Gender Theory

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Adrimor:

Khell_Sennet:

Oh I wasn't suggesting getting rid of him via voting. I was more thinking the burlap sack, tossed into the frozen wastelands of Siberia where he'd become encased in ice for hundreds of years, only to be later thawed out by the future generations and placed in a zoo as a living example of what die-hard conservative zealots were like back in this, the stupid ages.

I'm pretty sure it would be less of a crime to do that after removing him from office, though :V

Oh, you're probably right... I guess that so long as he winds up in the coldest reaches of Earth, frozen and alone, it doesn't matter much if they snatch-n-bagged him on the job or post-retirement.

Foolishman1776:

LiquidGrape:
There are a lot of hurt male egos in here.

This is a classic example of feminist shaming tactics. Well, get it out of here, it's not an argument, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

P.S.: There's a list online of shaming tactics feminists (and let's face it, women at large) use to shut down conversation of issues. I won't link it, but if you're interested, send me a message for the link.

P.P.S: This is a code blue.

Relax mate, I wasn't being serious.
Well, not completely.
But to cut to the chase; I'd say it's obvious to anyone with their head firmly attached to their neck that we inhabit a gregarious sphere which reeks of sexism.
Now I am fully aware of that sexism as a concept is binary in its application.
But nobody can deny the patriarchal machinations which govern our society to this day.
It's only recently that this perception of sex has been challenged, and most adamantly so by feminism.
The reason why feminists are accused of being "man-haters" or "fascists" is because we're purposefully attacking issues which fortifies the subconscious constructs of male dominance.

P.S
I sincerely hope I misread your post, but did you mean to imply that only women can be feminist?
D.S

Hey! Angry feminism! :D

LiquidGrape:

Foolishman1776:

LiquidGrape:
There are a lot of hurt male egos in here.

This is a classic example of feminist shaming tactics. Well, get it out of here, it's not an argument, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

P.S.: There's a list online of shaming tactics feminists (and let's face it, women at large) use to shut down conversation of issues. I won't link it, but if you're interested, send me a message for the link.

P.P.S: This is a code blue.

Relax mate, I wasn't being serious.
Well, not completely.
But to cut to the chase; I'd say it's obvious to anyone with their head firmly attached to their neck (Anyone who disagrees is insane or stupid? Classy.) that we inhabit a gregarious sphere which reeks of sexism. (Prove it.)
Now I am fully aware of that sexism as a concept is binary in its application.
But nobody can deny (Oh, really? Nobody?) the patriarchal machinations which govern our society to this day. (And what might those be?)
It's only recently that this perception(Which?) of sex has been challenged, and most adamantly so by feminism.(Prove it.)

The reason why feminists are accused of being "man-haters" or "fascists" is because we're purposefully attacking issues which fortifies the subconscious constructs of male dominance. (And there's no possible way it's because the most visible ones are angry, bitter, belligerent, self-important jerks, right?)

Oh, look, pseudo-intellectual BS rife with fallacies, liberally sprinkled with foot-long words, and palpably lacking in actual counterpoints. I've helpfully colored my replies to each example of it in red. Meanwhile, if you're trying to make feminists look like they don't play the "oppression!" card at every turn and break up discussions any time a point they don't like is made, you're doing it wrong.

But I think I'll reply a second time to your closing line: No, the reason so many feminists are accused of being man-haters/fascists is that many who identify themselves as feminists in this day and age--when the term is largely redundant, as most members of Western society can reasonably be presumed to believe men and women are equal--still persist in attacking anything and everything that does not work out to their favor as patriarchal/chauvinistic/etc. As has already been said, feminists have yet to argue en masse against the double standards that work out in favor of women--and to assert that these double standards are justified in light of all the pro-male double standards is no more and no less than arguing two wrongs make a right.

Khell_Sennet:

Adrimor:

Khell_Sennet:

Oh I wasn't suggesting getting rid of him via voting. I was more thinking the burlap sack, tossed into the frozen wastelands of Siberia where he'd become encased in ice for hundreds of years, only to be later thawed out by the future generations and placed in a zoo as a living example of what die-hard conservative zealots were like back in this, the stupid ages.

I'm pretty sure it would be less of a crime to do that after removing him from office, though :V

Oh, you're probably right... I guess that so long as he winds up in the coldest reaches of Earth, frozen and alone, it doesn't matter much if they snatch-n-bagged him on the job or post-retirement.

Exactly.
But I'm still wondering why the hell he hasn't been voted out yet. What's his position, anyway?

Adrimor:
Snip

You could make a career out of murdering self-esteem.

Eukaryote:
Reposting here as it is necessary:

If a key opens many locks it is a master key, if a lock is opened by many keys it is a shitty lock.

That's actually the analogy I use; it's a man's job, traditionally, to "impress" a lady enough to befriend/marry/do her (in no particular order except in that order); thus, men who have been with many women are good at wooing (or picking targets); women who have been with many men have low standards.

At least, that's the way it seems.

Adrimor:

Exactly.
But I'm still wondering why the hell he hasn't been voted out yet. What's his position, anyway?

Attorney General, essentially one of four men in that country that have supreme control over law and justice. My guess is they don't come up for re-election often.

Enigmers:

Eukaryote:
Reposting here as it is necessary:

If a key opens many locks it is a master key, if a lock is opened by many keys it is a shitty lock.

That's actually the analogy I use; it's a man's job, traditionally, to "impress" a lady enough to befriend/marry/do her (in no particular order except in that order); thus, men who have been with many women are good at wooing (or picking targets); women who have been with many men have low standards.

At least, that's the way it seems.

Or they are openly embrace their sexuality

LiquidGrape:

Foolishman1776:

LiquidGrape:
There are a lot of hurt male egos in here.

This is a classic example of feminist shaming tactics. Well, get it out of here, it's not an argument, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

P.S.: There's a list online of shaming tactics feminists (and let's face it, women at large) use to shut down conversation of issues. I won't link it, but if you're interested, send me a message for the link.

