thing for society, this is a sign that we're making progress on gender equality.
IndieAntheas - Yes, I'm sure they scavenged whenever possible... but that had to come with its own dangers. Whatever was gnawing on the fresh kill in the first place had to be driven off... a pack of Dire Wolves or Sabertooths wouldn't stop gnawing till there was nothing but bone and gristle!
:dancingcow: < the little known wooly cow - Come N Get It!!
I'm not even sure why I'm posting so much on this thread... just responding to people who responded to me I guess.
Nina, one of the best points yet. I for one welcome our new female overlords! :bowdown:
Haven't got time to do a proper post atm. But I knew you were going to post that lolQuote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
I just read an article about that same study a few days ago.
But yeah, that's Neanderthals, not Homo Sapiens.
Many kingdoms have fallen by well timed whisper in the ear, flash of flesh and loving words. I don't understand why someone would want to be in the throne, when you can rule from the shadows. The ones sitting in the throne usually die. So many women have altered the course of history, but often men get the credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
The highest birth rates are in the third world, places where women have very few rights, infant mortality rates are high, and there is practically no education available for them. But the US actually has one of the highest infant mortality rates among developed countries (6.8 deaths per 1k live births in 2004 vs., for example, 3.5 in Finland). In some areas, like I said, dogmatism creates obstacles to contraception and legitimizes gender inequality, and this contributes to the problems that feminism hints at. Just look at the cuts in Planned Parenthood and very religious demographics having the highest birth rates. And not all that many women here have access to a college education -- especially now with the student loans situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
lol ur post had no point to it. Really - I put some thought into that, based it on sound evidence, and read through it a few times before posting. Maybe you should do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Feminism is a modern, revolutionary, anti-tradition movement that could not have happened in the third world or a highly religious community. Yes, there are still vast parts of the world living in backwards, tradition-bound ways. Hopefully even there eventually modern thinking and freedom will find its way. But for now the secular free world leads the way.
You can't seriously be suggesting that feminism is a fail unless and until it spreads into even the most undeveloped poor nations and religious communities?
This hardly jibes with the statistics Nina just posted??Quote:
And not all that many women in the US have access to a college education -- especially now with the student loans situation.
I was still making edits when you replied, so maybe that will help. The point of my last post was that there are still many parallels between third world problems and those of a modernized nation. I'm not saying that the Pope going into Africa and telling people that using condoms is sinful, resulting in a spike in AIDS cases is the same as abortion doctors being killed in the US, I'm trying to point out the basic concepts that underlie women's rights movements. Are gay rights a fail if there aren't rainbow-filled pride parades in sub-Saharan Africa? And what I said about women's education in the US was supposed to be in relation to the lower classes -- sure, if you look at middle-class women you'll find that their education level is pretty good in relation to men's, but there is a class system in this country and the poor will continue to have different types of women's rights issues without economic support.
Well, I still think it's outside the bounds of feminism. The very poor, just like third world countries and backwards religious communities, don't benefit from the freedoms and advances taking place at the leading edge. Of course the hope is that eventually they will! But it has to start from the secular free world. Feminism can't possibly spread to places as yet untouched by democracy and economic stability. So yeah - by the time the masses of highly-educated women mentioned in Nina's article take over the free world will be under Hispanic or Black dominion... :lol:
Darkmatters, I think we're more or less on the same page.
It's definitely a nuanced subject and you have some good points.
Alright - peace mah brotha!!
Thread is now about bakery.
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/ev...an-in-oven.jpg
I'm friends with several girls who are currently seeking master's/doctorate's...and their husbands have some low level job and spend most of their time home playing video games!! LOL. This is our, women's, opportunity to take over. While the men are busy with their gaming. :chuckle: I think it's hilarious...but oh...the tides...they are a changing.
For the record I love both men and women. :) Sometimes simultaneously. :angel:
I was just reading an article the other day which states that women still earn less PhD's than men in Science subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by nina
I know you weren't being 100% serious (or maybe you were I suppose lol). But just thought this needed pointing out.
The link you posted also briefly states this too "Women still lag behind in business, science, and engineering graduate degrees".
The article I was reading said it was because women are more social and don't want to devote their life to a thing, rather than people,
plus they also obviously are the only ones who can have babies.
But it looks like that may not be true (not the babies thing lol), if they excel compared to men with other degrees....
It also mentioned the fact that men are better at some types of thinking. iirc it was something to do with spatial reasoning, although women can be taught to do it just as well, no one is really taught how to.
Women taking over the world? Sounds kind of hot.
It's true that there is a massive gender imbalance in abstract subjects such as mathematics. This simply can't be accounted for by the usual social handwaving; just as many women go to uni nowadays, and there's no endemic pedagogical bias at school or anything. Fact is there seems to be a large inherent biological component to this; pretty much the major empirically supported mental difference is that as tommo says, women aren't as good at spacial reasoning, and spacial reasoning does play a significant (some would say central, a few would say small) part in doing maths. A likely hypothesis to explain this is that the guys were the ones doing the hunting; herding, throwing spears, etcetera, so they evolved to have a more developed intuition for space, genetically. Of course there are always a few women who seem to lack this genetic inhibition, or at least overcome it; Emmy Noether is pretty much the stand out case.
