Da Feminism Thread

[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.

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. 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/s...onalities.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.

[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.

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)

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

[Subotan]

The English language 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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/to...d-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/to...d-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.





"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.

[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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[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.

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.

[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...)