P.P.S: This is a code blue.

Relax mate, I wasn't being serious.
Well, not completely.
But to cut to the chase; I'd say it's obvious to anyone with their head firmly attached to their neck that we inhabit a gregarious sphere which reeks of sexism.
Now I am fully aware of that sexism as a concept is binary in its application.
But nobody can deny the patriarchal machinations which govern our society to this day.
It's only recently that this perception of sex has been challenged, and most adamantly so by feminism.
The reason why feminists are accused of being "man-haters" or "fascists" is because we're purposefully attacking issues which fortifies the subconscious constructs of male dominance.

P.S
I sincerely hope I misread your post, but did you mean to imply that only women can be feminist?
D.S

Reeks of sexism? In what way? As for the idea that we live in a Patriarchal society, I would counter we live in a society that may APPEAR to be patriarchal, but in all actuality may well be precisely the opposite (I'm not the first person to observe this, Esther Vilar in "The Manipulated Man" and Chinweizu in "The Anatomy of Female Power", have stated this). The traditional family structure was not about sexism, it was about the necessary division of labour.

Not only that, but women didn't face any serious social or legal obstacles to being educated and even entering the workforce, and if they did, it may not have been "keeping women down" but the fact that it would have been damaging to society as a whole if single women were taking jobs away from married men providing for families. Why didn't the male stay home and the woman work? Because it suited both sides for it to work this way, and because men (and this is borne out by modern experience) need less time off from work, women who get pregnant can't work as hard without possibly causing damage to her child which no one wants, not to mention their's the whole menstrual cycle to worry about.

As for the idea of "subconscious constructs of male dominance", I reject this concept totally. I reject this for two reasons, because women have always exercised a less direct kind of power that was no less real. Having grown up in a traditional family, I look at situations where my father, despite whatever he thought, ended up deferring to my mother, and he's no pushover, but he realized that reciprocity is the basis of the relationship. Beyond this, this is a classic unprovable statement. Subconscious implies that men aren't even aware of it. Maybe they're so sexist, they don't even know it, or maybe they aren't sexist, and radical second wave feminists have been making a lot of noise over nothing for the past forty years. Of course, since intelligent discussion of the topic at the national level is generally not possible, we can't really be sure.

Just a few closing statements. Second wave Feminism has a very simple view, men dominate women, and that is bad. The problem is, it completely rejects any qualifiers, other explanations, possibility that they're complaining about nothing, etc... Jacob Burckhardt said "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity", and Feminism is all about the denial of complexity, it is about the tyranny of women's view, and it's results are bearing this out. Men arrested for rape on nothing more than a woman's say so, divorce and family courts so advantageous to women it borders on parody, girls doing better in school than boys 60% of college enrollments are women, and so on. Can you tell me how MEN are privileged? I would say you are right, there is sexism in today's society, but it's not against women. Look at popular media, men are depicted as stupid brutes who couldn't tie their shoes without their brilliant wives. Lorena Bobbit became a hero for mutilating her husband. A "scientist" in a disturbingly popular article even wrote a piece going so far as to call men parasites.

The traditional family structure may have needed updating, but now it's been destroyed, and society suffers because of it. Without fathers to teach them right and wrong, and how to be a man, men are often lost, and either violent, or worthless, but fatherhood isn't necessary, right? Feminism hasn't accomplished anything for women, and in fact, has hurt both genders, it's a dishonest, hateful ideology that seeks the subjugation or extinction of men. Does this mean that I think women should "shut up and get in the kitchen"? No, not at all, I think women should take a look around them, realize how good they have it, and start working for the good of humanity, not the good of women at the expense of men and society.

PS: I'm not quite sure where you got that idea, I know a lot of male feminists, like the guy who wrote the "men are parasites" article.

Wow, if that's how men and women think in relation to each other, I'm glad I'm gay.

I mean, christ, my entire education had been for the purpose of getting a job, which is necessitating 6th form, Uni, training. But what I really want to do is settle down with my long-term partner and get back to the kitchen. I think it's the most awesome life ever, and I'm choosing it.

And... I forgot where I was going with this., so here's some more words. Yeah, women suck. All those words and arguing about stuff, when I get to settle down, play some video games and bake some delicious cake, and forget about all these problems with gender and sex and stuff.
(Obviously, it's not as simple as that. Not all women suck, It's not going to be that easy, etc., but I don't really think it's worth it for me to worry about.)

But I'm building a happy life from something feminists seem to hate- the subjugation of women, I mean, being a housewife/househusband, and I can't understand who wouldn't want to. (Then again, I don't understand why anyone would join a house other than Telvanni in Morrowind, but apparently some people do manage it)

electric_warrior:
why is killing female civillians in a war seen as being worse than killing a male civillian? Like when they say, "40 were killed including women and children". I can understand how killing children is worse, but why the gender thing?
Bullets have the same effect on everyone.

because genders arnt equal
women dont want to give up anything and men dont want the reaction from taking away this kind of mentality that its worse to kill a non pregnant woman.

BlindMessiah94:
Why do hot dogs come in packages of 8 while buns come in packages of 12?
Also why does it hurt when I pee?

bullet proof monk erm i forget the response isnt it something about doing what you can with what you got?
as for the pee, age or disease?

OT basically we both have our ads and disadvantages
birth vs hair loss & younger life & 'weak spots' etc
mentality of women cant be hit/killed, men are more likely to be hired.
this is the way due to our history
anyway deal with it or try to change it

Foolishman1776:
etc.

I think by and large you see the sexism in society against men because it affects and annoys you. You miss the sexism present against women. To illustrate:

Look at popular media, men are depicted as stupid brutes who couldn't tie their shoes without their brilliant wives

This is often said, but merely highlighting one negative stereotype when many others exist positive to men and negative to women. Once you yourself have quoted "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity", you cannot boil such issues down to simplicities.

Your stereotypical genius, scientist, politician or successful entrepreneur in entertainment media is overwhelmingly male, for instance. Many women are portrayed as air-headed bimbos or shrews. Where ARE all those major film roles for women over 40 who aren't Meryl Streep?

Eukaryote:
Reposting here as it is necessary:

If a key opens many locks it is a master key, if a lock is opened by many keys it is a shitty lock.

lol :D Oh, that's a good one.

ADVANTAGES

Male:
- Stronger physical build.
- Relative social, sexual and marital freedom as dictated by many dominant cultural laws (such as strict Islamic countries for example).
- Generally higher rates of workplace success.
- Greater emotional fortitude (not necessarily psychological fortitude though).
- Comparitively small role in reproduction and its culturally-associated responsibilities.

Female:
- Extended life expectancy.
- Lower inherent risk of most diseases (excluding those exclusive to women, and those caused by external influences such as smoking, drugs, etc).
- Higher physical pain threshold.
- Much greater levels of social support and sympathy when victimised, and a degree of favouritism in certain legal situations (no, this isn't just my opinion, many courtroom issues consciously favour the woman until proven otherwise, especially those concerning children).
- Exploration of sexuality among women is generally more widely accepted than that amongst men.
- Greater propensity for educational success (primary, secondary and tertiary).

DISADVANTAGES

Men:
- Extremely high death and injury rate due to commonplace means when compared to that of women; this takes into account war, workplace incidents, brawls and fights, disease, defence of family, home and property, etc.
- Culturally-accepted double-standards prevent us from causing women harm, and this is often exploited (in my experience anyway). NOTE: I am not suggesting that it should be OK to attack women.
- Immense public embarrassment in the event of a hard-on; also, it was a cruel joke indeed when God shaped the scrotum to look like a kickboxing bag.

Women:
- Much higher risk of rape, assault and other violent crimes.
- Carrying around a foetus (not to mention carefully watching nutrient intake and avoiding any toxins) for 9 months must be annoying as hell.
- Then there's childbirth, apparently so painful that men can't comprehend it (dunno if that's exaggerated in an attempt to belittle the 'tough-guy' mentality of men, or if it's actually true :| )
- Much more social pressure regarding appearance, personal upkeep and perception by others.
- A relatively large amount of cultural taboos concerning sexual behaviour and violation of traditional female roles in society.

Well, that's all I can throw together now, I'm tired.

Oh, and to all the women out there, NEVER KICK A MAN IN THE BALLS. I'm deadly serious. It's portrayed as funny in the movies, but it's one of the worst injuries you can do to a man. Just imagine that your ovaries hung outside your body... how would you like somebody crushing or mutilating them? It's not just the pain I'm talking about; kicking a guy hard enough in the scrotum will STERILISE him. Any of you girls (or guys) who think that it's funny to potentially prevent a man from ever bearing future children because of a fucking kick need to think again... As somebody already mentioned, two men can be foaming at the mouth and trying to kill each other, but they'll never go for the testicles if they have ANY moral integrity.

Anyway... rant over.

Ok, I'll start.

While I am a woman and believe we should have some equal rights to men, we are different from men and need to be treated differently. Men don't carry children around for 9 months, and honestly, from my fellow women who've been pregnant, carrying a kid for 9 months is a big pain in the ass.
However, why is it ok for a woman to hit a man? It's not. I can understand a man and woman play hitting each other, my boyfriend and I do it all the time, but you should NEVER hit anyone at full force, be you a man or woman. If you'd like to know why women could possibly get away with hitting a man is because it's generally understood that women are not as strong as men and men should "suck it up". (At least, I'm guessing that's why women get away with it.)

The kicking guys in the balls thing. Of course that's a NO NO! I would never do that to a guy and I would expect them to not hit me in the boobs. Yes, women's boobs are also sensitive, please to not slap, squeeze (too hard ;) ) or hit our boobs! It is painful and can actually cause breast cancer down the road (so I'm told).

The whole sexual thing is ridiculous. If a girl wants to sleep around fine, but if you're going to label her a slut, then label a guy who's slept with just as many people a slut as well. Either way, I don't think people should sleep around with a lot of people now a days because too many people have too many different types of diseases.

I'm not one to say "yay womanhood!", but I understand that women are still considered in many parts to be the subserviant slave to the alpha dog. In this day and age, many women are working while the husband stays at home and watched the kids, so maybe that image of the housewife will be shattered.

Before I depart, I would like to note that I understand men and woman are totally different, that is why I don't think we should have all equal rights. What may be suitable for a man, may not be suitable for a woman and vise versa. However, I think that when it comes to sex and freedom, both sexes should be equal.

ultrachicken:
So, the other day I thought about some unfair aspects associated with gender.
It's much more acceptable for a woman to hit a man than the other way around.
It's less acceptable for women to be aggressive (this results in the average woman receiving a lower wage than the average man)
Men are considered great if they have sex with lots of women, but if a woman has sex with lots of men they're considered a slut.

This isn't necessarily associated with everyone here, but it appears to be the general attitude. Why is this?
I'm a boy, in case it comes up.

These are naive and over-simplistic evaluations of stereotypes. You show no evidence that aggression is linked to earning power, in fact it is often a hinderence in many workplaces. Your post seems to suggest that women suffer from discrimination than men but

-Men are considered to be less able parents than women.
-Men are more likely to lose a child custody case.
-Paternity does not receive anywhere near the level of support that Maternity does.
-Men have no say over abortion of their child.
-Men are required to do National service more than women.
-Men are more likely to be victims of violent attack.
-Cancers that affect men receive less media attention and funding.
-Domestic assault on men is widely under-reported and rarely taken seriously.
-Men are more likely to be considered as potential sex offenders.
-Rape against men is rarely taken seriously than against women.
-Men are expected to be 'bread-winners' by society.
-Men are expected to be successful to attain a partner, this is less true for women.

Of course a number of my points are over simplified but you're thinking outside the box is differing opinions and scenarios, your point are cliché and tired, more wives' tales than fact.