I have excellent spatial reasoning, but I suck at maths. I have terrible logical reasoning. But I assume this is because I'm left handed, not because I'm a woman.
There really is very little outside of pop culture that suggests handedness has anything much to do with your mental functions (or that the whole left/right brain personality thing is true either). If you think about it, the idea that multiple complex facets of your personality like logic or creativity are the result of a single, simple physical characteristic is really quite bizarre anyway. There are a million different genetic and environmental causes for who you are; your skilled hand is pretty much irrelevant. In fact there have been studies into the exact issue of handedness and mathematical ability, which have found no statistically significant link.
OK. Let's consider "political equality". Given that men and women constitute roughly equal proportions of the population, why do males constitute a significantly larger proportion of politicians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I thought that was a joke, coz she said she is terrible at logical thinking lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But yeah, you're correct, handedness is irrelevant in basically everything.
Basically your body is switched around but everything works the same way.
Maybe women are smarter? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Most likely many factors, not least of which is the fact that women have only been allowed to vote and take part in politics in the US for less than 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
There are no restrictions in place for women who want to take up office. That's as much as the state will ever be able to do against sexism.
@Deerythedeer
I want to apologize for my overtly antagonistic post about a week ago on this thread. It was childish and unnecessary. I dont want to be the complete asshole that excuses his belligerent behavior on being inebriated because that is not a valid excuse but I have been very stressed out lately and I'm sorry I took out my assholishness on you.
But also this is not an admittance that you were right and I was wrong, I respectfully disagree with many of your posts and think you often fall victim to the sexism you accuse others of but Im sorry for the douche way I went about it.
So once the state has done everything that it possibly can to solve a problem, the problem is solved? Assuming of course that sexual inequality is a problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
No, let's make it so a vote for a woman is worth more, to balance out female inequality in government.
Don't be silly Philosopher.
The thing is that in many places we no-longer need problem solving targeted at women's problems. We need it targeted at inequality and injustice problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
How am I being silly? I simply asked a question. If there's a problem that the state can't do anything about, does that mean that the problem is solved? Because otherwise I don't see how stating that there's nothing more for the state to do has any bearing on if political equality has been achieved or not.
@khh, I agree with you. However saying that some mystically undefined notion like 'equality' has been achieved for a particular segment when it hasn't even been defined (much less achieved) is counterproductive to that goal.
And we still haven't defined equality.
It might not be outright solved, but at least people have the means to now solve the problems on their own. For instance, if there is an injustice in the workplace when it comes to sexual equality, you can take it up with labour legislators.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
What about reproductive rights and rape? The GOP seems to be turning back the clock on many of these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Could you give any specifics?
Doesn't your constitution protect these values?
I thought you meant, should the state go beyond its function and try to change things. Apparently this was a misconception, so sorry. But really, I don't think there's much to the question. Once the state's done all that it can, that's the end of the issue from an academic perspective. It's then up to the public if they want to go further; it's up to women in particular. Although these changes actually happen naturally anyway. The liberalisation of values follows a pretty much linear trend; whether this is for women's rights or homosexual's rights or whatever. In the end, the meme of rationality spreads of its own accord, until dissidence basically reaches zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp...hfy5o1_500.png
I took a crack at it and you seemed okay with the solution.Quote:
And we still haven't defined equality.
Women aren't the only ones with injustice issues. What about women that falsely accuse a man of rape and he is, without question, sentenced guilty? What about men who lose their kids when they are more able to provide for them and love them just as much if not more? You act as if any injustice upon women is intolerable and unfair, as if they happen to no one else and women are just being picked on, but you just have to realize that in the end these issues begin to work themselves out. The general trend in America has been to become more liberal, whether or not you are a republican or a democrat. This is clearly evident just by looking back to the 20s (or any of the decades for that matter) and then back to now. I'm sure the issues I just mentioned about injustices towards males will be worked out too. As khh said, we need problem solving targeted at inequality and injustice problems. Any kinks in the hose along the way will eventually be worked out. Welcome to being just like everyone else. Inequality and injustice surrounds us, and it is a problem that all people have to deal with, here and there. So don't be so upset, you're only hurting yourself. You can live life without such negative emotions, at least with this as their cause (there is plenty of misery, hate, and anger to go around).Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer
Damn,, well said snoop!!
and Xei.
It seems to me things have been largely turned around already (since the real inequality of the 50's and 60's anyway) and as the last 2 posts mentioned, the smaller issues seem to slowly be getting worked out as well. It seems to be just a matter of time. I'd say to anyone who still feels a burning sense of injustice that they should probably become an activist themselves if they can't let it rest.
Well, I've recently been exposed to Camille Paglia, and I have to say I'm impressed and intrigued by her. I don't agree with all of her views, but her critique of modern feminism actually feels like a liberating breath of fresh air. She's really criticized a lot of the assumptions that modern feminists (including myself because I've been parroting them) have made, but instead of feeling insulted I feel embarrassed for being so reactionary and naive, in this thread most of all.
Paglia is amazing!!! I've read Sexual Personae several times, and like you I agree with much of it but not all, but mostly I'm just blown away by how clearly she's able to dig down into issues that are usually thought of only in a shallow surface way and expose the deeper threads at the root of them. In fact that book served as a springboard from which I started delving into other authors she mentioned - currently reading a lot of C G Jung.