Another Gender Topic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

chaosord:

Master of the Skies:

chaosord:

Dear sweet SCIENCE! I can taste the straw you used. Good year. For straw anyway.

Question was, why does group Y want to kept group X from doing something that is bad for them. The answer is in the question. I even bolded for you.

You turned it into some sexism thing.

Geez, Geth made it seem like men only give women the bad jobs and you make it seem like wanting to keep women from war-zones, where murder, sexual assault, and serious injury happen at higher rates , is somehow against women.

Treating another group of people like children is against them. Adults get to decide whether its worth it for them or not. If you want to talk about condescending, we can talk about you and your ilk that feel you should be making decisions for grown women, as if you're somehow better(more capable of making the right decision).

My ilk? Pray tell me what is my ilk?

Is the desire to protect women, against women? Remember I used "wanting to keep", desire to keep, not "keeping from".

Once again I must ask you, is the desire to protect women, against women?

Look at Mr. Shift The Goal Posts go!

The talk was of women being kept out for it, not someone's unacted upon desire. Why the hell do you think Geth would give a damn about someone's desire to protect someone if there is no action based on it.

Master of the Skies:

chaosord:

Master of the Skies:

Treating another group of people like children is against them. Adults get to decide whether its worth it for them or not. If you want to talk about condescending, we can talk about you and your ilk that feel you should be making decisions for grown women, as if you're somehow better(more capable of making the right decision).

My ilk? Pray tell me what is my ilk?

Is the desire to protect women, against women? Remember I used "wanting to keep", desire to keep, not "keeping from".

Once again I must ask you, is the desire to protect women, against women?

Look at Mr. Shift The Goal Posts go!

The talk was of women being kept out for it, not someone's unacted upon desire. Why the hell do you think Geth would give a damn about someone's desire to protect someone if there is no action based on it.

And question dodging. Well played.

Honestly, I don't care what Geth thinks. It was a question that contained its own answer and I pointed it out.

chaosord:

Jux:

chaosord:
Do show me where I said that. Or are you talking where I said what I thought the implications of what someone else said were?

".... if being in the military is so bad, why do men insist on keeping women out of it?" To which your answer was: "Uh... Geth I think you answered your own question there. Key word, "Bad.""

Instead of emphasizing "bad", perhaps you should look at "why do men insist on keeping women out of it?" and the implications behind it. Your answer makes the assumption that it is mens place to keep women out of certain jobs. It doesn't need to be said explicitly, it was implicit in your answer.

Jux... the implication that you say I added to what Geth said, WAS ALREADY THERE. In what Geth said. I am using those implications when I speak of that quote. I am using what is already there. Intended or not.

The implication was not there, at least from where I am sitting. Though I would be happy to acquiesce the point if Geth corrects me on it, as I am inferring what she meant. When I read '...if the military is so bad' I don't make the assumption that she thinks it is actually bad. The tone of the post makes it looks to me like it was said with an attitude of disbelief. Rather, men don't actually think that the military is that bad, they simply have the hubris to decide what is suitable for women.

chaosord:

chaosord:
[quote]
Oh, you found that offensive? :(

No, I found it condescending. The only thing that offends me is stupidity and you are not stupid.

I generally find condescension offensive, but I'm getting away from the topic. If you found me heavy handed, it's because I find communicating my incredulity towards such a position nigh impossible without the hyberbolic rhetoric.

chaosord:

My ilk? Pray tell me what is my ilk?

Is the desire to protect women, against women? Remember I used "wanting to keep", desire to keep, not "keeping from".

Once again I must ask you, is the desire to protect women, against women?

I will answer your last question.

Yes. Especially with the way our culture does it. A thousand times yes. That desire is built upon the idea that women are weak or that women are more valuable than men. It is 2013. The way that we wage war has changed, the way our society works has changed. It is not as if we need women to stay home in order to ensure a cultures survival anymore. Entering the army is voluntary, there will be enough men and women not in the army to keep population going. So if she has the desire, an aptitude, and can handle the training, then why not let her take the job? Why deny her the right to fight for her country? Why should anyone elses outdated belief system stand in the way of her aspirations? It is her body, and her mind after all.

mecegirl:
Yes. Especially with the way our culture does it. A thousand times yes. That desire is built upon the idea that women are weak or that women are more valuable than men. It is 2013. The way that we wage war has changed, the way our society works has changed. It is not as if we need women to stay home in order to ensure a cultures survival anymore. Entering the army is voluntary, there will be enough men and women not in the army to keep population going. So if she has the desire, an aptitude, and can handle the training, then why not let her take the job? Why deny her the right to fight for her country? Why should anyone elses outdated belief system stand in the way of her aspirations? It is her body, and her mind after all.

We never did need to keep women locked away at home to ensure a culture's survival, other cultures have avoided this and survived.

Anyhoo, because nobody has brought the terminology up, what is being discussed is "benevolent sexism". The quote marks are very important.

You have ordinary sexism "stay in the kitchen, you're too unimportant to go out", and then again you have benevolent sexism "stay in the kitchen, you're too important to go out".

Both cases are about deciding what women are allowed to do, but one pretends to have noble reasons behind it.

Restricting women's choices on the pretense of protecting them is sexism. If a woman doesn't want to risk dying by joining the military, she can not join the military, it should be her choice (provided she is capable).

Jux:

chaosord:

Jux:


".... if being in the military is so bad, why do men insist on keeping women out of it?" To which your answer was: "Uh... Geth I think you answered your own question there. Key word, "Bad.""

Instead of emphasizing "bad", perhaps you should look at "why do men insist on keeping women out of it?" and the implications behind it. Your answer makes the assumption that it is mens place to keep women out of certain jobs. It doesn't need to be said explicitly, it was implicit in your answer.

Jux... the implication that you say I added to what Geth said, WAS ALREADY THERE. In what Geth said. I am using those implications when I speak of that quote. I am using what is already there. Intended or not.

The implication was not there, at least from where I am sitting. Though I would be happy to acquiesce the point if Geth corrects me on it, as I am inferring what she meant. When I read '...if the military is so bad' I don't make the assumption that she thinks it is actually bad. The tone of the post makes it looks to me like it was said with an attitude of disbelief. Rather, men don't actually think that the military is that bad, they simply have the hubris to decide what is suitable for women.

chaosord:

chaosord:
[quote]
Oh, you found that offensive? :(

No, I found it condescending. The only thing that offends me is stupidity and you are not stupid.

I generally find condescension offensive, but I'm getting away from the topic. If you found me heavy handed, it's because I find communicating my incredulity towards such a position nigh impossible without the hyberbolic rhetoric.

And it came across, to me, as geez men keep women down so much why don't they also force women to fight in wars?

As for being heavy handed, here we are a few posts later and there is no heavy handiness. Maybe next time instead of assuming my position (if you can do the job better than anyone else its yours, is my view on the subject BTW) and launching the hyberbolic rhetoric missile; you could post in good faith.

Honestly you came across as someone who was looking to be offended. When it was just us both having different views on what was said. Next time how about, "Hey what you said means this (insert whatever here)." And starting a conversation that way. Instead of being hostile. It could just be a misunderstanding.

mecegirl:

chaosord:

My ilk? Pray tell me what is my ilk?

Is the desire to protect women, against women? Remember I used "wanting to keep", desire to keep, not "keeping from".

Once again I must ask you, is the desire to protect women, against women?

I will answer your last question.