Agema:

I think by and large you see the sexism in society against men because it affects and annoys you. You miss the sexism present against women. To illustrate

This is often said, but merely highlighting one negative stereotype when many others exist positive to men and negative to women. Once you yourself have quoted "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity", you cannot boil such issues down to simplicities.

Your stereotypical genius, scientist, politician or successful entrepreneur in entertainment media is overwhelmingly male, for instance. Many women are portrayed as air-headed bimbos or shrews. Where ARE all those major film roles for women over 40 who aren't Meryl Streep?

Agema:

Foolishman1776:
etc.

I think by and large you see the sexism in society against men because it affects and annoys you. You miss the sexism present against women. To illustrate:

Look at popular media, men are depicted as stupid brutes who couldn't tie their shoes without their brilliant wives

This is often said, but merely highlighting one negative stereotype when many others exist positive to men and negative to women. Once you yourself have quoted "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity", you cannot boil such issues down to simplicities.

Your stereotypical genius, scientist, politician or successful entrepreneur in entertainment media is overwhelmingly male, for instance. Many women are portrayed as air-headed bimbos or shrews. Where ARE all those major film roles for women over 40 who aren't Meryl Streep?

My intention was not to over simplify, my intention was to make a point. Is portraying someone as stupid solely because of their gender ever right? No, it's not. I'm not even going to waste any more time discussing it, because nothing more needs to be said.

That having been said, my point is, and remains that there is no such thing as male privilege, it's a myth perpetrated by dysfunctional women who misunderstood the gender power dynamic.

The whole sexual thing is ridiculous. If a girl wants to sleep around fine, but if you're going to label her a slut, then label a guy who's slept with just as many people a slut as well.

I do, but that is beside the point.
I've been waiting for this argument to get made, simply to point out how childish it is.
A lot of women respond with it when a woman is called a slut/skank/etc.
"B-but men do it all the time!"
Well, if men jumped off cliffs to their deaths, would you do it too?
Don't answer, I already know the answer is 'yes' for a large number of women. And trying to stop them will result in them complaining about how jumping off cliffs is such a "Boy's Club" or something and it's completely unfair and sexist towards women.

The reason why feminists are accused of being "man-haters" or "fascists" is because we're purposefully attacking issues which fortifies the subconscious constructs of male dominance.

And doing things like supporting women who do nothing but undermine your whole cause.

You'll see me make a lot of condescending posts on this kind of subject. It isn't because I hate women and want things to go back to the old ways.
I want men and women to fucking grow up. I want women to stop trying to lower themselves by copying the actions of lesser men.
Evolve. Grow beyond it. Don't lower yourself down to that level. Be better than that.(Goes for men, too)
It'll never happen, though.
So, I'll always have to be that condescending arsehole.

"Oh, I'd love to wear a rainbow everyday and tell the world that everything is okay, but I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back. 'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black."

Foolishman1776:

Reeks of sexism? In what way? As for the idea that we live in a Patriarchal society, I would counter we live in a society that may APPEAR to be patriarchal, but in all actuality may well be precisely the opposite (I'm not the first person to observe this, Esther Vilar in "The Manipulated Man" and Chinweizu in "The Anatomy of Female Power", have stated this). The traditional family structure was not about sexism, it was about the necessary division of labour.

Not only that, but women didn't face any serious social or legal obstacles to being educated and even entering the workforce, and if they did, it may not have been "keeping women down" but the fact that it would have been damaging to society as a whole if single women were taking jobs away from married men providing for families. Why didn't the male stay home and the woman work? Because it suited both sides for it to work this way, and because men (and this is borne out by modern experience) need less time off from work, women who get pregnant can't work as hard without possibly causing damage to her child which no one wants, not to mention their's the whole menstrual cycle to worry about.

As for the idea of "subconscious constructs of male dominance", I reject this concept totally. I reject this for two reasons, because women have always exercised a less direct kind of power that was no less real. Having grown up in a traditional family, I look at situations where my father, despite whatever he thought, ended up deferring to my mother, and he's no pushover, but he realized that reciprocity is the basis of the relationship. Beyond this, this is a classic unprovable statement. Subconscious implies that men aren't even aware of it. Maybe they're so sexist, they don't even know it, or maybe they aren't sexist, and radical second wave feminists have been making a lot of noise over nothing for the past forty years. Of course, since intelligent discussion of the topic at the national level is generally not possible, we can't really be sure.

Just a few closing statements. Second wave Feminism has a very simple view, men dominate women, and that is bad. The problem is, it completely rejects any qualifiers, other explanations, possibility that they're complaining about nothing, etc... Jacob Burckhardt said "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity", and Feminism is all about the denial of complexity, it is about the tyranny of women's view, and it's results are bearing this out. Men arrested for rape on nothing more than a woman's say so, divorce and family courts so advantageous to women it borders on parody, girls doing better in school than boys 60% of college enrollments are women, and so on. Can you tell me how MEN are privileged? I would say you are right, there is sexism in today's society, but it's not against women. Look at popular media, men are depicted as stupid brutes who couldn't tie their shoes without their brilliant wives. Lorena Bobbit became a hero for mutilating her husband. A "scientist" in a disturbingly popular article even wrote a piece going so far as to call men parasites.

The traditional family structure may have needed updating, but now it's been destroyed, and society suffers because of it. Without fathers to teach them right and wrong, and how to be a man, men are often lost, and either violent, or worthless, but fatherhood isn't necessary, right? Feminism hasn't accomplished anything for women, and in fact, has hurt both genders, it's a dishonest, hateful ideology that seeks the subjugation or extinction of men. Does this mean that I think women should "shut up and get in the kitchen"? No, not at all, I think women should take a look around them, realize how good they have it, and start working for the good of humanity, not the good of women at the expense of men and society.

Perhaps I should elaborate.
I don't make a habit of throwing groundless factoids into discussions, so everyone ought to ignore my previous post. (which was so viciously, if legitimately, deconstructed by Adrmir)
- Allow me to clarify once and for all that I do by no means suggest nor strive for the subjugation of the male sex (would be rather stupid, seeing as I'm a bloke myself) but I challenge what I perceive to be a residing perception of what constitutes sex and its inherent role in our society.
In that sense, I consider feminism as a means to reach a greater level of sexual equality through affirmation of the rights and capabilities of the one half of the spectrum which through human history has been referred to as the lesser.
That female opression would be some sort of misandric artifice is definitely a theory which can be applied to certain individuals, but I wouldn't say it has anything to do with contemporary feminism.

Also I never claimed that the underlying notion of male superiority is isolated to men's psyche; I consider it a mindset rife in both sexes.
The value of gender is implied more subtly today than before, and I think society suffers from this assumption that we are truly equal.

I noticed how you frequently refer to the second wave in your arguments as though it's indicative of what defines modern feminism.
I believe most feminists can agree on that the second wave was a terribly ill-begotten idea simply due to the fact that it strived almost exclusively to engorge the lifestyle of upper-to-middle class women of western descent.
I would rather align myself with the goals and ideals of the Third, in that I primarily seek to eliminate the effects of social conditioning in a larger context.
This meshes with my engagement in queer theory, which also suggests a residual conflict of sexual identity and orientation.

As my closing statement, I never sought to start an argument with my initial comment.
It was a passing joke which took on a whole other character than I had intended it to.
I do not agree with you on that feminism has upset some kind of balanced status quo in the family unit, or that the cause has played out its role and is now little more than a social liability.
But you make an honest case for your convictions.
I feel strongly for these issues as well. And I am sorry if I seemed callous and derogatory.
- It was a joke, and it remains a joke.
I hope I've made a better job out of expressing my beliefs in this entry.

beddo:

These are naive and over-simplistic evaluations of stereotypes. You show no evidence that aggression is linked to earning power, in fact it is often a hinderence in many workplaces. Your post seems to suggest that women suffer from discrimination than men but

-Men are considered to be less able parents than women.
-Men are more likely to lose a child custody case.
-Paternity does not receive anywhere near the level of support that Maternity does.
-Men have no say over abortion of their child.
-Men are required to do National service more than women.
-Men are more likely to be victims of violent attack.
-Cancers that affect men receive less media attention and funding.
-Domestic assault on men is widely under-reported and rarely taken seriously.
-Men are more likely to be considered as potential sex offenders.
-Rape against men is rarely taken seriously than against women.
-Men are expected to be 'bread-winners' by society.
-Men are expected to be successful to attain a partner, this is less true for women.

Of course a number of my points are over simplified but you're thinking outside the box is differing opinions and scenarios, your point are cliché and tired, more wives' tales than fact.

Well, excuse me, but I don't feel like pouring in tons of time to write an essay on the internet. And I wasn't keeping track of the number of stereotypes for each gender because I was just trying to start the conversation.
In short, take a chill pill.

LiquidGrape:

Foolishman1776:

Reeks of sexism? In what way? As for the idea that we live in a Patriarchal society, I would counter we live in a society that may APPEAR to be patriarchal, but in all actuality may well be precisely the opposite (I'm not the first person to observe this, Esther Vilar in "The Manipulated Man" and Chinweizu in "The Anatomy of Female Power", have stated this). The traditional family structure was not about sexism, it was about the necessary division of labour.

Not only that, but women didn't face any serious social or legal obstacles to being educated and even entering the workforce, and if they did, it may not have been "keeping women down" but the fact that it would have been damaging to society as a whole if single women were taking jobs away from married men providing for families. Why didn't the male stay home and the woman work? Because it suited both sides for it to work this way, and because men (and this is borne out by modern experience) need less time off from work, women who get pregnant can't work as hard without possibly causing damage to her child which no one wants, not to mention their's the whole menstrual cycle to worry about.

As for the idea of "subconscious constructs of male dominance", I reject this concept totally. I reject this for two reasons, because women have always exercised a less direct kind of power that was no less real. Having grown up in a traditional family, I look at situations where my father, despite whatever he thought, ended up deferring to my mother, and he's no pushover, but he realized that reciprocity is the basis of the relationship. Beyond this, this is a classic unprovable statement. Subconscious implies that men aren't even aware of it. Maybe they're so sexist, they don't even know it, or maybe they aren't sexist, and radical second wave feminists have been making a lot of noise over nothing for the past forty years. Of course, since intelligent discussion of the topic at the national level is generally not possible, we can't really be sure.

Just a few closing statements. Second wave Feminism has a very simple view, men dominate women, and that is bad. The problem is, it completely rejects any qualifiers, other explanations, possibility that they're complaining about nothing, etc... Jacob Burckhardt said "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity", and Feminism is all about the denial of complexity, it is about the tyranny of women's view, and it's results are bearing this out. Men arrested for rape on nothing more than a woman's say so, divorce and family courts so advantageous to women it borders on parody, girls doing better in school than boys 60% of college enrollments are women, and so on. Can you tell me how MEN are privileged? I would say you are right, there is sexism in today's society, but it's not against women. Look at popular media, men are depicted as stupid brutes who couldn't tie their shoes without their brilliant wives. Lorena Bobbit became a hero for mutilating her husband. A "scientist" in a disturbingly popular article even wrote a piece going so far as to call men parasites.

The traditional family structure may have needed updating, but now it's been destroyed, and society suffers because of it. Without fathers to teach them right and wrong, and how to be a man, men are often lost, and either violent, or worthless, but fatherhood isn't necessary, right? Feminism hasn't accomplished anything for women, and in fact, has hurt both genders, it's a dishonest, hateful ideology that seeks the subjugation or extinction of men. Does this mean that I think women should "shut up and get in the kitchen"? No, not at all, I think women should take a look around them, realize how good they have it, and start working for the good of humanity, not the good of women at the expense of men and society.

Perhaps I should elaborate.
I don't make a habit of throwing groundless factoids into discussions, so everyone ought to ignore my previous post. (which was so viciously, if legitimately, deconstructed by Adrmir)
- Allow me to clarify once and for all that I do by no means suggest nor strive for the subjugation of the male sex (would be rather stupid, seeing as I'm a bloke myself) but I challenge what I perceive to be a residing perception of what constitutes sex and its inherent role in our society.
In that sense, I consider feminism as a means to reach a greater level of sexual equality through affirmation of the rights and capabilities of the one half of the spectrum which through human history has been referred to as the lesser.
That female opression would be some sort of misandric artifice is definitely a theory which can be applied to certain individuals, but I wouldn't say it has anything to do with contemporary feminism.

Also I never claimed that the underlying notion of male superiority is isolated to men's psyche; I consider it a mindset rife in both sexes.
The value of gender is implied more subtly today than before, and I think society suffers from this assumption that we are truly equal.

I noticed how you frequently refer to the second wave in your arguments as though it's indicative of what defines modern feminism.
I believe most feminists can agree on that the second wave was a terribly ill-begotten idea simply due to the fact that it strived almost exclusively to engorge the lifestyle of upper-to-middle class women of western descent.
I would rather align myself with the goals and ideals of the Third, in that I primarily seek to eliminate the effects of social conditioning in a larger context.
This meshes with my engagement in queer theory, which also suggests a residual conflict of sexual identity and orientation.

As my closing statement, I never sought to start an argument with my initial comment.
It was a passing joke which took on a whole other character than I had intended it to.
I do not agree with you on that feminism has upset some kind of balanced status quo in the family unit, or that the cause has played out its role and is now little more than a social liability.
But you make an honest case for your convictions.
I feel strongly for these issues as well. And I am sorry if I seemed callous and derogatory.
- It was a joke, and it remains a joke.
I hope I've made a better job out of expressing my beliefs in this entry.

The problem with homosexual and feminist activism is that it's a political movement to solve a social problem. Moreover, that taken together, these movements claim that gender is a construct of society, but that sexual "orientation" is genetic. So, who I am is not genetic, but who I want to sleep with is? This is nonsense, gender is not just a slightly different set of organs. Gender is a whole different way of looking at the world, a whole different way of approaching every thing that is. All objective research that I am currently aware of has resoundingly stated that there is a difference between men and women beyond the purely physical. Not recognizing these differences, and trying to blame society when not recognizing them causes problems is not helping anyone. Men are larger then women, think more in straight lines, and tend to be driven to know how things work. Women, in general are more apt at multi-tasking, are more socially manipulative(this isn't inherently a negative thing, I would say that most human interaction is essentially manipulation), and tend to be better at organizing. Does this mean that men will be more apparently active? Yes, but the job could not get done without women. Men and women were made to complement each other, not compete.

I don't disagree that women should be offered equality of opportunity, but that has been quite accomplished. To attempt to force social changes through political action only opens the door to more government interference in personal life, and embitters people who might otherwise be brought around by social action. Moreover, trying to force these changes ignores the fact that the traditional family structure was not arbitrary, wasn't stupid, it had value when it was put into place, it was about division of labour, not oppression.

While technology (not the women's movement) did make homemaking no longer a full time job, and perhaps it needed to be examined in this light, the results of this push to get women to work has resulted in the destruction of the family. This is an egregious error, and one for which not just men, not just women, but EVERYONE should work to correct. It might flatter a woman's ego to believe that the reason she can't compete with a man is because of society, but it might also be biology. My problem with modern liberalism, in general, is that it claims to exult nature, but seeks to ignore or change it at every turn, believing that people are so smart we can change universal law. This is a crock, and following it will only result in the realization that you can't.

The future of the human race requires that women be mothers, the future of our society requires that men be fathers. The other details can be worked out as we go along, and who gets to make the home and who works can be left to the individual, but if in the end, more men end up at work, and more women end up at home, or home part time, and working part time, then obviously it's not a problem. If the opposite happens, well, first off, I'll be extremely surprised, but if it does, then great, whatever.

ultrachicken:

Men are considered great if they have sex with lots of women, but if a woman has sex with lots of men they're considered a slut.

I can't wait to get eaten alive for this but this is actually not bad.
Let me start off by saying there is a reason they call it whoring yourself out. To make an awful analogy imagine two bicycles. The red one is very easy to ride however it will build no muscle for you. The blue one is hard to ride however it will build a lot of muscle. To always ride the red one would be "whoring" it out. Its the easy option, the thing anyone can do.
This is the same concept with men and women. Women have "pussy power". They can virtually take almost any guy in a bar and have sex with them; we all know why and how this works so I'm not going to explain it. Guys can't do that. Its quoted (Im not sure where AskMen.com but i can't find it) that if a guy just walks up to ten girls and asks to have sex with him, probably one of them will say yes. For (most) women, if they walk up to a guy and ask to have sex he will say yes. Getting laid is easier for women then it is for men, that is why it is viewed as an achievement for men and "whoring" for women.

justhereforthemoney:

ultrachicken:

Men are considered great if they have sex with lots of women, but if a woman has sex with lots of men they're considered a slut.

I can't wait to get eaten alive for this but this is actually not bad.
Let me start off by saying there is a reason they call it whoring yourself out. To make an awful analogy imagine two bicycles. The red one is very easy to ride however it will build no muscle for you. The blue one is hard to ride however it will build a lot of muscle. To always ride the red one would be "whoring" it out. Its the easy option, the thing anyone can do.
This is the same concept with men and women. Women have "pussy power". They can virtually take almost any guy in a bar and have sex with them; we all know why and how this works so I'm not going to explain it. Guys can't do that. Its quoted (Im not sure where AskMen.com but i can't find it) that if a guy just walks up to ten girls and asks to have sex with him, probably one of them will say yes. For (most) women, if they walk up to a guy and ask to have sex he will say yes. Getting laid is easier for women then it is for men, that is why it is viewed as an achievement for men and "whoring" for women.

That is a very good point, sir. Much more explanatory than the lock analogy that people seem to think is the answer to life, and I applaud you.
+1 cookies.

ultrachicken:

justhereforthemoney:

ultrachicken:

Men are considered great if they have sex with lots of women, but if a woman has sex with lots of men they're considered a slut.

I can't wait to get eaten alive for this but this is actually not bad.
Let me start off by saying there is a reason they call it whoring yourself out. To make an awful analogy imagine two bicycles. The red one is very easy to ride however it will build no muscle for you. The blue one is hard to ride however it will build a lot of muscle. To always ride the red one would be "whoring" it out. Its the easy option, the thing anyone can do.
This is the same concept with men and women. Women have "pussy power". They can virtually take almost any guy in a bar and have sex with them; we all know why and how this works so I'm not going to explain it. Guys can't do that. Its quoted (Im not sure where AskMen.com but i can't find it) that if a guy just walks up to ten girls and asks to have sex with him, probably one of them will say yes. For (most) women, if they walk up to a guy and ask to have sex he will say yes. Getting laid is easier for women then it is for men, that is why it is viewed as an achievement for men and "whoring" for women.

That is a very good point, sir. Much more explanatory than the lock analogy that people seem to think is the answer to life, and I applaud you.
+1 cookies.

*large gasp* That was the first +1 cookies I've ever gotten!

Pararaptor:
I've got a question: Why is it that a woman can wear trousers & no-one so much as bats an eyelid, yet a man who wears a dress is "a pervert"?

Yeah those damn scots!

ultrachicken:

beddo:

These are naive and over-simplistic evaluations of stereotypes. You show no evidence that aggression is linked to earning power, in fact it is often a hinderence in many workplaces. Your post seems to suggest that women suffer from discrimination than men but

-Men are considered to be less able parents than women.
-Men are more likely to lose a child custody case.
-Paternity does not receive anywhere near the level of support that Maternity does.
-Men have no say over abortion of their child.
-Men are required to do National service more than women.
-Men are more likely to be victims of violent attack.
-Cancers that affect men receive less media attention and funding.
-Domestic assault on men is widely under-reported and rarely taken seriously.
-Men are more likely to be considered as potential sex offenders.
-Rape against men is rarely taken seriously than against women.
-Men are expected to be 'bread-winners' by society.
-Men are expected to be successful to attain a partner, this is less true for women.

Of course a number of my points are over simplified but you're thinking outside the box is differing opinions and scenarios, your point are cliché and tired, more wives' tales than fact.

Well, excuse me, but I don't feel like pouring in tons of time to write an essay on the internet. And I wasn't keeping track of the number of stereotypes for each gender because I was just trying to start the conversation.
In short, take a chill pill.

This is a forum, the whole point is discussion. Dismissing opinions because you think they are too long does not a valid argument make.

justhereforthemoney:
Guys can't do that. Its quoted (Im not sure where AskMen.com but i can't find it) that if a guy just walks up to ten girls and asks to have sex with him, probably one of them will say yes. For (most) women, if they walk up to a guy and ask to have sex he will say yes. Getting laid is easier for women then it is for men, that is why it is viewed as an achievement for men and "whoring" for women.

Yeah, they did a psychology study on this, i carnt recall the exact details but males and females went around a university campus and asked for sex, the girls were something like 90% sucessful, whereas the guys where something between 2%-10% sucessful. The reseachers theorised that because women can get pregnant, they biologically choose their sexual partners more carefully, whereass men of course have everything to gain and hardly anything to lose, and so are more up for it. Your point about how it is easier for women to get laid hence the slut cultural meme is a damn good one and you rightly deserved a cookie. I would however point out that there is also such thing as "man whores"- sexually promiscous males can also get frowned upon- this is probably mainly by less sucessful other males.

Foolishman1776:

The problem with homosexual and feminist activism is that it's a political movement to solve a social problem. Moreover, that taken together, these movements claim that gender is a construct of society, but that sexual "orientation" is genetic. So, who I am is not genetic, but who I want to sleep with is? This is nonsense, gender is not just a slightly different set of organs. Gender is a whole different way of looking at the world, a whole different way of approaching every thing that is. All objective research that I am currently aware of has resoundingly stated that there is a difference between men and women beyond the purely physical. Not recognizing these differences, and trying to blame society when not recognizing them causes problems is not helping anyone. Men are larger then women, think more in straight lines, and tend to be driven to know how things work. Women, in general are more apt at multi-tasking, are more socially manipulative(this isn't inherently a negative thing, I would say that most human interaction is essentially manipulation), and tend to be better at organizing. Does this mean that men will be more apparently active? Yes, but the job could not get done without women. Men and women were made to complement each other, not compete.

I don't disagree that women should be offered equality of opportunity, but that has been quite accomplished. To attempt to force social changes through political action only opens the door to more government interference in personal life, and embitters people who might otherwise be brought around by social action. Moreover, trying to force these changes ignores the fact that the traditional family structure was not arbitrary, wasn't stupid, it had value when it was put into place, it was about division of labour, not oppression.

While technology (not the women's movement) did make homemaking no longer a full time job, and perhaps it needed to be examined in this light, the results of this push to get women to work has resulted in the destruction of the family. This is an egregious error, and one for which not just men, not just women, but EVERYONE should work to correct. It might flatter a woman's ego to believe that the reason she can't compete with a man is because of society, but it might also be biology. My problem with modern liberalism, in general, is that it claims to exult nature, but seeks to ignore or change it at every turn, believing that people are so smart we can change universal law. This is a crock, and following it will only result in the realization that you can't.

The future of the human race requires that women be mothers, the future of our society requires that men be fathers. The other details can be worked out as we go along, and who gets to make the home and who works can be left to the individual, but if in the end, more men end up at work, and more women end up at home, or home part time, and working part time, then obviously it's not a problem. If the opposite happens, well, first off, I'll be extremely surprised, but if it does, then great, whatever.

I pretty much agree with what this guy says, in perticular the points made in the first paragraph. Men and women are different biologically and mentally, and will therefore naturally slip into different roles in society. What's important is that both genders have equality of opitunity, so we are free to live our lives free from prejudiced cultural expectations. If a man wants to be a nurse, or a woman an engineer, thats great, let them go for it. However, the majority of nurses will always be female, and the majority of engineers will always be male- it's just how genders are- men are generally more interested in practical problems and women are generally more interested in human problems, it's just how our brains work. It is a futile exersise to fight against it, just let people be free to choose and do what they want to be.

beddo:

ultrachicken:

beddo:
Of course a number of my points are over simplified but you're thinking outside the box is differing opinions and scenarios, your point are cliché and tired, more wives' tales than fact.

Well, excuse me, but I don't feel like pouring in tons of time to write an essay on the internet. And I wasn't keeping track of the number of stereotypes for each gender because I was just trying to start the conversation.
In short, take a chill pill.

This is a forum, the whole point is discussion. Dismissing opinions because you think they are too long does not a valid argument make.

I was not dismissing your opinion, in fact I read your reply thoroughly. My previous comment was by no means meant to dismiss your argument. What I was explaining is that I was just starting the conversation, not dominating it. However, I'll take the time to answer you:

Aggression does affect how much money you make, not your power. Negotiating your pay has to do with how aggressive you are. You get offered a paycheck, and depending on how aggressive you are, you will try for more money or accept the amount you're given. The US census bureau showed women earned 77 cents to a man's dollar on average. Not a huge margin, but I my statement remains correct. Also, you're likely not to know about that issue unless you're a woman it's unlikely that you would even know about difficulties related to pay, unless you're workplace has a habit of workers meeting with the employer in front of you,

I couldn't help but notice that you only mentioned male inequalities... are you bitter that I didn't give an equal amount of woman and man inequalities?

What cancers are you thinking of? Prostate cancer? The reason that doesn't get media attention is because it's not as deadly as, say, breast cancer. Please list some cancers that only affect men that you're thinking of.

How are my statements wives' tales? How are they naive? You gave no reasoning except for discrediting my statements.

Unfortunately the society we live in is retarded and very prejudice about stuff including gender. people cant seem to understand the stereotypes they place on one another, and not only that but then they try to follow that standard placed on them and try to assert they are in the norm, conforming in a way that is derogatory to others. For example, think of all the time people mention homosexuality this includes when people say, "Thats so gay" or "Did you see his boots, 'cause thats what I was looking at!"
Edit: Also, what really annoys me is the feminists who assert the sexual nature of things, and call it sexist to not say his or her in every single example when a person is referring to something in the third person. It is so god damn annoying.

Amberella:
But if the guy deserves it, I see nothing wrong with it.

The question is, do you believe a woman deserves the same treatment i.e. a kick in the crotch if they "deserve it"?

If you can honestly answer yes: kudos, you are a mature woman.

I say we all need to just relax. To quote my favorite reference book:

Don't Panic!

Also, various webcomics, anime, and manga love playing around with gender roles.

ultrachicken:
It's less acceptable for women to be aggressive (this results in the average woman receiving a lower wage than the average man)

If you're going to make generalisations or assumptions, it is good etiquette to provide a source leading to said assumption. Provided with no source, I have no choice but to call bullshit on this statement. You cannot just make an assumption and, in lieu of source, attempt to defend your argument by making random citations which are, for all we know, bullshit.

Either learn to source your assumptions properly or prepare to admit defeat when people tear apart your apparent mouth-ejaculant.

It's because there is a double standard between men and women.

What no one seems to understand is that there really is no such thing as a 'man' or a 'woman' and that each of us is a blending of both. The reason we are a 'man' or a 'woman' is because we are more heavily on one end of the scale in terms of this blending.

I could go on this forever, but to conclude quickly what you should have probably said was the 'theory of the sexes'because Gender isn't the category this kind of stuff falls under.

I may catch some (read: a lot) of flak for this, but in my opinion, as long as someone acts intelligently, I will treat them as an equal. I do no take kindly to people who do stupid thing when they should know better.

Also, I say women are already equal to men, only equal in different ways.
Yeah, I know this may remind one of the classic line from Animal Farm (paraphrased to fit the topic at hand).

All people are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

And so...
I forgot where I was going with this post.

effilctar:

ultrachicken:
It's less acceptable for women to be aggressive (this results in the average woman receiving a lower wage than the average man)

If you're going to make generalisations or assumptions, it is good etiquette to provide a source leading to said assumption. Provided with no source, I have no choice but to call bullshit on this statement. You cannot just make an assumption and, in lieu of source, attempt to defend your argument by making random citations which are, for all we know, bullshit.

Either learn to source your assumptions properly or prepare to admit defeat when people tear apart your apparent mouth-ejaculant.

Swearing will make your argument more effective /sarcasm
And what do you mean random citations? If you had the will to spend twenty seconds on google you could find what I was referring to, but I suppose a link is necessary.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html
slightly older link: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm

ultrachicken:
Le Snip

From your first source

...Equal Pay Act(effective June 11, 1964)... illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of their sex.

Now there's your original post which you later explained to mean that women are paid less because of lack of determination; which in itself is a generalisation, which in turn leads to you basically making the statement "Women are paid less than men because they are women"; which can't be correct as it is in direct conflict with the Equal Pay Act which has been in effect for nigh 44 years now.

As for your second source: if you read through it thoroughly, you may notice that the author is keen on publishing figures without taking into consideration WHY these figure are as they are. Drawing attention to the final paragraph in which Longley claims the poverty rate of female headed household to have increased by 28% in 2003, why is this? Was there a divorce peak in 2003, leading to more single parents with a lower income; or perhaps some high mortality rate among men that year, leading to more widowed mothers? The fact is that the author provides neither source or reason to these numbers. The author may have been a member of the party opposing the party in power at the time, in which case this article is a good example of a straw-man argument in which the author basically nitpicks at the flaws in an attempt to weaken the oppositions defences.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked