Da Feminism Thread

[Subotan]

fem·i·nism - [fem-uh-niz-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm]

noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2.( sometimes initial capital letter http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

So. A while back somebody on this here internet forum said that they not only do not consider themselves feminists, but consider it "BS" that contains "notions of racial and sexual superiority". This is pretty clearly wrong, and sadly it was offtopic in the thread it appeared, and it was tragically locked soon after. The sentiment stuck in my mind though, and given that recently discussions in the backroom have mainly been uber-manly debates about the power and strength of various long and hard gun barrels, I've decided to open this thread to balance out the tone of the threads here, and to let the backroom engage in its feminine side.

The motion:

The work of feminism and feminists in changing social attitudes, eroding gendered privilege as manifested by the Patriarchy and achieving equality between the genders is not complete.

Nice and broad (http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot), as we can see.

Some super cool links that you may wish to refer to before commenting:

Feminist FAQs (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/)

What is Privilege and how do I check it? (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146)

What about teh menz?!?!? (http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/who-cares-about-mens-rights/)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So. A while back somebody on this here internet forum said that they not only do not consider themselves feminists, but consider it "BS" that contains "notions of racial and sexual superiority". This is pretty clearly wrong, and sadly it was offtopic in the thread it appeared, and it was tragically locked soon after. The sentiment stuck in my mind though, and given that recently discussions in the backroom have mainly been uber-manly debates about the power and strength of various long and hard gun barrels, I've decided to open this thread to balance out the tone of the threads here, and to let the backroom engage in its feminine side.

The motion:

The work of feminism and feminists in changing social attitudes, eroding gendered privilege as manifested by the Patriarchy and achieving equality between the genders is not complete.

Nice and broad (http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot), as we can see.

Some super cool links that you may wish to refer to before commenting:

Feminist FAQs (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/)

What is Privilege and how do I check it? (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146)

What about teh menz?!?!? (http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/who-cares-about-mens-rights/)

I reject the concept of the "Patriarchy" as an imposition by men upon women. I reject the assertion that men and women are comparable in all fields. I also reject, out of hand, that women are of less value than men, or less inately deserving of respect.

Here's an example: Marriage

Imposed by the Patriarchy, right?

How stupid do you think this "Patriarchy" is?

Marriage is a social contract, it's not inately about love, or even about sex, it's a liscence to have children (historically), and what it actually does is find a man, who would be otherwise free to roam, to a woman and the children he sires upon her. Now, obviously there have been many periods throughout history where the political balance between the sexes has, in legal and procedural terms, favoured men but this does not make these societies simply unequal. Consider the story of Agamemnon, the king of Mycene, who defeated Priam and toppled Troy only to be murdered in his bath by his wife and her lover on his return home.

Equality of rights between the sexes is fine, but after that men will still be men and women will still be women, babies will still need their mothers and mother's milk for the first year of their life, their mother will still be laid up before and after the birth and it will still make sense for the father to become the main breadwinner, because he won't be encumbered by the pregnancy and it's aftermath, and it especially still makes sense for the woman to insist on marriage before the child is born, because otherwise the man can still slope off early and find someone else.

So, I reject the motion, there is no more useful work for feminism and feminists to do, in fact if you look at the increasing objectification of women (compare a rap video from 2000 to one in 2010) we can see that the feminist revolution has already produced a dark underswell by breaking down manners between the sexes and turning almost everything involving women in mass culture into a kind of meat market.

[Furunculus]

The motion:

The work of feminism and feminists in changing social attitudes, eroding gendered privilege as manifested by the Patriarchy and achieving equality between the genders is not complete.


agreed, insomuch as there is no perfect state that once attained needs no further calibration or corrective action.

however, this MUST always be seen through the lens of equality-of-opportunity rather than equality-of-outcome, unlike much of the junk foisted on the british population by Harriet Harmon.

yes, there is still a pay gap between men and women, particularly at higher levels, but how much of it is due to the choice of bearing children?

[Ironside]

So, I reject the motion, there is no more useful work for feminism and feminists to do, in fact if you look at the increasing objectification of women (compare a rap video from 2000 to one in 2010) we can see that the feminist revolution has already produced a dark underswell by breaking down manners between the sexes and turning almost everything involving women in mass culture into a kind of meat market.

And rap culture is coming from feminism and sexual liberation and is totally not related to a subculture that looks down on females and heavily pulling from the madonna and the whore idea. You know, that idea that was very blantant in sexually repressed Victorian England.

And about marriage, you have a point, but that tiny bit about bloodlines following the paternal line and not the maternal is quite notable.

[Beskar]

The problem with the Feminism movement is the extremists within in, what is termed, "Feminazi" popularised by Rush Limbaugh. There is also the whole "Male Apologist" sections of the feminist movement which is where the woman's husband is dragged along and has to atone for the flaws of his sex. This is due to the social constructions of such movements which appeal mostly to victims and those who feel persecuted, fostering an environment which can be more exclusive than opposed to its actual aim of being more inclusive.

This is why a great many people don't use the term "Feminism" but instead, Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")
:All people should be treated with the same dignity or be regarded as possessing the same intrinsic qualities despite our societal diversity of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability or cultural heritage.

Because there is a wide number of social issues, and there are many groups for women, LBGT, Race, Disability and so on. But these individual groups tend to attract what they cater for, as i cited in the first paragraph.

The idea of being Egalitarian and self-identifying as such is stating "There are these issues, but let's work together, whether you are a woman, whether you are hetero/homo/bi/pan/a-sexual or have a different skin tone from the majority." and people do not feel "excluded" when they firmly believe in something but instead feel "included" of trying to achieve those same exact goals of these various movements.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And rap culture is coming from feminism and sexual liberation and is totally not related to a subculture that looks down on females and heavily pulling from the madonna and the whore idea. You know, that idea that was very blantant in sexually repressed Victorian England.

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.


And about marriage, you have a point, but that tiny bit about bloodlines following the paternal line and not the maternal is quite notable.

That makes more sense economically, because the self-sufficient man can be kicked out of the house and become autonomous, but in pre-modern societies women cannot be self sufficient and mothers, they need a man to provide for their children, so in a matriarchal society you will get bigger households, potentially. More significantly, you don't know what a man is worth until he's out from under his mother's skirts, and in that sense having single men on their own in the marriage market and single women in the familial household make it easier for the woman (and her family) to judge the worth of suiters.

Marriage is primarily an ecenomic equation, like most things.

[Kagemusha]

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.



That makes more sense economically, because the self-sufficient man can be kicked out of the house and become autonomous, but in pre-modern societies women cannot be self sufficient and mothers, they need a man to provide for their children, so in a matriarchal society you will get bigger households, potentially. More significantly, you don't know what a man is worth until he's out from under his mother's skirts, and in that sense having single men on their own in the marriage market and single women in the familial household make it easier for the woman (and her family) to judge the worth of suiters.

Marriage is primarily an ecenomic equation, like most things.

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal. Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

[Subotan]

I reject the concept of the "Patriarchy" as an imposition by men upon women. I reject the assertion that men and women are comparable in all fields. I also reject, out of hand, that women are of less value than men, or less inately deserving of respect.

Here's an example: Marriage

Imposed by the Patriarchy, right?

How stupid do you think this "Patriarchy" is?

The economics of marriage vary from country to country and I'm sure we could each find a counter-example to whatever point the other of us brings up. One example of how women continue to feel much more pressure than men to marry is that women who fail to marry are always derided as spinsters, whereas men are (often - not always, but certainly frequently enough for this to be a thing) considered bachelors if they never marry.


agreed, insomuch as there is no perfect state that once attained needs no further calibration or corrective action.

however, this MUST always be seen through the lens of equality-of-opportunity rather than equality-of-outcome, unlike much of the junk foisted on the british population by Harriet Harmon.

yes, there is still a pay gap between men and women, particularly at higher levels, but how much of it is due to the choice of bearing children?
The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?


The problem with the Feminism movement is the extremists within in, what is termed, "Feminazi" popularised by Rush Limbaugh.
You mean Radical Feminists? Eh, RadFems really aren't representative of the wider feminist movement, especially more recently. They were important back in the 1960s-70s for simply existing, and showing that it was possible for women to challenge the men/patriarchy in such a radical manner, but I lump them in with Trotskyites as slightly nutty idealists.


There is also the whole "Male Apologist" sections of the feminist movement which is where the woman's husband is dragged along and has to atone for the flaws of his sex.
..?


This is due to the social constructions of such movements which appeal mostly to victims and those who feel persecuted, fostering an environment which can be more exclusive than opposed to its actual aim of being more inclusive.
That depends how you define inclusivity really. Would you say that socialist or anarchist groups are social movements which appeal mostly to victims and those who feel persecuted, for not allowing anti-socialists and anti-anarchists into their ranks?

[Subotan]

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal.?
Pretty much all modern ones are.


Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

Even if we agree that more sexualisation of public life is a good thing, there's a degree of comodification with women's sexuality and women's bodies that simply isn't present with men. Furthermore, although it would be possible for her dancing to be empowering, she would need an empowered reputation to be able to do so credibly - e.g. by having empowering lyrics, making pro-women comments in the media, donating to women's movement organisations such as domestic abuse shelters etc. She doesn't do any of this, and the result is that both female sexuality and the strength of female empowerment are packaged and sold for corporate profits.

[Kagemusha]

Pretty much all modern ones are.

Never argued against that or did i?


Even if we agree that more sexualisation of public life is a good thing, there's a degree of comodification with women's sexuality and women's bodies that simply isn't present with men. Furthermore, although it would be possible for her dancing to be empowering, she would need an empowered reputation to be able to do so credibly - e.g. by having empowering lyrics, making pro-women comments in the media, donating to women's movement organisations such as domestic abuse shelters etc. She doesn't do any of this, and the result is that both female sexuality and the strength of female empowerment are packaged and sold for corporate profits.

Never claimed Rihanna as feminist either.Was just asking about if active promotion of female sexuality would be an intimidating issue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You forget that not all cultures have been patriarchal. Also what is so terrible about Rihanna? Does sexuality get scary when women bring it out actively rather then staying as passive targets of active male sexuality?

I don't consider it appropriate for her to be clad only in silver bodypaint on T4 at 10 am in the morning. More to the point, she basically just sells sex - her songs and her outfits are titilating, but they aren't much more than that. Umbrella was an exception, which is part of why it put a rocket on her popularity, but the video doesn't fit the baledic message of the song at all, it's just a scantily clad woman being scantily clad. Frankly, burlesque can be more demure.

So we have a young artist who sells herself on her sex appeal, and young women copy her, when she actually appears capable of producing a meaningful record.


The economics of marriage vary from country to country and I'm sure we could each find a counter-example to whatever point the other of us brings up. One example of how women continue to feel much more pressure than men to marry is that women who fail to marry are always derided as spinsters, whereas men are (often - not always, but certainly frequently enough for this to be a thing) considered bachelors if they never marry.

An interesting point, "bachelor" is not exactly a good state to be in at fifty though, a point in favour of paternal lineage actually - die a bachelor and your name dies with you. Personally, I think any man should find that thought disgraceful, especially if he is an only son like me.


The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

[Viking]

The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

Instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the conditions for individuality, feminism tries to reinvent the world in which there exists some sort of vicious conspiracy that aims to humiliate and control some sort of 'womankind'. It's a conspiracy theory light that asks its brave knights to charge against an invisible and non-existant enemy entity ('patriarchy', or whatever; put a name on the dragon).

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

[Papewaio]

Having the same root word does not make the derived words equivalent otherwise female would be male.

Feminism =/= feminine on a 1:1 relationship. Plenty of butch feminists.

Also the feminists of the 1960s and 70s are not the first. They are well and truly standing on the shoulders of the women workers of WW II who are predated by victorian suffragettes.

=][=

I believe in equal opportunity for all. I don't believe that all will get equal pay as there is often trade offs for work packages that aren't given a dollar sign. However equal quality and output should warran equal pay per unit of time

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty much all modern ones are.

Only by Feminist definitions, those terrible mysoginistic northern miners (steryotype) give all their pay at the end of the week to their wives.

The fact is, if you actually look at very "Patriarchal" cultures, historically, men did a good job of dominating the public sphere but they did an exceedingly poor job of dominating their private relationships with women. Empress Matilda might never have been crowned queen of England but she made life jolly difficult for Stephen and her son did take the throne.


Even if we agree that more sexualisation of public life is a good thing, there's a degree of comodification with women's sexuality and women's bodies that simply isn't present with men. Furthermore, although it would be possible for her dancing to be empowering, she would need an empowered reputation to be able to do so credibly - e.g. by having empowering lyrics, making pro-women comments in the media, donating to women's movement organisations such as domestic abuse shelters etc. She doesn't do any of this, and the result is that both female sexuality and the strength of female empowerment are packaged and sold for corporate profits.

More sexualisation of public life is not a good thing. Sex is a commodity, it is bought and sold. Allowing the sexualisation of public life gives wealth, and therefore power, to the sexy. As absurd a statement as that is, Rhianna has made a fortune out of her measurements, not her voice. Her popularity is based on the fact that most young men want her, and that makes young women want to be her.

[Ironside]

Did I say rap music was related to feminism? Take another swing, you might connect.

Rhianna is an atrocious ambassador for women, but her videos get played on Saturday morning shows. THAT tells you something about how permissive the sexualisation of women has become. As to the "Madonna, whore", you missed one "virgin". So great, women used to have three prejudicial states to be classified as now they have two, and "whore" isn't the one that got dropped.


Let see now, you reject that feminists has anything more to do nowadays and I'm going to guess that the rap music video connection is about the sexual liberation for woman. You don't supose a modern feminist might be interested in working against that rap culture? Equality is about more than more sex you know.

Missed with the majuscules. I was talking about the Madonna, you know virgin Mary? It's only two states. And even the Madonna is also problematic for equality viewpoint, since it's assumes that the woman is the lesser gender that you need to protect. Compare to children. Caring for them? Sure. Seeing as equals? No.

And about the Patriarchy. You consider female sexual liberation to be a problem, due to increased objectification. You are noticing the still ongoing strong link of woman value related to sex correct? Both from you and those you oppose (on the objectification matter, I understand that you greatly oppose it). Ergo that old thing are still alive and kicking.


Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.

But in most countries, it's still biased a lot towards the man still working while the female stays home. By the legal system.

I don't remember if this was approved or not, but it's interesting to notice that the compulsary mother only 6 weeks are an improvement from the former EU laws in general. Gender equality indeed.
This Proposal aims at improving the protection and rights of pregnant women, women who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding, in order to better protect the interests of mothers and their children.

Maternity leave is extended from 14 to 18 weeks. This corresponds to 12 non-compulsory weeks that women can choose to take before or after confinement and six compulsory weeks after confinement. If the actual date of confinement differs from the presumed date, the period of leave before the birth could be extended without having an effect on the post-natal period. Moreover, additional leave may be granted in the event of premature childbirth, children hospitalised at birth, the birth of children with disabilities and multiple births.

The Proposal should also improve protection for working women and incite them to return to work after giving birth. Thus, during their maternity leave, they should receive a payment that is equal to their full salary. Member States may also however cap the allowance at the same level as for sick leave. In addition, women will have more leeway to choose the time at which they take the non-compulsory part of their leave (before or after birth). They will no longer be obliged to take a specific part of their leave before the birth, which is currently the case in some Member States



The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

Instead of focusing on the real issue, which is the conditions for individuality, feminism tries to reinvent the world in which there exists some sort of vicious conspiracy that aims to humiliate and control some sort of 'womankind'. It's a conspiracy theory light that asks its brave knights to charge against an invisible and non-existant enemy entity ('patriarchy', or whatever; put a name on the dragon).

Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.

The problem with going for individualism is focus. It's like peace in the world.

Sure,they are related, but to simply say that all should reach equality and then do nothing because the matter is too large is ineffective.

About patriachry and gender issue. Sure, at some points it becomes silly since it's a blurry concept, but sometimes it's even obvious for a 4 year old. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3mTTIoB_oc)

TBH, the endgame for a race/gender/etc issue, is exactly that it should only give a meh I don't care when it's coming up. Problem is getting there, instead of giving up halfway because you're aren't that much on the recieving end of it, so you don't notice it unless you think about it.


Only by Feminist definitions, those terrible mysoginistic northern miners (steryotype) give all their pay at the end of the week to their wives.

The fact is, if you actually look at very "Patriarchal" cultures, historically, men did a good job of dominating the public sphere but they did an exceedingly poor job of dominating their private relationships with women. Empress Matilda might never have been crowned queen of England but she made life jolly difficult for Stephen and her son did take the throne.

Those bloody Jewish bankers and lawyers. It's obvious that they are the masterminds.

Or more on the point instead of vague references. If it's almost impossible to have domination in the public sphere, some massive channeling on the private sphere occurs amoung ambitious people.
Edit: The evil mother-in-law comes from this powerstruggle btw.

[Beskar]

..?

I suspose you haven't come across that stereotype construct. I have seen a couple of them, it makes you want to facepalm. There is equal rights then there is being completely whipped by your partner. They are basically males who only attend because their partner forces them, usually looking sulky or upset, clearly not "for the cause" but simply sprouting what their wife/girlfriend says in their ear.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let see now, you reject that feminists has anything more to do nowadays and I'm going to guess that the rap music video connection is about the sexual liberation for woman. You don't supose a modern feminist might be interested in working against that rap culture? Equality is about more than more sex you know.

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.


Missed with the majuscules. I was talking about the Madonna, you know virgin Mary? It's only two states. And even the Madonna is also problematic for equality viewpoint, since it's assumes that the woman is the lesser gender that you need to protect. Compare to children. Caring for them? Sure. Seeing as equals? No.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death. That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly"

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he? For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist. The really worrying thing is this has seeped into mainstream culture, the Guardian did a thing last year where it compared the statements about women from lad's mags and convicted rapists. Guess what?

Most people had trouble telling them apart.


And about the Patriarchy. You consider female sexual liberation to be a problem, due to increased objectification. You are noticing the still ongoing strong link of woman value related to sex correct? Both from you and those you oppose (on the objectification matter, I understand that you greatly oppose it). Ergo that old thing are still alive and kicking.

Sex is probably cheaper now than at most periods throughout history, the sexual revolution has allowed the sexually astute to dominate everything from sex itself to the media. Yes, the meat market is a historical blight, not a new invention. The point is - things are getting worse, not better, and Feminism needs to carry some of the responsibility. News flash girls, giving a man an erection does not empower you in any way, and taking your clothes off does not make you sexier. The sexiest women I know, who is also a feminist, is sexy because of what she doesn't show, do, or say - not what she does. She's also sexy because she's smart, witty and self confident.


But in most countries, it's still biased a lot towards the man still working while the female stays home. By the legal system.

That's not something you can fix - you shouldn't get a free pass if you take time off work, be it to have children or go hiking in Borneo. It's not your employer's responsibility to look after you, beyond the conditions you work in.

I can't remember what maternity leave is here, I think it's more generous than that.


Those bloody Jewish bankers and lawyers. It's obvious that they are the masterminds.

Or more on the point instead of vague references. If it's almost impossible to have domination in the public sphere, some massive channeling on the private sphere occurs amoung ambitious people.
Edit: The evil mother-in-law comes from this powerstruggle btw.

the point is, their wives let them - and often still do. Most men with big ambitions need someone to share them with in order to grab ahold of them.

[ajaxfetish]

Having the same root word does not make the derived words equivalent otherwise female would be male.

I agree with the point being made (that the same root can wind up in words with significantly different meanings), but have to take issue with the example. Female and male do not share a root. In fact, female comes from French femelle (used to indicate female animals and ultimately derived from Latin femina). It was only after it ended up used in opposition to male that the pronunciation and spelling changed, with the notion that their semantic relationship must imply an etymological one as well.

/language nerd

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

In most case, it does. If you go for a job, it's highly unlikely that the will offer you a different salary based on your gender. What more often seems to happen is that men negotiate for higher pay, while women negotiate for better terms. The assumption that pay between women should be equal at the end of the day is falacious, because they are usually starting from the same point. It's a case of one size not fitting all.

[Papewaio]

I agree with the point being made (that the same root can wind up in words with significantly different meanings), but have to take issue with the example. Female and male do not share a root. In fact, female comes from French femelle (used to indicate female animals and ultimately derived from Latin femina). It was only after it ended up used in opposition to male that the pronunciation and spelling changed, with the notion that their semantic relationship must imply an etymological one as well.

/language nerd


Learn something new everyday! Cheers

BTW root has a double meaning :)

[Subotan]

Practically speaking, only women do have to make that choice. Men can choose to be stay-home dads, but all things being equal it doesn't really make economic sense. Two interupted careers mean even more lost income than one, more lost opertunities for advancement, etc. This is even more true of a woman who returns to work, and then has more children - a friend of mine took a year off before her baby was born, her employer had to replace her and when that replacement's contract comes up they will have to make an effort to find them a job too. From a hardheaded business perspective women who have children are an inconvenience if not an actual liability.

At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources.
Is that really the case? Surely it's preferable and more economically efficient to create a work environment where women don't feel as if they will have to drop out of their careers halfway through to raise kids at the get-go?


Feminism is self-defeating because it battles individualism by splitting the humans into two camps, femmes and hommes (an inevitable consequense of a monotonous focus on gender). This while the very core of the problem is that females (as males) may be judged by gender rather than individual capacities.
This isn't true - if it were, then the gender binary wouldn't exist were it not for feminism. Feminists recognise the differences society places upon each gender and seeks to correct them.


I suspose you haven't come across that stereotype construct. I have seen a couple of them, it makes you want to facepalm. There is equal rights then there is being completely whipped by your partner. They are basically males who only attend because their partner forces them, usually looking sulky or upset, clearly not "for the cause" but simply sprouting what their wife/girlfriend says in their ear.
Do you think that that's representative of all male feminists?


Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.
Feminism does not advocate the comodification of female sexuality, nor the dismantling of "social prudishness", for lack of a better word. Feminism only seeks to see female sexuality treated as seriously as male sexuality.


Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death.
Why do you assume that it has to be a man who saves the rape survivor from her rapist?


That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly"
Of course it is. I think there's something very innate to being a man in the act of protecting somebody close to you from harm.


One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?
Define "protection". Why are men less able to do it today than before feminism?



For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist.
lolwut this is completely wrong.



I definitely support egalitarianism and I'm not afraid of the label feminist, though I find militant feminism distasteful and off-putting (as do most folks, I suspect). I think the pay gap is the most significant challenge to be overcome at the moment. The same labor should receive the same compensation, and gender alone is not enough to justify lesser pay.

Ajax

Sure, militant feminism is essentially radical feminism. It's something I find counterproductive more than anything.


BTW root has a double meaning :)
You Australians :P

[CountArach]

The sentiment stuck in my mind though, and given that recently discussions in the backroom have mainly been uber-manly debates about the power and strength of various long and hard gun barrels, I've decided to open this thread to balance out the tone of the threads here, and to let the backroom engage in its feminine side.
As an ardent feminist this is a sentence that I have a real trouble with. The mere fact that we can easily categorise some topics of debate as male and some as female is at the discursive base of the problem. Until all pressure to be 'feminine' or 'masculine' or to define things as such is removed from language through a natural process of linguistic evolution then I believe the prospects for true gender equality are bleak.

In the USA, at least, the real prejudicial divisions are Rich vs. Poor and not Men vs. Women or Whites vs. Blacks vs. Whatever.
This is another problem with the discourse surrounding feminism (and indeed race, sexuality, etc). The fact that so many people consider it to be men against women. That does not play into it at all. Rather, feminism is about a group of people who have a greater deal of linguistic pressure placed upon them to fit into engendered stereotypes attempting to break free of this pressure and to thus have a true equality of opportunity and will.

As for the argument that feminism in the West is pointless now, there are still huge areas in which feminists have a lot of work still to do. One such example is marital rape (http://rapeinfo.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/marital-rape/):

While all 50 U.S. states have laws against marital rape, 33 of the states consider marital rape a lesser crime than other types of rape–typically they charge the attacker with spousal abuse or battery instead of rape.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the USA, at least, the real prejudicial divisions are Rich vs. Poor

:thumbsup:

[Syl]

I consider myself a feminist. I think some people get a bit caught up on the sound of the terminology, that feminism is somehow emasculating or anti-men, when it's not. Tiaexz defined the term Egalitarianism, as it encompasses feminist issues among others. I consider myself an egalitarian as well, but as most of the principles and spirit of the two are the same I use them interchangeably, and don't particularly stress out on the distinction.

Where feminism addresses patriarchy is in regards to a system of society and not on men itself. If someone is declaring all men evil and on and on, then it's not feminism. Subotan already addressed the issue about extremists, and as in any group, are off base with the majority of the group or its principles.


I reject the concept of the "Patriarchy" as an imposition by men upon women.
I think some men hear about the term patriarchy and feel that it's being portrayed as some conscious malicious force that men are actively enforcing to keep women down out of some inherent hatred, and they don't see that connection in themselves or the other good men around them, so it doesn't resonate. Again, the focus on feminism on patriarchy isn't on men as a generic archetype or directly at an individual level, but the way that society has evolved that structurally puts women at a disadvantage contrasted to men.

After saying all that however, the system was, and in many places still is, actively imposed by men on women. One quick but prominent example: the Abrahamic religions all have doctrine that establishes the place of women beneath men. The New Testament in Christianity forbids women from teaching or holding any authority over a man. Women are prohibited in scripture from speaking in church, and had to ask their husband any questions they had privately. In most ancient societies the church was a place of significant political power, so having no voice there was more limiting then that might let on. Those are some examples of major things that impacts a womans life when they're imposed.

This isn't a thread on religion so I'll cut that off there, but my point with that is it's one tangent that has shaped a great deal of the world in terms of the rights of women. Things are very different in much of the world today, but a lot of its notions have lingered much longer, like that a man is the ruler of the house hold, and that a woman's place is in the home, the stigma on a woman's display of sexuality, etc. Here in the United States women weren't allowed by constitutional amendment to vote until 1919. If much of the worlds society impacted by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were based around a much more egalitarian code, how much sooner might that day have arrived?

I'm not saying that religion alone is to blame however, but there has been a very real act of the suppression of womens rights that continues to be active in much of the world today and still has much of its influence. Those things were enforced, and by men.


Consider the story of Agamemnon, the king of Mycene, who defeated Priam and toppled Troy only to be murdered in his bath by his wife and her lover on his return home.

I don't really see this as much of an argument in regards to equality here. Impact on history? Absolutely. But murder tends to have a big effect on changing its course, and people tend to be more susceptible when it's from someone they trust.


At the end of the day, the traditional home/work gender division makes the best use of limited resources. .

Biologically, maybe, but we live in a world where intellectual contribution is just as important. Limiting women to purely domestic issues cuts the talent pool of 50% of our population in an area where it may not be best suited. There are many brilliant women in medicine and science for example whose skill set and talents lend them to that field and have greatly contributed to society. You don't have to go far back in history to a point where that was almost universally scoffed at.


The problem with feminism, as with any ideology, is that it causes its followers to view the world through a pair of goggles. Feminism happens also to be a very narrow ideology, such that the vision becomes very narrow. The hole world and all its moments centre on your gender.

That depends on the ideology itself. I'd argue that feminism expands your horizons far more than it could ever close them. Also, most people who are feminists aren't JUST feminists. They have other beliefs and convictions, usually step for step with egalitarianism
.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?.

I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.

[Furunculus]

The way you phrase this implies is that it is only women have to make a choice between having children and having a career - do you think it would be better if the choice was more often applicable to both genders i.e. that we had more stay-at-home and part-time dads?

I am fine with the idea of stay-at-home dads, it is a valid choice they are free to make, but i imagine it would have an impact on their careers just as it does with mothers.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Does discrimination still happen? You bet. Is it rampant? Uh, not any more than anything else. The Law says that it is fair and things are equal. What the hell more do you want? More public service announcements? A women's rights campaign billboard every hundred feet? Affirmative Action? Monetary Compensation? And what would the result of all that be, compared to the money it would cost and the attention it would divert?

Honestly, it just makes me mad. This is a dead horse in America, but people just don't know when to move on.

Pretty much spot on. I don't understand where the systematic oppression of women still comes into play in modern (past 25 years) Western, increasingly secular (and increasingly anti-religious) societies. America as a more conservative nation overall, still has Democrats and Republicans not thinking twice about putting women in positions of power, like Hillary or Palin. In California, Meg Whitman was the Republican contender for Governor and was a very strong candidate until she performed badly in the debates. Hillary herself made some sort of statement in her concession speech to Obama, something like, if we haven't broken the glass ceiling yet, we sure put over 1 million cracks in it.

Now I am not one to pull out the ole' "we have better things to talk about." because that tired argument leads to stupid things like defunding NASA (we got so many problems down here, blah, blah, blah). But nevertheless it is undeniable that the roles of women and minorities have greatly improved in the past 35 years and continue to improve as we see more and more representation from them in major positions of power in our society. Hell we had a woman as a top contender for the national GOP candidacy race (representing the evangelicals no less) until she quit yesterday.

EDIT: Didn't want to quote all of GC's stuff.

[Ironside]

Feminists threw out the social baby with the bath water, and now they reap the sexual whirlwind. I am extremely sceptical of the proposition that the cure is more feminism, I would suggest something different, and not regression either.

You are aware that the feminist movement have a lot of different issues? Feminists =/= female sexual liberation.


Oh, yes, I see. Sorry. Although I do stand by my point that men *tend* to relate to women in three ways, you might say "mother, sister, concubine" if you were being delicate. As regards the Classical virgin, women do need protection, from men. I'm sorry, but the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman, and I doubt any women will demand equality while a man is trying to rape her, she'll be grateful for the other man that dragged him off and beat him half to death. That's not to say that women should be reliant on men for protection, quite the opposite, women should encourage men to think protecting women as "manly" because this means assaulting them is "unmanly".

The madonna, whore dichotomy is more about the virtious woman (to put on a pedistal) and the slut (who has fallen due to sex).

Or maybe it should just be cruel to assult people, in particular those who are weaker than yourself. You know stop linking gender roles into how to treat the other gender and instead treating them more like another person. As in being cruel is unmanly, instead of being cruel to women is unmanly.


One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he? For some men the answer to this frustrating question is to become and angry rapist. The really worrying thing is this has seeped into mainstream culture, the Guardian did a thing last year where it compared the statements about women from lad's mags and convicted rapists. Guess what?

Most people had trouble telling them apart.


That's only about a 200 year old problem. And if anything, removing the traditional gender roles means that the man is not a failure even if he got no woman (the biological imperative will always be there, but the soceital judgement should disappear).
And the frustrated guy who becomes a rapist? In older times, he was married. Solved the rape issue nicely, since you couldn't rape your wife. They were never good men.



Sex is probably cheaper now than at most periods throughout history, the sexual revolution has allowed the sexually astute to dominate everything from sex itself to the media. Yes, the meat market is a historical blight, not a new invention. The point is - things are getting worse, not better, and Feminism needs to carry some of the responsibility. News flash girls, giving a man an erection does not empower you in any way, and taking your clothes off does not make you sexier. The sexiest women I know, who is also a feminist, is sexy because of what she doesn't show, do, or say - not what she does. She's also sexy because she's smart, witty and self confident.


So your feminist friend is contradicting your own opinion on what feminists do? And are you telling that feminists should take their responsibillity by disbanding?


That's not something you can fix - you shouldn't get a free pass if you take time off work, be it to have children or go hiking in Borneo. It's not your employer's responsibility to look after you, beyond the conditions you work in.

I can't remember what maternity leave is here, I think it's more generous than that.

You can adapt for it though. Being pregnant is something quite natural and wanted also from a societal viewpoint after all. The dad can get 87,5% (same as the mother) of the parental leave here.


the point is, their wives let them - and often still do. Most men with big ambitions need someone to share them with in order to grab ahold of them.

The difference today is that it's their choise instead of forced upon them. That's quite a difference.


Feminist activism is important in places where women actually ARE being mistreated.

In the USA, however, we need to get past sensationalist stories of prejudice because its just not true at this point. Isolated examples exist, but that's just part of being human. I've been treated with contempt for being white and for being male, but only once or twice--you don't see me starting a white power movement or a male power movement do you? It's silly and overdone. We are past this. Its just destructive and a cause for distraction.


The US is reeking of benevolent sexism (the madonna on a pedistal). While much friendlier than it's cousin hostile sexism (the slut, bitch), they come in pair.

Sure the rich vs poor is a larger issue, but sexism is still a problem that has consequences.


And yet there has been little no work at all done on the front of false accusations? We'll never know the real numbers, but who honestly doesn't believe that a significant number of men wind up screwed for life because of women who don't mind telling a convincing lie?

Rape is awful. Marital rape is also awful. Sending innocent men to jail is awful too, and the more steam feminists pick up the more they try to demonize men that really are just trying not to offend anybody.

Compared to the total number of rapes? Very small.

Edit:
The stay at home mothers? Oh dear. Sure it's fine if that's what they want, but it's an idea that needs the idea of the perfect husband (no divorse) that supports the mother.
To gender reverse it. A male that stays home taking care of the children and gets supported by his wife, are what on an ideal family scale?
Also compare to self sufficient individualism, that no one should need to be dependant on another.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Man, I would love to be a stay at home dad if my wife was making the big bucks. I could read books and play video games while my young kids slept and work on developing a podcast when they got old enough to go to school.

[Andres]

Man, I would love to be a stay at home dad if my wife was making the big bucks.

Me too.

I'd love to be at home everyday to take care of my son. As he grows older, he'll get smarter and I'll be able to play games on the PC or a console with him all day long. And when he's at school, I can do the groceries on a week day, relaxed, instead of on a hectic Saturday afternoon. Cleaning only needs to be done once a week and the house is not that big. I like cooking, so having to cook every day would simply mean more opportunity and time for one of my hobbies. Laundry is done by machines and ironing can be done in front of the TV or while listening to music, so that's not too bad either.

Mind you though, being at home with a kid is more work and much more tiring then you might expect, but still, I think it would be great. Much more freedom to plan and organise your life.


More on topic: I agree with the sentiments some other posters expressed above: the legal framework is there. Here in the west, to the law, men and women are already equal (perhaps there are some left overs here and there in some forgotten legislation that still have to be removed, but that probably has a less than marginal impact on the day to day life). If there's discrimination against you because of your sex, you can go to a court of law and have your rights enforced.

There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.

Throwing a stone in the water: the existence of feminist movements in modern Western societies is an insult to women, as it implies that women are not strong enough to come up for themselves; as if women are too weak to demand for their rights to be respected.

[CountArach]

Like someone said above, Feminism is one of the worst activist causes when it comes to getting people over-riled. In America (and I suspect most of Europe) this is not a god-damned problem. It detracts from the very real issues at hand (like, oh, I dunno--the imminent collapse of the global economy, and the likely very short window of time we have left to do anything about it?) by polarizing people against eachother, who might otherwise work together on bigger and more important issues.
Point me to one polarising statement from a feminist in this thread and I will point you to several from those who oppose it. Further, why can't we discuss multiple things at once? Surely we as a society are at the point where we can hold several conversations?

Pretty much spot on. I don't understand where the systematic oppression of women still comes into play in modern (past 25 years) Western, increasingly secular (and increasingly anti-religious) societies. America as a more conservative nation overall, still has Democrats and Republicans not thinking twice about putting women in positions of power, like Hillary or Palin. In California, Meg Whitman was the Republican contender for Governor and was a very strong candidate until she performed badly in the debates. Hillary herself made some sort of statement in her concession speech to Obama, something like, if we haven't broken the glass ceiling yet, we sure put over 1 million cracks in it.
A greater presence of women in public situations is great, yes. However, that is only one aspect of the entire discussion. The majority of the time they only discuss "women's" issues, whilst there is an entire female consituency that is considered somehow different to the rest of society and can be pandered to as an "interest group". And yet men aren't? That strikes me as a thoroughly gendered society where people are expected to care about one thing or another because of a characteristic that they possess at birth.

There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.
What about discursive situations that can't be solved by law?

Being a male accused of sexual harrassment or sexual assault is like being a 1940s Black Man in front of an all-white Alabama jury--anything but fair.
Far from it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/13/rape-convictions-low):

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction on the charge of rape. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial.
[...]
Victims were found to experience delays, "unpleasant environments", inappropriate behaviour by professionals, insensitive questioning during interviews and "judgmental or disbelieving attitudes" when coming forward with complaints of rape.

As a result, between half and two-thirds of rape cases did not proceed beyond the investigation stage. The majority of victims decide to withdraw their complaints, while high levels of rape complaints are essentially ignored, with reports pointing to scepticism on the part of the police and "the view that the victim lacks credibility".
The highlighted section is what I'm talking about in terms of the discursive need for feminism - there is just a general unwillingness to believe victims of rape.

Rape is awful. Marital rape is also awful. Sending innocent men to jail is awful too, and the more steam feminists pick up the more they try to demonize men that really are just trying not to offend anybody.
The same argument can be used for literally any crime.

[Andres]

What about discursive situations that can't be solved by law?

I'm not sure if the meaning of the word "discursive" is the same as the Dutch "discursief" and I don't seem to be able to find a translation of it on the web, so if you could explain the meaning of it to this non native speaker, I'd be very much obliged :bow:



The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all.

If those rapes are not reported, then how do we even know they happened? I'm going to be very blunt here: rape is a terrible crime so it seems like a no-brainer to me that anyone who becomes victim of it, reports it. Those who claim that they have been raped, but never reported it, probably weren't raped at all. I simply have a very, very hard time believing that women who are being raped, just let it happen without reporting it. Seems to me like a made-up story to justify the existence of feminist movements and to raise funds for them.


Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction on the charge of rape. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial.

And what does that prove? Might as well interprete those figures as evidence that many men are falsely accused of rape. Allthough most of those men are found innocent at the end of the ride, they'll be stigmatised in the community they live in for the rest of their lives. Maybe they even lost their job and/or the right to see their children while the investigation was still ongoing. Maybe the outrage should be aimed more at those who ruin other peoples' lives by falsely accusing them...


Victims were found to experience delays, "unpleasant environments", inappropriate behaviour by professionals, insensitive questioning during interviews and "judgmental or disbelieving attitudes" when coming forward with complaints of rape.

So, the figures above say that most people pressing charges of rape lose their cases. Ask 100 random people who just lost a case in a court of law. Most will be negative about the judge, those who handled their case, the experts, etc etc, because, well, most people are sour losers.

Also, the figures you mentioned above can also prove that most accusations of rape are false. How many of these false accusations were made with an agenda, let's say, while a divorce case was simultaneously running.


As a result, between half and two-thirds of rape cases did not proceed beyond the investigation stage.

Perhaps because most investigations show in an early stage already that there simply was no rape?


The majority of victims decide to withdraw their complaints, while high levels of rape complaints are essentially ignored, with reports pointing to scepticism on the part of the police and "the view that the victim lacks credibility".

Accusations of rape are very serious accusations. Look at your own figures. They may as well prove that most accusations of rape are false. I do think that all accusations should be taken very seriously, but can you really blame overworked policemen for being sceptical, given the fact that most accusations that make it into court, appear to have been false?


The highlighted section is what I'm talking about in terms of the discursive need for feminism - there is just a general unwillingness to believe victims of rape.

OR, there is a disturbingly high number of false accusations. Why do you automatically assume that your conclusion is the only possible right one?

Your example proves nothing :shrug:

[Fragony]

What feminists don't understand is that nobody likes ugly lesbians.

[Subotan]

Feminist activism is important in places where women actually ARE being mistreated.
The work Western feminists can do in providing help to feminists in developing countries is really quite limited, for all sorts of reasons.


In the USA, at least, the real prejudicial divisions are Rich vs. Poor and not Men vs. Women or Whites vs. Blacks vs. Whatever.
There is a word used to describe the overall system of systems of oppression that overlap: kyriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy). Being poor and white means you get all kinds of bad things, including lower life expectancy, worse education, less social mobility etc. but being, say, poor and black means you get all of those things and more. Social privilege is multi-faceted, and it is by means possible for you to be privileged in one area and very disadvantaged in another.


Sensationalism to keep the cause alive long after it has served its usefulness is not, and I believe most Americans who claim to be the victims ofwide-spread prejudice at this point are really just lazy good-for-nothings, regardless of race or gender
Some interesting statistics:

80% of white people in 1960 in America believed that racism was not a problem in their community
90% thought that white and black children got the same standard of education

Now, in hindsight, that's obviously wrong. But it's symptomatic of a much longer trend of white people, not necessarily intentionally or maliciously, completely misjudging just how rubbish it has always been to be non-white in the United States. In light of this, I would be very cautious about similar statements to the one I quoted.


As an ardent feminist this is a sentence that I have a real trouble with. The mere fact that we can easily categorise some topics of debate as male and some as female is at the discursive base of the problem. Until all pressure to be 'feminine' or 'masculine' or to define things as such is removed from language through a natural process of linguistic evolution then I believe the prospects for true gender equality are bleak.
Sure, and I didn't want to imply that somehow some topics are reserved for men and others are for women. The comment was a facetious criticism of the current content of the backroom and the lack of discussion about feminist issues. Sorry if I messed up.


This is another problem with the discourse surrounding feminism (and indeed race, sexuality, etc). The fact that so many people consider it to be men against women. That does not play into it at all. Rather, feminism is about a group of people who have a greater deal of linguistic pressure placed upon them to fit into engendered stereotypes attempting to break free of this pressure and to thus have a true equality of opportunity and will.

As for the argument that feminism in the West is pointless now, there are still huge areas in which feminists have a lot of work still to do. One such example is marital rape (http://rapeinfo.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/marital-rape/):

Completely agree.


I consider myself a feminist. I think some people get a bit caught up on the sound of the terminology, that feminism is somehow emasculating or anti-men, when it's not. Tiaexz defined the term Egalitarianism, as it encompasses feminist issues among others. I consider myself an egalitarian as well, but as most of the principles and spirit of the two are the same I use them interchangeably, and don't particularly stress out on the distinction.
As a man, it doesn't even occur to me that when I use the term "feminist" self-descriptively that it could mean anything to me but the equivalent of egalitarianism. That said, I refuse to describe myself as an egalitarian, as I feel that using a qualifier to describe myself to people who wouldn't describe themselves as feminists could cause them to think "Hey, if Subotan is an egalitarian feminist, does that mean that all the feminists who don't explicitly call themselves egalitarian are crazy?" By showing to other men that men can be feminists, despite being male and sane, is probably one of the few unique contributions men can contribute to feminism.


I am fine with the idea of stay-at-home dads, it is a valid choice they are free to make, but i imagine it would have an impact on their careers just as it does with mothers.


Why does anyone care? Some women want to be stay at home moms, some don't. Some men want to be stay at home dads, believe it or not.
I don't really like using cartoons instead of actually writing, but this image (https://i.imgur.com/LTB1I.png)presents my problems with that statement pretty succinctly.


And you say that it doesn't compare to the number of rapes, but how do you know? Being a male accused of sexual harrassment or sexual assault is like being a 1940s Black Man in front of an all-white Alabama jury--anything but fair.
A black person in the scenario you described would likely end up dead. Most rapists aren't even charged, let alone convicted.


There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.

That's nice in theory, but implementation of the law can be a huge challenge. It took years and multiple rulings by the Supreme Court and federal government intervention to desegregate schools in the aftermath of Brown vs. The Board.


Throwing a stone in the water: the existence of feminist movements in modern Western societies is an insult to women, as it implies that women are not strong enough to come up for themselves; as if women are too weak to demand for their rights to be respected.
That seems rather backwards. Why does women standing up for their rights imply that women are not strong enough to demand their own rights?


This idiotic fuzzy line between consensual and non-consensual is directly working against that
How do you define rape if not by consent?


I'm not ever going to say that rape should go on, or be justified, but there are an awful lot of women out there that need to learn the difference between feeling guilty about a fling and being raped.
This is straying really close to victim blaming.


Accusations like that ruin careers, destroy families, and in some cases get you put on a list.
If a rapist rapes somebody, then he/she should face the consequences of their decision.


Allowing false accusations to go on only cheapens the ability to punish real rapists.
Nobody is "pro-false rape accusation", or wants them to continue. But the injustice caused by under-convictions of rapists is much greater than any caused by conviction of innocent men and women for rape.


If those rapes are not reported, then how do we even know they happened? I'm going to be very blunt here: rape is a terrible crime so it seems like a no-brainer to me that anyone who becomes victim of it, reports it. Those who claim that they have been raped, but never reported it, probably weren't raped at all. I simply have a very, very hard time believing that women who are being raped, just let it happen without reporting it.
If you talk to rape victims/survivors, most will tell you that a huge part of the trauma, if not the majority of it is from the reactions of people after the rape. For example, I met a survivor who was raped, and went and told her grandmother that she had been raped, and the first thing her grandmother asked was "What were you wearing?". Her grandmother later apologised, but it was still extremely hurtful. Of course, that's just anecdotal, but it's a good illustration of the way in which the aftermath of a rape can be pretty nasty, and it's not surprising that many survivors/victims want to get over the whole process as quickly as possible, especially if conviction rates are low.


What feminists don't understand is that nobody likes ugly lesbians.



https://i.imgur.com/BJuCN.gif

[Fragony]

'That seems rather backwards. Why does women standing up for their rights imply that women are not strong enough to demand their own rights?

They have rights, the same as men. But do they ever want equality on the garbage-van or the assembly-line, of course not. Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more

[CountArach]

I'm not sure if the meaning of the word "discursive" is the same as the Dutch "discursief" and I don't seem to be able to find a translation of it on the web, so if you could explain the meaning of it to this non native speaker, I'd be very much obliged :bow:
Basically it is a term used in linguistics to describe the manner in which society talks, envisions and conceptualises any particular topic.


If those rapes are not reported, then how do we even know they happened? I'm going to be very blunt here: rape is a terrible crime so it seems like a no-brainer to me that anyone who becomes victim of it, reports it. Those who claim that they have been raped, but never reported it, probably weren't raped at all. I simply have a very, very hard time believing that women who are being raped, just let it happen without reporting it. Seems to me like a made-up story to justify the existence of feminist movements and to raise funds for them.
Public surveys are much more accurate than crime statistics for things such as this, where there is a culture of silence for fear of having a stigma attached to them. This study (http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors293.pdf) from the British Home Office describes it in outline (I haven't got time to follow up on the references, thye relevant pages are pp. 13-16):


In fact, there has only been a single study designed solely to provide information on the extent of unreported rape (Painter, 1991). This survey involved 1,007 women in 11 cities and was primarily an attempt to quantify the extent of marital rape. The key findings include:

One in four women had experienced rape or attempted rape in their lifetime;
The most common perpetrators were current and ex-partners; and
The vast majority (91%) told no one at the time.
[...]
The Australian Women’s Safety Survey conducted by the Bureau of Statistics in 1996 (Easteal, 1998) involved a random sample 6,300 women aged 18 and over. It produced incidence finding of 1.9 per cent for sexual assault in the previous 12 months. Known men accounted for over two-thirds of assailants (68%), and current / ex-partners and dates comprised more than half of this group (an even higher proportion was found in the most recent US study, Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998). Over half of the assaulted women in the sample (59%) had told a friend, and 15 per cent reported to the police.


And what does that prove? Might as well interprete those figures as evidence that many men are falsely accused of rape. Allthough most of those men are found innocent at the end of the ride, they'll be stigmatised in the community they live in for the rest of their lives. Maybe they even lost their job and/or the right to see their children while the investigation was still ongoing. Maybe the outrage should be aimed more at those who ruin other peoples' lives by falsely accusing them...
What about the stigma attached to being raped? What about the effects on the emotional state of the victim, not to mention their lives (http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1945)?


The probe reveals that students deemed “responsible” for alleged sexual assaults on college campuses can face little or no consequence for their acts. Yet their victims’ lives are frequently turned upside down. For them, the trauma of assault can be compounded by a lack of institutional support, and even disciplinary action. Many times, victims drop out of school, while their alleged attackers graduate. Administrators believe the sanctions commonly issued in the college judicial system provide a thoughtful and effective way to hold culpable students accountable, but victims and advocates say the punishment rarely fits the crime.

As for the false conviction, only 8% of rape accusations are false (pg. 47 of the Home Office study linked above). That statistic alone deals with the rest of your post.

Why do you automatically assume that your conclusion is the only possible right one?
I don't. But the experts in the field seem to agree.

[Subotan]

They have rights, the same as men. But do they ever want equality on the garbage-van or the assembly-line, of course not. Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more
I've already addressed this.


All the more reason to help? Or is this one of those situations where making the most noise is more important than doing the most good?
If anything, it's the opposite. If you take somewhere like Egypt, where the Mubarak regime promoted a Potemkin version of feminism in order to secure support from Western democracies, the resulting fall of the regime has seen a backlash against feminism as a foreign idea which is associated with the dictatorship.


No one doubts that. Or at least, I should hope not. Perhaps you'd like to pull out the numbers on how many white people live under the poverty line compared to other races COMBINES? That'd be a good one. And yet it is still considered socially okay to bag on white people? Are you kidding me? We're the evil empire, when most of us are poor as hell? I can say with absolutely certainty that it sucks being a poor white guy, just like it sucks being a poor black guy. I didn't get some special "Oh, hey, I'm poor but its okay I'm white so they gave me to the key to the city."

I'm not ragging on white people, and that's a strawman argument.


The inequality that exists today is perpretrated by the rich against ALL the poor. If poor black guys get a slightly worse shaft, that doesn't mean its a black problem. Its still a Rich vs. Poor problem. We are freaking past this, and have moved on to something much more urgent and dangerous--made all the more so by the fact that people still argue about this!

Like I said earlier - why, given that white people have always considered racism to be a lesser problem than it actually is, is racism now suddenly not a problem? Surely based on this past experience of 100% failure we should be listening to people who do say "Uh yeah, we still get treated badly because we aren't white"? Likewise with sexism between the genders.


Racism is one of the biggest evils in society. As is Sexism, Classism, or any other form of Prejudice. A bigger one is ignorance--in this case showcased by people willing to continue throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a cause that has long since fulfilled its purpose. We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory, but that wouldn't make nearly enough money for all the organizations that rely on this kind of manufactured outrage would it?
I would imagine that people who aren't privileged are in a better position to judge whether they are outraged or not.


That's offensive to any of the many married couples that took the time to plan ahead. A lost art in today's society. But no, some people are slow on the up-take, and can't take care of themselves and their families because they never think of the consequences of their actions.
What? No, it isn't. It's a comment on the way people planning ahead is shunted down particular paths due to economic circumstances outside of their control.


So what the hell do you want to do about that? Give them money for being idiots? Where do you draw the line? The law says men and women are equal. The law says race does not matter. The law says a property management company had better not even THINK about a customer's ethnicity or they'll be be in big trouble.
Ah, but didn't you just say that "Racism is one of the biggest evils in society. As is Sexism, Classism, or any other form of Prejudice." If the law legislates against it, and it's still a problem, then there is still work to be done in addressing it.


Ditto about every other prejudice you could possibly want enforcement against.
Two that immediately spring to mind - homophobia and transphobia.


I just don't see how anyone who has ever had a less-than-reasonable girlfriend could take those statistics at face value. Last time I checked, women were wired to have a more emotional response to events that a man might consider less than emotion-worthy, no? When I see a statistic like "1 in 4 women have been raped or had an attempted rape" I can only believe that many of those so-called Rapes were not rapes, and that many of those attempted rapes were not attempted rapes.
Please define how a rape differs from a "so-called rape" or a "not rape". I remind you that you still haven't addressed my question about how you would define rape if not by consent.


But hey, it doesn't even matter right? I think you're numbers are bogus, you think my logic is flawed, all is well. Even if I am right, it wouldn't stop the loud ones from being loud anyway--which is to nobody's benefit at this point.



Well no, no discussion on the backroom does matter. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though.

[Fragony]

'I've already addressed this.'

Do it again as I don't see how

[Andres]

That study seems to be an interesting read. I don't know if I'll have the time to read it all, but I most certainly try.

Random points:

- complaints about the police: is that exclusively so for rape victims? I know many victims of various crimes are dissatisfied with how they are treated by the Justice department and complain about the criminals having more rights than victims;
- the thing about "alcohol administered to facilitate rape". Unless the beverages was forced through her throat using violence, it's a bit easy for a girl that had a drunken one night stand to say afterwards that the guy forced her by getting her drunk. It's you who's pouring the drinks down your throat and losing control; don't blame somebody else for something you regret;
- 1 out of 4 seems like an unbelievably high number. 1 out of 4. That's 25 %. And 91 % of those never tell anyone? 25,00 % of the women around you and me were raped? Do you honestly believe that number? Here, in the West, in this timeframe? Really? That's the kind of number you'd expect in some country torn by civil war. Did they ask the women they surveyed to define "rape" in their own words? Example: A husband says, after a few months of no sex with his wife for no apparent reason, that he has enough of it and that if his wife keeps refusing to have sex with him, he'll divorce her because he finds the current situation humiliating. If she then has sex with him, because she's afraid that after the divorce, she'll find herself in a very difficult financial situation; is that rape or not? After all, the husband threatens her with something from which he knows it'll have severe consequences for her. If she still loves him or she doesn't want to divorce because of the effects on the children and has sex with him for those reason, has she been forced or not? It's not rape at all in my book, but I'm sure a woman in that situation might have a different opinion.How many of such women would answer "yes" to the question "have you ever been forced to have sex against your will" in such a survey?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that really the case? Surely it's preferable and more economically efficient to create a work environment where women don't feel as if they will have to drop out of their careers halfway through to raise kids at the get-go?

Not for the individual couple. Yes, women should absolutely be allowed to return to their careers after taking 9 months maternity leave, but they will be nine months behind everyone else when they come back, that's all. On the other hand, I think women should be allowed to drop out of their careers in order to make sure their children are raised well by someone who loves them and not a paid nanny.



This isn't true - if it were, then the gender binary wouldn't exist were it not for feminism. Feminists recognise the differences society places upon each gender and seeks to correct them.

This assumes there is automatically something to correct. Historically, yes that was true but today not so much. Also, you are making a huge, and I think erroneous, assumption about the interaction between social constructs and human nature. It is a simple fact that men became politically dominant in most cultures because men are the ones who go off and do the dying in war, and therefore they demanded the biggest stake in politics to decide when to do that dying. I don't think it's any accident that we have a more sexually equal society today as well as a more peaceful one.


Do you think that that's representative of all male feminists?

I have met male feminists like that, they don't actually have good relationships with women.


Feminism does not advocate the comodification of female sexuality, nor the dismantling of "social prudishness", for lack of a better word. Feminism only seeks to see female sexuality treated as seriously as male sexuality.

We're not talking about prudishness, we're talking about manners. Manners are a way of communicating on an open and mutually understood field, and of showing respect. Men an women don't talk the same way, don't quite think the same way. Manners create a "safe" space to interact in. Part of Manners was not openly objectifying women, another part was insisting on opening the door for her. Feminists rejected traditional manners as sexist (which I think is debatable if you've ever seen a petite woman put her shoulder to a fire door) and so they denigrated the whole edifice. That created the vacumn that sexual comodification seeped into. Also, there was a period where some feminists sought to confront men with female sexuality by, say, posing naked. That didn't actually help because no man is actually impressed by a woman taking her clothes off, it just encourages objectification.

As to female sexuality being treated "as seriously", they have achieved that - because it is now as trivialised as male sexuality, as a result female sexual activity is also trivialised - which is bad because it encourages young women to engage in casual sex which can have serious reprocussions. I get the point about repression of female sexuality, but it's not a constant even in a "Patriachal" society, it varies quite a lot.


Why do you assume that it has to be a man who saves the rape survivor from her rapist?

I don't, the point is about how women encourage men to behave.


Of course it is. I think there's something very innate to being a man in the act of protecting somebody close to you from harm.

I agree, but a feminist would ask, "why do I need protecting?" which misses the point.


Define "protection". Why are men less able to do it today than before feminism?

because women are less likely to let them.


lolwut this is completely wrong.

No, it isn't. Read a lad's mag to see the start of the problem. Men have to compete, with other men and not women, deny them that and they become frustrated and act out. In some cases they become ardant football supporters (there are recorded cases of sexual dysfunction if a man's team is on a losing streak), they join gangs or become hooligans, in extreme cases they rape women in order to exercise power. Rape is all about power and subjugation. If you stop casting the ideal man as the White Knight then the average man is more likely to exhibit tendancies of the Black Knight.

[Andres]

Yes, women should absolutely be allowed to return to their careers after taking 9 months maternity leave, but they will be nine months behind everyone else when they come back, that's all.

9 months? What workers' paradise do you live in? Here it's 3 months. Agree with the rest.

Side note: I wouldn't be too surprised if employers refused childless women aged +/- 30 in a relationship for a job (unless they are extremely well qualified) if there are other suitable candidates, because it's likely she'll start to procreate which means 1 or 2 times 3 months of maternal leave. That's a form of discrimination that exists, unfortunately. Don't know if movements or laws can change that, since an employer can invent 1.000 of reasons to refuse an applicant or hire another one who is "better". Movements won't change a thing about that. Then again, one can argue if it's truly discrimination. Her male counterpart simply cannot get pregnant and doesn't have the right to have 3 months maternal leave, so their situations are not the same. A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.


On the other hand, I think women should be allowed to drop out of their careers in order to make sure their children are raised well by someone who loves them and not a paid nanny.

Why would you only allow that to women and not to man? In Belgium, both mothers and fathers have the right to take a (far too short) break in their career for their children.

[Subotan]

'I've already addressed this.'

Do it again as I don't see how
I'm not here to educate you. Find it yourself.


This assumes there is automatically something to correct. Historically, yes that was true but today not so much. Also, you are making a huge, and I think erroneous, assumption about the interaction between social constructs and human nature. It is a simple fact that men became politically dominant in most cultures because men are the ones who go off and do the dying in war, and therefore they demanded the biggest stake in politics to decide when to do that dying. I don't think it's any accident that we have a more sexually equal society today as well as a more peaceful one.
Does "not so much" mean just that, or not at all?


We're not talking about prudishness, we're talking about manners. Manners are a way of communicating on an open and mutually understood field, and of showing respect. Men an women don't talk the same way, don't quite think the same way. Manners create a "safe" space to interact in. Part of Manners was not openly objectifying women, another part was insisting on opening the door for her. Feminists rejected traditional manners as sexist (which I think is debatable if you've ever seen a petite woman put her shoulder to a fire door) and so they denigrated the whole edifice. That created the vacumn that sexual comodification seeped into. Also, there was a period where some feminists sought to confront men with female sexuality by, say, posing naked. That didn't actually help because no man is actually impressed by a woman taking her clothes off, it just encourages objectification.
Eh, the use of the word "manners" looks like a smokescreen to me to justify treating women who acted as non-sexual beings as china dolls.


As to female sexuality being treated "as seriously", they have achieved that - because it is now as trivialised as male sexuality, as a result female sexual activity is also trivialised - which is bad because it encourages young women to engage in casual sex which can have serious reprocussions. I get the point about repression of female sexuality, but it's not a constant even in a "Patriachal" society, it varies quite a lot.

Why does young women having casual (by which I mean, safe, consensual etc.) sex potentially have serious repercussions? Does the same apply to men?


I don't, the point is about how women encourage men to behave.
I would hope that everybody would encourage everyone else to intervene if they saw a rape taking place.


I agree, but a feminist would ask, "why do I need protecting?" which misses the point.
A criticism like that is very circumstantial.


because women are less likely to let them.

It's definitely patronising to always assume that women are in need of protection. Couldn't the reason for the decline in the need for men to protect people come about from the decline in violence you mentioned earlier?


No, it isn't. Read a lad's mag to see the start of the problem. Men have to compete, with other men and not women, deny them that and they become frustrated and act out. In some cases they become ardant football supporters (there are recorded cases of sexual dysfunction if a man's team is on a losing streak), they join gangs or become hooligans, in extreme cases they rape women in order to exercise power. Rape is all about power and subjugation. If you stop casting the ideal man as the White Knight then the average man is more likely to exhibit tendancies of the Black Knight.
I definitely agree that rape is about power and subjugation, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached from your premise i.e. that the breakdown of gender roles is causing rapists to rape.

EDIT:
A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

Or, make materinity/paternity leave equal for both parents and use-it-or-lose-it for each individual.

[Andres]

Or, make materinity/paternity leave equal for both parents and use-it-or-lose-it for each individual.

I'd make it mandatory to use it, in the interest of the child, but that's just a personal opinion. Also, if it's not mandatory, the old-fashioned employer (who still exists) won't hire the female because of the by old fashionedness inspired idea that the woman will use it and the man not.

If it's mandatory, you'll also avoid situations where a childish employer will abuse his power by putting his employees under pressure not to take it, but that's a different topic.

[Fragony]

'I'm not here to educate you. Find it yourself.'

I checked, and I must admit that I don't have a vagina. But I please you (or demand in case you are something minoriteish) to do it again, My world is so hostile without it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I consider myself a feminist. I think some people get a bit caught up on the sound of the terminology, that feminism is somehow emasculating or anti-men, when it's not. Tiaexz defined the term Egalitarianism, as it encompasses feminist issues among others. I consider myself an egalitarian as well, but as most of the principles and spirit of the two are the same I use them interchangeably, and don't particularly stress out on the distinction.

Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view. Egalitarianism is, well, more egalitarian. I don't believe the two are interchangable because they come from different starting point. Egalitarianism says all people should equal, or equitable, feminism says women have been historically oppressed and this should change. Feminism was important when most men thought it was ok for women to be disenfranchised, now I consider it worse that useless because it skews the argument about gender relations and I consider that harmful to the health of society and individual relationships.

I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist. I won't deny that traditional steryotypes are somewhat sexist, or that they weren't used to oppress women, but they also served to constrain that oppression. They required modification, not rejection.


Where feminism addresses patriarchy is in regards to a system of society and not on men itself. If someone is declaring all men evil and on and on, then it's not feminism. Subotan already addressed the issue about extremists, and as in any group, are off base with the majority of the group or its principles.

What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.


I think some men hear about the term patriarchy and feel that it's being portrayed as some conscious malicious force that men are actively enforcing to keep women down out of some inherent hatred, and they don't see that connection in themselves or the other good men around them, so it doesn't resonate. Again, the focus on feminism on patriarchy isn't on men as a generic archetype or directly at an individual level, but the way that society has evolved that structurally puts women at a disadvantage contrasted to men.

In some sense it is true that women were at a disadvantage, but to describe it as "Patriarchy" implies a (possibly concious) development of a social construct over a more egalitarian primitive state. I don't think that holds water, for the basic reason that division of certain tasks between men and women is economically efficient. Also, society no longer puts women at a structural disadvantage, the remaining disadvantage is, I think, a result of the basic gender difference, which is down to hormones and childbirth. I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete. It's also worth noting that men and women both compete within their gender, and clearly need to for reproductive and psychological reasons, but in different ways.

I think men, in particular, need a place to compete free of women, because if women compete with men it ceases to be a valid ranking exercise.


After saying all that however, the system was, and in many places still is, actively imposed by men on women. One quick but prominent example: the Abrahamic religions all have doctrine that establishes the place of women beneath men. The New Testament in Christianity forbids women from teaching or holding any authority over a man. Women are prohibited in scripture from speaking in church, and had to ask their husband any questions they had privately. In most ancient societies the church was a place of significant political power, so having no voice there was more limiting then that might let on. Those are some examples of major things that impacts a womans life when they're imposed.

Pet peave, can we not talk about "Abrahamic" religions, or "Judeo-Christianity" either? Now, you are correct about Paul, which is the only place in the New Testemant where women are prohibited as you describe, and about the teaching and formal organisation of religions in the Classical and pre-modern world. However, and this is very important, women had the power of prophecy, and prophecy is extremely influencial in shaping the decisions with religious Councils make. It's also important to recognise that religious organisation reflects the society the religion inhabits. The core religious doctrine can be largely a-sexual, but if the society is dominated politically by men then the religious organisation is likely to reflect that.


This isn't a thread on religion so I'll cut that off there, but my point with that is it's one tangent that has shaped a great deal of the world in terms of the rights of women. Things are very different in much of the world today, but a lot of its notions have lingered much longer, like that a man is the ruler of the house hold, and that a woman's place is in the home, the stigma on a woman's display of sexuality, etc. Here in the United States women weren't allowed by constitutional amendment to vote until 1919. If much of the worlds society impacted by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were based around a much more egalitarian code, how much sooner might that day have arrived?

Do you know, one medieval cure for impotence was to invite all the goodwives to the bed of the aflicted man and have them laugh at his flacid penis? Religion has been used to oppress women at certain period s throughout history, but while it often enshrines gender roles it does not consistantly enshrine oppression. For example, Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally. Also, to see the man as "ruler of the household" is to miss that the women runs the household.

As to the arrival of women's sufferage, I would say that it arrived when it did because such a large number of men went to war and as a result women demostrate a competence that gave credence to their demand for sufferage. This brings us back to eagilitarianism, because you narrative ignores that, historically, voting rights had far more to do with wealth and social class than gender. In most medieval governmental systems high class women had more political power or influence, provided they held wealth or title, than low class men.


I'm not saying that religion alone is to blame however, but there has been a very real act of the suppression of womens rights that continues to be active in much of the world today and still has much of its influence. Those things were enforced, and by men.

Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).

I don't really see this as much of an argument in regards to equality here. Impact on history? Absolutely. But murder tends to have a big effect on changing its course, and people tend to be more susceptible when it's from someone they trust.


Biologically, maybe, but we live in a world where intellectual contribution is just as important. Limiting women to purely domestic issues cuts the talent pool of 50% of our population in an area where it may not be best suited. There are many brilliant women in medicine and science for example whose skill set and talents lend them to that field and have greatly contributed to society. You don't have to go far back in history to a point where that was almost universally scoffed at.

While you're right about women being unjustly excluded, we're talking about the top percentage there - in straitened economic circumstances a couple doesn't have the luxury of following their ideal dream career, they have to make the most of what they have in order to raise their children.


That depends on the ideology itself. I'd argue that feminism expands your horizons far more than it could ever close them. Also, most people who are feminists aren't JUST feminists. They have other beliefs and convictions, usually step for step with egalitarianism.

I would say egalitarianism includes all the goals of feminism, but the reverse is not also true.


I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.

As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?


So your feminist friend is contradicting your own opinion on what feminists do? And are you telling that feminists should take their responsibillity by disbanding?

No, because I was talking about the law of unintended consequences, some feminists thought it would be provocative to take their clothes, but the core issue is the wrecking ball of feminism going through male sexual mores, rather than female ones.


You can adapt for it though. Being pregnant is something quite natural and wanted also from a societal viewpoint after all. The dad can get 87,5% (same as the mother) of the parental leave here.

that works, but it's still not best use of resources for the couple, two interupted careers instead of one.

[Montmorency]

A relevant piece of scholarship: (http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/events/plough_draft_July14_2010.pdf)



Abstract

Female labor force participation can be influenced by persistent dif-
ferences in cultural norms about the perception of women in society.
We empirically examine where these dierences come from. Central
to our explanation are historic dierences in agricultural technologies,
which generated historical dierences in the organization of market
versus household work along gender lines. We show that, consistent
with the existing anthropological evidence, in societies with a tradi-
tional use of animal plough agriculture the division of labor is split
along gender lines, with men working outside of the home in agricul-
ture and industry, and women working within the home. We then
document the persistence of these cultures over time by examining
the relationship between historic plough use and contemporary fe-
male labor force participation, female participation in politics, and
individuals' attitudes about the role of women. We present estimates
at the ethnicity, sub-national region, and country levels. We identify
the causal eect of plough technology on attitudes about women by
instrumenting for the historic use of the plough with the society's en-
dowment of geography suitable for growing crops that require plough
cultivation with those that do not.

Precis: https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/20110723_fnd000.jpg

-----------------------

One feasible method for achieving gender equality is to create men and women that are, in all respects - particularly reproductive and neurophysiological - anatomically identical. That is: unisex posthumans. :mellow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right!? During my brief attempt at marriage, the plan was for my wife to re-enlist in the Army, while I got out and persued an education. If we'd have had kids, I'd have been a stay at home dad. :laugh4: Is there anything wrong with that? No, not at all. The roles are as interchangeable as we want them to be, and every sane person knows that. We're past this whole thing! Honestly.


9 months? What workers' paradise do you live in? Here it's 3 months. Agree with the rest.

Side note: I wouldn't be too surprised if employers refused childless women aged +/- 30 in a relationship for a job (unless they are extremely well qualified) if there are other suitable candidates, because it's likely she'll start to procreate which means 1 or 2 times 3 months of maternal leave. That's a form of discrimination that exists, unfortunately. Don't know if movements or laws can change that, since an employer can invent 1.000 of reasons to refuse an applicant or hire another one who is "better". Movements won't change a thing about that. Then again, one can argue if it's truly discrimination. Her male counterpart simply cannot get pregnant and doesn't have the right to have 3 months maternal leave, so their situations are not the same. A solution would be to give the father also 3 months and make it mandatory for both parents to take those three months. In that scenario, you create equal job opportunities for both sexes, since both will be absent for work during 3 months if they have a child.

England, currently ruled by a Queen, with her bastard cousin as Prime Minister.


Why would you only allow that to women and not to man? In Belgium, both mothers and fathers have the right to take a (far too short) break in their career for their children.

I'd allow it for men as well, but that wasn't my point. My point is that women today are expected to be active mothers AND workers - and that's a pretty oppressive idea because men aren't under as much pressure. I'm away that was not entirely clear.

[tibilicus]

In most case, it does. If you go for a job, it's highly unlikely that the will offer you a different salary based on your gender. What more often seems to happen is that men negotiate for higher pay, while women negotiate for better terms. The assumption that pay between women should be equal at the end of the day is falacious, because they are usually starting from the same point. It's a case of one size not fitting all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/women-make-only-1-percent-wealth_n_969439.html

In a wider context though the difference in equality is insane. Women own just 1% of the worlds wealth. It makes sense too, the corporate world for example is a mans world. In a wider context what status do women have in Africa, Middle East, Asia? Exactly. The bigger picture is distasteful and to put it down to purely cultural practice is both dismissive and unhelpful to addressing the problem.

[Viking]

The problem with going for individualism is focus. It's like peace in the world.

Sure,they are related, but to simply say that all should reach equality and then do nothing because the matter is too large is ineffective.

About patriachry and gender issue. Sure, at some points it becomes silly since it's a blurry concept, but sometimes it's even obvious for a 4 year old. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3mTTIoB_oc)

TBH, the endgame for a race/gender/etc issue, is exactly that it should only give a meh I don't care when it's coming up. Problem is getting there, instead of gi.


What I am trying to say is that there is no more of a conspiracy against women than there is a conspiracy against, say, peace.

Let's say you want to fight poverty in the world. While it is useful for your purpose to sometimes view the world at large, all its history and content, in terms of material wealth; you wouldn't want to turn your reflection into an all-encompassing theory/ideology that can explain everything in this world in terms of wealth/poverty. This is pretty much where feminism is at; it's not just for a few arenas, but rather for the whole existence. You bet [some] feminists would be eager to explain poverty in terms of feministic concepts.

While such theories and ideologies can be useful tools to get insight, their limited scope will prevent full and (sometimes) useful insight.

So if there is an issue with gender balance, you name it an 'issue of gender balance' and see if you can solve it, but you don't centre an all-encompassing grand theory/ideology on it (which is not to say that you should not launch campaigns or start organisations). That is completetly out of proportions - not because of the problem's reach or size, but because most things in this world only touch this topic indirectly.




This isn't true - if it were, then the gender binary wouldn't exist were it not for feminism. Feminists recognise the differences society places upon each gender and seeks to correct them.

The physical gender is inevitable, the cultural gender less so. Feminism needs a cultural gender - a womankind - in order to be effective. If only 10% of the women were victims of discrimination due to their female gender, feminism would have no stand. The percentage must be must higher, preferably close to one hundred, because there needs to be a collective victim conscience, something almost every female can relate to; and preferably they all feel equally strongly victimised.

In this, there is little room for individuality. If you are woman, you are so strongly a victim that you should care.



That depends on the ideology itself. I'd argue that feminism expands your horizons far more than it could ever close them. Also, most people who are feminists aren't JUST feminists. They have other beliefs and convictions, usually step for step with egalitarianism

The more accurate an ideological label is, the more the ideology is on the person's mind. If you think a certain Jesus or Muhammad said a few wise things, you're still not a Christian or a Muslim. If you think Karl Marx wrote a lot of smart stuff, you're still not a communist.

I have not that much of an idea what the average person means when they say that they are a feminist, but I highly suspect most of them just have gender equality in mind. Feminist theory goes far beyond this point. Some might say that feminism is not quite the same as feminist theory, but the two are used synonymously the vast majority of the time (just look to the OP and the links provided there).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does "not so much" mean just that, or not at all?

No, but it does mean that I think there is no legal barrier to a woman being successful, nor are their any insurmountable practical ones. There may be room for inprovement, but it's almost entirely (in the West) about inproving individual attitudes, and only time will really do that.


Eh, the use of the word "manners" looks like a smokescreen to me to justify treating women who acted as non-sexual beings as china dolls.

That's because you're viewing it through a feminist lens, and that's skewing your perspective. You're not wrong, but at least women used to be judged by slightly more suble standards than how they looked in a pair of booty shorts. Whatever else they might be, china dolls are valuable.


Why does young women having casual (by which I mean, safe, consensual etc.) sex potentially have serious repercussions? Does the same apply to men?

Yes, physically, emotionally and economically. While we're here, lets drop the notion of "safe" sex; you might be relatively "safe" in terms of pregnancy but even then there's great potentially to catch something from the other person - if you're doing it right.


I would hope that everybody would encourage everyone else to intervene if they saw a rape taking place.

So would I, but as men do most of the raping instilling a proactively "anti-rape" mindest in young men and tying it directly to their masculinity is probably more frutiful than tying rape to masculinity in "non means no" campaigns. Yes, no does mean no, but that's a negative message, it can encourage a negative view of male sexuality. Much better to teach men, "if you hear a woman scream, it IS your business". Hand in hand with this, we need to recognise that some men are no better than animals and women need to take this into account in how they dress and whether they let a man they know (and can trust) walk them home at the end of the night.

Would that we could make this a perfect world, but we can't.


A criticism like that is very circumstantial.

I've heard it before, I consider it a relevent generalisation.


It's definitely patronising to always assume that women are in need of protection. Couldn't the reason for the decline in the need for men to protect people come about from the decline in violence you mentioned earlier?

Every year at Exeter University at least one first year girl is sexually assaulted, this year she was actually raped. The reason is always basically the same, she was walking home on her own in the early hour of the morning, possibly drunk, down a dark streat because she assumed my little city was safe. A couple of times pairs of girls have been attacked, I have never heard of a girl and a boy being sexually attacked. I am utterly convinced that the reason for this is that rapists are predators and a man and a woman together present a more difficult proposition than either a single woman or a small group. This is because generally speaking you can expect the man to move to protect the woman and by the time he is eliminated she will have run off and (hopefully) got help. We're talking about preventing a situation, not aiming to fight an attacker off.


I definitely agree that rape is about power and subjugation, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached from your premise i.e. that the breakdown of gender roles is causing rapists to rape.

Oh, I'm not saying it's making rapists rape, but rape should be happening less and less, yet we have a figure of 1 in 4 which (excluding marital rape) seems high even by historical standards. I mean, hell, it's not like we're living through the 30 Years War here. What is clear is that there's more than just violent power-rape going on, there's also date rape, which probably accounts for a lot of the unreported rapes, and that has to do with not respecting boundaries between men and women. You can point to rape by the upper classes, and even domestic abuse, but the fact is historically those weren't any more acceptable then than now, but it seems that despite supposed advances in women's rights men are still getting away with it , but without the protection of power or privilage.

[PanzerJaeger]

One feasible method for achieving gender equality is to create men and women that are, in all respects - particularly reproductive and neurophysiological - anatomically identical. That is: unisex posthumans. :mellow:

This is actually pretty spot on, apart from the reproductive element. From infancy, people are forced in to pretty narrow boxes based on all sorts of factors during socialization, gender being one of the biggest. Children should not be separated by gender in the way they are socialized, and should instead be allowed and encouraged to pursue their own identity. If a girl shows interest in pink, Barbie dolls, and a future in home making, that is great, but it should not be foisted upon her.

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

I for one actually don't mind this one. If the abrasive “masculine” types all decide to go logging or truck driving in Canada, I say that is to be encouraged. It frees up many positions for more pleasant company. The berks get to be all cool (literally) and masculine (in their mind) and the rest of us get a more enjoyable workplace as a result. :yes:

[Papewaio]

Sorry but as someone who has worked in mining, banks, contact centers and IT:
Most aggressive where generally the least masculine... They have to prove something with their red tape.
Women at minesites had a preference for the more feral drilling men who are pretty much the closest to cave man movie physique you will find. Just like a lot of them will prefer men in uniform ie military and fireman but not nurses.

So what is driving evolution there? Sexual selection and who are women choosing?

Masculine =/= sexist, sex =/= gender.
Masculine = body confidence.

If you are confident and capable you don't have to be arrogant and conniving. The first is outdoors men the second is stockbrokers and some of pro sportsmen.

[ajaxfetish]

BTW root has a double meaning :)

I concede the point. Male and Female do often share the same root after all.


Man, I would love to be a stay at home dad if my wife was making the big bucks. I could read books and play video games while my young kids slept and work on developing a podcast when they got old enough to go to school.

I think having a kid may prove a rude awakening for you.

Ajax

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Papewaio: I was being sarcastic. Me I don't quite buy the idea of people being pressured into gender-affirming jobs or something, we simply don't have such luxury; but if it did happen Canada seems like a convenient long-way-away type of destination for the sort of person who genuinely feels he “has to prove his masculinity” to me.


If you are confident and capable you don't have to be arrogant and conniving.

I'd write “bullish and conniving” but otherwise very much agreed. (Confidence tends to lead to a certain careless arrogance, after all.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

A greater presence of women in public situations is great, yes. However, that is only one aspect of the entire discussion. The majority of the time they only discuss "women's" issues, whilst there is an entire female consituency that is considered somehow different to the rest of society and can be pandered to as an "interest group". And yet men aren't? That strikes me as a thoroughly gendered society where people are expected to care about one thing or another because of a characteristic that they possess at birth.

No, men have always been an interest group. It was the male interest group that didn't want women to gain the right to vote in the first place. I don't see what you are saying. You say woman's issues as if that is an artificial construct. But the fact that women have a uterus and men don't automatically make the subject of abortion more or less a woman's issue, because in all honesty men can't fully understand what it is like to have a uterus. Just like women don't really understand what the feeling of getting kicked in the balls is like.

Women are expected to care about one thing (abortion as example) because of their characteristic of being a woman because the issue itself revolves around their identity. Gender is part of our identity. When an issue targets a specific gender, it targets the individual, so of course they are expected to care about it. Is a woman going to go, "I don't care much about abortion, it's only about the freedom of my body vs the life of the kid that will grow inside me." Like wut?



I think having a kid may prove a rude awakening for you.

Ajax

Perhaps, I know roughly how tough young kids are. I am pretty sure I won't have that much time to myself for the first 6 years or so. But when they get to school, I think I can get on top of everything and have enough free time. In all honesty, math, science, history etc... up through high school is simple stuff and if my kids need help in that regard it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I was tutoring fellow students about chemistry when I was taking my high school chem class. Hell linear algebra wasn't too hard for me and yet a lot of people had trouble with it for some reason.

[Papewaio]

I'm painting with broad brush strokes but generally arrogance is more external and confidence internal. Confidence to me is being comfortable in ones own skin, arrogance is wanting a spotlight and an inability to view others abilities outside of a competitive win or lose paradigm.

[Subotan]

The physical gender is inevitable, the cultural gender less so.
You mean, the difference between sex and gender, right?


Feminism needs a cultural gender - a womankind - in order to be effective. If only 10% of the women were victims of discrimination due to their female gender, feminism would have no stand. The percentage must be must higher, preferably close to one hundred, because there needs to be a collective victim conscience, something almost every female can relate to; and preferably they all feel equally strongly victimised.
The percentage of women in the world who are treated badly because of their gender is much, much higher than 10%, and it's disingenuous of you to imply as such.


Let's say you want to fight poverty in the world. While it is useful for your purpose to sometimes view the world at large, all its history and content, in terms of material wealth; you wouldn't want to turn your reflection into an all-encompassing theory/ideology that can explain everything in this world in terms of wealth/poverty. This is pretty much where feminism is at; it's not just for a few arenas, but rather for the whole existence. You bet [some] feminists would be eager to explain poverty in terms of feministic concepts.
Pretty much everything is an ideology, and it's a poor argument to say that something is bad because it's an ideology. Geertz neatly summed up these arguments as falling into the familiar paradigm "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."


No, but it does mean that I think there is no legal barrier to a woman being successful, nor are their any insurmountable practical ones. There may be room for inprovement, but it's almost entirely (in the West) about inproving individual attitudes, and only time will really do that.
As well as the women's movement, you forgot to add.


Yes, physically, emotionally and economically. While we're here, lets drop the notion of "safe" sex; you might be relatively "safe" in terms of pregnancy but even then there's great potentially to catch something from the other person - if you're doing it right.
Hmm. This is something we will likely have to agree to disagree on - with proper sex education, he choice to have casual sex is a tradeoff between a good time and informed risks. Also, safe referred to both diseases as well as getting preggers.


So would I, but as men do most of the raping instilling a proactively "anti-rape" mindest in young men and tying it directly to their masculinity is probably more frutiful than tying rape to masculinity in "non means no" campaigns. Yes, no does mean no, but that's a negative message, it can encourage a negative view of male sexuality. Much better to teach men, "if you hear a woman scream, it IS your business". Hand in hand with this, we need to recognise that some men are no better than animals and women need to take this into account in how they dress and whether they let a man they know (and can trust) walk them home at the end of the night.
That reinforces the idea that the only kind of rape is the jumping out of the bushes variety, when actually the majority of rapes are date rapes. Perfect Rape Victims who can have somebody save them are very, very rare occurrences.


I've heard it before, I consider it a relevent generalisation.

Oh, I was referring to the feminist's critique, not your comment.


Every year at Exeter University at least one first year girl is sexually assaulted, this year she was actually raped. The reason is always basically the same, she was walking home on her own in the early hour of the morning, possibly drunk, down a dark streat because she assumed my little city was safe. A couple of times pairs of girls have been attacked, I have never heard of a girl and a boy being sexually attacked. I am utterly convinced that the reason for this is that rapists are predators and a man and a woman together present a more difficult proposition than either a single woman or a small group. This is because generally speaking you can expect the man to move to protect the woman and by the time he is eliminated she will have run off and (hopefully) got help. We're talking about preventing a situation, not aiming to fight an attacker off.

This has definitely strayed into victim blaming.


Oh, I'm not saying it's making rapists rape, but rape should be happening less and less, yet we have a figure of 1 in 4 which (excluding marital rape) seems high even by historical standards. I mean, hell, it's not like we're living through the 30 Years War here. What is clear is that there's more than just violent power-rape going on, there's also date rape, which probably accounts for a lot of the unreported rapes, and that has to do with not respecting boundaries between men and women. You can point to rape by the upper classes, and even domestic abuse, but the fact is historically those weren't any more acceptable then than now, but it seems that despite supposed advances in women's rights men are still getting away with it , but without the protection of power or privilage.
Some historical data on rape would be interesting. I might have a look tomorrow.


This is actually pretty spot on, apart from the reproductive element. From infancy, people are forced in to pretty narrow boxes based on all sorts of factors during socialization, gender being one of the biggest. Children should not be separated by gender in the way they are socialized, and should instead be allowed and encouraged to pursue their own identity. If a girl shows interest in pink, Barbie dolls, and a future in home making, that is great, but it should not be foisted upon her.

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

https://i.imgur.com/h9Up3.gif

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As well as the women's movement, you forgot to add.

No more than basic egalitarianism. Picking up on Syl point about religion, egalitarian Christians as early as 1400 were arguing for women to be allowed to preach, as the logical extension of a "universal" priesthood.


Hmm. This is something we will likely have to agree to disagree on - with proper sex education, he choice to have casual sex is a tradeoff between a good time and informed risks. Also, safe referred to both diseases as well as getting preggers.

So long as you accept there's a trade off, I'm happy to call it "safe", but sex is still a fairly serious undertaking.


That reinforces the idea that the only kind of rape is the jumping out of the bushes variety, when actually the majority of rapes are date rapes. Perfect Rape Victims who can have somebody save them are very, very rare occurrences.

You are correct, but you miss my point. It's all about making chivalry manly, a lot of "date rapes" look decidedly ambiguous, which is why cases tended to fall apart. While the woman in question probably was coerced, the extent to which she had drinks forced down her throat, or was actually spiked, is often unclear. Not only will a chivilrous man slay the evil rapist, not only will he NOT spike her drink, he will also not take advantge of her when she is insensible. It's about creating a mindset, creating taboos, and generating revulsion and the associated sense of shame. Shame is very undervalued.


Oh, I was referring to the feminist's critique, not your comment.

OK :bow:


This has definitely strayed into victim blaming.

Seven years now I have seen this pattern, you get a bit jaded when you have a box of rape alarms on your desk to give to 18 year old girls, but only 24 hours later. I am certainly not blaming the victims but the fact that it always happens to first years, in the first term, in basically the same place, tells me the unfortunate girls are in the wrong place at the wrong time, without taking adaquate precautions. It has never happened to a girl who was escorted, as long as I have been here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Everything feels so surreal these days, just a couple of days ago I read a thread on another site where there was a consensus that it was sinful of women to disobey their husbands when they told them who to vote for, I know some people IRL who would say the same.

In the past I would have agreed almost instinctively with the sentiments in this thread, but I feel like I have been pulled out of that world, and away from the accompanying mindset. Which is not to say that I now agree with what the people on that other site said. I don't know what I think, everyone else seems rooted in their own socio-cultural norms, but I feel like I'm torn between different worlds, like I'm just an observer watching on...

I am dismayed about a lot of things these days, and have concluded that the whole modern world is a monstrosity. Whether you believe it is by evolution or deliberate design, people were made to live a certain way, and this just isn't it. We have a need to see the work of our own hands when we make a living, to feel like we are working towards something... not serve like drones in part of a system. We need to have security in our lives, to feel rooted and have a solid job... not fleet around doing 6 months here 6 months there just to get a job, only to have to reapply for it every year. We are meant to be a part of a community, to feel like we have something in common with our neighbours... instead we are trained through the school systems to feel guilty if we don't embrace 'diversity'. When we are physically and psychologically ready, we are meant to go and get married and have kids... instead we get forced into this bizarre, surreal state somewhere between that of a child and an adult, as life gets put on the backburner in the hope that we might get to pursue a career, which is itself a big enough doubt in today's environment.

And to bring this back to the thread subject. There has been a lot in this thread about the 'stuctural' factors that have supposedly generated artificial concepts of masculinity and femeninity that the male and female sexes are expected to adhere to respectively, whether they be in the form of institutional discrimination or societal expectations/conditioning. Indeed, the woes of the world and all its inequalities are often blamed on these largely abstract, 'structural' factors, whether the problem is poverty, racism, or sexism. This blinkered mindset is riduculous, it pre-supposes that without these 'structural' factors, the natural state of mankind would be a perfectly idylic, egalitarian one.

Well, guess what, it works both ways. Far from undermining an an oppressive mesh of structural factors that maintains an artificial divide between the sexes and returning them to a more natural state of equality, I think feminism does the opposite. What is does is create its own artificial ideal of what a woman should be, and what she should do, and how she should live her life. In fact it attempts to make women into a copy of what is essentially the classic male rolemodel.

I mean, feminists complain at how society pressures women into a certain lifestyle. How, until at least very recently, women might be expected to be housekeepers, and many probably will still be encouraged in that direction by their parents or spouses or whoever. Well, the feminist system has created its own pressures. The successful, modern woman is now expected to have her own career and successes independent of her husband, to work her own 9-5 job and maintain herself even when married. And for things like having kids to be put off until her 40's... I've heard a lot about how feminism seeks to deconstruct artificial societal norms and return to a more natural and fairer state... well what on earth is natural about putting off having kids until the absolute maximum end of your fertile years (creating health risks for parent and child), just so that you can life the idealised life of a man in the 1950's?!

No, feminism is not just a redundant ideology like some in this thread have suggested. It is in fact a very malicious force that creates a whole articial system in order to attempt to enforce a form of equality that doesn't lend itself to either nature or practicality.

Away with it!

[Syl]

Some day, maybe hundreds of years from now, a more enlightened people will look back on some of these "activist" movements as having done far more harm than good.

I'd be interested in what other groups you'd lump into that. Also, what's your marker for when they transition from a useful movement into something destructive? My impression of your opinion is that, at least in the United States and the modern world, that since the legislature is caught up in many issues, it's not longer an issue.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that we don't have an amazing system and progress here in the United States. We're incredibly lucky to have what we have. However, Feminism is more than just about law, it's also about attitudes and discrimination. Issues like domestic violence and sexual assault are still a pretty big issue here, among others. Enough that it's worth talking about.

Feminism is also a global subject. Obvious issues aside like countries that don't respect women, there's issues like sex trafficking, female genital mutilation, etc. As this is a global forum, it's not just about Feminism in the west exclusively.


It detracts from the very real issues at hand (like, oh, I dunno--the imminent collapse of the global economy, and the likely very short window of time we have left to do anything about it?) by polarizing people against each other, who might otherwise work together on bigger and more important issues.

I agree that there are other important issues going on and other forms of blatant discrimination here in the United States and the world, such as homophobia and trans-phobia, as well as wealth disparity like you've mentioned. However, the phrase walking and chewing bubblegum comes to mind. Can we not be aware of these issues while we solve other problems? Does taking the time to think about it really shut down everything else?

Also, a lot of feminist theory involves classism, issues on racial discrimination, and gay rights. For men and women, as it's about equality for both sexes in a variety of areas in life, not just exclusively the escalation of women's rights.

-------------


More on topic: I agree with the sentiments some other posters expressed above: the legal framework is there. Here in the west, to the law, men and women are already equal (perhaps there are some left overs here and there in some forgotten legislation that still have to be removed, but that probably has a less than marginal impact on the day to day life). If there's discrimination against you because of your sex, you can go to a court of law and have your rights enforced.

There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.

Feminism involves men and women uniting through political activity and the law to make that change as well as a social movement. We vote and speak out on issues. If that's insulting to women, then democracy is inherently insulting to those who participate in it.

-------------


Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more
I had to double check that those two sentences were really back to back. Feminists at heart do believe women should have equal rights and not something more. People who misconstrue what feminism is go with your first statement.

-------------


A bigger one is ignorance--in this case showcased by people willing to continue throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a cause that has long since fulfilled its purpose. We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory, but that wouldn't make nearly enough money for all the organizations that rely on this kind of manufactured outrage would it?

I don't see anyone here asking you to put your money into anything, or divert funding. "We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory." We're talking about this issue here in a public space about bringing public awareness to feminist issues. You're frustrated that we're just beating a dead horse.

-------------


Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view.
Feminist theory goes into much more than simply the issue of gender from the angle of a woman. It also includes issues relating to men's rights, racial issues, classism, and GLBT rights.


What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.

In regards to Matriarchy, proportionately the balance of Matrifocal societies is so rare against the more common Patriarchal system that I'm not sure how relevant it is. Women of the Iroquois had significant political power. I have trouble thinking of much more than that, compared to the thousands of years of our history where it's the opposite.

As for the benefits women receive from a male dominated system, I'd argue that it's a matter of your interpretation. In say, polygamy, if more women are able to be supported by fewer rich men, you could argue it'd be easier for her to find some level of stability in the world than otherwise. You could also argue it reduces women into being more of a commodity. The man can marry multiple women as suits his fancy, but the woman is restricted to that one marriage and under the power of that man. I'm not an expert on any of that so that may be a weak example, but, what I'm trying to argue is that certain benefits as a result of a system does not mean that that system is treating both groups equally or equivalently. In a male dominated society, whatever benefits you perceive to women under it, when the power structure is focused on men, men are more powerful.


I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete.

I'm not familiar with that, but I'll naturally take your word for it :p. However, are they taking testosterone for an innate advantage from it, or because in a male dominated parliament they feel that they need the impact of its traits to compete in that demographic?

Women do produce testosterone, (and men do produce estrogen). Obviously it's at different levels, and the method of synthesis is different, but there is balance of those chemicals in men and women that affect certain aspects of behavior. Those levels are also not the same from woman to woman and man to man. Testosterone is largely linked to higher aggression (some argue status-seeking behavior), but that drive exists with in men and women at different levels not just apart from sex but as an individual. So my question is if she is taking testosterone, is she feeling that she needs to be more aggressive than she innately is? I'd say that's her action stems from the pressure presented by a male dominated political system that seems to focus on aggression, and not an innate advantage.


Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally.

Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).

I agree here that I certainly can't lump everything into it, and I don't mean to ^^. That was just a branch example that came to me to make a point. There are many secular reasons for the way people treat each other unfairly throughout history, so I don't mean to present my argument exclusively like that.


I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist.


One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?




I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.

As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?

These sort of tie together so I'll try and address them the same. This will probably come down to just a matter of disagreement between us, but here is my view. As individuals we are all a unique expression of a variety of traits, such as how self-confident we are or aren't, nurturing, passive, aggressive, sensitive, assertive, etc.

However, these traits are largely drawn down an artificial gender line. To be feminine is to be more sensitive, caring, compassionate, passive, etc. To be masculine is to be more aggressive, determined, brave, etc.

While we are our own unique blend of various traits, we are conditioned by society to conform mainly to the aspects of ourselves that match what people perceive our gender role to be. Gender is different than sex, sex being biological, and gender being the expectations that societies have for men and women, which have variation throughout history.

I am male, but I definitely have what you'd consider more of a feminine personality. I'm not very aggressive or dominant at all, I'm rather shy, often anxious, and the traits I tend to find the most important in people is their kindness and compassion to one another and their ability to try and cooperate. I don't like conflict, and while I enjoy discussions like this, confrontation makes me uncomfortable, although I try and speak up for what I believe in. A lot of people consider those to be feminine traits.

I know you know next to nothing about me, but, if all you knew was that profile of me, I doubt you would approve of me (at least in terms of how a man should be in society). I however like how I am and feel I have unique strengths and perspective from that. It's not always an advantage, but it's not always a disadvantage either.

If a boy cries, he's told to not show it, because it demeans him. If a man is sensitive, it can be seen as a positive trait, but if he is overly sensitive with other similar traits, society (and other men) pressure him to harden up.

We used to live in a world where both sexes were held more rigorously to this dichotomy. However, due in large part to the liberation of women, women have more freedom to blend the lines more today. For example, a woman who is confident, assertive, and independent is considered a much more acceptable thing that it was. She can couple that with traditionally feminine traits and society does not mind as much.

However, men are still held much more rigorously to just one end of the spectrum. Whatever your natural disposition is, society typically tries to shape you into the mold of what it expects of you as a man or woman. You hide traits that society does not approve of until they're either suppressed or gone.

I see that as ridiculous and stifling who we are as individuals as well as our natural strengths. I don't think feminine characteristics in a male make him weak, and a lot of people blur the boundary with androgynous behavior.

I'll try and steer this mega post to an end :sweatdrop:, thank you for your points Philipvs, and I'd be interested in your responding opinion if you have the time ^^.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What? No, it isn't. It's a comment on the way people planning ahead is shunted down particular paths due to economic circumstances outside of their control.

That's insulting to women, isn't it? To say that the initial economic advantage outlined in that cartoon you linked to is outside their control, or that the choice of when or if to have children is outside their control.

CR

[Husar]

I find this thread depressing, like most discussion on gender and the stereotyping that always comes with it. And I didn't even read half the posts due to a lack of time.

A lot of these things are in the eye of the beholder, are shaped by experience, surroundings and what we learned, coming to a common understanding is almost impossible.

I could give you my view but some of you would think I'm an inexperienced idiot so I won't. ~;p

[CountArach]

A husband says, after a few months of no sex with his wife for no apparent reason, that he has enough of it and that if his wife keeps refusing to have sex with him, he'll divorce her because he finds the current situation humiliating. If she then has sex with him, because she's afraid that after the divorce, she'll find herself in a very difficult financial situation; is that rape or not? After all, the husband threatens her with something from which he knows it'll have severe consequences for her. If she still loves him or she doesn't want to divorce because of the effects on the children and has sex with him for those reason, has she been forced or not? It's not rape at all in my book
It certainly is in mine.

Every year at Exeter University at least one first year girl is sexually assaulted, this year she was actually raped. The reason is always basically the same, she was walking home on her own in the early hour of the morning, possibly drunk, down a dark streat because she assumed my little city was safe. A couple of times pairs of girls have been attacked, I have never heard of a girl and a boy being sexually attacked. I am utterly convinced that the reason for this is that rapists are predators and a man and a woman together present a more difficult proposition than either a single woman or a small group. This is because generally speaking you can expect the man to move to protect the woman and by the time he is eliminated she will have run off and (hopefully) got help. We're talking about preventing a situation, not aiming to fight an attacker off.
Actually in the vast majority of cases, the victim knows the rapist.

[Lemur]

The only thought I'm going to add to this thread: In my experience (both in person and in reading), feminism is a broad term that can encompass many strains of thought, some of which are mutually contradictory. Most people basically mean "egalitarian" when they say "feminist," but you don't know until you've checked. Feminism is no more a coherent body of thought than, say, the Enlightenment. It's a big tree under which many philosophies take shade.

[Syl]

I think its time for me to withdraw from this thread. I support feminism and equality--I truly do. I tend to date open-minded and active women, and am not the least bit attracted to your typical house wife no matter how good she looks.

I just firmly believe that this is an issue that divides people who would otherwise work together on bigger issues. As this argument goes on, some of you are trying (and suceeding) to paint my posts as anti-woman or anti-feminism, and I don't want that to be the case.

Gelatinous Cube,

I know you're not anti-woman at all. Nothing you have said even remotely suggests that, and I am not trying to imply anything like that. You seem like a really great and open minded guy from almost everything I've read from you in these forums. I understand that you feel feminism is divisive and that it takes attention away from other important issues. My opinion on it is very very different and I'm pretty passionate about it, and I believe a lot of people have a very wrong impression on what feminism stands for. I believe it's still important and involves a lot of issues that are still relevant today, even with so much of the incredible progress we've made.

That said, our disagreement is not much more than that, and I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you or trying to construe you as something different.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Feminist theory goes into much more than simply the issue of gender from the angle of a woman. It also includes issues relating to men's rights, racial issues, classism, and GLBT rights.

Thats all about making common cause with the oppressed though. Everybody who has been disadvantaged by the "Old white men".


In regards to Matriarchy, proportionately the balance of Matrifocal societies is so rare against the more common Patriarchal system that I'm not sure how relevant it is. Women of the Iroquois had significant political power. I have trouble thinking of much more than that, compared to the thousands of years of our history where it's the opposite.

The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.


As for the benefits women receive from a male dominated system, I'd argue that it's a matter of your interpretation. In say, polygamy, if more women are able to be supported by fewer rich men, you could argue it'd be easier for her to find some level of stability in the world than otherwise. You could also argue it reduces women into being more of a commodity. The man can marry multiple women as suits his fancy, but the woman is restricted to that one marriage and under the power of that man. I'm not an expert on any of that so that may be a weak example, but, what I'm trying to argue is that certain benefits as a result of a system does not mean that that system is treating both groups equally or equivalently. In a male dominated society, whatever benefits you perceive to women under it, when the power structure is focused on men, men are more powerful.

There's a great quote from a WWII two film where a Yorkshireman and an African are talking about marriage. The Yorkshireman is grousing about his wife, then he asks about Islamic polygamy, and the African explains that the Koran allows a man to have four wives. The Yorkshireman asks if the African can have four wives, his response is, "No, I don't think my wife would like that!"

The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.

On the other hand, in a society where the exercise of violence is a key criterion of power a man's life is both valuable and unstable. You only have to look at Icelandic chieftans, a relatively equitable society btw, to see how precarious the life of a warlord is. If you are a disenfranchised woman you are well out of that, and so are your children. Being weak is to be nonthreatening, and being an object of desire gives you societal value without the attached danger of being a warrior.

One of my favourite medieval women, Emma of Normandy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_of_Normandy


I'm not familiar with that, but I'll naturally take your word for it :p. However, are they taking testosterone for an innate advantage from it, or because in a male dominated parliament they feel that they need the impact of its traits to compete in that demographic?

I'm going with "both", I mention it as it has "been reported".


Women do produce testosterone, (and men do produce estrogen). Obviously it's at different levels, and the method of synthesis is different, but there is balance of those chemicals in men and women that affect certain aspects of behavior. Those levels are also not the same from woman to woman and man to man. Testosterone is largely linked to higher aggression (some argue status-seeking behavior), but that drive exists with in men and women at different levels not just apart from sex but as an individual. So my question is if she is taking testosterone, is she feeling that she needs to be more aggressive than she innately is? I'd say that's her action stems from the pressure presented by a male dominated political system that seems to focus on aggression, and not an innate advantage.

Actually, testosterone is linked directly to high competetiveness, not so much aggression. Men are much more competetive, especially the successful ones, not that this is always a good thing. The recent financial crisis is an example of male competetiveness run amok, as most traders are still men.


Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

That's one man's opinion, that other men later agreed with. Patriarchal society produces Patriarchal religion, it's not surprising.


I agree here that I certainly can't lump everything into it, and I don't mean to ^^. That was just a branch example that came to me to make a point. There are many secular reasons for the way people treat each other unfairly throughout history, so I don't mean to present my argument exclusively like that.

I would describe focusing of any institution, be it religion, education, secular law, etc. is just a distraction.


These sort of tie together so I'll try and address them the same. This will probably come down to just a matter of disagreement between us, but here is my view. As individuals we are all a unique expression of a variety of traits, such as how self-confident we are or aren't, nurturing, passive, aggressive, sensitive, assertive, etc.

However, these traits are largely drawn down an artificial gender line. To be feminine is to be more sensitive, caring, compassionate, passive, etc. To be masculine is to be more aggressive, determined, brave, etc.

It's not artificial though, not man made - is it? It may not be a cut and dried line "this much aggression is masculine" or "this much sensitivity is feminine" - the point is that traditional gender roles are social constructs that reflect our natural gender bias. Even in more eqitable societies, like the early British tribes, the gender roles were largely the same, and that comes back to basic biology and physiology.


While we are our own unique blend of various traits, we are conditioned by society to conform mainly to the aspects of ourselves that match what people perceive our gender role to be. Gender is different than sex, sex being biological, and gender being the expectations that societies have for men and women, which have variation throughout history.

I don't agree with this, your sex and your gender are not seperable. We have a discourse in our society that almsot anything you want to do or be is psychologically healthy, and I don't quite buy it. It's like Reg in The Life of Brian demanding the right to have a baby, even though he doesn't have a womb. If gender is just a social construct it doesn't make any sense, except as a conspiracy to keep women in their place by making men "active" and women "passive" in their social roles.

What I find extraordinary about that is it takes at face value the hierarchy of traits which places the traditionally "masculine" above the "feminine". A more intelligent critique would look not at gender roles themselves so much as the relative value they are given by society. Why is going out to work considered to be a more "active" or "proactive" life choice than staying home and raising children?

Which do you suppose it harder? Forget to finish that report by the end of the week and the company loses money, forget to feed the baby and it dies. The survival of our species is totally dependant on women and their tradionally "feminine" role, otherwise we go exstinct.


I am male, but I definitely have what you'd consider more of a feminine personality. I'm not very aggressive or dominant at all, I'm rather shy, often anxious, and the traits I tend to find the most important in people is their kindness and compassion to one another and their ability to try and cooperate. I don't like conflict, and while I enjoy discussions like this, confrontation makes me uncomfortable, although I try and speak up for what I believe in. A lot of people consider those to be feminine traits.

I know you know next to nothing about me, but, if all you knew was that profile of me, I doubt you would approve of me (at least in terms of how a man should be in society). I however like how I am and feel I have unique strengths and perspective from that. It's not always an advantage, but it's not always a disadvantage either.

Oh I don't know, you should try reading some of the things "manly" men wrote over the centuries, Belle Dame Sans Mercie was probably written by a French Knight, the kind who spent a lot of his time getting better at cutting people's heads off.


If a boy cries, he's told to not show it, because it demeans him. If a man is sensitive, it can be seen as a positive trait, but if he is overly sensitive with other similar traits, society (and other men) pressure him to harden up.

This is true up to a point, the number of men who actually tell a man to "buck up" when he cries is actually not that big - but men do tend to burst into tears spontaniously much less often with men, and that is a typically female trait (often when a man upsets her) and it has been suggested that the reason that happens is because men are not, generally, good at reading emotions.


We used to live in a world where both sexes were held more rigorously to this dichotomy. However, due in large part to the liberation of women, women have more freedom to blend the lines more today. For example, a woman who is confident, assertive, and independent is considered a much more acceptable thing that it was. She can couple that with traditionally feminine traits and society does not mind as much.

Strong men have always found weak women boring, see Emma above, but I would contend that the backlash came from women asserting themselves within male spheres of competion. Men need to compete, with other men, the competition is invalid if you introduce women into the mix because it's women you are trying to impress - It's not that impressive if the thing you're better at than other men is something a woman is better at than you, though.

[quote]However, men are still held much more rigorously to just one end of the spectrum. Whatever your natural disposition is, society typically tries to shape you into the mold of what it expects of you as a man or woman. You hide traits that society does not approve of until they're either suppressed or gone.

I see that as ridiculous and stifling who we are as individuals as well as our natural strengths. I don't think feminine characteristics in a male make him weak, and a lot of people blur the boundary with androgynous behavior.QUOTE]

I don't think I agree with this, I think children of both sexes have the capacity to be extremely cruel, but adults are generally more understanding have been historically. I had an argument with my parents the other week when they said that so long as gay people were unobtrusive nobaby cared that they were gay, even though everybody knew. I don't agree with that way of treating people, but it's worth noting that there used to other ways of accomodating difference that didn't involve labeling it.

[Viking]

You mean, the difference between sex and gender, right?

I meant what I wrote, word by word according to common meanings of these specific words.


The percentage of women in the world who are treated badly because of their gender is much, much higher than 10%, and it's disingenuous of you to imply as such.

No person lives in all cultures at once. Feminism claims validity and relevance in every contemporary society. Furthermore, if the degree of which females within the same culture feel treated badly because of their gender varies greatly (from rape and murder on one end, to simply being laughed at in certain situations at the other end), then feminism also becomes weak, because gender becomes only one factor out of many. Seemingly the one factor that has the least to say when you remember that the physical gender necessarily will play a great role when it comes to how people are treated, simply because the physical properties of a person put limits on which roles are possible (example: a female in a former society was not likely to be treated like a melee warrior, because she was not likely to be a relevantly useful one).


Pretty much everything is an ideology, and it's a poor argument to say that something is bad because it's an ideology. Geertz neatly summed up these arguments as falling into the familiar paradigm "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."

Everything is not an ideology. That would make the word meaningless. An ideology is something comprehensive, a big body of thought and ideas to explain the world or society; or at least considerable parts of it. An ideology is not something you create for a cause. Rather it is something that decides which causes are worthy.

[Subotan]

I just firmly believe that this is an issue that divides people who would otherwise work together on bigger issues. As this argument goes on, some of you are trying (and suceeding) to paint my posts as anti-woman or anti-feminism, and I don't want that to be the case.
I don't think you're anti-woman or anti-feminist (For one thing, you're definitely not an MRA (http://manboobz.com/wtf-is-a-mgtow-a-glossary/). )I mentioned the term Kyriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy) earlier, and I think it's particularly relevant to answer the problems you have with feminism.


I find this thread depressing, like most discussion on gender and the stereotyping that always comes with it. And I didn't even read half the posts due to a lack of time.

A lot of these things are in the eye of the beholder, are shaped by experience, surroundings and what we learned, coming to a common understanding is almost impossible.

I could give you my view but some of you would think I'm an inexperienced idiot so I won't. ~;p
No, go on, speak your mind!

I meant what I wrote, word by word according to common meanings of these specific words.
...Sex is biological, gender is mental.


No person lives in all cultures at once. Feminism claims validity and relevance in every contemporary society. Furthermore, if the degree of which females within the same culture feel treated badly because of their gender varies greatly (from rape and murder on one end, to simply being laughed at in certain situations at the other end), then feminism also becomes weak, because gender becomes only one factor out of many. Seemingly the one factor that has the least to say when you remember that the physical gender necessarily will play a great role when it comes to how people are treated, simply because the physical properties of a person put limits on which roles are possible (example: a female in a former society was not likely to be treated like a melee warrior, because she was not likely to be a relevantly useful one).
gender becomes only one factor out of many - Not in all cases.A rich white woman who is raped is just as oppressed for her gender as a poor black woman, to vastly oversimplify. Also, see what I said about kyriarchy.


Everything is not an ideology. That would make the word meaningless. An ideology is something comprehensive, a big body of thought and ideas to explain the world or society; or at least considerable parts of it. An ideology is not something you create for a cause. Rather it is something that decides which causes are worthy.
Will expand on this later - remind me.

[Dagonet]

An absurd argument, if you don't mind my saying so.

Men, historically were (reasonably) the ones with more 'free' time, women make (in the main) naturally better carers, add to this their (in the main) relative incapacity during the later months of child-rearing, massively high historical mother & infant mortality rates it makes sense for men to be the ones that engage in any activities that are non-domestic. Women of child-bearing age have always been simply the highest value 'commodity' in any society. This naturally leads to a system where non-essential or non-domestic work is devolved to males, it's not a matter of prejudice, subjugation or anything of the sort

Now, when people talk of this commoditization of women, they tend to ignore, completely, the fact that throughout history in almost all societies the majority of men were also 'owned' by one leader, house, government or another. The suffragette movement is still talked about, but the fact that just a few decades earlier most men in the country (UK) had no right to vote. Conscription migt not have been a legislated fact until modern history, but that's because it didn't need to be, the number of mobile fremen in any remotely centralised society was minimal.

Feminism is just another term for the social liberalism movement which attempts to deny biological & sociological reality, however many freedoms and toys you give a man or woman, one man will always seek and gain power over another man: this is the natural order and no amount of trying to obfuscate it will stop it showing through. What is left is to order the enactment to the betterment of individuals and societies. 'Permissivism' has gone hand in hand with technological progress to keep murder & violent crime rising, drug usage increasing, feral & mal-educated children persisting in huge quantities despite a vast educational and support system. Alcoholism & alcohol related injury increasing despite the billions spent on remedying it.

Feminism's 'contribution' to society is purely economic it hasn't been so much a matter of bringing women into public life as about bringing what were traditionally women's spheres into public life, demanding that women be involved in the non-essential work of society just the same as men are. Demanding that they be involved in the economic system in a more direct fashion, which imo does nobody a favour, doubling the labour pool and enabling central government to tax work that was previously done beyond government's scope to control.

The theft of freedom. Beyond those directly economic and private domestic industry related encroachments of the public sphere, families now give up such rights as would be considered slavery looked at objectively. The rights governments now have over offspring are inalienable - where those of the parents are not.

I'll post this before I decide it's insane and delete it =)

Enjoy.

[Syl]

Thats all about making common cause with the oppressed though. Everybody who has been disadvantaged by the "Old white men".

Plenty of people may have been stung by the ole' WASPs in our history, but I don't think it's an issue of making common cause at all. A lot of the convictions and principles in feminism do transfer over into those other issues, so I think it's a natural extension for the movement. Branching into them simply for common cause would be disingenuous.


The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.

I'm sure many women of those era's were happy, but not knowing anything different doesn't mean the quality of their life was high. They (like the majority of people back then) had to work within the only option of life offered to them. Most people in the old days were peasants bound to feudal land, heavily taxed, with a single pair of clothes, and no crops stored for a harsh winter. That wasn't a very easy existance for anyone really. The difference is that women's station were still even lower and more powerless than their male peers in all divisions of life.


The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.

I agree that the core quality of any relationship is the result of the two people within it and their love for each other (or lack of it), we're certainly not debating that. I have no doubt that there were men who treated their wives extremely well in all earlier era's, and they had a mutually had a happy life together. And similarly, there were, are, and will always be horrible people as well. We can just hope to make a framework that can make as most people live as happy and healthy a life as possible. If you can't divorce, you're endlessly at the mercy of a scumbag. If your society has divorce though, although it's not perfect, it does offer the option to change the circumstance for everyone involved. To me that's why the second is superior, even though we'll never have a system that's perfect.


On the other hand, in a society where the exercise of violence is a key criterion of power a man's life is both valuable and unstable. You only have to look at Icelandic chieftans, a relatively equitable society btw, to see how precarious the life of a warlord is. If you are a disenfranchised woman you are well out of that, and so are your children. Being weak is to be nonthreatening, and being an object of desire gives you societal value without the attached danger of being a warrior.

You do have a point that it's the tallest tree in a forest that tends get cut down first, and in a violent society men do see other men as a threat and so most of their violence is on each other in terms of power struggle. There are benefits to that, like the influence Emma of Normandy from your example was able to hold behind the scenes. However, to be weak and nonthreatening is also to be simple prey, and there's nothing to protect you from be exploited and abused in other ways. And in terms of Emma, it was only a small small fraction of people in those eras who had access to political power to dictate or even influence it. Unquestionably women in nobility and royalty have had significant influence over our history as well, but they and their stories are a very privileged exception to the life of most people. To be able to influence your husband also does not make you his equal in that system. Your presence and ideas are his to welcome, tolerate, or shut out at his own discretion.


Actually, testosterone is linked directly to high competitiveness, not so much aggression. Men are much more competetive, especially the successful ones, not that this is always a good thing. The recent financial crisis is an example of male competitiveness run amok, as most traders are still men.

That's an excellent example and I agree completely. Being competitive has benefits but also flaws like you pointed out. That's why I think that if some women in the UK Parliament are doing that, then it's not simply in regard for an innate advantage. The degree that you consider competitiveness (and to what amount) as a benefit could result in a lot of different opinions. Why then would they feel the need to do something as drastic as take male hormones for political office? My speculation would be that those specific women may feel they need to exaggerate those qualities to be accepted in such a male dominated arena, and turn to such an extreme and unnecessary method.



Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
That's one man's opinion, that other men later agreed with. Patriarchal society produces Patriarchal religion, it's not surprising.

Well, I would argue more the reverse of that situation, that a patriarchal religion influenced its society (and spread to most of the world to influence them in a similar way) to a similar patriarchal structure. I think a lot of people don't follow a religion innately because they agree with it's teaching. Certainly they agree with much of it, but it's often because they perceive it as the will of an omnipotent god and that disobedience leads to damnation and condemnation in your community. I think most people don't think sacrificing a sheep in a ritual is a great idea or a good use of that resource. There's a reason they call it God-fearing.

The second aspect to that is that a patriarchal religion is less flexible. Where changes of a society in time would naturally lead to changes of the dynamics within them, religion says that this is the way things are and always must be. That's more inherently damaging.


I don't agree with this, your sex and your gender are not seperable. We have a discourse in our society that almsot anything you want to do or be is psychologically healthy, and I don't quite buy it.

Seperating sex and gender isn't my personal distinction, it's two seperate terms in its relation to sociology. Sex is your inherent genetic make up (XX or XY). Gender are the roles and attitude a society places on and expects of men and women within it. I think what you're getting at is along the lines of "Isn't there an obvious connection between them?"

There is a significant impact, but not as drastic as its made to be. Like we've touched on earlier, men and women are influenced by different hormones that affects them and their development. At the earliest stages of development, even in those of us with an XY chromosome, female is the default and original marker in our gestation. At an early point though our Y chromosome causes our body to secrete different levels of testosterone among other things that triggers the development of testes and the beginning of other masculine traits. Of course we come away with a different effect from that.

I will concede that men are in general naturally more aggressive, competitive, etc. than women. Enough that there is a connotation all over the world with that. However, there are also many competitive and aggressive women. And less competitive men. It is a spectrum, like you acknowledged, and there's not a clear cut off on what is masculine or feminine, but there is a general connotation of what is.

Where my no comes into play is that there is a significant artificial exaggeration by society on them. One example is a boy playing with dolls, toy ponies, or a cooking set. Most parents get uncomfortable and would take them away or direct them to more typically boy toys. I know there are studies that males are more likely to drift towards masculine toys, but there's always variation, and the point here isn't the child choice, it's the parents reaction.

The father might fear that the dolls are emasculating him, and that he needs to reinforce masculine behavior. After all, he needs to grow up to be a man, and that's not the behavior of a man (at least as he sees it). In the child's perspective he's simply playing a game.

The mother may be concerned for the same reasons, or maybe even if it doesn't bother her, she's concerned about how his peers will perceive him and that he'll be teased. In the end the result is the same, the boy is told that dolls and ponies are for girls (as are the things associated with them), and trucks and for boys. It's the same with pink toys. Pink on a toy isn't changing that much about it, but there's a gendered perception of pink that makes such an incredible impact in our society. These type of aspects are present through the entirety of our lives.

I think you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. Men may be more innately leaning towards one behavior and women another, but we're not aliens from mars and venus. However, the gendered perception of our society teaches us what traits are to define us. On the boys don't cry subject, it's not because men don't cry, or are significantly less inclined to. It's because it's perceived as a weakness, and that to cry in public is to lower your own standing and respect. Does crying do that? Not innately, it does nothing innately in that context other than express your sadness. It's what we make of it and interpret it as in our society that marks how we define it.

It's a common and simple way to live our lives, but I think it's limiting and cuts the potential and talent of ourselves as individuals. One example that might stick out to people particularly on this forum are the onna bugeisha, or the women of the samurai nobility. They were trained in combat and weapons to protect their household, family, and honor. They weren't just the wives and daughter of samurai, they were part of the Bushi class as well. They did enter actual battle and at the side of men. This wasn't their primary role, they had family responsibilities that they focused on, but they were part of a warrior tradition, so they received the training and were expected to fight if needed. And they did.

Traditional society all over the world often says that women cannot and should not fight. That women are simply passive and soft. Women may not be on average as aggressive as men or physically as strong, but that does not mean they are the polar opposite. The onna bugeisha did fight, and they fought well. But it also wasn't the defining aspect of who they were. It was a part of the life that they lived among their other duties. To gender war as exclusively masculine is our own construction.

My point is, we create the perception of what a gender is meant to be in our society, and we limit ourselves into something that isn't just emotionally damaging, but limits our potential as well.


I had an argument with my parents the other week when they said that so long as gay people were unobtrusive nobaby cared that they were gay, even though everybody knew. I don't agree with that way of treating people, but it's worth noting that there used to other ways of accomodating difference that didn't involve labeling it.

I agree that we don't have to try and label everything, and I do think that's a big part of the problem. However, as a male who's attracted to other men, I can tell you that to live your life hidden away and in silence is not the same in fulfillment or respect than people who can be themselves openly. It's not just a matter of leaving people alone in the privacy of their own homes, we should be so lucky if humans were like that. There's a trail of discrimination throughout the ages for pretty much anything that's not in the mainstream of the majority, and laws against homosexuals was no different. It's not accommodation by any means.


I hide traits society dissaproves of until I am powerful enough to not care. Sound silly? Sure is. True? Yup.

Just call me a level 70 unsatisfied citizen.

I couldn't help but picture a level 70 Gelatinous Cube. One the size of a pyramid with a castle floating around inside and distressed little soldiers. The horror. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

As a man, it doesn't even occur to me that when I use the term "feminist" self-descriptively that it could mean anything to me but the equivalent of egalitarianism. That said, I refuse to describe myself as an egalitarian, as I feel that using a qualifier to describe myself to people who wouldn't describe themselves as feminists could cause them to think "Hey, if Subotan is an egalitarian feminist, does that mean that all the feminists who don't explicitly call themselves egalitarian are crazy?" By showing to other men that men can be feminists, despite being male and sane, is probably one of the few unique contributions men can contribute to feminism.

That's false.

Feminism is a single issue, you can for example be a "Racist Feminist", however you cannot be a "Racist Egalitarian" because it is conflicting. As for calling yourself "Egalitarian feminist" that is a complete misnomer as you would never call yourself that since the term is "Egalitarian" which encompasses this, you do not need any qualifying statements. On an interesting note, by your statement of "Feminist", you identify me as one, though I don't self-identify myself as one (as I don't classify myself as that label, but I do believe in the equality as per egalitarianism).

Then there is the issues in the name itself. If you read feminist literature, then you clearly see the objections of "man-kind" where the discursive influence of suggesting men the dominant force behind it and not women (Even the term women is discursively suggesting they are a sub-set of men). It is effectively the same exact arguments which play into the term of feminist. It pro-actively focuses on the aspect of "female". Whilst the term feminist is very good when you need the issues of women salient, they are however not an end-goal and thus need to dissolve in order to achieve the goal they actually want.

Most of this is the issues that CountAnarch brings up and I agree with him. The discursive and linguistic usage of the language needs to be changed. I believe in Sweden they are approaches attempting to adopt the term "hen" instead of "him" or "her" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419), for gender-neutrality. Though this kind of fails in English due to hen's being the female "chicken" (with cockerel as the male).

There is some limited gender-neutrality in English, such as the singular-they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they). I think a year or so ago I was pulled up about this by TinCow, I believe, as I kept referring to genders like so. For example:
"Andres? They're an awesome poster", "Securas' chocolate cake is really delicious, it is their speciality"

Then with the internet, you don't know who you actually talking to. I admittedly laughed when people kept calling a posters wife a "He" as they didn't know it was a female. Which looks more silly in hindsight? Me going "Their argument has some merit..." or "His argument has some merit...". It just displays the basis which is ingrained into some people.

[Hax]

Most of this is the issues that CountAnarch brings up and I agree with him. The discursive and linguistic usage of the language needs to be changed. I believe in Sweden they are approaches attempting to adopt the term "hen" instead of "him" or "her" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419), for gender-neutrality. Though this kind of fails in English due to hen's being the female "chicken" (with cockerel as the male).

I disagree, and I'm as egalitarian as anyone. Women and men are still different, biologically; however the statement of this fact does not mean women and men ought to be treated differently (is/ought fallacy, of course). Still, can't we just decide to use "him" and "her" free of any social connotations? Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post though.

Of course, the most vile woman-hating language is Arabic, with a different masculine and feminine form for "you" in the singular, the dual and the plural form! And now you know.

[Beskar]

I disagree, and I'm as egalitarian as anyone. Women and men are still different, biologically; however the statement of this fact does not mean women and men ought to be treated differently (is/ought fallacy, of course). Still, can't we just decide to use "him" and "her" free of any social connotations? Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post though.

There is no necessary need to really identify as such and it just causes a whole range of issues when you start bringing transgender debate in the arena. The biological differences are separate from the society contributions attributed to such terms. There is so much masculine attachment into the usage of "him" and similar with the feminine attachment into the usage of "her". As a society, simply making that divide salient, you begin to construct differences such as what separates "him" from "her".

If you read the article, it is mostly about allowing children to be children, for them to explore and enjoy themselves. Allowing the girl to play with the lego and let the boy play with the barbie, why should lego's belong to "him" and why should "barbies" belong to her, it is all about removing that social barrier and admittedly would love such things to be adopted on a grander scale.

Then in cases of unknown gender, why should people say "His posts" opposed to having some other term to simply refer to a person as simply that, a person.

[Hax]

Then in cases of unknown gender, why should people say "His posts" opposed to having some other term to simply refer to a person as simply that, a person.

Its posts.

[Beskar]

Its posts.

"It" is impersonal, "it" refers to an object and not a person.

Admittedly, at least we don't have the weird female-chairs and male-tables in English which our European cousins have.

[Nowake]

Much as one used this sub-forum extensively in the past few months as a pretext to keep an active presence at our fading .Org (not that one switched to similar websites now) the large portions of inane argumentation going on in almost all these Backroom threads at once really makes one roll one's eyes and ignore it whole after a while - especially when browsing through it after a copious, bigot-free vacation.

So, the correct response to - unsure who I am quoting now, the first page of this thread bored one too much to actually search through the rest - this assertion:


Then in cases of unknown gender, why should people say "His posts" opposed to having some other term to simply refer to a person as simply that, a person.
Is that normal, educated people use "One" when one's gender is not yet established, and that the use of "He" is merely the appanage of those with severe handicaps when it comes to mentally laying out a phrase and producing speech simultaneously. The category is also very prone to stumble into all sorts of cacophonies and use the same nouns in adjoining or even single sentences, for lack of employable brainpower in finding synonyms or an underdeveloped "ear" for the displeasing turn of phrase.

[Nowake]

*places oneself with one's back to the wall* The magnanimity overwhelms me! :yes:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRZTBqzQJ5Q&feature=g-upl&context=G23781d3AUAAAAAAABAA

[ajaxfetish]

Then there is the issues in the name itself. If you read feminist literature, then you clearly see the objections of "man-kind" where the discursive influence of suggesting men the dominant force behind it and not women (Even the term women is discursively suggesting they are a sub-set of men).

The Anglo-Saxons didn't have this problem. Maybe we should go back to distinguishing wife-men and weapon-men?


Much as one used this sub-forum extensively in the past few months as a pretext to keep an active presence at our fading .Org (not that one switched to similar websites now) the large portions of inane argumentation going on in almost all these Backroom threads at once really makes one roll one's eyes and ignore it whole after a while - especially when browsing through it after a copious, bigot-free vacation.

So, the correct response to - unsure who I am quoting now, the first page of this thread bored one too much to actually search through the rest - this assertion:


Is that normal, educated people use "One" when one's gender is not yet established, and that the use of "He" is merely the appanage of those with severe handicaps when it comes to mentally laying out a phrase and producing speech simultaneously. The category is also very prone to stumble into all sorts of cacophonies and use the same nouns in adjoining or even single sentences, for lack of employable brainpower in finding synonyms or an underdeveloped "ear" for the displeasing turn of phrase.

One has its own problems. To many English speakers (including mois) it sounds decidedly stiff and formal. While appropriate for some contexts, it not universally acceptable for the gender-neutral role. It, as already noted, has the problem that it is generally reserved for inanimate referents, though it does seem natural to me to use it to refer to a baby whose gender is unknown. On principle, I take issue with generic he, though I'm sure I use it frequently without thinking about it. Singular they is my preferred gender-neutral term, though I think it may be tied more strongly to non-specificity than to gender-neutrality. "No mother should have their child taken from them" feels acceptable to me, even though the referent is necessarily female, and "Secura's chocolate cake is their specialty" feels like it would be just as awkward even if I didn't know Secura's gender.

Ajax

[CountArach]

Much as one used this sub-forum extensively in the past few months as a pretext to keep an active presence at our fading .Org (not that one switched to similar websites now) the large portions of inane argumentation going on in almost all these Backroom threads at once really makes one roll one's eyes and ignore it whole after a while - especially when browsing through it after a copious, bigot-free vacation.
This use of one, that is to refer to oneself in the third person (or a generalised person undergoing a task or somesuch), is commonly accepted and less formal than the gender-neutral third person singular usage of it, where it is rare to hear the term applied to a third party due to sounding rather too formal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Plenty of people may have been stung by the ole' WASPs in our history, but I don't think it's an issue of making common cause at all. A lot of the convictions and principles in feminism do transfer over into those other issues, so I think it's a natural extension for the movement. Branching into them simply for common cause would be disingenuous.

Who's? The "WASP" doesn't exist outside the US, and inside its some kind of wierd congealing of everyone's fears of oppression. Look at the name, wierd, wierd, because all Anglo-Saxons are white. Glib statements like that go some way to proving my point. There's a shared sense of victimhood there and that's not healthy.

Egalitarianism can cover all the same issues, without any of the same sense of bias of victimhood.


I'm sure many women of those era's were happy, but not knowing anything different doesn't mean the quality of their life was high.

That's a somewhat glib dismissal. It DID become intollerable and then women DID rebel. The logical conclusion is that prior to that it was at least tollerable.


They (like the majority of people back then) had to work within the only option of life offered to them. Most people in the old days were peasants bound to feudal land, heavily taxed, with a single pair of clothes, and no crops stored for a harsh winter. That wasn't a very easy existance for anyone really. The difference is that women's station were still even lower and more powerless than their male peers in all divisions of life.

None of this is really true, certainly not after 1300, there were plently of women who were the wives of knights, merchants, Franklins. Read Chaucer's "The Wife of Bath's Tale".


I agree that the core quality of any relationship is the result of the two people within it and their love for each other (or lack of it), we're certainly not debating that. I have no doubt that there were men who treated their wives extremely well in all earlier era's, and they had a mutually had a happy life together. And similarly, there were, are, and will always be horrible people as well. We can just hope to make a framework that can make as most people live as happy and healthy a life as possible. If you can't divorce, you're endlessly at the mercy of a scumbag. If your society has divorce though, although it's not perfect, it does offer the option to change the circumstance for everyone involved. To me that's why the second is superior, even though we'll never have a system that's perfect.

I see your point, really I do, but when you think that today women have multiple failed relationships (as do men) as opposed to one (or two) marriages and many more people spend larger periods of their lives not only unmarried, but actually alone: It's not that much better is it. On top of that, lots of "battered women" stay in abusive relationships, so I'm not convinced that easy access to divorce has benefitted those who are most vulnerable. That's before we even get to people who get divorced and then decide it was a stupid thing to do, only to discover it's too late.


You do have a point that it's the tallest tree in a forest that tends get cut down first, and in a violent society men do see other men as a threat and so most of their violence is on each other in terms of power struggle. There are benefits to that, like the influence Emma of Normandy from your example was able to hold behind the scenes. However, to be weak and nonthreatening is also to be simple prey, and there's nothing to protect you from be exploited and abused in other ways. And in terms of Emma, it was only a small small fraction of people in those eras who had access to political power to dictate or even influence it. Unquestionably women in nobility and royalty have had significant influence over our history as well, but they and their stories are a very privileged exception to the life of most people. To be able to influence your husband also does not make you his equal in that system. Your presence and ideas are his to welcome, tolerate, or shut out at his own discretion.

Yes, there is a lack of practical political power - but that's offset by not being killed and, frankly, men are easily persuaded to listen to women. It's not a great system, but I would argue very seriously that the men felt like they were in charge because the women let them think it.


That's an excellent example and I agree completely. Being competitive has benefits but also flaws like you pointed out. That's why I think that if some women in the UK Parliament are doing that, then it's not simply in regard for an innate advantage. The degree that you consider competitiveness (and to what amount) as a benefit could result in a lot of different opinions. Why then would they feel the need to do something as drastic as take male hormones for political office? My speculation would be that those specific women may feel they need to exaggerate those qualities to be accepted in such a male dominated arena, and turn to such an extreme and unnecessary method.

Here's an alternative idea - democratic politics was invented by men and it flatters typically male traits.


Well, I would argue more the reverse of that situation, that a patriarchal religion influenced its society (and spread to most of the world to influence them in a similar way) to a similar patriarchal structure. I think a lot of people don't follow a religion innately because they agree with it's teaching. Certainly they agree with much of it, but it's often because they perceive it as the will of an omnipotent god and that disobedience leads to damnation and condemnation in your community. I think most people don't think sacrificing a sheep in a ritual is a great idea or a good use of that resource. There's a reason they call it God-fearing.

The second aspect to that is that a patriarchal religion is less flexible. Where changes of a society in time would naturally lead to changes of the dynamics within them, religion says that this is the way things are and always must be. That's more inherently damaging.

Flexability has nothing to do with it, and that's wrong anyway because Christian doctrine has changed and evolved over the centuries, and there are specific theological systems for weighing particular Counciliar decisions against each other.

In any case, you quoted Paul who was a Jewish Christian missionary who was successful at converting Jews, Romans, Greeks, Syrians... His success had a lot to do with radical theological doctrine combined with conservative social teaching. Subsequent generations of converts found that teaching equally palatable until at the Council of Carthage the African Bishops canonised (most of) his writings. The key mover there was Augustine, who was a Roman-educated North African with a Christian mother and a pagan father. Augustine flirted with pretty much every religion and secular philosophy before settling on Paul interpretation of christianity.


Seperating sex and gender isn't my personal distinction, it's two seperate terms in its relation to sociology. Sex is your inherent genetic make up (XX or XY). Gender are the roles and attitude a society places on and expects of men and women within it. I think what you're getting at is along the lines of "Isn't there an obvious connection between them?"

I think sociology is wrong, I don't believe that "gender" is a social construct, that implies artificiality, I think its an expression of natural difference.


There is a significant impact, but not as drastic as its made to be. Like we've touched on earlier, men and women are influenced by different hormones that affects them and their development. At the earliest stages of development, even in those of us with an XY chromosome, female is the default and original marker in our gestation. At an early point though our Y chromosome causes our body to secrete different levels of testosterone among other things that triggers the development of testes and the beginning of other masculine traits. Of course we come away with a different effect from that.

I will concede that men are in general naturally more aggressive, competitive, etc. than women. Enough that there is a connotation all over the world with that. However, there are also many competitive and aggressive women. And less competitive men. It is a spectrum, like you acknowledged, and there's not a clear cut off on what is masculine or feminine, but there is a general connotation of what is.

I think, when you consider how men and women relate to each other it's a big difference, and that's what we're really talking about. Relations between the sexes and relative suitability for certain social roles (like mothering children).


Where my no comes into play is that there is a significant artificial exaggeration by society on them. One example is a boy playing with dolls, toy ponies, or a cooking set. Most parents get uncomfortable and would take them away or direct them to more typically boy toys. I know there are studies that males are more likely to drift towards masculine toys, but there's always variation, and the point here isn't the child choice, it's the parents reaction.

The father might fear that the dolls are emasculating him, and that he needs to reinforce masculine behavior. After all, he needs to grow up to be a man, and that's not the behavior of a man (at least as he sees it). In the child's perspective he's simply playing a game.

The mother may be concerned for the same reasons, or maybe even if it doesn't bother her, she's concerned about how his peers will perceive him and that he'll be teased. In the end the result is the same, the boy is told that dolls and ponies are for girls (as are the things associated with them), and trucks and for boys. It's the same with pink toys. Pink on a toy isn't changing that much about it, but there's a gendered perception of pink that makes such an incredible impact in our society. These type of aspects are present through the entirety of our lives.

I think you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. Men may be more innately leaning towards one behavior and women another, but we're not aliens from mars and venus. However, the gendered perception of our society teaches us what traits are to define us. On the boys don't cry subject, it's not because men don't cry, or are significantly less inclined to. It's because it's perceived as a weakness, and that to cry in public is to lower your own standing and respect. Does crying do that? Not innately, it does nothing innately in that context other than express your sadness. It's what we make of it and interpret it as in our society that marks how we define it.

I do get the idea, and I sypathise with the desire to see men and women as more similar than different - but my experience of dealing with women is that understanding only comes with accepting that you don't understand. By contrast, men are an open book. Thinking about it a little more deeply though, implying that there is some form of coercive conditioning into gender roles implies that it started at some point. Almost like someone decided to seperate "masculine" and "feminine" when in reality I think social gender roles are about competition within your own sex. Looking at men, rare is the woman who wants a highly sensitive man, more often she wants a man just sensitive enough to empathise, but not one as sensetive as she is - someone who'll cut the throat of the dear he just ran over to stop it from suffering, but won't expect her to watch.


It's a common and simple way to live our lives, but I think it's limiting and cuts the potential and talent of ourselves as individuals. One example that might stick out to people particularly on this forum are the onna bugeisha, or the women of the samurai nobility. They were trained in combat and weapons to protect their household, family, and honor. They weren't just the wives and daughter of samurai, they were part of the Bushi class as well. They did enter actual battle and at the side of men. This wasn't their primary role, they had family responsibilities that they focused on, but they were part of a warrior tradition, so they received the training and were expected to fight if needed. And they did.

I'd wager they weren't allowed if they had suckling babes or were recently married, while their husbands were expected to go out and meet the enemy. Defending the home is very different to the contest of arms in the field, one is basically competition and the other is survival. Pre-Roman Celtic culture functioned in the same way viz women's potential battlefield role.


Traditional society all over the world often says that women cannot and should not fight. That women are simply passive and soft. Women may not be on average as aggressive as men or physically as strong, but that does not mean they are the polar opposite. The onna bugeisha did fight, and they fought well. But it also wasn't the defining aspect of who they were. It was a part of the life that they lived among their other duties. To gender war as exclusively masculine is our own construction.

There's a very good reason for this, three actually. Aside from actual childbearing and feeding there's the breadth of a woman's hips and the narrowness of her shoulders (and to a lesser extent her bust. A woman's bust can interfere with wearing armour, and using a bow, her narrower shoulders reduce her ability to deliver powerful blows and the wider circel of her hips slows down her movements. As a secondary issue, woman have a slightly different elbow joint to men which reduces their ability to throw or strike downwards, taken together all this alters a woman's centre of gravity relative to a amn, which makes certain gymnastic movements. All else, including hight and fat/muscle ratio, the man makes a better warrior, hands down.


My point is, we create the perception of what a gender is meant to be in our society, and we limit ourselves into something that isn't just emotionally damaging, but limits our potential as well.

I don't believe its emotionally damaging, more emotionally damaging would be to have no structure to form your own identity around.


I agree that we don't have to try and label everything, and I do think that's a big part of the problem. However, as a male who's attracted to other men, I can tell you that to live your life hidden away and in silence is not the same in fulfillment or respect than people who can be themselves openly. It's not just a matter of leaving people alone in the privacy of their own homes, we should be so lucky if humans were like that. There's a trail of discrimination throughout the ages for pretty much anything that's not in the mainstream of the majority, and laws against homosexuals was no different. It's not accommodation by any means.

I don't believe that private accomodation excuses making a certain lifestyle illegal - that was why we had the argument - but I was just offering it up as an example of life being more complicated in the past than you might expect. As far as discrimination against homosexuals, it should be noted that such discrimination was, until very recently, aimed purely at male-male relations in the vast majority of cases. This comes back to the idea of sex as power, and the unnaceptablility of men being subservient to other men. Back to rape as an expression of power too. Even more important, the idea that your sexual preference was an important part of your identity is very, very, modern "homosexual" as a word only appears in the 19th century. Prior to that your identity was male or female, and regardless of preference you married someone of the opposite sex and produced children, or you didn't.

As a man, your responsibility would be to marry well and carry on your family name, your preferences did not come into it. That's to say, if she was well dowered and healthy as well as being good at running a household and of tollerable character she was a good catch. Likewise, he was a good catch if he had good holdings, a good head for his business, was healthy, and not a brute.

Against this backdrop, I consider the modern obession, and it's definately an obsession, with classifying everyone according to their accumulation of particular traits and sexual preference as rather quaint. Not only does it lead to decidedly odd debates about whether a man should be allowed to "marry" another man (we are lucky to be able to have such a debate, being so economically secure that we can allow non-reproductive pairings to be enshrined in law in any way) but I have become suspicious that there is now the same pressure on an "out" gay man to behave in a certain fashion in excatly the same way as you described men being expected to be "masculine", but instead because of one particular difference we now seem to expect these men to behave in a way which obviously sets them apart from everyone else.

Whether this is a lazy society, or an attempt to remove these men from the male competative sphere, I'm not sure.


There is no necessary need to really identify as such and it just causes a whole range of issues when you start bringing transgender debate in the arena. The biological differences are separate from the society contributions attributed to such terms. There is so much masculine attachment into the usage of "him" and similar with the feminine attachment into the usage of "her". As a society, simply making that divide salient, you begin to construct differences such as what separates "him" from "her".

If you read the article, it is mostly about allowing children to be children, for them to explore and enjoy themselves. Allowing the girl to play with the lego and let the boy play with the barbie, why should lego's belong to "him" and why should "barbies" belong to her, it is all about removing that social barrier and admittedly would love such things to be adopted on a grander scale.

Then in cases of unknown gender, why should people say "His posts" opposed to having some other term to simply refer to a person as simply that, a person.

The "other term" would be their name. Manners strike again.

Also, I have to point out, my sister played with my lego and turned all my castles into stables or hotels.



An absurd argument, if you don't mind my saying so.

Men, historically were (reasonably) the ones with more 'free' time, women make (in the main) naturally better carers, add to this their (in the main) relative incapacity during the later months of child-rearing, massively high historical mother & infant mortality rates it makes sense for men to be the ones that engage in any activities that are non-domestic. Women of child-bearing age have always been simply the highest value 'commodity' in any society. This naturally leads to a system where non-essential or non-domestic work is devolved to males, it's not a matter of prejudice, subjugation or anything of the sort

Now, when people talk of this commoditization of women, they tend to ignore, completely, the fact that throughout history in almost all societies the majority of men were also 'owned' by one leader, house, government or another. The suffragette movement is still talked about, but the fact that just a few decades earlier most men in the country (UK) had no right to vote. Conscription migt not have been a legislated fact until modern history, but that's because it didn't need to be, the number of mobile fremen in any remotely centralised society was minimal.

Feminism is just another term for the social liberalism movement which attempts to deny biological & sociological reality, however many freedoms and toys you give a man or woman, one man will always seek and gain power over another man: this is the natural order and no amount of trying to obfuscate it will stop it showing through. What is left is to order the enactment to the betterment of individuals and societies. 'Permissivism' has gone hand in hand with technological progress to keep murder & violent crime rising, drug usage increasing, feral & mal-educated children persisting in huge quantities despite a vast educational and support system. Alcoholism & alcohol related injury increasing despite the billions spent on remedying it.

Feminism's 'contribution' to society is purely economic it hasn't been so much a matter of bringing women into public life as about bringing what were traditionally women's spheres into public life, demanding that women be involved in the non-essential work of society just the same as men are. Demanding that they be involved in the economic system in a more direct fashion, which imo does nobody a favour, doubling the labour pool and enabling central government to tax work that was previously done beyond government's scope to control.

The theft of freedom. Beyond those directly economic and private domestic industry related encroachments of the public sphere, families now give up such rights as would be considered slavery looked at objectively. The rights governments now have over offspring are inalienable - where those of the parents are not.

I'll post this before I decide it's insane and delete it =)

Enjoy.

I quotes this in entirity because you threatened to delete it and I think it bears reading. One point is obviously true, sexual equality has reduced social mobility, because people tend to marry their own class, and these days that means that two high earners tend to marry and devote all their earnings to making their children successful, which cuts off access to high earning jobs to clever people who want to move up, because we now have double the workforce for the same size population as we did two hundred years ago.

[Ironside]

Well, guess what, it works both ways. Far from undermining an an oppressive mesh of structural factors that maintains an artificial divide between the sexes and returning them to a more natural state of equality, I think feminism does the opposite. What is does is create its own artificial ideal of what a woman should be, and what she should do, and how she should live her life. In fact it attempts to make women into a copy of what is essentially the classic male rolemodel.

I mean, feminists complain at how society pressures women into a certain lifestyle. How, until at least very recently, women might be expected to be housekeepers, and many probably will still be encouraged in that direction by their parents or spouses or whoever. Well, the feminist system has created its own pressures. The successful, modern woman is now expected to have her own career and successes independent of her husband, to work her own 9-5 job and maintain herself even when married. And for things like having kids to be put off until her 40's... I've heard a lot about how feminism seeks to deconstruct artificial societal norms and return to a more natural and fairer state... well what on earth is natural about putting off having kids until the absolute maximum end of your fertile years (creating health risks for parent and child), just so that you can life the idealised life of a man in the 1950's?!


First rule of induvidualism is economic independence. So any induvidialistic solution needs to resolve this first.

The aging matter is also based on increased education and applies to both genders.



The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.

It's simply impossible that North-Koreans are being oppressed by their goverment. Or slaves to be oppressed by thier masters.

And to be picky, the big boost in woman rights was because during the 19th century, thier rich fathers suddenly ended up with daughters impossible to marry off properly (due to lack of men with proper status in the cities). Ergo, they had to do something.



The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.

Instead of all optional brides being economically dependable and cheat with the maid later on?


Really? We're arguing about the evils of modern grammar now?

What next, the Moon is secretly plotting against women?

This is the sort of thing that makes certain portions of the population very skeptical of ALL Feminist causes, whether that's fair or not.

While "his story" is going way into overdrive, the dominant male form does have influence in the thinking and a gender neutral pronoun should be quite practical sometimes (dear sir/madame).
Gelatinous Cude didn't get pregnant with an elephant by a French soldier, nor is he a bigotic idiot who flies naked from his backroof during the weekend. Thanks to the mind ignoring the word "not", you'll probably feel a bit insulted reeding the statement above even if it's true.



I see your point, really I do, but when you think that today women have multiple failed relationships (as do men) as opposed to one (or two) marriages and many more people spend larger periods of their lives not only unmarried, but actually alone: It's not that much better is it. On top of that, lots of "battered women" stay in abusive relationships, so I'm not convinced that easy access to divorce has benefitted those who are most vulnerable. That's before we even get to people who get divorced and then decide it was a stupid thing to do, only to discover it's too late.



Yes, there is a lack of practical political power - but that's offset by not being killed and, frankly, men are easily persuaded to listen to women. It's not a great system, but I would argue very seriously that the men felt like they were in charge because the women let them think it.

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053410503]
I think sociology is wrong, I don't believe that "gender" is a social construct, that implies artificiality, I think its an expression of natural difference.

Gender is used to describe the social construct on top of the sex. Of course it's going to be artifical.



I quotes this in entirity because you threatened to delete it and I think it bears reading. One point is obviously true, sexual equality has reduced social mobility, because people tend to marry their own class, and these days that means that two high earners tend to marry and devote all their earnings to making their children successful, which cuts off access to high earning jobs to clever people who want to move up, because we now have double the workforce for the same size population as we did two hundred years ago.

Source please. Obviously, it suddenly made it possible for the woman to move up by their own accord, as the starting point.

[Viking]

...Sex is biological, gender is mental.

The English language (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender)is not completely with you on this one.


gender becomes only one factor out of many - Not in all cases.A rich white woman who is raped is just as oppressed for her gender as a poor black woman, to vastly oversimplify. Also, see what I said about kyriarchy.

That is a very shallow analysis. First, who is most likely to be a rapist if you randomley chose a case? Looking at strength alone, this would be a male person. Who is most likely to be a victim? Again, looking only at strength, this would be a female.

Now of course, men can be stronger than other men by a lot (and women stronger than men). But since most men happen not to be interested in sexual activity with other men, a man-on-man rape should not be expected to be very common; looking at no other parameters. And indeed, this is the case for the real world.

So if a woman is raped merely for being a woman, then this would have to imply for this to be relevant; that she was assaulted for a hatred of her gender. That is to say that a rich man would be robbed not because he is a good target because of his wealth (gain for the robbers), but because he belonged to a group of people that is labeled as 'rich'.

A hatred of a gender should be distributed relatively evenly within a society through culture. Thus, if a woman is treated pretty badly by a man, this is much more likely to be an isolated incidence if women generally are treated well in this society, rather than stemming from a particular point/side of this culture.

For feminism, the cultural aspect is the most important one, so it wants bad treatment to stem from the culture, in one form or the other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's simply impossible that North-Koreans are being oppressed by their goverment. Or slaves to be oppressed by thier masters.

North Korea is one country, under despotic rule for less than three quarters of a century. The proposition under consideration is that all women were (are) oppressed and have been for thousands of years, accross all classes, racial groups, religions and historical epochs.

THAT is impossible without majority consent.

As to slavery, the Altantic slave trade is atypical of historical slave owning and it flourished only from about 1600 to 1800, so again we are talking about relatively short period of time and (before 1700) a relatively small percentage of Africans taken from Africa to the Americas.


And to be picky, the big boost in woman rights was because during the 19th century, thier rich fathers suddenly ended up with daughters impossible to marry off properly (due to lack of men with proper status in the cities). Ergo, they had to do something.

Agitation from women sufferage in the 19th Century also coincided with an era of increasing legal and social restriction of women's roles and freedoms in the previous hundred years, including (for example) banning women from voting and serving as midwives (both of these were made legally impossible for women in the UK only after 1800).


Instead of all optional brides being economically dependable and cheat with the maid later on?

Compared with today? In some countries the failure of marriages is 1:2, I don't figures for modern infidenlity, but I'd guess in cases of divorce it is quite high. Anyway, a man couldn't divorce his wife if she was unfaithful, either. Further, the couple still had to be compatable because they had to produce children.


Gender is used to describe the social construct on top of the sex. Of course it's going to be artifical.

At best, it is an expression of natural difference - that's not "artificial", it is not "created" by deliberate act of man.


Source please. Obviously, it suddenly made it possible for the woman to move up by their own accord, as the starting point.

I read it in one of the papers. Have a think though before you dismiss it. The pool of university students has grown by 50% in the last 150 years, have the colleges of Oxford grown at the same rate? The would need to grow faster than 50% in that period in order to widen access. In fact, they would need to grow by 200% in order to be 50% larger in relative terms, and all that is before accounting for population increase.

[Syl]

Who's? The "WASP" doesn't exist outside the US, and inside its some kind of wierd congealing of everyone's fears of oppression. Look at the name, wierd, wierd, because all Anglo-Saxons are white. Glib statements like that go some way to proving my point. There's a shared sense of victimhood there and that's not healthy.

Egalitarianism can cover all the same issues, without any of the same sense of bias of victimhood.

I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning to come across all that serious with the WASP thing, especially with how modern and focused a term it is. You mentioned "Everybody who has been disadvantaged by the 'Old white men'" and I couldn't help myself from trying to be witty with the word WASP, which your sentence reminded me of. My background is white and Anglo-Saxon as well, I don't intend to mean anything disparaging by that.

I'm also sorry if you think the rest is glib though. To me it seems obvious that a movement founded on the principle that someone shouldn't be judged or restricted simply for a characteristic you're born with, like gender, would tend to agree with things relating to the same principle, like regarding race and orientation.


That's a somewhat glib dismissal. It DID become intollerable and then women DID rebel. The logical conclusion is that prior to that it was at least tollerable.

Being forced to accept a way of life and finding that way of life tolerable aren't exactly the same thing. I think Ironside's example of North Korea fits in well here. Speaking of which...


North Korea is one country, under despotic rule for less than three quarters of a century. The proposition under consideration is that all women were (are) oppressed and have been for thousands of years, accross all classes, racial groups, religions and historical epochs.

I don't think anyone is saying the degree of oppression against women has been identical across all cultures, classes, time periods, etc over those thousands of years, but I don't think you can deny that across history men have had a significant institutionalized advantage.


I see your point, really I do, but when you think that today women have multiple failed relationships (as do men) as opposed to one (or two) marriages and many more people spend larger periods of their lives not only unmarried, but actually alone: It's not that much better is it. On top of that, lots of "battered women" stay in abusive relationships, so I'm not convinced that easy access to divorce has benefitted those who are most vulnerable. That's before we even get to people who get divorced and then decide it was a stupid thing to do, only to discover it's too late.

There were plenty of unhappy and broken marriages in those days as well. The difference is the option of being divorced wasn't the same. Till death do us part was the oath made before God and your community and you were expected to honor that. Even when you divorced, you were still largely percieved as being sinning against the will of God and were looked down on by your community.

What I think you're arguing is the sake that the marriage as a social and familial construct at least was more stable. That doesn't mean they were healthy marriages and families.


Here's an alternative idea - democratic politics was invented by men and it flatters typically male traits.

Pure democracy is based on all adult citizens having an equal say in all aspects of their lives. The Representative Democracies we more commonly live under are based on being more efficient by filtering the will of a greater segment of the population through fewer vessels so that things can actually be done much faster without having to poll absolutely everyone. The principle is meant to be the same in theory.

That these limited representative roles would then become seats of a certain amount of power, and that men would come to hold the majority of them at the exclusion of almost all other minorities at the time (at least initially), isn't inherent to it.

When you say it flatters typically male traits, then, I don't see how it can apply to the principle of democracy itself, so I can only assume you mean the methods used to gain those offices. That doesn't make them inherent to democracy either.


Flexability has nothing to do with it, and that's wrong anyway because Christian doctrine has changed and evolved over the centuries, and there are specific theological systems for weighing particular Counciliar decisions against each other.

Well, I think we're taking advantage of the fact we can make this obvious argument. The word of God for Christianity is meant to be the literal word of God through man, unchangeable, and not man's interpretation of God's will. Obviously this wasn't the case and there are hundreds of splinters and divisions among the religion. However, if you are someone under the authority of the church, it was a fixed set of principles. Key priests in history, like Augustine, had the position of power and the timing to be able to select his best perceived interpretation to move it forward. The rest of society was generally stuck with what they percieved was the unchallengeable word until gradually theologians said otherwise. And then that became the new standard that a lay person wasn't meant to question.


I think, when you consider how men and women relate to each other it's a big difference, and that's what we're really talking about. Relations between the sexes and relative suitability for certain social roles (like mothering children).

I'm sorry, but I think there's just a disconnect here about how we percieve this. Gender roles set the standard of how men and women are to relate to each other.


I do get the idea, and I sypathise with the desire to see men and women as more similar than different - but my experience of dealing with women is that understanding only comes with accepting that you don't understand. By contrast, men are an open book.
Thinking about it a little more deeply though, implying that there is some form of coercive conditioning into gender roles implies that it started at some point. Almost like someone decided to seperate "masculine" and "feminine" when in reality I think social gender roles are about competition within your own sex. Looking at men, rare is the woman who wants a highly sensitive man, more often she wants a man just sensitive enough to empathise, but not one as sensetive as she is - someone who'll cut the throat of the dear he just ran over to stop it from suffering, but won't expect her to watch.

As for the first part of what you said, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree again. My experience of dealing with women is that by treating them as a regular human beings, and not as some mystery, and striving to treat everyone you meet the way you would want to be treated leads to a level of communication that makes things pretty understandable all around.

As for the second, I guess you already know my argument. Gender, by extension of what it is related to your biological sex, is artificial. Do you have a problem with women wearing pants? I doubt it. In a period of the past it was an issue, as it was against their view of what it was to be a woman at that time.

Wearing pants or anything else isn't an inherent part to being of a female (or male) sex. We're born without clothes and they're an artifical construct we've adopted for various benefits. Now factor this into a billion other things in our lives and here we are.


I don't believe its emotionally damaging, more emotionally damaging would be to have no structure to form your own identity around.

I'd argue that's because as a man conditioned all his life with an idea of masculinity, and who seems to fit well within that paradigm, you don't have a particular reason to feel it's damaging. That's not the case for everyone.

As for the lack of any structure to form your identity around, I think the structure of being an honest and contributing member of society is the only foundation we should be worrying about. Why does that structure have to involve genitals you have between your legs?


I don't believe that private accomodation excuses making a certain lifestyle illegal - that was why we had the argument - but I was just offering it up as an example of life being more complicated in the past than you might expect.

I know you weren't and I appreciate that. I didn't take that any other way ^^.


Against this backdrop, I consider the modern obession, and it's definately an obsession, with classifying everyone according to their accumulation of particular traits and sexual preference as rather quaint. Not only does it lead to decidedly odd debates about whether a man should be allowed to "marry" another man (we are lucky to be able to have such a debate, being so economically secure that we can allow non-reproductive pairings to be enshrined in law in any way) but I have become suspicious that there is now the same pressure on an "out" gay man to behave in a certain fashion in excatly the same way as you described men being expected to be "masculine", but instead because of one particular difference we now seem to expect these men to behave in a way which obviously sets them apart from everyone else.

If we should expect those types of rights to be governed by the importance of reproductivity or not, then by that line of thinking, with the rapidly over-population of many countries and our planet, you'd think in the future it would be a privilege to BE in a traditional relationship and expect those rights. The one child regulation in China comes to mind.

As for the last part, stereotypes, like any assumption stretched across an entire group of people, are a pretty horrible indicator of them. I know you're not saying otherwise, but to even assume that anyone should actually expect people to act a certain way is silly to me, but that's a pet peeve that's not unique to me.

Yes, there are men who behave in what you'd call a stereotypical way, but the majority do not. I am feminine enough in manner and appearance that I've been mistaken for a woman many times in my life by both men and women, yet none of my traits reflect the stereotype what you'd assume a feminine gay male to be: (ie: campy.) And I obviously don't match the stereotype of how you'd act a man to act either.

------

One last thing here, I am going to be winding down my responses in this thread if I haven't finished already. I appreciate and have enjoyed our discussion, and I thank you for your time in responding to me. I do feel though that I've made most of the points I wanted to share when I first wrote in the thread, and I think it's time for me to bow out so other people can share their ideas more as well without me taking up a big chunk of every other page myself. I'll read your reply and points to what I've said here though, of course ^^.

[Moros]

Either you lift heavy stuff and cut the trees or we get paid more.
Tsssk.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning to come across all that serious with the WASP thing, especially with how modern and focused a term it is. You mentioned "Everybody who has been disadvantaged by the 'Old white men'" and I couldn't help myself from trying to be witty with the word WASP, which your sentence reminded me of. My background is white and Anglo-Saxon as well, I don't intend to mean anything disparaging by that.

I'm also sorry if you think the rest is glib though. To me it seems obvious that a movement founded on the principle that someone shouldn't be judged or restricted simply for a characteristic you're born with, like gender, would tend to agree with things relating to the same principle, like regarding race and orientation.

I'm still struggling with "white and Anglos-Saxon", I'm sorry but my mind boddles. This may be because I am an Anglo-Saxon, or more specifically a "Saxano-Swede". I can be that specific because I know my lineage, but I would never consider describing myself as "white" because, to me, it's a redundant and meaningless identity. On the other hand, I would insist on being called a man, because I consider that important. What I'm getting at is that while I see that gender, sex, sexual orientation and race are all issues concerning equality they aren't inherently friendly. It's possible to be a racist feminist, or sexist campaigner for racial minorities.

Egalitarianism says, "I think all people should basically be treated the same regardless of who or what they are".


Being forced to accept a way of life and finding that way of life tolerable aren't exactly the same thing. I think Ironside's example of North Korea fits in well here. Speaking of which...

I don't think anyone is saying the degree of oppression against women has been identical across all cultures, classes, time periods, etc over those thousands of years, but I don't think you can deny that across history men have had a significant institutionalized advantage.

I don't think North Koreans are particularly contented, as opposed to many women historically who don't seem to have felt any more unhappy with their lot than men of the same age. I think if you compare North Koreans and South Koreans you'll see that defections flow only one way.


There were plenty of unhappy and broken marriages in those days as well. The difference is the option of being divorced wasn't the same. Till death do us part was the oath made before God and your community and you were expected to honor that. Even when you divorced, you were still largely percieved as being sinning against the will of God and were looked down on by your community.

What I think you're arguing is the sake that the marriage as a social and familial construct at least was more stable. That doesn't mean they were healthy marriages and families.

I'm not sure where you're getting, "even if you divorced" - cultures that allowed divorce, like Ancient Rome or medieval Iceland were perfectly fine with it and people generally remarried. In cultures that didn't have divorce marriage was taken fairly seriously and was often arranged. If you look at modern arranged marriages, such as between Sikhs, they are often quite happy even if they aren't as soppily romantic as we like to imagine our own relationships to be.


Pure democracy is based on all adult citizens having an equal say in all aspects of their lives. The Representative Democracies we more commonly live under are based on being more efficient by filtering the will of a greater segment of the population through fewer vessels so that things can actually be done much faster without having to poll absolutely everyone. The principle is meant to be the same in theory.

That these limited representative roles would then become seats of a certain amount of power, and that men would come to hold the majority of them at the exclusion of almost all other minorities at the time (at least initially), isn't inherent to it.

When you say it flatters typically male traits, then, I don't see how it can apply to the principle of democracy itself, so I can only assume you mean the methods used to gain those offices. That doesn't make them inherent to democracy either.

Democratic politics, in all its forms, is a highly competetive system, because there is no unassailable final authority (as in a monarchy) - I think that kind of competition favours men more than women, typically. By contrast, some types of election favour women and the "political" wife is a necessary accessory for the male politicians for just this reason, I think.


Well, I think we're taking advantage of the fact we can make this obvious argument.

Sorry, I don't quite follow.


The word of God for Christianity is meant to be the literal word of God through man, unchangeable, and not man's interpretation of God's will. Obviously this wasn't the case and there are hundreds of splinters and divisions among the religion. However, if you are someone under the authority of the church, it was a fixed set of principles. Key priests in history, like Augustine, had the position of power and the timing to be able to select his best perceived interpretation to move it forward. The rest of society was generally stuck with what they percieved was the unchallengeable word until gradually theologians said otherwise. And then that became the new standard that a lay person wasn't meant to question.

Do you realise that you are charactarising a version of Christianity which is quite peculiar to a few Churches during a few historical periods. While those statements might be generally considered true their interpretation varies wildly - in fact of of your statements applies only to a few Evangelical sects. The idea of the "litteral" word of God, on the page with obvious meaning, is very modern and in my considered opinion as a Church historian quite silly, to put it charitably. You've picked up my example of Augustine, he was influencial (lawyers always are) but hardly uncontested, he spent ten years arguing with Jerome, and he is generally considered to have been wrong in that case.


I'm sorry, but I think there's just a disconnect here about how we percieve this. Gender roles set the standard of how men and women are to relate to each other.

Speaking as a strait man, I tried bucking gender norms regarding how to relate to women. It was an unmitigated disaster. Not only were we incapable of communicating or being understood - we are no longer on speaking terms, despite a mutually acknowledged emotional involvement.


As for the first part of what you said, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree again. My experience of dealing with women is that by treating them as a regular human beings, and not as some mystery, and striving to treat everyone you meet the way you would want to be treated leads to a level of communication that makes things pretty understandable all around.

Yes, there are men who behave in what you'd call a stereotypical way, but the majority do not. I am feminine enough in manner and appearance that I've been mistaken for a woman many times in my life by both men and women, yet none of my traits reflect the stereotype what you'd assume a feminine gay male to be: (ie: campy.) And I obviously don't match the stereotype of how you'd act a man to act either.

I moved the second part up to juxtapose these two. With the greatest respect to you as an individual I submit that you experience is highly atypical, "manly" men I know, including a couple gay ones, don't get women, at all. Seriously, I wish I did. I know they have (basically) the same life goals as me, but that doesn't help. Female moods, female body language, the female way of observing the world, are utterly confounding to me.


As for the second, I guess you already know my argument. Gender, by extension of what it is related to your biological sex, is artificial. Do you have a problem with women wearing pants? I doubt it. In a period of the past it was an issue, as it was against their view of what it was to be a woman at that time.

Wearing pants or anything else isn't an inherent part to being of a female (or male) sex. We're born without clothes and they're an artifical construct we've adopted for various benefits. Now factor this into a billion other things in our lives and here we are.


I see your point, but that's a lot more superficial than the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm thinking more the what happens to men and women when you bring a happy gurgling baby into the room.


I'd argue that's because as a man conditioned all his life with an idea of masculinity, and who seems to fit well within that paradigm, you don't have a particular reason to feel it's damaging. That's not the case for everyone.

I'm a 25 year old celibate who doesn't like getting dirty, showers and puts on a clean shirt every day, refuses to let anyone do his ironing, and among my most prived posseessions are the solid silver cufflinks my mother gave em as a graduation present. If that wasn't enough of a non-sterytypical cliche I write poetry, the soppy kind, and I don't like football or any ball games.

I'm pretty far outside the "norm" myself, at least in some ways.

did I mention I love horses and dogs?


As for the lack of any structure to form your identity around, I think the structure of being an honest and contributing member of society is the only foundation we should be worrying about. Why does that structure have to involve genitals you have between your legs?

Probably because we all have them and, more to the point, it works more or less out of the box for most people and "contributing to society" doesn't mean anything really, as well as being pretty anti-individualistic in itself.


If we should expect those types of rights to be governed by the importance of reproductivity or not, then by that line of thinking, with the rapidly over-population of many countries and our planet, you'd think in the future it would be a privilege to BE in a traditional relationship and expect those rights. The one child regulation in China comes to mind.

As for the last part, stereotypes, like any assumption stretched across an entire group of people, are a pretty horrible indicator of them. I know you're not saying otherwise, but to even assume that anyone should actually expect people to act a certain way is silly to me, but that's a pet peeve that's not unique to me.

The thing with steryotypes is, they work. When you meet someone, you have to have a starting point; the problem comes when you don't pay attnetion to what someone is actually like after they open their mouth. As to your other point, well in Europe and elsewhere birth rates are falling, fewer people are getting married and homosexuality is generally more accepted than in most periods throughout history. I would have to say that all that is a reflection of the overpopulation of the developed world and the fact that not everyone has to procreate to sustain our societies.


One last thing here, I am going to be winding down my responses in this thread if I haven't finished already. I appreciate and have enjoyed our discussion, and I thank you for your time in responding to me. I do feel though that I've made most of the points I wanted to share when I first wrote in the thread, and I think it's time for me to bow out so other people can share their ideas more as well without me taking up a big chunk of every other page myself. I'll read your reply and points to what I've said here though, of course ^^.

I wish you wouldn't, not quite yet. It's so nice to have a civilised disscussion with someone I dissagree with so profoundly.

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry, I missed most of the thread, having tried to skim to catch up.

Are we looking prospectively or retrospectively?

Has there been any links to brain imaging or other cohort studies, showing the difference in brain function due to hormones? It really helps with the nature / nurture.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some racist feminism for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/08/nick-cohen-stieg-larsson

Stieg Larsson, angry about white women being abused, angrier about non-whites being criticised for abusing women.

[rory_20_uk]

As the article states, certain people think that criticizing ethnic norms is absolutely off limits, implying that in some way inferior. As long as one's culture has been circumcising girls with knives for ages that is fine as long as everyone isn't white. Interestingly, this is often done by other women in the community - probably men's fault somehow though.

Women are independent, forthright individuals until they are doing something wrong then of course they are pressured into doing it as if they had the moral fibre of wet toilet paper. It is unthinkable that the husband's mother would be very interested in that his children are his own as much as he would be as that would be having one woman against another. Only men can want to kill each other, right?

I often read that there is a problem that are problems with too few women in Parliament / CEOs, and Something Must Be Done. I never understand why there is not more to try to get more men into Nursing / Midwifery / Primary school teaching. It seems that areas where men are more prevalent is obviously better than areas where women predominate. Feminism may well be forcing women into areas where they are under-represented, but appear to have no desire to force men into areas where they are under-represented.

The most stark area that this can be seen is when relationships end and children are involved. The mother gets them. End of story. You want to see your child? Best get to court - and it'll take months. Any allegations made will have to be fully examined and guilt is assumed until proved otherwise. Allegations that are found groundless are ignored. Very odd.

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

North Korea is one country, under despotic rule for less than three quarters of a century. The proposition under consideration is that all women were (are) oppressed and have been for thousands of years, accross all classes, racial groups, religions and historical epochs.

THAT is impossible without majority consent.

As to slavery, the Altantic slave trade is atypical of historical slave owning and it flourished only from about 1600 to 1800, so again we are talking about relatively short period of time and (before 1700) a relatively small percentage of Africans taken from Africa to the Americas.

And I was talking about slavery throughout the ages, like the charming ones in the Bible (Num 31 for example). There's some slave rebellions through the ages, but they failed.


Agitation from women sufferage in the 19th Century also coincided with an era of increasing legal and social restriction of women's roles and freedoms in the previous hundred years, including (for example) banning women from voting and serving as midwives (both of these were made legally impossible for women in the UK only after 1800).

Interesting. Weren't voting not an issue before and the banning of midwives because the more politically powerful doctors started to enter the arena?


Compared with today? In some countries the failure of marriages is 1:2, I don't figures for modern infidenlity, but I'd guess in cases of divorce it is quite high. Anyway, a man couldn't divorce his wife if she was unfaithful, either. Further, the couple still had to be compatable because they had to produce children.

I was thinking about how the couples could deal with it before compare to now. I got no idea if it's less of more common today than before.


At best, it is an expression of natural difference - that's not "artificial", it is not "created" by deliberate act of man.

Pink is a female colour how? Men's "natural" difference to crying has changed throughout time. Now, it's not usually done by bunch of men sitting in a secret backroom room deciding this, but to say that gender roles are simply an expression of natural difference is severly lacking. It has been influencial, but hardly the sole factor.


I read it in one of the papers. Have a think though before you dismiss it. The pool of university students has grown by 50% in the last 150 years, have the colleges of Oxford grown at the same rate? The would need to grow faster than 50% in that period in order to widen access. In fact, they would need to grow by 200% in order to be 50% larger in relative terms, and all that is before accounting for population increase.

Shouldn't that be 100%? And, yes the university population has increased way above 100% during the last 150 years.


I'm not sure where you're getting, "even if you divorced" - cultures that allowed divorce, like Ancient Rome or medieval Iceland were perfectly fine with it and people generally remarried. In cultures that didn't have divorce marriage was taken fairly seriously and was often arranged. If you look at modern arranged marriages, such as between Sikhs, they are often quite happy even if they aren't as soppily romantic as we like to imagine our own relationships to be.


Making the best of a situation you're stuck in doesn't mean that the situation is a good one. Arranged marriages is also quite far away from todays focus on induvidualism.

[The Celtic Viking]

Sorry, I missed most of the thread, having tried to skim to catch up.

Are we looking prospectively or retrospectively?

Has there been any links to brain imaging or other cohort studies, showing the difference in brain function due to hormones? It really helps with the nature / nurture.

~:smoking:

There are most certainly significant biological differences, and there are lots of studies showing this. Just out of hand I'd recommend watching the Norwegian documentary "Hjernevask" ("Brainwash") which I recently watched myself. You can search for it on youtube, or if you don't understand Norwegian you can watch it with English subtitles here (http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/). The password to watch the videos is "hjernevask" (without quotation marks).

[Strike For The South]

I feel like western culture as a whole is becoming more feminized, however, I couldn't imagine raising a daughter or being a woman. If only becuase I feel like societal pressures are so much worse on them.

[Beskar]

I have to admit, I do envy the freedoms many females do have over men though. Male-society is usually so rigid and many people are simply clones, with fashion for example, there are so many styles and exotic kid of outfits which suit them so perfectly which simply isn't replicated and seen as abhorrent on a male.

Case in point:
Female in a tux looks good.
Male in a night gown? Cover your eyes! (especially if they got a hairy back)

[Papewaio]

From Scotland to Fiji men wear skirts

http://www.police.gov.fj/

Whilst there are plenty of toga/dress like traditional islander styles as well.

Add in Saudi traditional dress, Greek Orthodox Priest and Catholic Priests and you have men in dress with bling.

[Husar]

Women get so much more choice when it comes to shoes.

Sometimes I wish I were a woman just because of the shoes they get to choose from...

[Furunculus]

while we are on the subject of teh wimmenz; they are indeed 0dd:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8992639/Men-and-women-have-distinct-personalities.html

[rory_20_uk]

That type of sexist slur will not stand! Everyone is completely equal in every possible way and should have the same access to all professions and services.

Except female only gyms / insurance / etc which are completly different.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

That type of sexist slur will not stand! Everyone is completely equal in every possible way and should have the same access to all professions and services.

Except female only gyms / insurance / etc which are completly different.

~:smoking:
How does that article say that all people aren't equal? It says that people are different.

It doesn't answer why, either. Of course there are differences between the sexes, but why?

[Husar]

Of course there are differences between the sexes, but why?

Hormones?

[Papewaio]

Hormones?

She's faking it.

[Andres]

Of course there are differences between the sexes, but why?


Something with genes and x or y I think. I also heard a story about a rib and an Adam dude. Allthough it appears that, according to wiki, not everybody agrees with the rib theory:



The traditional reading of "rib" has been questioned recently by feminist theologians who suggest it should instead be rendered as "side," supporting the idea that woman is man's equal and not his subordinate

(Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve))

And then you wonder why some of us sponteanously get the creeps when hearing the word "feminist"...

[Subotan]

The English language (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender)is not completely with you on this one.


Gender: 2

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Sex: 1

: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures





?

That is a very shallow analysis. First, who is most likely to be a rapist if you randomley chose a case? Looking at strength alone, this would be a male person. Who is most likely to be a victim? Again, looking only at strength, this would be a female.

Now of course, men can be stronger than other men by a lot (and women stronger than men). But since most men happen not to be interested in sexual activity with other men, a man-on-man rape should not be expected to be very common; looking at no other parameters. And indeed, this is the case for the real world.

So if a woman is raped merely for being a woman, then this would have to imply for this to be relevant; that she was assaulted for a hatred of her gender. That is to say that a rich man would be robbed not because he is a good target because of his wealth (gain for the robbers), but because he belonged to a group of people that is labeled as 'rich'.
If you rape someone, then you don't have any respect for them. Given that most rapists are serial-rapists, this means that rapists do not have respect for members of the group that they target i.e. women as a whole. This is blatant, inarguable misogyny.


A hatred of a gender should be distributed relatively evenly within a society through culture. Thus, if a woman is treated pretty badly by a man, this is much more likely to be an isolated incidence if women generally are treated well in this society, rather than stemming from a particular point/side of this culture.
At what point does hatred for a gender become "widespread" throughout a society? Is having 1 in 4 women enduring sexual assault at some point in their lives not widespread enough for you to recognise that women are not treated as equals to men by society?


I have to admit, I do envy the freedoms many females do have over men though. Male-society is usually so rigid and many people are simply clones, with fashion for example, there are so many styles and exotic kid of outfits which suit them so perfectly which simply isn't replicated and seen as abhorrent on a male.

Case in point:
Female in a tux looks good.
Male in a night gown? Cover your eyes! (especially if they got a hairy back)
Damn, those super-priviliged women get all the breaks! QQ


Women get so much more choice when it comes to shoes.

Sometimes I wish I were a woman just because of the shoes they get to choose from...
Heh, men actually have it better in this regard. Expensive men's shoes last a lot longer than women's shoes, and we don't need to buy as many to have a "full set" of shoes for every occasion. The best quote I ever heard about shoes went along the lines of "I never understood why women were into shoes, until I suddenly had an epiphany. Getting a nice, varied selection of shoes is like Pokémon - you've gotta catch them all!"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you rape someone, then you don't have any respect for them. Given that most rapists are serial-rapists, this means that rapists do not have respect for members of the group that they target i.e. women as a whole. This is blatant, inarguable misogyny.

It's also about men needing to assert power over women because they feel insecure because their masculinity is threatened.


At what point does hatred for a gender become "widespread" throughout a society? Is having 1 in 4 women enduring sexual assault at some point in their lives not widespread enough for you to recognise that women are not treated as equals to men by society?

I thought most rapists were serial rapists, so it's not like 25% of men assault women, is it? Also, define "sexual assault", I've had men rip my clothes off (and women too, actually) in a club and at a party. Have I been sexually assaulted? Yes, obviously.

I wasn't happy about it, but I don't want to be included in a statistic for that.


Damn, those super-priviliged women get all the breaks! QQ

What he means is, if a rich white man rapes a poor balck woman he might get away with it. If a rich white woman is raped by a black man, he's toast. If a rich white man rapes a rich white woman... even money I reckon. Race and wealth are a bigger deal than sex these days, or gender.

[/quote]Heh, men actually have it better in this regard. Expensive men's shoes last a lot longer than women's shoes, and we don't need to buy as many to have a "full set" of shoes for every occasion. The best quote I ever heard about shoes went along the lines of "I never understood why women were into shoes, until I suddenly had an epiphany. Getting a nice, varied selection of shoes is like Pokémon - you've gotta catch them all!"[/QUOTE]

This is certainly true.

[Viking]

Gender: 2

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Sex: 1

: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures





?

I see your ? and raise you ?: ??


Definition of GENDER

2 a : sex <the feminine gender>



If you rape someone, then you don't have any respect for them. Given that most rapists are serial-rapists, this means that rapists do not have respect for members of the group that they target i.e. women as a whole. This is blatant, inarguable misogyny.

Rapists do not respect the will of their victim; very few of them have any ideological reasoning for their actions, it's primarily their biology that drives them.

Is a "serial robber" a misanthrope?



At what point does hatred for a gender become "widespread" throughout a society? Is having 1 in 4 women enduring sexual assault at some point in their lives not widespread enough for you to recognise that women are not treated as equals to men by society?


4 in 4 people reported that they had been treated disrespectfully by another human being at some point in their life. I explained logically that the female gender is the most likely victim in rape cases; but as a matter of fact, this would hold true for almost any case. It takes confidence in your own strength if you are to become a perpetrator, and it takes confidence in the victim's lack thereof when the victim is selected. Without having access to the definition of 'sexual assault' that was used in whatever study, it is impossible to debate the numbers any further.

[Ironside]

Something with genes and x or y I think. I also heard a story about a rib and an Adam dude. Allthough it appears that, according to wiki, not everybody agrees with the rib theory:


So 20% of both genders got the wrong genes then? Tough for them, since their personality doesn't match their gender.

And that's not digging into how much influence the surroundings got on gender roles.

And since Stieg Larsson got digged up into discussion. The American version got a speciffically more submissive Lisbeth Salander, for some reason.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm going to weigh in on the argument between Viking and Subotan over the meaning of gender, because that's how I roll. Since the term gender is a major issue in feminism and understanding its meaning is important to clarity and successful communication, I'm going to keep it here in this thread, but since it's also more tangential to the main thread of the discussion (and has I think already proved much more of a distraction than necessary), I'm going to spoiler my (somewhat lengthy) summary and commentary below.


Viking and Subotan are talking past each other based on different preconceptions of what the word gender can or does mean. Etymologically, the word comes from Latin genus, meaning simply a type or kind of thing (much like the taxonomic term genus, a borrowing of the same root). It came to be linked to word classes in classical grammar studies, and since those word classes were (somewhat arbitrarily) given names to match the sexes, the term gender came to have connections to sex differences as well.

It came into English by way of French, and has been used in its grammatical sense since around 1390 or so, and its sexual sense since around 1474. A more recent development is its use to refer not to the physical distinguishing features of the sexes, but to the cultural ideas surrounding them. This use is evident since around 1945 at least. My personal impression is that this has become the dominant use of the term in modern English, though the others are certainly not gone (I tried to check which uses were most dominant using the COCA corpus, but so many of the instances were ambiguous between the physical and cultural senses that I wasn't getting any objective answers).




Viking entered the discussion (reply #12), using the term presumably in its physical sense, and finding fault with feminism for drawing focus to differences between the genders, when difference is the core problem to begin with and the objective is equality.

Subotan replied (reply #21) with disagreement, finding fault with the claim as it would entail that feminism is the source of the gender binary (or something to that effect; I'm not sure I entirely follow either of their arguments in these posts). Presumably, Subotan is using the cultural sense of gender.

Viking then clarifies (reply #56) that while the physical gender (i.e. sex) is inevitable, the social construct gender is not. Here he contrasts these two senses of gender to clarify his original use and meaning.

Subotan asserts (reply #65) that this is a distinction between sex and gender, rather than between two types of gender.

Viking (reply #77) defends his original word choice.

Subotan (reply #78) clarifies the distinction, in case it had escaped Viking, asserting that sex is biological, and gender is (only?) mental.

Viking takes issue with Subotan's distinction (reply #95), claiming that the English language does not fully support Subotan's position and offering a definition from the online version of Merriam-Webster, including both senses (along with the grammatical one). If I interpret Viking's intent correctly, he is acknowledging that gender can indeed have the meaning Subotan is using, but also has the physical meaning which Viking had first used, and which Subotan was taking exception to.

Subotan responds (reply #117) by citing the portion of the definition with the cultural sense, and expressing confusion that Viking would use such evidence, when it clearly shows that the definition is cultural.

Viking responds (reply #120) by citing the portion of the definition with the physical sense, and expressing even greater confusion that Subotan does not see the problem with asserting only a single relevant meaning for gender.



My conclusion?

Within the context of feminism and sexual equality, my impression is that gender is often reserved for the cultural aspects of sexual difference, with sex used as the term to distinguish physical aspects. Subotan is right that the usual vocabulary for the dichotomy is sex vs. gender. However, Viking is correct that his usage of gender is correct English, and he certainly has the right to use the term with its physical (=sex) sense. Because his second post clarified the distinction in question, even if he still desired to use variations of gender for both meanings, I don't think it was necessary for the discussion to continue beyond that point.

In a nutshell, you're both right: gender can have both these meanings, though sex vs. gender is often employed as a convenient terminology distinction. It is unclear to me whether the two of you actually disagree on matters of feminist theory beyond naming conventions. Perhaps you could agree to disagree on just what terms should (must?) be used, and move on, keeping in mind the way the other is defining gender.


Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The male obsession with breasts: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100129578/is-it-really-the-west-thats-breast-obsessed-or-just-men/

Personally, I think the breast-augmentation rate has more to do with wealth and a cultural acceptence of surgery, as well as possibly the "try before you buy"* sexual ethic in the West than anything else.

*Specifically, wearing padding under the dress was something, historically, you could get away with more easily because by the time he got it off you were already married.

For my self, I went through a phase of being breast obsessed - then I discovered women had legs and bums, now I'm pretty much a whole body kinda guy.

[The Stranger]

is this about 1st 2nd or 3rd wave feminism? :O

[The Stranger]

The male obsession with breasts: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100129578/is-it-really-the-west-thats-breast-obsessed-or-just-men/

Personally, I think the breast-augmentation rate has more to do with wealth and a cultural acceptence of surgery, as well as possibly the "try before you buy"* sexual ethic in the West than anything else.

*Specifically, wearing padding under the dress was something, historically, you could get away with more easily because by the time he got it off you were already married.

For my self, I went through a phase of being breast obsessed - then I discovered women had legs and bums, now I'm pretty much a whole body kinda guy.

i see you havent got to the necks, shoulders, waists and bellies yet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i see you havent got to the necks, shoulders, waists and bellies yet.

Necks are like eyes, lips and cheeks, and foreheads - so essential they should not be mentioned. Waist and bellies are intricately entwined and shoulders are a secondary concern.

[spankythehippo]

For my self, I went through a phase of being breast obsessed - then I discovered women had legs and bums, now I'm pretty much a whole body kinda guy.

Face > Figure > Breasts > Bum.

Kinda fitting for the feminist thread, stating what your preferences are.


I'm not a fan of feminism. Because it's a form of sexism.

I'm treading in dangerous waters now.

https://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3056/chivalrysexism.jpg



"Mrs Jones, here's your pay."

"What? I'm getting 20 quid lower than the men. That's sexism."

"I'm afraid that's how it is."

Mrs Jones starts a petition, a rally and gains support.

"OK. Mrs Jones, here's your pay."

"What? I'm getting 10 quid more the men. You're only doing it because I'm a woman."

...

I've heard something similar to this so many times. It's so irritating.

[rory_20_uk]

Men are visual creatures. We like the way those we find attractive look. Gay men are often the same, being far more fixated by physiques than women. It is a fact. deal with it.

Why are women not more lambasted for judging men on their successes (money and power) - often explained away that they find men without focus less attractive. Apparently this is fine to dismiss someone on a facet of their perceived personality, but to make such a call on their physique is wrong.

~:smoking:

[The Stranger]

Face > Figure > Breasts > Bum.



Face > figure (slim or large) > bum/legs > breasts

which is what attracts us

personality > all = what keeps us.


Im all for the best people in the best position.

http://www.adrants.com/images/heng_blowjob.jpg

[Subotan]

Ajax is correct. Sex refers to what organs you're born with, whereas gender is with which organs you identify. The distinction is both relevant in terms of referring to trans people (Who are people whose biological sex and gender don't match up at birth) and also the idea that gender is a social construct.


is this about 1st 2nd or 3rd wave feminism? :O
Any.



I'm not a fan of feminism. Because it's a form of sexism.
https://i.imgur.com/f6jZy.jpg


I'm treading in dangerous waters now.
You mean, you know you're wrong?



"Mrs Jones, here's your pay."

"What? I'm getting 20 quid lower than the men. That's sexism."

"I'm afraid that's how it is."

Mrs Jones starts a petition, a rally and gains support.

"OK. Mrs Jones, here's your pay."

"What? I'm getting 10 quid more the men. You're only doing it because I'm a woman."

...

I've heard something similar to this so many times. It's so irritating.

COOL STORY BRO

[The Stranger]

1st wave is legit, but not very special.

id say 2nd wave is feminism freaking out

and i totally applaud 3rd wave! tho i think it kinda makes being a feminist... redundant.

[Viking]

Men are visual creatures. We like the way those we find attractive look. Gay men are often the same, being far more fixated by physiques than women. It is a fact. deal with it.

It does not appear evolutionary sound to put too great emphasis on status.


Ajax is correct. Sex refers to what organs you're born with, whereas gender is with which organs you identify. The distinction is both relevant in terms of referring to trans people (Who are people whose biological sex and gender don't match up at birth) and also the idea that gender is a social construct.

Sometimes such a distinction is made, other times it is not. That is what Ajax says, and is also what I have been saying indirectly.

[Viking]

Huh? Sure it is. Lots of animals do it. I'm not saying this is the way it works with women, but in the animal kingdom the rationale is that if a female only mates with a "worthy" male of proper "status" then her children are far more likely to thrive. Sounds pretty sound to me. Almost every bird does it, lots of mammals do it, and even some reptiles I think.

Status can be lost, good genes cannot. How clever it is to aim for high status would depend on both how beneficial it is for survival of the offspring and how feasible it is to reach a target with high status. Insisting on reaching for high status sounds like evolutionary suicide, so there needs also to be a strong inclination towards identifying the individuals with the best DNA.

A high status individual cannot be within reach for everyone, else a) there would be inbreeding, or b) it would be normal status we are talking about (complemented by a low status).

[Viking]

You're looking too far into it. There are many, many examples in nature of animals that go after status. Why? Because you can't just sniff out good genes. It has to be apparent via obvious success (except in those cases where animals can, in fact, sniff out good genes). Whether it's a nice coat (the product of being well-fed and able to provide) or something more complex like you see in pack animals.

Status can be a sign of good genes, but there is no implication. Particularly in the case of humans, status can be obtained without good genes - you may simply inherit it.

Let's say that a strong and experienced warrior king gets one son with several imperfections. This son is clever, so he dies of old age at the trone. But if all his offspring also inherit the bad genes, and none of them are smart - they can easily be forced away. Thus mating with the king's son would be a waste for any female, regardless of his status.

So in humans, when looking for good genes, look for those individuals that have a healthy appearance - those that do not limp and appear strong. Don't look blindly at status.

[rory_20_uk]

Humans can fake status - but it's the best we got. Women apply creams to their faces to hide blemishes, and undergo the knife to appear to have higher levels of oestrogen (boob jobs) or appear younger (face lifts). Men are attracted to the younger, more fertile appearance.

Football stars, famous actors and the obscenely rich never have problems getting women, even little Goblins like Ecclestone. I'm sure it is all down to their sense of humour and rapport, not that women want gifts and a good time - if the man can provide that to her, he can provide that to their children. You can't strip out millions of years of evolutionary drives in a couple of thousand.

~:smoking:

[The Stranger]

i dont see what this all has to do with feminism... unless you would argue that society is purely biological and evolutionary and that what we perceive as culture is just a veneer or not even that.

feminism > emancipation > rational process

and at the same time its morals > imperative.

so whatever our biology may tell us to, if we wish this from rational and moralistic perspective we ought to overcome those drives, or atleast try.

so like i said, unless you argue that we cannot overcome those drives and that it is stupid to try so i dont see why we are diving so deep into that issue. (its very interesting but i think deviating from feminism...)

[spankythehippo]

You mean, you know you're wrong?

Yes. As much as I hate racism, I always laugh at racist jokes. Same goes for sexist jokes. It's merely poking fun at the issue in general. I find it humourous. Although, it would probably violate forum rules, if I posted some of my favourites.

[Viking]

what? I was just telling you why Animals look for STATUS. Because it is a GOOD INDICATOR that that animal will be able to provide and protect. What are you arguing with? Humans have science and logic and reason that make looking for status less important. But status is still a GOOD INDICATOR that someone will be able to provide and protect.

This debate has never been about animals in general, we are talking about humans here. What does "status" mean in the world of other animals, anyway? That someone won a fight or two, that someone looks "pretty"?

Money is one thing that can give humans status, but other animals have no money. That's one example of a form of status that humans got and other animals don't. Kingship, royalty, government positions, chieftains etc. are other examples (though you might find parallels). Also: slave versus free man.



Humans can fake status - but it's the best we got. Women apply creams to their faces to hide blemishes, and undergo the knife to appear to have higher levels of oestrogen (boob jobs) or appear younger (face lifts). Men are attracted to the younger, more fertile appearance.

Football stars, famous actors and the obscenely rich never have problems getting women, even little Goblins like Ecclestone. I'm sure it is all down to their sense of humour and rapport, not that women want gifts and a good time - if the man can provide that to her, he can provide that to their children. You can't strip out millions of years of evolutionary drives in a couple of thousand.

~:smoking:


Football stars are not a result of millions of years of evolution, they are a modern thing. Being good at kicking a ball is not necessarily going to help you surviving a fight (or whatever). Status of today is generally highly different from what it was 400 years ago, 2000 years, 50 000 years ago; et cetera. That is to say, it must be explained why going after status in earlier times was so beneficial that it plays a huge role for selection of mates (yes, I see why going after a football star of today could be a clever move, though going for the best DNA at the same time is even wiser).

Anyway, even if many females go after wealth, that does not imply that it is an inherent trait. The more exposed you are to the masses, the more persons will be aware of you. It is no surprise that young people that are often on TV end up with a lot of offers in the love department.

Another inclination is that they are simply using their brains as much as following their biology.



i dont see what this all has to do with feminism... unless you would argue that society is purely biological and evolutionary and that what we perceive as culture is just a veneer or not even that.

feminism > emancipation > rational process

and at the same time its morals > imperative.

so whatever our biology may tell us to, if we wish this from rational and moralistic perspective we ought to overcome those drives, or atleast try.

so like i said, unless you argue that we cannot overcome those drives and that it is stupid to try so i dont see why we are diving so deep into that issue. (its very interesting but i think deviating from feminism...)

It is sort of deviating from the main topic. At the same time, feminism also seeks to explain the world, and in this light, the biology debate becomes more relevant, even if it might need a connection somewhere to feminist theory or the roles women in society/history to stay true to the topic...

[The Stranger]

well imo like i said i think its a cultural debate, while yes it might be interesting to discuss these biodrives in order to understand why we have behaved in a certain way or why we have such trouble with accepting certain changes in gender roles in the end its a moral thing, a rational thing and thus we need to overcome these drives regardless of what they are. thus for the validity of the feminist argument the biodrives shouldnt play a major role. unless again u will argue that we must live life according to nature, but in that case id say gtfo your pc and go hunt.

[spankythehippo]

This debate has never been about animals in general, we are talking about humans here. What does "status" mean in the world of other animals, anyway? That someone won a fight or two, that someone looks "pretty"?

Yup. Many animals either admire or are terrified of an alpha-male. In in animal sense, that is their status. A lion that can protect it's pride from a competing male lion is considered strong. Or that the other lions can't be bothered moving away. Either way, the male lion has the highest status.

[Viking]

well imo like i said i think its a cultural debate, while yes it might be interesting to discuss these biodrives in order to understand why we have behaved in a certain way or why we have such trouble with accepting certain changes in gender roles in the end its a moral thing, a rational thing and thus we need to overcome these drives regardless of what they are. thus for the validity of the feminist argument the biodrives shouldnt play a major role. unless again u will argue that we must live life according to nature, but in that case id say gtfo your pc and go hunt.

No, because feminism is an intricate web of understanding. If some of its premises are wrong, then the relevance of the theory changes. Viewing culture as separate from culture is meaningless, because in the end it is alpha and omega for it.

To give an example: one part of feminism concerns love, and fact is that the vast majority of females are attracted to men (and vice versa, of course). Since men are also generally the oppressors, it would be convenient if women could just stay away from men altogether socially, but given the biology, this would not seem to be a good solution. And this is one example.



Yup. Many animals either admire or are terrified of an alpha-male. In in animal sense, that is their status. A lion that can protect it's pride from a competing male lion is considered strong. Or that the other lions can't be bothered moving away. Either way, the male lion has the highest status.

Well I see now that the debate was an instance of talking past one another. I never had other animals in mind, only status for humans.

[spankythehippo]

Well I see now that the debate was an instance of talking past one another. I never had other animals in mind, only status for humans.

Men art beasts, and women, *whispers* the demons of the night.

[The Stranger]

No, because feminism is an intricate web of understanding. If some of its premises are wrong, then the relevance of the theory changes. Viewing culture as separate from culture is meaningless, because in the end it is alpha and omega for it.

To give an example: one part of feminism concerns love, and fact is that the vast majority of females are attracted to men (and vice versa, of course). Since men are also generally the oppressors, it would be convenient if women could just stay away from men altogether socially, but given the biology, this would not seem to be a good solution. And this is one example.




Well I see now that the debate was an instance of talking past one another. I never had other animals in mind, only status for humans.

perhaps i shouldve specified more clear, i meant female emancipation mostly. i mean you can look to biology to give more force to your argument but if your argument rests solely on that natural aspect and it turns out that there is no proof for equality between male and female in nature you should forfeit your case. but i think this is counter intuitive.

[Beskar]

I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

I always have the habit of looking behind me to see if anyone is there before I let go of the door, male or female, I hold it till they have grab it themselves and move on. However, on some occassions, I had females magically "stop" there, and it leaves me confused then they start the tirade about how evil I am because I am keeping open the door, so I simply let go on quite a few occasions, the door has smacked back in their face and they go "You *"$%^" and then I reply "There is the reason the door is held open, to prevent that."

Then there was this argent feminist who I was friends with who ended up doing this. As the corridors were big enough to go side by side, we made her go to the front of the "group-line" so she opens the door first. She goes "Why do you do that?" and I replied "Because if we keep the door open, you find it demeaning and offensive, so we put you at the front, so you can open it for the rest of us.", then started being silly between us (the males) going "Thank you good sir, how sporting of you to open the door" in silly posh English accents. After that occasion she accepted to allow us to hold open the door so if we was behind us, she doesn't get smacked in the face or even up standing there for a minute for the door to shut close on its own.


There are equality issues but it is these challenges where 'feminists' are sexist towards males in the "fight for feminism" severely undermines support for the cause.

[CountArach]

I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".
Don't base your opinion of an entire philosophy on the actions of stupid people.

I'm not a fan of feminism. Because it's a form of sexism.
Not true. It is only sexist if you say that women are inherently superior to men. True feminism is about gender equality.

[The Stranger]

Don't base your opinion of an entire philosophy on the actions of stupid people.


yes... if everyone just didnt do that. but sadly about everyone does.

[spankythehippo]

Not true. It is only sexist if you say that women are inherently superior to men. True feminism is about gender equality.

I went to an all boys school. When I went to uni, I didn't hold back on offensive jokes. Whenever I mentioned any sexist jokes, all the "feminists" would become angry when the joke was demeaning women. When I told a joke that demeaned men (I have more of those jokes, by the way), they would laugh.

Alot of feminists are looking for gender superiority. I believe Rita Mae Brown is a feminist, but she still makes sexist jokes. There's a difference between joking about something and actually believing in it. You can do both at the same time, but not many do that. They think it's an infringement on their beliefs.

That's why I love George Carlin. RIP George. But I hate the audience at his shows. Always cheering at everything he says, and I can't hear him at times.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Feminism implies activism, and is thus full of stupidities. You can't be honest about what's known and what isn't, or about what the uncertainties are, or all the other things you have to do to truly think about something philosophically, when you have a pressing political stake. You can't be scientific about the results of a study when you are a public figure in a political debate like that...if a study was inconclusive regarding whether men were smarter than women, any well known feminist who accurately described the study would have their words trumpeted all over by their opponents, who would have no such scruples.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Face > figure (slim or large) > bum/legs > breasts

which is what attracts us

personality > all = what keeps us.


Im all for the best people in the best position.

http://www.adrants.com/images/heng_blowjob.jpg

Yes, and in that order for obvious reasons (or maybe not). The face is your main communicator, and an attractive face indicates good genes, so there you have good genese and the potential for a successful relationships; weight (or body fat%) can be both an indication of health and also (it appears increasingly) intelligence or at least common sense; bum/legs, pretty obvious this one, you don't want her to die in child birth; breasts, again pretty obvious, but also suggestive of high levels of fertility, and not just the ability to nurse.


Ajax is correct. Sex refers to what organs you're born with, whereas gender is with which organs you identify. The distinction is both relevant in terms of referring to trans people (Who are people whose biological sex and gender don't match up at birth) and also the idea that gender is a social construct.


Any.



https://i.imgur.com/f6jZy.jpg


You mean, you know you're wrong?



COOL STORY BRO

Ajax didn't agree with you, he simply said that there is a preference in technical language to use "gender" to mean "social construct", but if you aren't impressed by the idea of complex "social constructs" as "made" parts of culture that's not persuasive.

Oh, and "mankind" is just a word, which is clear if you look up the origin of "man", and the extinct "wer-man".


1st wave is legit, but not very special.

id say 2nd wave is feminism freaking out

and i totally applaud 3rd wave! tho i think it kinda makes being a feminist... redundant.

I don't buy into third-wave's theories, it should actually logically talk itself out of existence because "Feminism" is a linguistically prescriptive word with huge amounts of historical baggage which limits the discourse that "feminism" engages in, and the groups it includes and excludes. For example, the word "Feminist" actually excludes the heterosexual male from proper membership of the movement because he is not, "feminine" and it is not "his course".

If you consider, you would not describe a white male as a "Black Rights" campaigner, but as a "Civil Rights" campaigner, although you might use the former term to describe a black male. This is why I object to the equivilence drawn between Egalitarianism and Feminism, the latter is prescriptive in its aim while the former is not.

I also happen to think that Post-Scructuralism is both reductive and unconvincing, but that's a different argument.


I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

That's because you're not doing it properly. Feminists are now told that it is "sexist" for men to open doors, but the door-opening in question is where the man goes forward of the woman, opens the door for her to go throough and then follows her. So what these feminists are reacting against is something that you don't do, not what you do do.

Beskar, you are not sexist enough!

[Husar]

So in humans, when looking for good genes, look for those individuals that have a healthy appearance - those that do not limp and appear strong. Don't look blindly at status.

That's wrong as well.

Someone can be born with perfect genes and perfect health, then end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, i.e. have an accident that's not their fault, and end up with a limp and appearing weak. However that doesn't mean the genes are bad or that a baby of that person would be born with a limp.

[Viking]

That's wrong as well.

Someone can be born with perfect genes and perfect health, then end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, i.e. have an accident that's not their fault, and end up with a limp and appearing weak. However that doesn't mean the genes are bad or that a baby of that person would be born with a limp.

If they are just limping, you can still evaluate the symmetry of their faces etc. But it is not really relevant, because it works in the vast majority of cases (and most likely, there are people with equally good/better DNA around you that do not limp/appear weak).

[Husar]

Yes, and democracy also works if you just cater to the vast majority of people and oppress the others!

You also might want to elaborate about what makes good DNA, not everything that seems advantageous at first sight has to be in the long run and vice versa.

Why is an asymmetric face a sign of bad genes anyway?

And why do you discriminate against bad genes? Are you saying people with bad genes should stay lonely? Or just mate other people with bad genes to create a genetic underclass? :stare:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Subjective symmetry of course, because nobody's face is in fact objectively symmetrical (and we'd find such faces rather unnerving/weird-looking). Why would you want a symmetric face? Because:


It implies you have managed not to get hurt too much during fights.
It implies you have managed not to get into too many accidents.
It implies you body is working properly, or has done so for the time it took to grow that face.
Specifically, it implies that you don't suffer from palsy.


Similar reasons for why both sexes, but especially the women, overwhelmingly want a tall partner. In Western cultures the magic threshold size appears to be about 6 feet or taller for men: its a documented fact that men will “cheat” on their height on dating sites, for example, to get to that 6 feet mark. (Varies with culture, for instance 6 feet won't be that impressive when you go to a culture where 6 feet is well within the norm for women, or where 6 feet is on the small end for men.) Again, height implies robust health and not just at the moment but for the entire duration it took you to grow to that size.

The corollary here is that these implications, in turn imply your parents were successful at parenting. Which bodes well for you as a parent because you are likely/bound to make the same sort of mistakes your parents' did, too. So at least such errors will likely not end up catastrophic.

Additionally your biochemical processes will likely be in good working order if you can manage to sport a healthy visage and size. So you are probably fit, fertile, and will likely remain so for the forseeable future.

Similarly we look at the chest to estimate whether or not someone is a pushover or worth reckoning with. That's because if you do get into a fight, it'll likely be the upper body strength that determines the outcome. Which is why Henry VIII liked the idea of wrestling with the French king, that is until the French king tripped him over and won.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And why do you discriminate against bad genes? Are you saying people with bad genes should stay lonely? Or just mate other people with bad genes to create a genetic underclass? :stare:

That's exactly what evolution does tend to produce: people with similar ability/attractiveness end up together, if they find a partner at all.

It happens with intellect as well. People who are smart generally want their partner to be as smart as well. It's more attractive to be bookish than to be an utter tool.

[rory_20_uk]

Even a small dip into any decent book on evolutionary would show that all species try as far as possible to screen out the weaker ones from the gene pool. some species it is more of an exact science than others.

It is true that some traits are more useful at set points - such as sickle cell or thalasaemia. Now that we have treatments for malaria sickle cell trait has no advantage.

It is not so much to create an underclass, more that they die off completely.

Successful species try to get the most number of healthy members at the expense of those which aren't. There is definitely genetic drift in what "healthy" is, and in extreme cases this will case one species to become two if the environment.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

What we find attractive must be pretty deep rooted

http://cogprints.org/5272/1/ghirlanda_jansson_enquist2002.pdf

After all chickens rate humans beauty almost the same as humans rank human beauty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This seemed apt for this thread. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16592633)

He is quick to assure me that he and his colleagues "do not want to bring women down," as he puts it. "We just want to bring the men up to where the women are."

This seems fair enough.

Although they seem almost like more hardline feminists in wanting to change language and everything:

"Mr Pariat cites numerous examples of how his fellow brethren are being demoralised. These include a fascinating theory involving the way that gender in the local Khasi language reflects these basic cultural assumptions.

"A tree is masculine, but when it is turned into wood, it becomes feminine," he begins."

A bizarre story...

[Tellos Athenaios]

What we find attractive must be pretty deep rooted

http://cogprints.org/5272/1/ghirlanda_jansson_enquist2002.pdf

After all chickens rate humans beauty almost the same as humans rank human beauty.

No, that study doesn't show anything of the sort. All it shows is that you can train chickens to distinguish between male & female humans by giving them food if they peck correctly. This, the authors claim, supports the hypothesis that preferences for how a member of a particular sex should look like in animals may be due to internalised method/patterns of distinguishing between the sexes -- which can be taught, and could for instance be due to what tasks are associated with males or females. In other words: wearing of ties might be associated with dad, therefore a kid learns that if it wears ties it's probably a man...

Then it goes on to show that chickens get better at pecking correctly the more humans would find the subject an attractive date, based on nothing more than a picture of their face.

What it doesn't show is that chickens in their natural habitat have somehow even vaguely similar sexual preferences as humans. Or anything of much significance, really. (Especially considering the staggering sample size of 14 people... How impressive! )

[CountArach]

Although they seem almost like more hardline feminists in wanting to change language and everything:

"Mr Pariat cites numerous examples of how his fellow brethren are being demoralised. These include a fascinating theory involving the way that gender in the local Khasi language reflects these basic cultural assumptions.

"A tree is masculine, but when it is turned into wood, it becomes feminine," he begins."

A bizarre story...
Masculine and feminine in linguistic terms have nothing to do with masculine and feminine as deined by social norms. That is to say, gender in language is not the same as a gendered language.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Masculine and feminine in linguistic terms have nothing to do with masculine and feminine as deined by social norms. That is to say, gender in language is not the same as a gendered language.

Oh, I think it is, there's a reason "sword" is always masculine, for example. Gendered language is about understanding the world, just like gender among people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I held a door open for a girl when I was in the gym yesterday. She said thanks. We went through another set of doors and I did it a second time. She said thanks. Then when I was a few steps ahead by the final set of doors, I had this thread in mind and quite rudely did not hold the door open and I heard her push it open right after it banged shut on her.

Damn it .org!

[Viking]

Oh, I think it is, there's a reason "sword" is always masculine, for example. Gendered language is about understanding the world, just like gender among people.

In modern Norwegian (as in Old Norwegian aka Viking language), a sword is of neuter gender. An axe is of feminine gender (for the Vikings, too). A knife, on the other hand, is of masculine gender. As is a bow. The word for giant is also of feminine gender (the actual ON word is kempa, where the -a is characteristic for what is probably the largest feminine word class, also containing words like kona ('woman') and genta ('girl'). Masculine words often end on -r in comparison, such as maðr ('man').)

The word for eagle is of feminine gender (masculine for the Vikings), while hawk is of masculine gender. A stone is of masculine gender, but a mountain is of neuter gender.

If there is a pattern, I think it could have been stronger.

[rory_20_uk]

The Thors as a rule through the ages have been better at rape, pillage and getting blind drunk rather than grammatical cogence. ~;)

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

Meh, etymological debates are pretty much irrelevant to identity politics. What matters is the context of the word, and how it is used.


As much as I hate racism, I always laugh at racist jokes. Same goes for sexist jokes. It's merely poking fun at the issue in general. I find it humourous. Although, it would probably violate forum rules, if I posted some of my favourites.
Most of those kinds of jokes just aren't inherently funny. They're largely repeats of old jokes or not-jokes that have grown well out of context. Think of any French joke you've heard in the last decade or so. I've heard French jokes that cracked me up, but the bulk of them are just some dude going, "Ha, the French are cowards!" The same with jokes based on ethnicity, or gender or sexual orientation or whatever. It's not about the joke, it's about reaffirming that you're with the "in" group.



Feminism implies activism, and is thus full of stupidities.
Huh, well I guess the civil rights movement, abolitionism and the Founding Fathers were all full of stupidities then.


You can't be honest about what's known and what isn't, or about what the uncertainties are, or all the other things you have to do to truly think about something philosophically, when you have a pressing political stake. Feminists go into activism and politics because they care about women. It really isn't the case that they seem to care about women for power - for one, "feminism" is a dirty word.



I never understood the trend where keeping the door open when you walk through it is offensive to self-proclaimed "feminists".

I always have the habit of looking behind me to see if anyone is there before I let go of the door, male or female, I hold it till they have grab it themselves and move on. However, on some occassions, I had females magically "stop" there, and it leaves me confused then they start the tirade about how evil I am because I am keeping open the door, so I simply let go on quite a few occasions, the door has smacked back in their face and they go "You *"$%^" and then I reply "There is the reason the door is held open, to prevent that."

Then there was this argent feminist who I was friends with who ended up doing this. As the corridors were big enough to go side by side, we made her go to the front of the "group-line" so she opens the door first. She goes "Why do you do that?" and I replied "Because if we keep the door open, you find it demeaning and offensive, so we put you at the front, so you can open it for the rest of us.", then started being silly between us (the males) going "Thank you good sir, how sporting of you to open the door" in silly posh English accents. After that occasion she accepted to allow us to hold open the door so if we was behind us, she doesn't get smacked in the face or even up standing there for a minute for the door to shut close on its own.


There are equality issues but it is these challenges where 'feminists' are sexist towards males in the "fight for feminism" severely undermines support for the cause.
https://i.imgur.com/zYtpA.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh, etymological debates are pretty much irrelevant to identity politics. What matters is the context of the word, and how it is used.

So you don't find it at all interesting that the Latin word for a woman's intimates is "Vagina" which is where you put your "Gladies".

Proving not only that etymology is facinating, but that soldiers are the same throughout time.

[Subotan]

Interesting sure, but irrelevant to politics and the actual issue.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Huh, well I guess the civil rights movement, abolitionism and the Founding Fathers were all full of stupidities then.

Yes, absolutely. That stuff is just swept under the rug of history. You never hear about the abolitionists were were convinced they were the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson and went around dressed like him, or the mysticism of the women's movement at the time...or the racism of the abolitionist movement for that matter. We talk about the mythology of it with a certain narrative because it aids a modern day political goal.


Feminists go into activism and politics because they care about women. It really isn't the case that they seem to care about women for power - for one, "feminism" is a dirty word.

Don't understand what you're getting at...but you understand the effect being involved in a political debate has on how you think, right? It's a dog fight. Same as republicans vs democrats come election time.


edit: also, feminism gets stuck with the double whammy of activism + academia.

[Subotan]

Yes, absolutely. That stuff is just swept under the rug of history. You never hear about the abolitionists were were convinced they were the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson and went around dressed like him, or the mysticism of the women's movement at the time...or the racism of the abolitionist movement for that matter. We talk about the mythology of it with a certain narrative because it aids a modern day political goal.
That's not relevant. Take any set of people large enough, regardless of their political opinions or activism, and you'll get a few people who are crazy.


Don't understand what you're getting at...but you understand the effect being involved in a political debate has on how you think, right? It's a dog fight. Same as republicans vs democrats come election time.

You seemed to be implying that feminists were only feminists because they had a political stake in keeping the women's movement going. Well, in a tautological sense that's true, but it confuses cause and effect as to why feminists become involved in feminism in the first place.


edit: also, feminism gets stuck with the double whammy of activism + academia.
Again, and?

[CountArach]

So you don't find it at all interesting that the Latin word for a woman's intimates is "Vagina" which is where you put your "Gladies".
The gender of the words themselves is irrelevant, only the engendered action that is placed upon them through the use of metaphor.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's not relevant. Take any set of people large enough, regardless of their political opinions or activism, and you'll get a few people who are crazy.

We aren't talking about a small minority. Haven't you ever seen atheists and religious people going at it, or republicans and democrats especially around election time? In a political fight people pick their argument based on how it will work on the public. You can be in favor of feminism out of a cynical (i.e. realistic) view of the democratic process while still seeing the nonsense for what it is. People shouldn't hate or outright reject feminism for all the stupid things that are said about it, that's a naive view of democracy.



You seemed to be implying that feminists were only feminists because they had a political stake in keeping the women's movement going.

Nope.


Again, and?

"There are some people who, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em"--Yogi Berra