Yes. Especially with the way our culture does it. A thousand times yes. That desire is built upon the idea that women are weak or that women are more valuable than men. It is 2013. The way that we wage war has changed, the way our society works has changed. It is not as if we need women to stay home in order to ensure a cultures survival anymore. Entering the army is voluntary, there will be enough men and women not in the army to keep population going. So if she has the desire, an aptitude, and can handle the training, then why not let her take the job? Why deny her the right to fight for her country? Why should anyone elses outdated belief system stand in the way of her aspirations? It is her body, and her mind after all.

I never said anything along those lines. I am talking about the desire in and of itself. If I want to protect someone does that make me against someone?

chaosord:
I never said anything along those lines. I am talking about the desire in and of itself. If I want to protect someone does that make me against someone?

Surely that depends on any number of factors. What form does this protection take? How strong is this desire compared to others? And so on.

thaluikhain:

chaosord:
I never said anything along those lines. I am talking about the desire in and of itself. If I want to protect someone does that make me against someone?

Surely that depends on any number of factors. What form does this protection take? How strong is this desire compared to others? And so on.

Can I hug you right now? Please? You just made my day in this thread. Questions about the context and determining a working cut off point.

Honestly, I don't have the answers.

chaosord:

mecegirl:

chaosord:

My ilk? Pray tell me what is my ilk?

Is the desire to protect women, against women? Remember I used "wanting to keep", desire to keep, not "keeping from".

Once again I must ask you, is the desire to protect women, against women?

I will answer your last question.

Yes. Especially with the way our culture does it. A thousand times yes. That desire is built upon the idea that women are weak or that women are more valuable than men. It is 2013. The way that we wage war has changed, the way our society works has changed. It is not as if we need women to stay home in order to ensure a cultures survival anymore. Entering the army is voluntary, there will be enough men and women not in the army to keep population going. So if she has the desire, an aptitude, and can handle the training, then why not let her take the job? Why deny her the right to fight for her country? Why should anyone elses outdated belief system stand in the way of her aspirations? It is her body, and her mind after all.

I never said anything along those lines. I am talking about the desire in and of itself. If I want to protect someone does that make me against someone?

If you put that desire above their own mental and even physical development and well being, yes.

chaosord:
And it came across, to me, as geez men keep women down so much why don't they also force women to fight in wars?

As for being heavy handed, here we are a few posts later and there is no heavy handiness. Maybe next time instead of assuming my position (if you can do the job better than anyone else its yours, is my view on the subject BTW) and launching the hyberbolic rhetoric missile; you could post in good faith.

Honestly you came across as someone who was looking to be offended. When it was just us both having different views on what was said. Next time how about, "Hey what you said means this (insert whatever here)." And starting a conversation that way. Instead of being hostile. It could just be a misunderstanding.

My subsequent posts have gone through a few rewrites before the post button was hit. My hand is pretty heavy when it comes to this topic, mostly because it is a topic important to me[1], but especially when I am talking to people whose positions on sexism and feminism have been quite clear in previous threads.

You aren't new to these forums, and my perspective of you concerning issues like feminism and sexism isn't a positive one. It may very well be true that I misattributed your meaning, and I apologize for doing so if you take genuine insult. The pattern of your posting though suggested otherwise.

[1] And I see my own shortcomings despite my efforts, which makes me cranky, but enough about me.

chaosord:

And it came across, to me, as geez men keep women down so much why don't they also force women to fight in wars?

There's some blatantly obvious sexism in not letting them fight wars.

Master of the Skies:

chaosord:

And it came across, to me, as geez men keep women down so much why don't they also force women to fight in wars?

There's some blatantly obvious sexism in not letting them fight wars.

Well, my mother was always very firmly against mixed gender units in the front lines of wars, and was dicey about women being deployed on long-term missions in a combat zone due to their smell.

I always sort of deferred to her opinion on it since she was a marine.

Batou667:
Listen, Evil, I'm just abut ready to throw my hands up and walk away from this one. I'm trying to explain my position to you - some of which I've admitted is my personal, subjective opinion - and your constant stooping to sarcastic mocking and "ironic" gendered insults gives me the impression you don't want an honest discussion. Let's keep this civil, shall we?

Well, apologies.

I don't like repeating myself or feeling that a discussion is going round in circles. It probably doesn't bring out the best in me. Regardless, let's have another go.

Batou667:
Just for clarity's sake, what is your position on this? Should all sports in theory be desegregated, or should male sports be made open to women who make the grade, who should then be treated like equals by the male competitors? What about the difficulty presented by the fact that - as backed up by the Olympics data - in an open competition women wouldn't make the top 500 in track and field or swimming? Would you welcome a true meritocracy that results in a male-only Olympics, or would that be "too many dicks"?

I don't particularly care precisely how sport is organized. There are plenty of people in this world, male and female, who probably understand better than I do what is good for sport in terms of facilitating enjoyment and creating fair competition.

What I take issue with is the automatic presumption that any competition between males and females is unfair, because noone has offered me a satisfactory reason as to why. If it's a problem with average size and weight, then would it not be more fair segregate sports based on size and weight rather than the appearance of the genitals. If it's a problem with body fat, then surely it would be better to segregate sports based on body fat rather than the appearance of the genitals. One other advantage of this is that it wouldn't just increase the prestige and participation of women in sport, it would also open sport up to a wider variety of men.

One of the strongest feminist criticisms I've ever read of professional sport, and I forget who made it, is that it's essentially a human version of horseracing. Thousands of overweight, atrophied men (because it is still overwhelmingly men) watching overbred, scientifically nurtured freaks of nature doing things that the vast majority of the human population could simply never have hoped to do.

While I don't think I agree with that assessment, I think it is worth asking whether it's actually healthy for a society with an increasingly sedentary and overweight population to continue obsessing over unattainable feats of physicality. Now our governments are keen to teach sport and active living to obese kids as a solution to this, but what's the point? No matter how hard most of those kids try, they will never be able to compete with the one in a million, and right now there is often no other option, so is it any wonder they give up?

The key factor here is not sex, it's ability. Some people, like yourself, may be unable to cognitively separate the two, in fact there's a very good argument that judgement about ability lie at the root of all human discrimination, and yet actually it's very easy to separate sex and ability once you stop fantasizing that every man is physically able and recognize that the vast, vast majority are not.

And no, to preempt the inevitable criticism, I'm not saying that we need to treat everyone like an Olympic athlete. In fact, this is why I disagree with the above in that I think it is worth recognizing the value of innate ability in any area, be it physical or mental, because it is something precious. However, perhaps it is time to step back from the senseless veneration of physical ability to the point of at least being able to broaden participation. Because ultimately, sport isn't so important that it cannot be touched.

Here in the UK, we were all told that the Olympics would have a great sporting and athletic legacy. In fact, participation in sport has only declined in the wake of the Olympics. That is not a healthy statistic and it does not speak well of the role and effects of professional sport in modern society.

I don't think opening competition up to women will destroy sport. Far from it. I think recognizing the actual reasons why sport is segregated and finding more sane ways to do it could actually save a lot of men who would otherwise be doomed to sitting in their living rooms eating unhealthy food, drinking unhealthily and impotently watching other people live their dreams.

So, "in the interests of honesty", there I am.

Batou667:
The same reason we don't mock vegetarians into eating meat or taunt Muslim women into taking off their headscarves.

The reason most people don't do those things is that they lack a convincing argument to do so.

There are, in fact, plenty of people who have attempted to argue that wearing hijab is fundamentally oppressive to women. In some countries, they have succeeded to a large degree in gaining public attention and embedding themselves into law and politics, however in most places they tend to be widely ignored in the face of far more reasonable arguments coming from women who actually choose to wear hijab and who see the right to determine their choice of clothing as one to which we are all entitled. Start a topic on vegetarianism on this forum and I daresay you will encounter bellicose carnivores asserting that vegetarianism is stupid, unnatural or unhealthy, and subsequently being comprehensively rebuked by a sane majority for the empty chauvinism and lack of scientific basis to their arguments.

What this actually does, of course, is to prove my point. You cannot attack other people, even implicitly, and expect to encounter no resistance simply because it is your "right" to do so. If you have beliefs regarding the worth or ability of others and if you want them to be taken seriously, you must be willing to defend them. Otherwise, you are entitled to your choices, but not to respect for the choices you make.

Batou667:
I could point out stuff like the vast majority of armed forces personnel being male, men being by far over-represented in the top ten most dangerous jobs, men's greater statistical likelihood of being killed or injured at work, men encountering more physical violence (and granted, also perpetrating the majority), the disparity in funding and media awareness between "women's causes" like breast cancer and "men's causes" like testicular cancer, men receiving longer prison sentences than women for the same crime (and in the US, the majority of executed prisoners are male) and the studies that show how bystanders are more likely to intervene in physical altercations between men and women if the man is the aggressor but not vice-versa.

And in all these cases, where is the human action?

i.e. Who is responsible for the majority of armed-forces personnel being male? Who is responsible for the over-representation of men in the top en most dangerous jobs? Who is perpetrating the majority of violence against men? Why do you think there is a disparity between "men's" and "women's" causes? For that matter, who is handing out longer prison sentences to men? Which bystanders are intervening?

I'm going to preempt you and answer the question. The human action which causes these effects is overwhelmingly initiated by men. Men willingly volunteer to join the armed forces or to take dangerous jobs. Men perpetrate the vast majority of physical violence against other men. "Women's causes" are better funded and have higher awareness because women tend to be more interested in health issues anyway. The majority of judges in criminal courts are males themselves. Male bystanders are more likely to intervene in a physical altercation than female bystanders.

Now, I'd be being dishonest if I didn't stress that there are some relational aspects to this kind of behavior, but proponents of the "equal and opposite discrimination" argument overwhelmingly ignore the basic fact that most of these "disadvantages" are willingly taken on by men. It is very rarely women who advocate or enforce the "disposability" of men, rather, it is overwhelmingly men who willingly place themselves in danger in order to demonstrate their own bravery, ability or other form of masculine virtue, often in relation to perceived inability and helplessness of women.

Risk-taking in our society is not a mark of "disposability", it is often a mark of worth. A person who is willing to do dangerous things is generally not doing so because they recognize their own lack of value, they are doing so because the ability to do these things, the bravery, physical toughness or other virtue which these roles are presumed to carry increases the sense of worth and value. These things are not arguments against male privilege, they are actually a part of that privilege. The exclusion of women from these things does not empower or privilege women, rather it reflects a percieved lack of ability, a lack of bravery, a lack of physical or emotional toughness and a lack of virtue on the part of women.

And actually, I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. Women often aren't as physically capable as men, women generally aren't trained to "man up" in the face of emotional trauma, women aren't taught to be convinced of their own invincibility and inherent toughness. The fact remains, however, that a significant proportion of men cannot do this either. I'm not buying into a view of the world which sees a man who develops PTSD on the battlefield as a failure or a coward. I'm not buying into a view of the world which sees a man who practices deescalation when confronted with physical violence as a wimp or pussy.

If you are genuinely interested in helping men or dealing with the problems which they face, the first thing to realize is surely that men can sometimes need help. That they aren't automatically strong, tough and resilient, that they don't simply need to grow a pair and act like men. The real question here is not whether women are sufficiently able to "man up" in the face of difficult situations, often it's about questioning whether men should be expected to do so either. If we would not put women through the physical and emotional stresses of warfare unsupported, maybe we shouldn't be putting men in that situation either. If we would not expect women to be able to fight off armed robbers with their bare hands, maybe it's unrealistic to expect that of men either. That seems to me to be a fairly fundamental first step towards actually fixing any of the difficulties facing men.

But of course, that would also mean mitigating some of social advantages of being seen as simply able to deal with these things, and thus again I suspect I'm going to have to watch a queue of men who probably feel terribly discriminated against suddenly leap to defend the very basis of their own, largely self-inflicted "discrimination", and that makes me extremely sad.

Hi, Sorry for the delay in replying.

Gethsemani:

What merit would you say there is to keeping gender roles? Would this merit outweigh the problems you've identified for men and that many feminists identify for women? Also, is it possible we could find a more useful and fair solution if we tried or do you believe that unequal and unfair gender roles is as good as we are going to get?

I think gender roles are at least partially biology, not 100% socially constructed. And in that regard we should be pragmatic, rather than enforcing the position that everyone is equally able for every role. To point out that males and females are different physiologically shouldn't be a controversial or demeaning thing - it's something men and women should be able to recognise and celebrate.

I'm talking about issues like male vs female social behaviour and learning styles, and the way boys are being left behind in education (not to mention 4 times more likely to be medicated for behavioural or learning "difficulties" than girls) in part due to a schooling system that caters primarily to girls and assumes that what is good for girls' learning must be good for boys too. I'm talking about lowering the bar for female applicants in the army or firefighting and the associated risks that entails, in the name of political correctness.

There are certain issues where speaking in generalities is legitimate. Men probably do make better firefighters and infantry. Conversely, there's evidence to suggest that women probably make better fighter pilots.

Gethsemani:
So you can not see any middle ground in which gender roles are kept but are changed to be less restrictive and less punitive for those that don't live up to them, by choice or simple failure to live up to social standards?

Sure, I think there's a lot of scope for blurring traditional gender roles or even abolishing them completely where they represent a purely arbitrary barrier to entry in certain roles that are justified with nothing more than appeals to tradition or roles for their own sake. Heck, I'm a male with waist-length hair who works with children, so I'm hardly the poster-boy for traditional masculinity. Most of my "beef" is with arguments that decide that human biology and physiology is itself a social construct and therefore we should be opposed to it, or else is so negligible or variable from individual to individual that we ought to not worry about it. That kind of sex-blindness just seems disingenuous to me.

evilthecat:
Regardless, let's have another go.

*respectful snip*

Ok, thanks for taking the time to write that all out, I see your point a bit better now.

Yes, I agree that participation in sport could be a lot better and that sometimes elitism is the opposite of inclusion, and that's something that should be balanced out (although it's news to me that the Olympics seem to have a net negative effect on sports participation - isn't it too soon to tell?). You're right that girls and womens participation in sport is probably in even more need of "fixing" than men's, because at least men benefit from more abundant facilities and more notable sporting role-models.

Having said that I still think you underestimate the difficulties in integrating women into traditionally male sports. Not only are the physiological differences between men and women quite distinct even at an amateur club level, but social expectations may discourage men from participating in mixed sports if there's any physicality involved. The latter issue is the kind of thing that maybe we as a society should be making less contentious but I think perhaps a better way to do this would be to raise the profile of women's sports - women's soccer, women's NFL, etc - to prove to the public that women want to, can, and ARE competing in high-stakes and fairly physical sports. A "separate but equal" approach rather than the "Holy melting-pot of homogenous equality" approach, basically.

evilthecat:
Now, I'd be being dishonest if I didn't stress that there are some relational aspects to this kind of behavior, but proponents of the "equal and opposite discrimination" argument overwhelmingly ignore the basic fact that most of these "disadvantages" are willingly taken on by men. It is very rarely women who advocate or enforce the "disposability" of men, rather, it is overwhelmingly men who willingly place themselves in danger in order to demonstrate their own bravery, ability or other form of masculine virtue, often in relation to perceived inability and helplessness of women.

Risk-taking in our society is not a mark of "disposability", it is often a mark of worth. A person who is willing to do dangerous things is generally not doing so because they recognize their own lack of value, they are doing so because the ability to do these things, the bravery, physical toughness or other virtue which these roles are presumed to carry increases the sense of worth and value. These things are not arguments against male privilege, they are actually a part of that privilege.

I feel you're overstating the ego-stroking element to male risk-taking and ignoring the historical context that made much of it necessary. Look back a mere 100 years and you have men constituting 89% of the casualties in the Titanic sinking due to the "women and children first" protocol, and entire towns of men being wiped out in World War 1 (with the encouragement of women including notable feminists and suffragettes of the era). This "social prestige" theory also doesn't account for many undesirable and dangerous jobs that are male-dominated and yet are more likely to attract jokes or derision rather than respect: bin men, for example.

Batou667:
The latter issue is the kind of thing that maybe we as a society should be making less contentious but I think perhaps a better way to do this would be to raise the profile of women's sports - women's soccer, women's NFL, etc - to prove to the public that women want to, can, and ARE competing in high-stakes and fairly physical sports.

And I think you've underestimated the difficulty of doing that.

Unfortunately, we have reached a place where women in general are culturally disengaged from sport, or at least most kinds of sport. There are some sports in which the women's game is less marginalized (like Tennis) and which thus have a more mixed appreciation, but in general sport is not seen to be something for women.

Little girls don't generally have the luxury of dreaming of being footballers at all, those dreams are shot down years before they can flourish into enduring passions. The appreciation of sport, to women, is often incomprehensible because they have no point of reference to it. You cannot even just play a women's soccer match and say "look, but these women enjoy it", because that doesn't actually mean anything.

There have been many attempts to encourage women into sport, because frankly there's a massive potential payoff for sports broadcasters and sponsors in doing so and they want to do it. The sad fact is though that at this point you can't just put women's soccer matches on TV and expect women to watch them. You'll probably just end up with a bunch of derisive men. Some of the more obnoxious attempts to market to women involve marketing the sex appeal of male athletes to get women to watch male sport. It hasn't really worked either.

I don't believe that you can just fix everything with an ad campaign at this point. It's too entrenched, it's too bound up in all this other shit and in particular in this ruthless belief among some men that sport is "their thing". I think that's what needs to go, really, and I think creating an environment in which shared participation and shared appreciation of sport is possible is the only way to accomplish that. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I certainly think it would be easier than simply raising the profile of women's sport.

Batou667:
I feel you're overstating the ego-stroking element to male risk-taking and ignoring the historical context that made much of it necessary. Look back a mere 100 years and you have men constituting 89% of the casualties in the Titanic sinking due to the "women and children first" protocol, and entire towns of men being wiped out in World War 1 (with the encouragement of women including notable feminists and suffragettes of the era).

Actually, I don't think you're looking hard enough at that historical context.

Do you think that women and children actually popularized the idea of the "women and children first" protocol?

Moreover, was the protocol drawn up on the Titanic in response to the current necessity of not having enough lifeboats, or was it a protocol that already existed and was entrenched across society?

I think perhaps you're viewing "benefit" in this case as something purely individual, like those guys who (sometimes even willingly) stayed on the Titanic were making a calculated risk/reward assessment before they decided to go off and quietly drown, and I'll admit maybe I made it sound like that. However, they were actually responding to a preexisting self-evident truth, a powerful social force which existed before the boat even set sail, that in the event of an emergency that is what "good men" should do.

So no, the "women and children first" protocol was probably not codified and popularized in a place of immanent danger. It was not a group of men nobly deciding in that moment to sacrifice their lives out of pure acceptance of their own lack of importance. It was likely popularized by men who, at the time, were very, very far from drowning and who frankly, in the event that they ever were in such a situation probably would have constituted part of the fraction of men considered socially important enough to be allocated lifeboat priority, because those are the kind of men who would have had the power to make such a protocol a reality.

Society is not equal. That same historical context you're talking about is also one in which the capacity of women to formally influence the decisions of men, to be involved in the creations of protocols and to popularize social ideas, was extremely limited. Again, this is something produced by men. The original action comes from men, men who very much stood to benefit by virtue of being seen as the kind of person who would nobly sacrifice themselves while probably never actually having to do so. The fact that it had unpleasant consequences for a large number of overwhelmingly low status men (whose capacity to influence these kinds of decisions was also very low) does not change the fact that its architects, instigators and overwhelming beneficiaries were almost certainly men.

One thing recent history has taught us is that gender social practices simply cannot function unless they have the ability to dictate the role of women. The fact that women have willingly participated in society, including those aspects of society which seem at first glance to be prejudicial to certain men, has not made them society's masters, it has overwhelmingly not made them societies beneficiaries, it has generally made them at best passive participants in social forces generally initiated at the behest of men. The notion of genuine large-scale female agency in society is incredibly recent, in real terms.

Batou667:
This "social prestige" theory also doesn't account for many undesirable and dangerous jobs that are male-dominated and yet are more likely to attract jokes or derision rather than respect: bin men, for example.

Do people joke about binmen because they're men?

The fact that there are other categories of discrimination beyond gender does not particularly impact on the existence of gender as potential grounds for discrimination.

Jux:
I can almost hear the audible groans and exasperated sighs, so I'm just going to preface this by saying while I hope this time around will be different, I don't expect it. Ok, onto the subject at hand...

An article that was forwarded to me in an email by a friend from askmen.com:

http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/austin/coed-teenage-football.html

[spoiler]
Last week, I caught wind of a story about a girl who was kicked off the school football team she had previously been a part of because she... continued to be a girl, I guess? That probably wouldn't raise too many eyebrows if it weren't for the school, in its infinite wisdom, listing the official reason for her dismissal as fear that she might arouse "impure thoughts" among the boys on the team.

Reminds me of this bit

TL:DW If you're a man then almost everything causes impure thoughts, from commercials to your seat rumbling on the train.

I believe the impure thought excuse is either

a. the result of people being prudes who go into deep denial over the reality that teenagers sometimes want to fuck (and that this is normal). That or they mistakenly believe that taking her off the football team will cause the boys to suddenly stop feeling lust.

or

b. A cop-out BS excuse because they needed to think of something.

I can't follow the rest of your argument it seems to be rambling.

Bentusi16:

Master of the Skies:

chaosord:

And it came across, to me, as geez men keep women down so much why don't they also force women to fight in wars?

There's some blatantly obvious sexism in not letting them fight wars.

Well, my mother was always very firmly against mixed gender units in the front lines of wars, and was dicey about women being deployed on long-term missions in a combat zone due to their smell.

I always sort of deferred to her opinion on it since she was a marine.

Okay so your mother was sexist. What is your point exactly? I sure hope it's not "She's a marine therefore she's got a good perspective on it" because we even expect experts to actually bring something to the table when they want to convince us something is correct. And not just some vague unexplained thing about smell.

Master of the Skies:

Bentusi16:

Master of the Skies:

There's some blatantly obvious sexism in not letting them fight wars.

Well, my mother was always very firmly against mixed gender units in the front lines of wars, and was dicey about women being deployed on long-term missions in a combat zone due to their smell.

I always sort of deferred to her opinion on it since she was a marine.

Okay so your mother was sexist. What is your point exactly? I sure hope it's not "She's a marine therefore she's got a good perspective on it" because we even expect experts to actually bring something to the table when they want to convince us something is correct. And not just some vague unexplained thing about smell.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117526&page=1#.Ueb_UKw0n_c

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/men/sweating-odor/men-smell-different-from-women.htm

Scent is one of the basic, reptilian brain leftovers from thousands of years of evolution, and guess what happens in combat? You sweat! A lot. Your body puts out odors. It's easier for the opposite sex to smell you. That's fucking hard science.

And wow, I love it, because SHE HAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OPINION THEN YOU SHE'S A SEXIST! Congratulations. Especially since you'll notice I said MIXED SEX UNIT. Not NO WOMEN SERVING. And 'long term missions in a combat zone' is like being dropped in and then left their for like a month. Another fun thing: The difference between male and female dietary needs vary far more, on average, then one male to another male. Also, fucking science! LOVE IT. Fucking LOVE science. but hey, fuck the fact that the difference in diet would cause hell on logistic issues in a mixed sex unit who don't have access to the huge logistic chains necessary. You know, like the marine corp. Where you are actually sort of built around the idea of not having the mass logistic chains the army has.

But fuck that, SEXISM! I mean, if you had an ALL FEMALE commando team you could easily get over that problem but segregating the sexes is WRONG no matter the reason.

But fuck it man it's like, I disagreed with you even a small bit so I am a sexist racist homophobic trans-phobic whatever phobic. That's how people like you always react to different opinions. And just to let you know there's like 0 chance I'm going to reply to whatever you say. Since you decided to dive bomb on sexism and not actually look it up even slightly. So yeah. Have a good one.

image

Gethsemani:

What merit would you say there is to keeping gender roles? Would this merit outweigh the problems you've identified for men and that many feminists identify for women? Also, is it possible we could find a more useful and fair solution if we tried or do you believe that unequal and unfair gender roles is as good as we are going to get?

A big question however is: what are gender roles. It may sound silly but sometimes i feel feminists don't even understand what it is. For instance, is a gender role a role people are forced into? Are expected to be? Or end up doing because they feel like it. Are forced gender roles wrong? Sure. Are expected gender roles wrong? ... Well is it wrong for a parent to expect their children to go to college? To follow their footsteps? Should we enforce 100% laxism and just tell everyone: do what you want we don't give a shit? Expectations are omnipresent and while sometimes expectations can be harmful (i knew a kid who committed suicide due to parental pressure) they can also be incredibly helpful. And i've yet to see convincing evidence expected gender roles are generally harmful. And than comes the last category which is the idea people do what they want and end up adhering to gender roles. The issue with the latter is that feminists think that it is impossible for both genders to generally follow different paths by pure choice without some kind of pressure. I personally believe it exists. The fact women tend to work less in countries where they don't need to work to survive seems to point towards that, why else would more freedom of choice lead to adhering to gender roles?

The problem i have with the destruction of gender roles is that it involves a tactic which feminists are supposedly against, pressuring people into certain roles, just not the typical ones.

generals3:
A big question however is: what are gender roles. It may sound silly but sometimes i feel feminists don't even understand what it is. For instance, is a gender role a role people are forced into? Are expected to be? Or end up doing because they feel like it. Are forced gender roles wrong? Sure. Are expected gender roles wrong? ... Well is it wrong for a parent to expect their children to go to college? To follow their footsteps? Should we enforce 100% laxism and just tell everyone: do what you want we don't give a shit? Expectations are omnipresent and while sometimes expectations can be harmful (i knew a kid who committed suicide due to parental pressure) they can also be incredibly helpful. And i've yet to see convincing evidence expected gender roles are generally harmful. And than comes the last category which is the idea people do what they want and end up adhering to gender roles. The issue with the latter is that feminists think that it is impossible for both genders to generally follow different paths by pure choice without some kind of pressure. I personally believe it exists. The fact women tend to work less in countries where they don't need to work to survive seems to point towards that, why else would more freedom of choice lead to adhering to gender roles?

The problem i have with the destruction of gender roles is that it involves a tactic which feminists are supposedly against, pressuring people into certain roles, just not the typical ones.

Which feminists? Are these mainstream modern feminists?

Yes, there was a serious issue with feminism some decades ago that would instance that women broke with traditional gender roles, however the movement as a whole has gotten past there.

Yes, there are women who, for whatever reason, want to sit nicely in the gender roles expected of them. This does not mean that women being pressured to fit arbitrary gender roles isn't a bad thing. A problem that does not affect everyone is still a problem.

Bentusi16:
Scent is one of the basic, reptilian brain leftovers from thousands of years of evolution, and guess what happens in combat? You sweat! A lot. Your body puts out odors. It's easier for the opposite sex to smell you. That's fucking hard science.

Wow, you managed to demonstrate that men and women can smell differently, and that women prefer the smell of sweat, and also smell better, when they're ovulating. What you've failed to establish is a semblance of support for your argument.

generals3:
The fact women tend to work less in countries where they don't need to work to survive seems to point towards that, why else would more freedom of choice lead to adhering to gender roles?

Um. So given a choice between:

A) Doing the bulk of domestic labour, bulk of child rearing and working a full time job.
B) Doing the bulk of domestic labour, bulk of child rearing and not working a full time job.

The fact that most women choose B is proof that gender roles are voluntary?

generals3:

A big question however is: what are gender roles. It may sound silly but sometimes i feel feminists don't even understand what it is. For instance, is a gender role a role people are forced into? Are expected to be? Or end up doing because they feel like it. Are forced gender roles wrong? Sure. Are expected gender roles wrong? ... Well is it wrong for a parent to expect their children to go to college? To follow their footsteps? Should we enforce 100% laxism and just tell everyone: do what you want we don't give a shit? Expectations are omnipresent and while sometimes expectations can be harmful (i knew a kid who committed suicide due to parental pressure) they can also be incredibly helpful. And i've yet to see convincing evidence expected gender roles are generally harmful. And than comes the last category which is the idea people do what they want and end up adhering to gender roles. The issue with the latter is that feminists think that it is impossible for both genders to generally follow different paths by pure choice without some kind of pressure. I personally believe it exists. The fact women tend to work less in countries where they don't need to work to survive seems to point towards that, why else would more freedom of choice lead to adhering to gender roles?

The problem i have with the destruction of gender roles is that it involves a tactic which feminists are supposedly against, pressuring people into certain roles, just not the typical ones.

Hang on a minute. You are basically asking what a gender role is and then you try to confound it with the question if gender roles are forced (presumably by duress), expected or voluntary? Let me be entirely honest for the rest of this post, because I am tired of being diplomatic and am coming down with some post-marriage fatigue:

By their very nature gender roles are restrictive and oppressive. They serve as social and cultural tools for dividing labor, responsibility, prestige and associated rewards along narrow lines based on your perceived gender and your ability to adhere to the social and cultural expectations on your gender. Is that harmful? Yes.

Why is it harmful? Because it is inherently restrictive and oppressive. Deviation from your gender role will result in social punishment, via infringed ability to operate in society or pure ostracizing, which discourages deviation. It doesn't matter if this happens to a woman who wants to be a construction worker or a man who wants to be a nurse, a girl who likes to play rugby or a boy who enjoys playing with dolls. In the end, their inability to operate within the confines of their gender role will lead to societal backlash and punishment, at its' mildest with scorn and questioning attitudes and at its' worst with sheer bullying and expulsion from social groups.

Gender roles aren't necessary for society to function either, especially not in a modern post-scarcity society. What I, and many other feminists, advocate is not an "either-or" approach to gender roles but their ultimate dissolution. We advocate that it is more important to recognize the individual and their interests and aptitudes instead of forcing them to do things because of how we perceive their gender. Doesn't matter if this means encouraging girls to develop their interest for math or boys to cultivate their emphatic tendencies.

Your inability to recognize the restrictive and oppressive force that gender roles exercise upon the individual only reveals your own lacking understanding of basic sociology. That you then try to create a false dichotomy and pose it as a straw feminist, while completely failing to understand feminist critique of gender roles or common feminists positions on how to solve the problem with gender issues is mostly telling of your own prejudices.

Honestly, I'll discuss gender roles with you, but if I am to do it you really need to understand the issue first. And you need to get rid of the strawmen and false dichotomies.

manic_depressive13:

Um. So given a choice between:

A) Doing the bulk of domestic labour, bulk of child rearing and working a full time job.
B) Doing the bulk of domestic labour, bulk of child rearing and not working a full time job.

The fact that most women choose B is proof that gender roles are voluntary?

But sometimes it's not even that. (unfortunately i don't have statistics on that subject only qualitative information) There are women who say "screw my career and using the money to make house-life easier" and dedicate themselves to their home.

On top of that, how would you fix that? Force men to do housework? If you want to do a job and not do any house work shouldn't you look for a man who wants the opposite? Is the idea of female liberation male enslavement? I have nothing against women who don't want to do domestic labour but i'll be damned if i'll be expected to do 50% of it on top of working my ass off. I'd rather look for someone who's complementary.

And this leads to a critical issue. Feminists have been convincing more and more women they should have a job to be fully emancipated (and don't tell me that's second wave nonsense because modern feminists are as guilty of this as their predecessors) while on the other hand men still don't want to do both a full time job and housework. The Masculinist movement has yet to convince men they should do domestic labour to be fully emancipated. And now you get a clusterfuck where men kind of expect the same of women as they did in the past and women expect men to be Mister Perfect because she wants to be Miss Perfect. The result? Relative and absolute female happiness drops.

I believe in freedom of choice, down with the formal barriers. But this freedom of choice also includes the freedom of telling your kids what you'd want them to be even if it adheres to traditional gender roles, the freedom to make a movie which sells well even if it includes no female characters, freedom to advertise masculine products differently than feminine ones, etc. Is this perfect? No. But it sure is better than the alternative being offered. No feminist will force me to like/do domestic labor just to make it easier for women. I'll decide whether or not i'll do that on my own.

Gethsemani:

By their very nature gender roles are restrictive and oppressive. They serve as social and cultural tools for dividing labor, responsibility, prestige and associated rewards along narrow lines based on your perceived gender and your ability to adhere to the social and cultural expectations on your gender. Is that harmful? Yes.

It depends on how said "roles" are enforced. If they are formally enforced, yes. If it's informal pressure, no. There are plenty of people: men and women alike, who don't adhere to the traditional gender roles. Traditional gender roles are no different than any other influence in our society. It's like expecting your own kids to go to college.

Why is it harmful? Because it is inherently restrictive and oppressive. Deviation from your gender role will result in social punishment, via infringed ability to operate in society or pure ostracizing, which discourages deviation. It doesn't matter if this happens to a woman who wants to be a construction worker or a man who wants to be a nurse, a girl who likes to play rugby or a boy who enjoys playing with dolls. In the end, their inability to operate within the confines of their gender role will lead to societal backlash and punishment, at its' mildest with scorn and questioning attitudes and at its' worst with sheer bullying and expulsion from social groups.

It ain't either restrictive nor oppressive unless you allow it to be. And this "social punishment" is lowering across the western world. I have yet to read about cases of women being "socially punished" because they worked full time. Ironically my mother sometimes felt "bad" because she didn't work, not because she wanted to, but because of this whole concept of "an emancipated woman needs to have a job" which 2nd wavers brought and third wavers still gladly embrace in a more subtle fashion. And to this day there are still many, even prominent, feminists who don't mind spouting 2nd wave nonsense.

The only sides which bully women into submission in my country are conservative muslims... A group which people who usually fight for pro-women's right usually protect dearly. (somehow a minority cannot be an oppressor)

Gender roles aren't necessary for society to function either, especially not in a modern post-scarcity society. What I, and many other feminists, advocate is not an "either-or" approach to gender roles but their ultimate dissolution. We advocate that it is more important to recognize the individual and their interests and aptitudes instead of forcing them to do things because of how we perceive their gender. Doesn't matter if this means encouraging girls to develop their interest for math or boys to cultivate their emphatic tendencies.

Gender roles aren't necessary, true. But gender diversity is nice, it makes our world more interesting, unfortunately it's one of those things that will have to go as collateral in order to take down the roles considering difference ultimately lead to categorization.

My ideal is different. I believe informal gender roles are ok as long you judge individuals individually. You can still say "Being a soldier is a masculine job" and still accept a capable woman in the army and consider her as an equal. It's what i've done for my entire life. I know female engineers and never did i judge them for making a typically male choice. But I still acknowledge engineering is a typically masculine field.

Your inability to recognize the restrictive and oppressive force that gender roles exercise upon the individual only reveals your own lacking understanding of basic sociology. That you then try to create a false dichotomy and pose it as a straw feminist, while completely failing to understand feminist critique of gender roles or common feminists positions on how to solve the problem with gender issues is mostly telling of your own prejudices.

Maybe it's because i'm a rebel who didn't do fulfill the role his daddy wanted him to but i don't see the restrictive and oppressive part. At most it's coercive. There is a difference between forcing someone in a direction and suggesting someone into one.

generals3:
On top of that, how would you fix that? Force men to do housework? Is the idea of female liberation male enslavement?

LOL!

We've been explaining to you how to fix it this whole time. Don't raise men to expect they won't have to do any housework. When I was young I was expected to wash up after my brother, and I got in trouble if I didn't do my chores, while my brother didn't. When I asked why my brother couldn't clean up after himself I was told "He's a boy. It's not so important that he learns to do housework because one day he will get a wife for that." I guess if you grow up so spoilt doing your share of domestic chores can seem like "slavery".

If you want to do a job and not do any house work shouldn't you look for a man who wants the opposite?

Yeah, but you don't see that very often, do you? And that's because gender roles permeate every aspect of people's lives. Women are paid less, a factor in this being that their employers presume they are going to be the ones who leave to raise a family. Men are expected to be the finincial providers, so stay at home dads are often ridiculed for being emasculated by their wives. This is harmful.

And this leads to a critical issue. Feminists have been convincing more and more women they should have a job to be fully emancipated (and don't tell me that's second wave nonsense because modern feminists are as guilty of this as their predecessors) while on the other hand men still don't want to do both a full time job and housework. The Masculinist movement has yet to convince men they should do domestic labour to be fully emancipated. And now you get a clusterfuck where men kind of expect the same of women as they did in the past and women expect men to be Mister Perfect because she wants to be Miss Perfect. The result? Relative and absolute female happiness drops.

I suppose women were happier when they were financially dependent on their abusive husbands.

Maybe men should just learn to stop being such cry babies and do their fucking chores, and then everyone can be happy. You are acting like housework is the worst thing in the world. It is like slavery, unliberating and soul destroying, yet you want me to believe that women do it vountarily? Because they just love it so much? Or do you not care how oppressed women are as long as they don't get rights, because that would lead to men being "forced to do housework" and consequently their enslavement.

I believe in freedom of choice

No you don't.

Is this perfect? No. But it sure is better than the alternative being offered. No feminist will force me to like/do domestic labor just to make it easier for women. I'll decide whether or not i'll do that on my own.

No one actually cares what you do. The emphasis here is on the next generation, and to make sure we raise them not to be spoilt manchildren who think cleaning their own house is equivalent to slavery.

generals3:
A big question however is: what are gender roles. It may sound silly but sometimes i feel feminists don't even understand what it is. For instance, is a gender role a role people are forced into? Are expected to be? Or end up doing because they feel like it.

Are any of those things exclusive?

"Gender roles" are recurring patterns of behaviour which result from gender-differentiated socialization. They're not the result of abstract "free choices". Noone ever asks a child what gender it wants to be, rather gender is imposed onto the human subject by social action from the very first moment of its life.

What a human "feels like doing" is in large part a product of how that human is socialized. The existence of gendered categories, for example, creates the desire for distinction between those categories. In order to make sense of our society, any child growing up in it must learn to distinguish themselves from others on the basis of gender, not just cognitively but also behaviorally, in order to socially integrate. The blurring of gender, the possibility of inadequate distinction or liminality remains socially traumatic in our society, as any LGBT person will be able to attest.

I think the lack of understanding comes from your assumption that this must be a conscious process, something people are aware of in any terms other than "well, men are different from women innit?" No. Noone ever set out to impose arbitrary roles on men and women, people simply acted out what they saw as a natural order of existence between men and women, often with terrible consequences for both. People still do that today.

Having received numerous cases of discrimination, insults, physical violence, death threats and various other punishments meted out for the crime of inadequately distinguishing myself from a woman in various spheres of my life, I find your idea that we somehow live in a society where we are all free to be whoever we wish to be somewhat optimistic at best. There is no such thing as a human being without gender, there is only such a thing as a human being whose enactment of gender is so normative that they never have to think about it.

generals3:

It depends on how said "roles" are enforced. If they are formally enforced, yes. If it's informal pressure, no. There are plenty of people: men and women alike, who don't adhere to the traditional gender roles. Traditional gender roles are no different than any other influence in our society. It's like expecting your own kids to go to college.

No, not really. Gender roles, like any other form of social expectation, are created by a mix of coercion and reward. You get rewarded for adhering to the gender role you are expected to fulfill and get punished or coerced when you step out of line. It isn't different from other influences in that regard. What makes them different is that they are different for different individuals, based on the arbitrary distinction of gender. It is not like expecting your kids to go to college, it is more akin to expecting your daughter to go to college and your son to become a construction worker. Why? Because no real man would ever do something as unmanly as read books and no girl would ever be able to become a construction worker.

See the difference? Gender roles aren't just social expectations (like say, "Don't break the law" or "be kind to the elderly"), they are social expectations put upon the individual due to an arbitrary difference in visible gender.

generals3:

It ain't either restrictive nor oppressive unless you allow it to be. And this "social punishment" is lowering across the western world. I have yet to read about cases of women being "socially punished" because they worked full time. Ironically my mother sometimes felt "bad" because she didn't work, not because she wanted to, but because of this whole concept of "an emancipated woman needs to have a job" which 2nd wavers brought and third wavers still gladly embrace in a more subtle fashion. And to this day there are still many, even prominent, feminists who don't mind spouting 2nd wave nonsense.

Funny. I see this shit just about every day at work. I see how male nurses can't do all the things us female nurses do because they are men. From performing an ECG on a woman ("he just wants to see her boobs") to giving a woman a urinary catheter ("he just wants to touch her vagina") or even just talking to rape victims or domestic abuse victims ("she's too scared of men"). I see how these men have their manliness questioned by other nurses, doctors and nursing staff and how rumors go around about whatever they are gay or not and the question "Why did you become a nurse?" is an every day occurrence to them, simply because people find it so very peculiar why a man would want to be a nurse. Or how about all the times I've had to explain why I as a woman wanted to perform voluntary military service. How many times I've got the question if I really could keep up with the guys in my unit.

But why actually look at the problem when you could create a straw feminist out of it? You sill haven't addressed what I said in favor of trashing your own straw feminist, it is rather unbecoming in any form of discussion.

generals3:

The only sides which bully women into submission in my country are conservative muslims... A group which people who usually fight for pro-women's right usually protect dearly. (somehow a minority cannot be an oppressor)

And the group who routinely bully GLBT-oriented men in a majority of Europe are right wing extremists. What's your point? That ordinary people "like you and me" can't be the carriers and propagators for outdated and oppressive gender roles and that our behavior in how we react to people breaking gender roles can't be harmful? Because hey, obviously the muslims are worse. Here's the thing: I don't care what a small minority of ideological extremists do, because their impact is comparatively tiny when put up against the every day sexism that "normal" people propagate every day. A sexism that extends to both men and women. You need to get out of the assumption that I am somehow only talking about female oppression, because this topic is just as much about men suffering.

generals3:

Gender roles aren't necessary, true. But gender diversity is nice, it makes our world more interesting, unfortunately it's one of those things that will have to go as collateral in order to take down the roles considering difference ultimately lead to categorization.

You'll have to explain this better, because I am not even sure what you are trying to say.

generals3:

My ideal is different. I believe informal gender roles are ok as long you judge individuals individually. You can still say "Being a soldier is a masculine job" and still accept a capable woman in the army and consider her as an equal. It's what i've done for my entire life. I know female engineers and never did i judge them for making a typically male choice. But I still acknowledge engineering is a typically masculine field.

So gender roles are alright and should be enforced but we should accept that they really don't matter. So either, you are trying to eat your cake and still have it or you are saying that gender roles really aren't important but we should keep them because they are classical and nice. I really don't get the reasoning.

generals3:

Maybe it's because i'm a rebel who didn't do fulfill the role his daddy wanted him to but i don't see the restrictive and oppressive part. At most it's coercive. There is a difference between forcing someone in a direction and suggesting someone into one.

Sure. And by virtue of how social pressure operates that "suggestion" on how you should behave is very much a suggestion of "do as we want or face the consequences". I am not just talking about your father or my father or our mothers. I am talking about an entire society telling men and women from a very young age that they are different and should behave differently. A society that makes it amply clear that women who don't shave their legs are disgusting and that men who take great care of their appearance are homosexual (and men aren't homosexual because that's disgusting), that women aren't capable of any great physical feats and that men lack the ability to be emphatic. Are you seriously suggesting that gender roles like this aren't restrictive and oppressive by virtue of you not following the wishes of your father? If so, get over yourself because society is much, much larger than you.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

It ain't either restrictive nor oppressive unless you allow it to be. And this "social punishment" is lowering across the western world. I have yet to read about cases of women being "socially punished" because they worked full time. Ironically my mother sometimes felt "bad" because she didn't work, not because she wanted to, but because of this whole concept of "an emancipated woman needs to have a job" which 2nd wavers brought and third wavers still gladly embrace in a more subtle fashion. And to this day there are still many, even prominent, feminists who don't mind spouting 2nd wave nonsense.

Funny. I see this shit just about every day at work. I see how male nurses can't do all the things us female nurses do because they are men. From performing an ECG on a woman ("he just wants to see her boobs") to giving a woman a urinary catheter ("he just wants to touch her vagina") or even just talking to rape victims or domestic abuse victims ("she's too scared of men"). I see how these men have their manliness questioned by other nurses, doctors and nursing staff and how rumors go around about whatever they are gay or not and the question "Why did you become a nurse?" is an every day occurrence to them, simply because people find it so very peculiar why a man would want to be a nurse. Or how about all the times I've had to explain why I as a woman wanted to perform voluntary military service. How many times I've got the question if I really could keep up with the guys in my unit.

But why actually look at the problem when you could create a straw feminist out of it? You sill haven't addressed what I said in favor of trashing your own straw feminist, it is rather unbecoming in any form of discussion.

I may be missing the point entirely, and correct me if I am. In the cases of interaction between female patients and male nurses, is it an issue of other people making the assumptions about the male nurses? Or is it a question of female patients just feeling more comfortable with female staff? Same question applies in the case of rape victims. I wouldn't question the motivations of a man deciding to become a nurse, or think him less 'manly' for it but I would still put a patients preferances first I think, especially in the case of something as emotionally traumatic as rape.

generals3:

Gender roles aren't necessary, true. But gender diversity is nice, it makes our world more interesting, unfortunately it's one of those things that will have to go as collateral in order to take down the roles considering difference ultimately lead to categorization.

It seems to me that gender roles reduce diversity, your statement seems counterintuitive.

Jux:

Gethsemani:

generals3:

It ain't either restrictive nor oppressive unless you allow it to be. And this "social punishment" is lowering across the western world. I have yet to read about cases of women being "socially punished" because they worked full time. Ironically my mother sometimes felt "bad" because she didn't work, not because she wanted to, but because of this whole concept of "an emancipated woman needs to have a job" which 2nd wavers brought and third wavers still gladly embrace in a more subtle fashion. And to this day there are still many, even prominent, feminists who don't mind spouting 2nd wave nonsense.

Funny. I see this shit just about every day at work. I see how male nurses can't do all the things us female nurses do because they are men. From performing an ECG on a woman ("he just wants to see her boobs") to giving a woman a urinary catheter ("he just wants to touch her vagina") or even just talking to rape victims or domestic abuse victims ("she's too scared of men"). I see how these men have their manliness questioned by other nurses, doctors and nursing staff and how rumors go around about whatever they are gay or not and the question "Why did you become a nurse?" is an every day occurrence to them, simply because people find it so very peculiar why a man would want to be a nurse. Or how about all the times I've had to explain why I as a woman wanted to perform voluntary military service. How many times I've got the question if I really could keep up with the guys in my unit.

But why actually look at the problem when you could create a straw feminist out of it? You sill haven't addressed what I said in favor of trashing your own straw feminist, it is rather unbecoming in any form of discussion.

I may be missing the point entirely, and correct me if I am. In the cases of interaction between female patients and male nurses, is it an issue of other people making the assumptions about the male nurses? Or is it a question of female patients just feeling more comfortable with female staff? Same question applies in the case of rape victims. I wouldn't question the motivations of a man deciding to become a nurse, or think him less 'manly' for it but I would still put a patients preferances first I think, especially in the case of something as emotionally traumatic as rape.

I get what you're saying, and in the case of rape I totally agree, but don't you think a woman patient being uncomfortable around a male nurse because of the "creep" factor is as bad as women being kept out of top executive positions because "they're too emotional"? It's just a matter of people's heads being in the wrong places, for the most part.

EDIT: Actually need to clarify, since men aren't actually restricted from becoming nurses, though some women may be denied promotions because of sexist thinking. Just wanted to focus the issue more on attitudes towards that kind of thing.

Kaulen Fuhs:
I get what you're saying, and in the case of rape I totally agree, but don't you think a woman patient being uncomfortable around a male nurse because of the "creep" factor is as bad as women being kept out of top executive positions because "they're too emotional"? It's just a matter of people's heads being in the wrong places, for the most part.

EDIT: Actually need to clarify, since men aren't actually restricted from becoming nurses, though some women may be denied promotions because of sexist thinking. Just wanted to focus the issue more on attitudes towards that kind of thing.

I agree that the attitude is unfortunate, and may simply be ill informed, but I also don't see myself willing to impose on patients, male or female. It could be an issue of religion for them, or it could just be a general sense of unease. I think we should work towards making people more comfortable with the idea of a nurse of the opposite gender, but I don't really see forcing it on people as productive.

I for one would feel extremely uncomfortable with a female nurse giving me a prostate exam, just because of the embaressment factor of possibly getting an erection from prostate stimulation[1] It's not an issue of me calling her professionalism into question, nor do I see it as a sexual act, and I am very comfortable with my own body, but all the same it's a mental hurdle for me I'm not sure I would be able to get over.

[1] I have never had a prostate exam, though I am told this is something that happens.

Jux:
just because of the embarrassment factor of possibly getting an erection from prostate stimulation.

Turn that prostate exam into a prostate exam with a happy ending!

But I see your point. Forgot that other factors might come into play. Also didn't mean to suggest that such a transition should be forced, but eh, whatevs.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Jux:
just because of the embarrassment factor of possibly getting an erection from prostate stimulation.

Turn that prostate exam into a prostate exam with a happy ending!

But I see your point. Forgot that other factors might come into play. Also didn't mean to suggest that such a transition should be forced, but eh, whatevs.

The thought just struck me "Why would I be less embaressed with a male nurse in such a senario?". I suppose to some people, having a man do it would be more uncomfortable 'because its gay to have an erection from stimulation from another man'. Or so I imagine that's what people would think. But to further explain, I think it would be less uncomfortable for me because there is a shared sense of... something. I don't quite know how to explain it, except to say that as a man, it might be easier for him to empathize with my situation, since we're both men? I'll have to think about that one more. I'm getting to that age though, I suppose I need to look for a proctologist... with small hands.

And, I didn't mean to insinuate you meant to force people, that was not my intention.

Jux:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Jux:
just because of the embarrassment factor of possibly getting an erection from prostate stimulation.

Turn that prostate exam into a prostate exam with a happy ending!

But I see your point. Forgot that other factors might come into play. Also didn't mean to suggest that such a transition should be forced, but eh, whatevs.

The thought just struck me "Why would I be less embarrassed with a male nurse in such a senario?". I suppose to some people, having a man do it would be more uncomfortable 'because its gay to have an erection from stimulation from another man'. Or so I imagine that's what people would think. But to further explain, I think it would be less uncomfortable for me because there is a shared sense of... something. I don't quite know how to explain it, except to say that as a man, it might be easier for him to empathize with my situation, since we're both men?

Actually a very important point; no matter how far we progress when it comes to gender politics, I suspect men and women will always share a certain sense of camaraderie with each other that they'll never have with the opposite sex, simply because of biological differences like this. How they'll manifest, or exactly what they'll entail, is unknown, but they may just be a cultural force no matter what.

And, I didn't mean to insinuate you meant to force people, that was not my intention.

Is cool, just wanted to make sure I wasn't accidentally sending signals I didn't intend.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked