# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Will feminist succeed dismantling patriarchy?

## dan020350

When patriarchy is demolish, won't there still be patriarchy? That is women as masculine, and men as cowards?

----------


## Bakiryu

How can a woman be masculine?!

Patriarchy has been around almost as long as humans, it's gonna last. The more we can hope is equality and with such close-minded views in our schools, it's not going to happen in ours or our children's generations.

Men are already cowards, as they have been for thousand of years (no offense to the few brave ones in the bunch).

----------


## dan020350

So feminist movements are in vain?

----------


## Bakiryu

No. It's a worthwhile cause to fight for what you know it's right. Little things may change and help in the end to end this patriachal society but it's not going to happen NOW. wE'LL KEEP ON FOGHTING THOUGHT!

----------


## dan020350

If it is worthwhile, why don't you join the feminist movement? Unless you are not in the side of the right? :P

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> When patriarchy is demolish, won't there still be patriarchy? That is women as masculine, and men as cowards?


First off: that's a complete and total misuderstanding of the entire movement. Second, that would be a matriarchy.

----------


## kathycf

> When patriarchy is demolish, won't there still be patriarchy? That is women as masculine, and men as cowards?


The word "coward" is defined thusly:
Noun	1.	coward - a person who shows fear or timidity

Related word cowardice: the trait of lacking courage

How will feminism make men cowards? 



> Men are already cowards, as they have been for thousand of years


Cowardice cannot be determined by sex. It is fruitless to argue traits such as cowardice (or conversely courage) are based on whether a person happens to have their reproductive organs on the outside or the inside. 

It really doesn't work to make sweeping generalizations, whether about men OR women.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The word "coward" is defined thusly:
> Noun	1.	coward - a person who shows fear or timidity
> 
> Related word cowardice: the trait of lacking courage
> 
> How will feminism make men cowards?


We're terrified of women with rights  :Eek2:

----------


## kathycf

> We're terrified of women with rights


Well, sure. Womenfolks had better stick to mopping floors and birthing babies, then.  :Tongue:

----------


## Virgil

I knew when I saw the title of this thread there would be some passionate responses.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Nossa

> First off: that's a complete and total misuderstanding of the entire movement. Second, that would be a matriarchy.


I agree. It's not about who dominates, because if it's about women's domination, then it's a huge contradiction in the basic of the whole movement, when you don't want men to dominate, you can't create a movement that its aim is doing the same thing, just the only difference is the gender!
I don't think we should regard the whole issue as in who's dominating, we should regard it by considering the equality and fairness in treatment, for bother genders, none should dominate the other, they should rather complete and cooperate with each other. I never believed that the problem should be narrowed to Men vs Women thing, it's not a war...and neither shold be afraid of the other's rights. But then again, this is easier said than done, of course.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Brave!

since the two words represent two things that are so variable in the day to day lives of most folks, I would say ....two eddies in the river.. neither will catch the other they will only play together for a while.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Men are already cowards, as they have been for thousand of years.


Oh that's nice. Men get _crucified_ for making generalizations about women like this. What makes this comment acceptable?




> We're terrified of women with rights


Some maybe; others, no. 

I think men are less afraid of women with rights than they are of women who decide that their equality negates masculinity and its own particular strengths. To examine entertainment/media attitudes, one would get the idea that women are the only intelligent beings on the planet and that their particular gifts are the only ones necessary for the survival of civilization (hence articles in years past from the APA essentially saying that men are unnecessary in the parenting process). Women who think _that way_ - well yes, they _are_ scary because they decide that men are nothing more than "oppressors" to whom women should never, ever give even an inch of compromise to because any compromise to a man at all is REPRESSION. We become ridiculed in TV sitcoms and adolescent T-shirts ("Boys are yucky - throw rocks at them") and any protest is shouted down by "you pigs have been in control long enough."

It's not rights we fear - it is the use of those rights to bash us over the head.

----------


## kathycf

> I don't think we should regard the whole issue as in who's dominating, we should regard it by considering the equality and fairness in treatment, for bother genders, none should dominate the other, they should rather complete and cooperate with each other. I never believed that the problem should be narrowed to Men vs Women thing, it's not a war...and neither shold be afraid of the other's rights. But then again, this is easier said than done, of course.


Very well said, Nossa. That has always been my understanding of feminism as well. To me, it is about *equality*, and by definition equality cannot mean "superior to". I am always puzzled by people who consider "feminist" to be some sort of expletive; a nasty label. 

I probably shouldn't have made a silly joke earlier, I do understand that some people (not just men) are threatened by feminism.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Well,

Here is the challenge... Define feminism..
then define patriarchy.

----------


## kathycf

> Oh that's nice. Men get _crucified_ for making generalizations about women like this. What makes this comment acceptable?


I see lots of generalizing going on in both directions...from _men_ and women. 





> We become ridiculed in TV sitcoms and adolescent T-shirts ("Boys are yucky - throw rocks at them") and any protest is shouted down by "you pigs have been in control long enough."
> 
> It's not rights we fear - it is the use of those rights to bash us over the head.


I've never seen a "boys are yucky" shirt. I have seen a bumper stickers and t-shirts(a few months ago, actually) that proudly proclaim "no fat chicks". *Neither* sentiment is acceptable to me, it denies a person's essential humanity. 

Speaking of denying essential humanity, have you heard the innumberable references to women as "b****** and "ho's" ? 
I think once *people* (people are men and women, far as I know) start pointing fingers at each other with "Your side said mean things about us!" the chances for intelligent discourse dwindle.

I would be sad to see this discussion go that way, I completely avoid the religious text discussion for that very reason. That isn't a blame statement, btw. I take responsiblity for the fact that I dislike confrontative discussions. Nor should my comment be intended as getting into anybody's face. If someone interprets it as such, well, that was not the spirit in which I intended it.

----------


## dan020350

I 'll take a stab at it, while enroll in feminist epistemology class. 

Patriarchy is a social structure established by male( hedgemony) with assumptions of bias towards other people mainly women beliefs. Ex. taking credit for a woman's work

Feminism- a movement created to understand and point the bias of our policitcal and scientific community are overruled by dominated by oppressors. 

( hey , I gave it a shot- in the perspective of an straight C' student)

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Women who think that way - well yes, they are scary because they decide that men are nothing more than "oppressors" to whom women should never, ever give even an inch of compromise to because any compromise to a man at all is REPRESSION.


Fortunately, such women are few and far between, and the third wave of feminism is somewhat _less_ radical and anti-man then the second. Women, arguably, could be forgiven for holding the opinion that us menfolk should have to do the dishes for the next few thousand years, but very few of them actually hold it.

----------


## Mrs. Dalloway

You're absolutely wrong. Feminist movement's goal has been always, as it is now, equality between women and men. So, there can't be a matriarchy, as someone has said in other message. With equality, no matriarchy is possible! Remember that the women's movement was born because women had no rights, or had not the same rights as men. Now, the situation is a bit different, but in each country there's already patriarchy. 
If you think that women would be masculine, you have to define what is "masculine". Do you mean that to be "feminine" is to be coward? I don't believe in these concepts because they are totally ambiguous. What is considered to be "masculine"? And "feminine"? Is "feminine" to be coward or week? And so, is "masculine" to be strong? I don't think so. A woman can be coward, and other women can be strong. The same happens with men. I think that kind of qualities don't depend on being a woman or a man. If you mean that women will have more power or control over men, I think you are wrong. If it happens, there will not be any kind of feminism. Feminism is equality and there's no way round! What did the suffragetes look for? What did they want? Why did the feminist movement begin? And what were their goals? The answer is equality between men and women. The same rights for everyone.

----------


## Virgil

I don't agree with the general thrust of what started this thread. Women have not had equalities over history, and you can call it patriarchy or how I see it as the natural fall out of a world where strength and aggression are more prized and valued in a non-modern brute force world. Whatever. Women deserve equality. but what puts off many men and lots of women too is the radical feminists who do seem to want to turn the world into matriarchy and reverse (not equalize) power. Just some quotes from these radicals:

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson 

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson 

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins 

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin 

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin 

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." -- Andrea Dworkin

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." -- Marilyn French (her emphasis) 

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.". -- Sylvia Fraser

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10&#37; of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." -- Germaine Greer. 

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Barbara Jordan

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys 

Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.' -- Judith Levine

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers." -- Judith Levine

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the ****work that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan 

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon 

There are more. I got tired of copying.

----------


## kandaurov

I had actually written a longish post, but then found out that all had been said before. My point is also the 'feminism doesn't necessarily defend equality, claiming that a gender is better than the other is simply preposterous, I'm all for equality' one.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I see lots of generalizing going on in both directions...from _men_ and women. 
> 
> I've never seen a "boys are yucky" shirt. I have seen a bumper stickers and t-shirts(a few months ago, actually) that proudly proclaim "no fat chicks". *Neither* sentiment is acceptable to me, it denies a person's essential humanity. 
> 
> Speaking of denying essential humanity, have you heard the innumberable references to women as "b****** and "ho's" ? 
> I think once *people* (people are men and women, far as I know) start pointing fingers at each other with "Your side said mean things about us!" the chances for intelligent discourse dwindle.
> 
> I would be sad to see this discussion go that way, I completely avoid the religious text discussion for that very reason. That isn't a blame statement, btw. I take responsiblity for the fact that I dislike confrontative discussions. Nor should my comment be intended as getting into anybody's face. If someone interprets it as such, well, that was not the spirit in which I intended it.


I get the distinct impression that an implication is being made that my post is somehow inflamatory or provacative; I hope I am interpreting this incorrectly. I see no harm in pointing out some of the hypocritical behavior by some factions of radical feminism in its hostility towards men. Doing to others what you didn't like done to you is repellent, regardless of gender. That was my only point.

----------


## Nossa

I'm speechless, Virgil. This is nonesense. So now each and every act that has both Men and Women in it, is meant to be done just to torture women?! What the hell is that? I know for a fact that women through history have suffered from repression and male domiation, but that doesn't mean that it's some kind of a consipiracy to make women's lives living hell.

----------


## Mayhem

If women are equal to men, how come men have been dominant for thousands of years?

----------


## Virgil

> I'm speechless, Virgil. This is nonesense. So now each and every act that has both Men and Women in it, is meant to be done just to torture women?! What the hell is that? I know for a fact that women through history have suffered from repression and male domiation, but that doesn't mean that it's some kind of a consipiracy to make women's lives living hell.


Nossa, I am in *complete* agreement with you. I am pointing out what the radical feminists have said. When I read their quotes, and you can tell that it is a coordinated philosophy, I am speechless too.

----------


## Nossa

> Nossa, I am in *complete* agreement with you. I am pointing out what the radical feminists have said. When I read their quotes, and you can tell that it is a coordinated philosophy, I am speechless too.


It's so sad to see how some noble ideas can be turned into something as replusive and stupid as this. I mean, I consider myself a feminist, I do believe in equality between men and women, but now, after reading all what's been said from people who are supposedly holding up the same notion as I do, I'll think again before declaring that I'm in favor of feminism. What's funny, is that they consider something like sex to be a part of the consipiracy, when sex is an instinct in not only humans, but even animals, so now we conclude that even male animals are a part of the 'big plan' of torturing thier females...what a theory!!

----------


## kathycf

> I consider myself a feminist, I do believe in equality between men and women, but now, after reading all what's been said from people who are supposedly holding up the same notion as I do, I'll think again before declaring that I'm in favor of feminism.


That would be a shame. That is what I meant in my post that feminism is equated with some sort of expletive. Radical feminism is *ONE* part of feminist theory. Many women are more mainstream in their beliefs, radicalism *does not* encompass the entire feminist movement. This is an interesting article here that goes into some different ideas. 




> Doing to others what you didn't like done to you is repellent, regardless of gender. That was my only point.


I understand that, Red, and I agree with your point.I was only making the point that for every "boys are yucky" t-shirt, there is a "No fat chicks" t-shirt. Both types of statements are dismissing of people's inherent humanity. Well, that is a poor analogy on my part, it is just that if you dislike one, you ought to dislike the other. Meaning that if men don't like women making blanket hostile statements about them, then men should understand that women feel the same way. For every time a man is ridiculed on a tv show, a woman is called a "ho". I am just pointing out that there exist examples of bad behavior from both sexes. Again, I wasn't making an "in your face" sort of a statement.

----------


## Nossa

^^ Thank you for the article. And I know that it's gonna be a shame to give up such a noble idea, but it was shocking to read all these quotes, I'd never give up my belief in women's equality, but not like that...def. not like that!

----------


## Virgil

> It's so sad to see how some noble ideas can be turned into something as replusive and stupid as this. I mean, I consider myself a feminist, I do believe in equality between men and women, but now, after reading all what's been said from people who are supposedly holding up the same notion as I do, I'll think again before declaring that I'm in favor of feminism. What's funny, is that they consider something like sex to be a part of the consipiracy, when sex is an instinct in not only humans, but even animals, so now we conclude that even male animals are a part of the 'big plan' of torturing thier females...what a theory!!


 :FRlol:  God bless you Nossa, you are saying what I have tried to say for a long time. I too wish for equality, but what the radicals can't understand is why the disparity occured. Like you say they seem to see a conspiracy.

----------


## kathycf

> God bless you Nossa, you are saying what I have tried to say for a long time. I too wish for equality, but what the radicals can't understand is why the disparity occured. Like you say they seem to see a conspiracy.


Keeping in mind the old saying " the squeaky wheel gets the grease". In other words, those radical comments get lots of attention, when *many* feminists don't believe that sort of thing at all. Radical feminism is one part of a whole movement, one part that does not speak for the whole movement. 

Apparently, it garners far less attention to say something reasonable such as women deserve equal pay for equal work, or that feminism ought to be about respecting women's choices and inherent worth as human beings.

----------


## Nossa

> Keeping in mind the old saying " the squeaky wheel gets the grease". In other words, those radical comments get lots of attention, when *many* feminists don't believe that sort of thing at all. Radical feminism is one part of a whole movement, one part that does not speak for the whole movement. 
> 
> Apparently, it garners far less attention to say something reasonable such as women deserve equal pay for equal work, or that feminism ought to be about respecting women's choices and inherent worth as human beings.


I hope you didn't get me wrong here, sicne I'm not, by any means, attacking feminism, on the contrary, I'm stressing the fact that it's a noble idea, that some of its so-called believers either misunderstood it, or wanted to change it for God knows what reason. The quotes caught my attention because when you believe in the nobility of a certain idea or notion, believing that everyone who symbolises it or believes in it, to be as noble, and then you learn that no, some people who call themselves feminists, are in fact man-haters, nothing more, and accordingly they're causing so much distortion to the original idea, which can easily be lost, since, as you yourself stated, these kinds of comments and theories are the ones that grab the attention of people the most.
I live in an eastern soceity, I've seen many examples, right before me, that represent women's repression. Men sometimes either go with the flaw, lest they'd be called cowards, or the 'wife's man', which is pretty insulting for them. Or they just treat thier women like that, cuz they believe that women are retards, and are basically good for nothing...But I've also seen someone like my old man, who've always treated my mother with the absolute respect. The reason why I'm saying that is cuz I do believe that some women, who apply to the first two examples, some of them DO believe that it's a consipiracy, to keep men the upper hand...And so when they revolt, the result is what you've read in Virgil's post, hatered and disgust from Men.
Bottom line is that the problem isn't in feminism, and it's not only in Men, but partialy in Women as well. The fact that some women can't get the idea that male-domination isn't a planned act, but rather a inherited notion, makes Men, no matter how close they're to them, very hateful creatures, that are on this earth for one purpose, that is to torture them! Hope you get my point.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I understand that, Red, and I agree with your point.I was only making the point that for every "boys are yucky" t-shirt, there is a "No fat chicks" t-shirt. Both types of statements are dismissing of people's inherent humanity. Well, that is a poor analogy on my part, it is just that if you dislike one, you ought to dislike the other. Meaning that if men don't like women making blanket hostile statements about them, then men should understand that women feel the same way. For every time a man is ridiculed on a tv show, a woman is called a "ho". I am just pointing out that there exist examples of bad behavior from both sexes. Again, I wasn't making an "in your face" sort of a statement.


Understood, acknowledged and appreciated.  :Smile: 


P.S. Virgil's lengthy post of quotations are the _substance_ behind the assertions of my original post. Thanks, Virgil.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Might I suggest that perhaps a scaresheet of out of context quotes in _not_ the best way to learn about feminism?

----------


## littlewing53

hey, i'll jump n2 the fray...i didn't burn my bra in the 60s can i still be considered a feminist? I don't hate men and i don't hate my sisters...but why oh why does taking out the trash seem so elusive?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> i didn't burn my bra in the 60s can i still be considered a feminist?


Yes.




> I don't hate men and i don't hate my sisters...


Feminism ≠ man hating. How hating your sisters could be considered even remotely feminist is beyond me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Might I suggest that perhaps a scaresheet of out of context quotes in _not_ the best way to learn about feminism?


You may. But I didn't think the thread was about "learning" about feminism. I'm willing to bet that - even in context - much of what Virgil quoted would retain its offensive nature. 

Look, joe, I don't want to sit here and scrap with you about feminism. Women deserve equal rights, equal pay, equal consideration before the law - you name it - OK? I'm simply commenting on an anti-masculine cultural phenomena that has come about as a (perhaps unintentional) result from the _legimate_ aims of feminism - namely, a sort of hostility towards men that verges occasionally on militancy. I'm not making a wholesale condemnation of feminist ideology - I'm criticizing its more extreme/radical elements (just like I would criticize the extreme/radical factions of Islam that support suicide bombers - which in no way offers a criticism of Islam in general).

----------


## kathycf

> hey, i'll jump n2 the fray...i didn't burn my bra in the 60s can i still be considered a feminist? I don't hate men and i don't hate my sisters...but why oh why does taking out the trash seem so elusive?


Just a quote....



> Popular myths make feminism unpopular with women
> 
> Leigh Fought
> 
> Guest Columnist
> 
> "I'm not a feminist, but ... " This is the cry of the current generation of young adult females. It is usually followed with a very feminist statement: But I believe that women should have control over their reproductive systems. But I believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work. But I believe that women are not inferior humans.
> 
> The question I ask these nonfeminists is, "Why aren't you a feminist?" The answers are varied, and usually containing the theme that feminism has nothing to do with women.
> ...


*edit*
Here is the link to read the rest of the article. Popular myths make feminism unpopular with women.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Second on the list of excuses for not being a feminist is "man-hating." Some women actually do hate men. Yet, many men hate women, and many women hate other women. No one seems to question the direction of those animosities.


Are these other forms of hatred link-able to an ideology? Radical feminism does (on occasion) espouse a hatred/disgust with masculinity. I don't think men have an organized ideology of similar type. (Which is not to imply that we're not capable of boorish, atrocious, sexist behavior.) 

These comments (I repeat) are not an attempt to excuse the poor behavior of men, but to point out the hypocritical nature of radical feminism's attack on masculinity.

----------


## littlewing53

why are we all so intent on chewing each other's behind...im just trying to make light of the current situation here....geez....

----------


## kathycf

> Are these other forms of hatred link-able to an ideology? Radical feminism does (on occasion) espouse a hatred/disgust with masculinity. I don't think men have an organized ideology of similar type. (Which is not to imply that we're not capable of boorish, atrocious, sexist behavior.) 
> 
> These comments (I repeat) are not an attempt to excuse the poor behavior of men, but to point out the hypocritical nature of radical feminism's attack on masculinity.


I really meant the quote as a rebuttal to a comment made by littewing. It just struck me (and no offense to littlewing) that a lot of young women equate feminism to be a "man hater" or a "bra burner" which to is the antithesis of how I and many other feminists view it. I don't hate anybody, and hatred is a destructive emotion that only leads to ...well destruction. 

I suppose from a radical point of view (which I am *not* espousing by the way...) one could argue that patriarchy is a construct that could be considered as a systemized hatred of women.

----------


## barbara0207

> Are these other forms of hatred link-able to an ideology? Radical feminism does (on occasion) espouse a hatred/disgust with masculinity. I don't think men have an organized ideology of similar type. (Which is not to imply that we're not capable of boorish, atrocious, sexist behavior.) 
> 
> These comments (I repeat) are not an attempt to excuse the poor behavior of men, but to point out the hypocritical nature of radical feminism's attack on masculinity.


Yes, as I see it , it is an ideology of some kind. It is an ideology that you will find in all groups that were (or felt) once oppressed by another group. In all these oppressed groups usually some will turn to radicalism. The hate helps them overcome problems with their self-esteem. For centuries they have been told by the oppressors that they are nothing. As soon as they get the opportunity they will try to regain their self-esteem by hating the former oppressors. It is a good thing that they are only a small minority.

----------


## Nossa

> These comments (I repeat) are not an attempt to excuse the poor behavior of men, but to point out the hypocritical nature of radical feminism's attack on masculinity.


I agree. The fact that we disagree on the quotes that were posted, doesn't mean that we think that 'these' are the fundementals and the ethics of feminsim. As stated before, radicals are only ONE part of the movement, and this is totally understood, but we're also free to state out disapproval to that side, as long as it does belong to feminsim, even if it's not the core of the movement, and even if it's the twisted notion, but it's STILL a part of feminism, that we protest against. These quotes were SO repulsive, but that won't, under any circumstances, make me, for instance, give up what I believe is true..just cuz of come idiotic statements.

----------


## kathycf

> I hope you didn't get me wrong here, sicne I'm not, by any means, attacking feminism, on the contrary, I'm stressing the fact that it's a noble idea,
> ... Hope you get my point.


Oh, no, I didn't take your comment as an attack on feminism at all.  :Smile:  

I just wanted to make it clear that one can consider themself a feminist without embracing such radical ideology, nor should all feminists be considered radical.




> why are we all so intent on chewing each other's behind...im just trying to make light of the current situation here....geez....


Well, I am sorry if I conveyed the impression that I was coming down on you...it was not my intent. It is often quite difficult to pick up nuances in a person's post. I thought you were questioning how you could be a feminist if you didn't hate men. I often hear this from people who are genuinely confused because that is what they think all feminists are like...a bunch of man haters. I don't think I was harsh, I gave a quotation that had relevance.

I did think you were making a joke about the trash part though.  :Wink:

----------


## dan020350

I like to watch. I don't like to argue. Looking at the chaos I have invented
feminism can never be accomplish because all they do is talk about it.

----------


## kilted exile

> I like to watch. I don't like to argue. Looking at the chaos I have invented


I think you are giving yourself too much credit, the thread has taken turns and is now the discussion is of a different slant to your original post

----------


## kathycf

> I like to watch. I don't like to argue. Looking at the chaos I have invented
> feminism can never be accomplish because all they do is talk about it.


Oh come now. You have no basis to make that statement. First of all, this is hardly the first, nor I dare say the last time that people will discuss feminism on these boards. This discussion can hardly be considered chaotic, indeed, it seems fairly cordial to me. 

Secondly, simply because people *discuss* an issue does not mean they *don't* take action. That is an extremely big assumption, especially considering you don't know anybody here and what activities they participate in.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> You may. But I didn't think the thread was about "learning" about feminism. I'm willing to bet that - even in context - much of what Virgil quoted would retain its offensive nature. 
> 
> Look, joe, I don't want to sit here and scrap with you about feminism. Women deserve equal rights, equal pay, equal consideration before the law - you name it - OK? I'm simply commenting on an anti-masculine cultural phenomena that has come about as a (perhaps unintentional) result from the _legimate_ aims of feminism - namely, a sort of hostility towards men that verges occasionally on militancy. I'm not making a wholesale condemnation of feminist ideology - I'm criticizing its more extreme/radical elements (just like I would criticize the extreme/radical factions of Islam that support suicide bombers - which in no way offers a criticism of Islam in general).


I'd rather not have a huge argument about it either, but the list of quotes irritates me in the same way a list of crazy theist quotes would you. Such roll calls are easy to make, misleading, not particularly productive, rather asinine and surprisingly hard to discredit.




> feminism can never be accomplish because all they do is talk about it.


Compare the social conditions of women in 1800 and now, and then tell me if you think feminism has accomplished anything.

----------


## Nossa

> Compare the social conditions of women in 1800 and now, and then tell me if you think feminism has accomplished anything.


Agreed.

----------


## Virgil

> Might I suggest that perhaps a scaresheet of out of context quotes in _not_ the best way to learn about feminism?


Cuppa, you can't deny there is a male hating component to some feminists. I can't see how the actual context of _all_  those quotes can be out of context. Those are some leading feminists.

----------


## Virgil

> Compare the social conditions of women in 1800 and now, and then tell me if you think feminism has accomplished anything.


Dito, I agree too. But let's not close our eyes to some. No one is suggesting we turn back the clock on women. But man-hating feminism requires repudiation, otherwise like all ideologies that don't get challenged, they grow.

----------


## Nossa

> Dito, I agree too. But let's not close our eyes to some. No one is suggesting we turn back the clock on women. But man-hating feminism requires repudiation, otherwise like all ideologies that don't get challenged, they grow.


I think that this ideology has grown already, or else we wouldn't have had those quotes you shared in your previous post. I believe that the solution lies in people's understanding and dealing with the issue, especially women. Being that extreme is a choice, you're not compelled to be a man-hater, you choose to be. I just ran some search on one of the radicals you mentioned, whose quotes were the most irritating to me actually, and I just learned that she had an abusive marriage, so go figure. However, that won't be the case to every woman who'd happen to marry an abusive husband, so it basically depends on how you handle the problems.
one final thing, I believe that each and every noble thought, philosophy and idea almost always gets distorted, intentionaly or unintentionaly, see, for instance, what happened to Nietzsche's philosophies, either I agree with his points of view or not, I'd never, not in a million years, say that it was advocating the Nazism way of thinking...that's just an example to elaborate my point of view...so yeah I think it's only normal to see such radicals, but how they're gonna be stopped, is till the question.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Cuppa, you can't deny there is a male hating component to some feminists.


I don't. Some feminists do hate men. So do some non-feminists. So do some men. I still don't feel that drawing up scare sheets is a particularly productive thing to do, especially as such a collection could be compiled for absolutely any group of people.




> But man-hating feminism requires repudiation, otherwise like all ideologies that don't get challenged, they grow.


Of course. I simply question whether the feeling is as widespread as you seem to be suggesting. I would submit that the vast majority of modern feminists realize that sexism cuts both ways.




> im just trying to make light of the current situation here....geez....


Well, feminists aren't noted for their sense of humor, you know  :Tongue:  


Official feminist lightbulb joke:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny.

----------


## dan020350

Sorrie, not what the chaos I have invented what the members have invented.

I do agree, only some feminists did do something. Cuppa Jones.

----------


## Virgil

> I don't. Some feminists do hate men. So do some non-feminists. So do some men. I still don't feel that drawing up scare sheets is a particularly productive thing to do, especially as such a collection could be compiled for absolutely any group of people.
> 
> Of course. I simply question whether the feeling is as widespread as you seem to be suggesting. I would submit that the vast majority of modern feminists realize that sexism cuts both ways.


I do really believe in the fundementals of feminism as I've said elsewhere, Cuppa. But some of those quotes were from well known feminists out of their own books. I didn't bother to cite the source. How widespread? I don't really know. But given your elequent defense I'm likely to think less than I thought before.  :Smile:  Thanks.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I do really believe in the fundementals of feminism as I've said elsewhere, Cuppa.


I don't doubt it.




> But some of those quotes were from well known feminists out of their own books. I didn't bother to cite the source.


Yes, I realize that and, to be honest, I don't really like MacKinnon or Dworkin either. 




> How widespread? I don't really know.


Well, thanks to the very technology that makes it possible to have this conversation, it's now quite easy to find out. There are a few very well-regarded and popular feminist weblogs running around out there in cyberspace, which run not only articles but also allow direct feedback from anybody who cares to read them. Most of said writers and commenters go out of their way to defuse the feminist as man-hater stereotype.





> But given your elegant defense I'm likely to think less than I thought before.  Thanks.


I'm glad I've had some effect, anyway. You're quite welcome

----------


## kathycf

> Cuppa, you can't deny there is a male hating component to some feminists. I can't see how the actual context of _all_  those quotes can be out of context. Those are some leading feminists.


Hey Virgil.  :Smile:  

I just wanted to make a small point about a few of those quotes. Susan Brownmiller's quote is taken from her book entitled Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape which was published in 1975. I won't argue that her statement of "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" is misleading at best and dehumanizing to men at worst. 

While 1975 is hardly ancient history, I think it is worthwhile noting that Brownmiller's book was a grounbreaking study about the crime of rape, despite the inflammatory nature of some of her remarks. Misconceptions about rape persist to this day, but that is a subject I don't care to delve into with this post. 


As for Dworkin, it is my understanding that she was (she died in 2005) often considered beyond radical. She had many detractors within the feminist movement itself.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I just wanted to make a small point about a few of those quotes. Susan Brownmiller's quote is taken from her book entitled Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape which was published in 1975. I won't argue that her statement of "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" is misleading at best and dehumanizing to men at worst.


If only she'd left out the word 'all'.

----------


## CountingSheep

Feminist won't succeed in dismantling patriarchy. Ideas of male dominance are already floating around... even to this day. Thats like saying one day racism will end. Ideologies can be dangerous, and last forever. The world would have to be erased and started over to ever have any sort of equality.

----------


## kathycf

> If only she'd left out the word 'all'.


Yes, that is what I meant by "misleading". I read Brownmiller's book in my early twenties and haven't the heart to read it again. The thing is, prior to her book the general public had so many vague assumptions and misconceptions about rape. Even *more* so than they have today. Rape used to be seen as a property crime. Against our will is an exhaustively researched book, and should not be condemned as a "man hating". I think people can read the book and take information from it without having to believe in every aspect of what Brownmiller says. (in other words, the anti male comments.) One of my favorite quotes by Aristotle says "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

A lot of credit must be given to those second wave feminists, they did a lot of groundbreaking work to help women deal with rape, harassment and domestic violence. Although some of the statements in Brownmiller's book are far too condemning of men, I think it needs to be looked at in the context of a.) the political and social climate of the time the book was written. b.) the way rape victims were looked at during that time and how they were dealt with by the public, the courts and the police. I think Brownmiller was angry, yes...thinking about it in that light, I can't say if I can blame her for that. That doesn't mean I have to accept every thing she says.

----------


## antony

Well, men are rapist, but one should say - first, young man, and second - some of them. So feminism is not only a gender problem, but a problem of age, of history and of culture. Feminism can be agressive just like masculinism and sometimes, as we all know by the myths and legends - even more. [See Homer]

----------


## dan020350

As I say, division itself is the problem. But what is division?

----------


## Derringer

Some Aboriginal societies in North America (specifically nations such as the Cree) have been matriarchies. 

Feminism views traditional truths and assumptions about women in society - things such as beauty, role in the family, social status, ect - as being created by men. The point of feminism is to re-evaluate these truths and assumptions from a feminine view and change the perception of women in society. It has little to do 'man-hating'. 

Let's take an example: the dove 'real beauty' advertisements. The ads show many women of different ages, sizes, shapes and colours. They are presented in only their undergarments and the ad declares that they are beautiful as well. Point - you don't have to be a supermodel to be beautiful. I agree. Now, is this feminism? Initially I would say 'no'. Nakedness of the female body is beauty by male standards. But, I think that most females, not from a societal viewpoint, but their own, would claim that the female body is a beautiful thing. So there is a shared truth in society. 

Now is shared truths and assumptions a success or failure of feminism or even the goal of feminism? 

I think their are aspects of feminism that have been built into society, but on a whole, I think feminism has not succeded, but I don't feel like going in to examples.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Fortunately, such women are few and far between, and the third wave of feminism is somewhat _less_ radical and anti-man then the second. Women, arguably, could be forgiven for holding the opinion that us menfolk should have to do the dishes for the next few thousand years, but very few of them actually hold it.


hehe, in my opinion, dish washers should do the dishes, if they didn't use so much electricity and water  :Biggrin:  or people (men and women) who get paid for it should do them. more radically put, doing the dishes is so inhumanely boring and no-one should be forced to do them  :Wink:  
...er I'll read the other posts now and try to come up with a more sensible contribution

----------


## ELizabeth McC

It never fails to astound me how quickly any discussion of feminism reverts to women's attitudes and behaviour towards men... quickly diverting attention away from examining and challenging men's attitudes and behaviour towards women. It makes me a little how should I phrase it... :Flare:  typical feminist reaction you might say.

----------


## Bii

Actually it's a fallacy that we live in a patriarchal society - it appears that way become women will it so. We've simply capitalised on the fact that men can only deal with one thing at a time so 'running the show' is a convenient distraction. Meanwhile women get to sit back and eat chocolate, deal with the important stuff (other people, not power) and make 'suggestions' on how things should be, for the men to go off and do.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It never fails to astound me how quickly any discussion of feminism reverts to women's attitudes and behaviour towards men... quickly diverting attention away from examining and challenging men's attitudes and behaviour towards women. It makes me a little how should I phrase it... typical feminist reaction you might say.


Not sure why this should bother you - any ideology based on gender identity should expect to be concerned with the attitudes and behavior of _both_ genders (since they have a vested interest in interacting with each other). Feminism ostensibly is concerned with male attitudes and behaviors towards women - but those behaviors do not occur in a vacuum: they are (by and large) interactive and reciprocal in nature. As well, it is possible that feminism - in its redefinition of femininity - would inevitably also alter some of women's attitudes towards men. It makes sense that if male attitudes and behavior are an issue, that female behavior and attitudes will also come into play - since interaction is _complimentary_ and _reciprocal_ in nature.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> Actually it's a fallacy that we live in a patriarchal society - it appears that way become women will it so. We've simply capitalised on the fact that men can only deal with one thing at a time so 'running the show' is a convenient distraction. Meanwhile women get to sit back and eat chocolate, deal with the important stuff (other people, not power) and make 'suggestions' on how things should be, for the men to go off and do.


Hilarious




> Not sure why this should bother you - any ideology based on gender identity should expect to be concerned with the attitudes and behavior of _both_ genders


I never suggested that one set of attitudes be examined over another. My point remains... there is a deflection of attention _away_ from one on to another. There is a difference.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I never suggested that one set of attitudes be examined over another. My point remains... there is a deflection of attention _away_ from one on to another. There is a difference.


_Deflection_ may or may not be an accurate explanation as to what has occurred in this thread. All ideas/concepts/philosophies submitted for discussion are open for exploration/criticism; feminism is not immune to the kind of contentions that show up in the evolution vs. creationism thread, the theism vs. atheism thread, the euthanasia thread, et al. Feminism offers an implicit (sometimes explicit) criticism of masculinity - and sometimes that criticism is fair and deserved; other times it is neither, and it is appropriate to question some of radical feminism's ideological positions.

PS - just take a look at the initiating question of this thread - such a question invites exploration of feminist ideology; if one suggests the replacement of one ideology with another, then it becomes necessary to investigate the positions in the ideology being suggested as the appropriate "replacement."

----------


## Turk

Can someone tell me what's goals and thoughts of feminism as a summary?

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> _Deflection_ may or may not be an accurate explanation as to what has occurred in this thread. All ideas/concepts/philosophies submitted for discussion are open for exploration/criticism; feminism is not immune to the kind of contentions that show up in the evolution vs. creationism thread, the theism vs. atheism thread, the euthanasia thread, et al. Feminism offers an implicit (sometimes explicit) criticism of masculinity - and sometimes that criticism is fair and deserved; other times it is neither, and it is appropriate to question some of radical feminism's ideological positions.
> 
> PS - just take a look at the initiating question of this thread - such a question invites exploration of feminist ideology; if one suggests the replacement of one ideology with another, then it becomes necessary to investigate the positions in the ideology being suggested as the appropriate "replacement."


I'm not denying any of this but my point remains... Very little attention has been given to men's attitudes to women in this thread... except for some smart-a** comments which probably says alot. I wouldn't for one minute suggest "let's not talk about" a particular topic, or "let's avoid" this, or that as it's not relevant, I'm well aware of the broad remit of philosophical discussion and I'm not for one minute suggesting we "close down" the discussion or deem certain aspects of it LESS important than others. 

What I'm saying is that a disproportionate or as in the case of this thread an almost complete side-stepping of men's attitudes towards women is, as I see it, typical of discussions on feminist ideology. I think it's essential for any discussion on ideological theories and socio-political movements to look at all sides (I think you would agree). I'm suggesting that a discussion of feminism often doesn't do this and tends to focus on women's attitudes rather than men's. It reminds me of the Late Victorians calling feminism THE WOMAN QUESTION.... as though the issue is ultimately a matter of female behaviour and attitudes and not a case of combined responsibility. How can one discuss an appropriate "replacement" of something if we can't even have a sustain and serious discussion on what that something is? If you think this is wrong and that discussions on feminism do not display a tendency to pay a disproportionate attention to women's attitudes over men's (at the expense of an intelligent and honest discussion of the latter) but rather examine both equally then fine, but I don't.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> Can someone tell me what's goals and thoughts of feminism as a summary?


Like any other philosophical theory, political ideology or socio-cultural movement there is no simple answer to this that all those involved will agree on and certainly not in summary... summarize any other centuries old cultural developments and see how many people will agree on the summary. 

Feminism is sometimes derided as too vague and its advocates in too much disagreement. Partly this is based on misogynist gibes about women's lack of organization, inability to agree and jealousy of each other. But to my mind it's the sign of an active and challenging intellectual movement.

For me personally, feminism is about my and ever other woman's right to expect the same from life as any man... good and bad. It also about readdressing the past and acknowledging how it has and still does play a role in both men and women's lives.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Hilarious
> 
> 
> 
> I never suggested that one set of attitudes be examined over another. My point remains... there is a deflection of attention _away_ from one on to another. There is a difference.


hi ELizabeth.. I agree with you, up to a point. i think the reason attention gets deflected is because feminism is a political movement/several movements... even though there might be many different flavours of feminism, it's comparatively easy to identify feminists and say "feminists' aims are this, that and the other". what's more, feminists call themselves feminists and set up clubs, organisations, committees, etc



patriarchy/masculinism(?) on the other hand is a system that's been around for thousands of years and (theoretically) every single man who is not openly anti-patriarchal can be said to be part of it. there is no Patriarchy Association or something. so it's difficult to pin down and identify and discussions of patriarchy can easily be dismissed as "conspiracy theories"

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> hi ELizabeth.. I agree with you, up to a point. i think the reason attention gets deflected is because feminism is a political movement/several movements... even though there might be many different flavours of feminism, it's comparatively easy to identify feminists and say "feminists' aims are this, that and the other". what's more, feminists call themselves feminists and set up clubs, organisations, committees, etc
> 
> 
> 
> patriarchy/masculinism(?) on the other hand is a system that's been around for thousands of years and (theoretically) every single man who is not openly anti-patriarchal can be said to be part of it. there is no Patriarchy Association or something. so it's difficult to pin down and identify and discussions of patriarchy can easily be dismissed as "conspiracy theories"


I agree.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I agree.


hehe, I think patriarchy works on a more subtle level than feminism, if you know what I mean?
so what can we do about that?  :Smile:  do you have any suggestions? how can we revive this discussion (in this thread) without alienating e.g. our good old Uncle Virgil?
(by the way, I don't agree with those radical feminists at all, but I can see why they expressed such extreme views, considering the historical circumstances)

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> hehe, I think patriarchy works on a more subtle level than feminism, if you know what I mean?
> so what can we do about that?  do you have any suggestions? how can we revive this discussion (in this thread)


I think reviving this thread is going to be a lot easier than dismantling patriarchy...  :Tongue:  

I'm really not sure what the latter even means... This may seem like a depressing analogy to some, but to my mind you may as well suggest dismantling 'time and space' or the plot of _The Big Sleep_ or something... it just seems too big and indiscernible a task to even grasp let alone put into action. 

I suppose what I'm saying is that I really don't think in those terms but in more concrete daily concerns and what I and others can do to bring about positive changes in women's lives, changes which I very strongly believe will benefit men and women alike. 

God, I'm such a hippy at heart... but no free-love... that's just patriarchal hog-wash  :Biggrin:  :Wink:

----------


## ennison

I'm a patriarch and have the loooong beard to prove it.

----------


## Turk

> I'm a patriarch and have the loooong beard to prove it.


Ahahahahaha :FRlol:   :Thumbs Up:  

And about feminism; so femminists are ashamed of being woman and they wants to be man in a way? Because i even heard someone invited a "pee" thing so femminists women will be able to pee like men.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I'm a patriarch and have the loooong beard to prove it.


I have a beard too but wouldn't call myself a patriarch.

 :Tongue:

----------


## kathycf

> Ahahahahaha  
> 
> And about feminism; so femminists are ashamed of being woman and they wants to be man in a way? Because i even heard someone invited a "pee" thing so femminists women will be able to pee like men.


Um, what? *That* is what you think feminism is about? Being ashamed of one's womanhood and wanting to pee standing up? 

I don't know who "invited" a pee thing, *I* wouldn't extend an invitation to a pee thing regardless if it was intended for a male or a female. Pee things make terrible guests at parties.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> I'm a patriarch and have the loooong beard to prove it.


 :Tongue:  And I'm a feminist with a pair of dungarees and no make up to prove it :Tongue:  

 :Biggrin:  Now let me stoke your beard big boy :Biggrin:

----------


## Turk

Not just pee thing. Maybe i am wrong, but i think they don't seem happy to be woman. 

Though i didn't get any satisfying explanation about femminism. What's that?

----------


## Turk

The Patriarch Ennison mention about is this;

----------


## Woland

The sky-gods Thor, Marduk, Ukko, Zeus etc. are in charge now, there's no going back.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Ahahahahaha  
> 
> And about feminism; so femminists are ashamed of being woman and they wants to be man in a way? Because i even heard someone invited a "pee" thing so femminists women will be able to pee like men.


hahhah, i heard about the pee thing too.. but it wasn't invented for feminists so they could pee like men but it was invented for women in general so they could be e.g. in the car on the motorway without stopping and looking for a wayside loo....

nope feminists are not unhappy with being women, they are unhappy with traditional gender roles, i.e. society's ideas of what it means to be a woman...
there are two dimensions here. cultural studies people distinguish between those can call them:
_sex_: the physical side, whether someone has _male_ or _female_ private parts; this is more or less a fact of nature and you can't change it (except by sex change operations)
_gender_: the roles society imposes on men and women, e.g. how they should behave, what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies, their role in the family etc... --> these gender roles are culture specific and vary historically, they are not unchangeable but invented by humans; on this level we talk about _masculine_ and _feminine_

feminists don't want to be physically _male_, they want to losen the association between physical maleness(body)+masculinity(traditional gender role) and femaleness(body)+femininity(traditional gender role)

the idea behind this is that masculinity/ femininity (gender roles, behaviour) are not there because of "nature" but they are socially learned.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> hahhah, i heard about the pee thing too.. but it wasn't invented for feminists so they could pee like men but it was invented for women in general so they could be e.g. in the car on the motorway without stopping and looking for a wayside loo....
> 
> nope feminists are not unhappy with being women, they are unhappy with traditional gender roles, i.e. society's ideas of what it means to be a woman...
> there are two dimensions here. cultural studies people distinguish between those can call them:
> _sex_: the physical side, whether someone has _male_ or _female_ private parts; this is more or less a fact of nature and you can't change it (except by sex change operations)
> _gender_: the roles society imposes on men and women, e.g. how they should behave, what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies, their role in the family etc... --> these gender roles are culture specific and vary historically, they are not unchangeable but invented by humans; on this level we talk about _masculine_ and _feminine_
> 
> feminists don't want to be physically _male_, they want to losen the association between physical maleness(body)+masculinity(traditional gender role) and femaleness(body)+femininity(traditional gender role)
> 
> the idea behind this is that masculinity/ femininity (gender roles, behaviour) are not there because of "nature" but they are socially learned.


To use a rather silly pun... I'd say your p*ssing in the wind trying to give a serious explanation to that previous comment SleepyWitch. Having said that, as long as we're talking about which sex isn't happy with itself... there is ample evidence suggesting that there are far more male transvestites and men wanting operations for "gender reassignment" than there are women. Maybe all those centuries peeing standing up has just been too much for some of them...  :Tongue:

----------


## Turk

> _gender_: the roles society imposes on men and women, e.g. how they should behave, what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies, their role in the family etc... --> these gender roles are culture specific and vary historically, they are not unchangeable but invented by humans; on this level we talk about _masculine_ and _feminine_


Ok. A clear answer; now here's my questions; isn't gender or gender roles natural result of sexuality? I mean man was going for hunt in pre-historic era and woman was caring children. Is it a gender role*? Or is it natural result of physical strength of man and natural result of woman's mother instincts? Or women caring children and making housework while man working; is it natural or we invented it? Feminine and masculine behaviours are natural or we invented it?

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> Ok. A clear answer; now here's my questions


Here's my question, is it necessary to frame all of your opinions in the form of a question? I'm just curious.  :Smile: 

And as for biological status as the ultimate determinate of behaviour... if we allowed our "biology" to be the determining factor in all our human endeavors, there's a good chance we'd being eating each other... or worse  :Smile: 

Some men are better at some things than some women and vise versa... the point is are you willing to uphold social codes based on limiting people's opportunities and their rights because of their biology (genitals, skin colour, etc) and assumptions about what they are "naturally" capable of...?

----------


## Turk

> Here's my question, is it necessary to frame all of your opinions in the form of a question? I'm just curious. 
> 
> And as for biological status as the ultimate determinate of behaviour... if we allowed our "biology" to be the determining factor in all our human endeavors, there's a good chance we'd being eating each other... or worse 
> 
> Some men are better at some things than some women and vise versa... the point is are you willing to uphold social codes based on limiting people's opportunities and their rights because of their biology (genitals, skin colour, etc) and assumptions about what they are "naturally" capable of...?


I can tell my opinions without questions too; but sometimes i prefer to ask questions.

Also you can say that biology is not only thing that determines people's social roles in 21. century; but until modern times biology was really important; since labor and work is mostly based on physical power. You can't expect women working in blacksmith or in a galleon. Because they are biologically unable to work in that kind of places. Also i don't block people's opportunities or rights. I also would like to hear "rights". What rights you talking about?

From now; i will jump another subject related to this; what's the meaning/purpose of life? Is money more important than happines? Why do we live?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> what's the meaning/purpose of life?


There is none. Life finds it's own Purpose.




> Is money more important than happines?


Money is means to happiness and not the end. Wealthy people tend to be more happier. Financial security provides a peace of mind. Less stress.




> Why do we live?


Why does sun rises?

----------


## kathycf

> Not just pee thing. Maybe i am wrong, but i think they don't seem happy to be woman. 
> 
> Though i didn't get any satisfying explanation about femminism. What's that?


A woman may wish to advocate for herself and other women, for any number of things. Equal pay for equal work, to raise awareness regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, an awareness that women aren't just baby making machines but have brains and intellect too and _any number of other issues. 
_ 

How does that equal being ashamed of being female? Frankly, I don't see shame in that at all, quite the contrary. As for the peeing thing, I agree with Sleepy that it was a device invented for convenience during long road trips. Why would anybody envy the way another person urinates? Sorry, but that just seems utterly silly to me. 

If you haven't received clarification for what feminism is, may I suggest reading through earlier pages in this thread? I posted some links for reading way back on earlier pages.  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm not denying any of this but my point remains... Very little attention has been given to men's attitudes to women in this thread... except for some smart-a** comments which probably says alot. I wouldn't for one minute suggest "let's not talk about" a particular topic, or "let's avoid" this, or that as it's not relevant, I'm well aware of the broad remit of philosophical discussion and I'm not for one minute suggesting we "close down" the discussion or deem certain aspects of it LESS important than others.


Then feel free to bring up the side of the issue you think is not getting properly addressed. I'm a guy, and not a feminist, and since the question is about feminism _replacing_ the patriarchy, I think it's fair to explore and critique feminism (the suggested replacement ideology) in order to assess the validity of the thread's initiating question.




> What I'm saying is that a disproportionate or as in the case of this thread an almost complete side-stepping of men's attitudes towards women is, as I see it, typical of discussions on feminist ideology. I think it's essential for any discussion on ideological theories and socio-political movements to look at all sides (I think you would agree). I'm suggesting that a discussion of feminism often doesn't do this and tends to focus on women's attitudes rather than men's. It reminds me of the Late Victorians calling feminism THE WOMAN QUESTION.... as though the issue is ultimately a matter of female behaviour and attitudes and not a case of combined responsibility. How can one discuss an appropriate "replacement" of something if we can't even have a sustain and serious discussion on what that something is? If you think this is wrong and that discussions on feminism do not display a tendency to pay a disproportionate attention to women's attitudes over men's (at the expense of an intelligent and honest discussion of the latter) but rather examine both equally then fine, but I don't.


I think the social pendulum has swung far enough in the opposite direction to where feminists can relax a bit - it's now hip to male-bash in our culture; take a look at the ridiculous examples of masculinity on sit-coms and the dismissive attitude directed towards men and masculinity these days. We can discuss men's attitudes if you like - I don't think anyone has shied away from that area - but since feminism's the topic, it's going to get critiqued.

----------


## kathycf

> Then feel free to bring up the side of the issue you think is not getting properly addressed. I'm a guy, and not a feminist, and since the question is about feminism _replacing_ the patriarchy, I think it's fair to explore and critique feminism (the suggested replacement ideology) in order to assess the validity of the thread's initiating question.


Then maybe we should start a *new* thread, with a *new* opening post/question. I don't think that replacing patriarchy is the goal of mainstream feminism, but rather *radical* feminism. I don't even think it would be possible to dismantle patriarchy 100%....it seems to have become rather innate. I think it is more practical and attainable to implement goals of mainstream feminism....especially since the radicals seem to garner so much hatred and disapproval. 





> ... take a look at the ridiculous examples of masculinity on sit-coms and the dismissive attitude directed towards men and masculinity these days.


Indeed, and women don't fare much better in popular culture/stereotypes _to this day_. "Oh, I broke a nail, my life is over! Wah!" "I'm a one dimensional femme fatale with homewrecking on my mind!" "I'm pretty, so I must be vapidly stupid" "I'm over 45....I am now a genderless, asexual hag." 

Those stereotypes exist and have done so for years...pretty dismissive, I think. If men don't like masculinity being equated with a joke, then how about acknowledging that women don't like femininity being equated with a joke? Just for the record, I do think there is male bashing going on...it is right up there with what is being done to women and none of it is right, in my opinion.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I can tell my opinions without questions too; but sometimes i prefer to ask questions.
> 
> Also you can say that biology is not only thing that determines people's social roles in 21. century; but until modern times biology was really important; since labor and work is mostly based on physical power. You can't expect women working in blacksmith or in a galleon. Because they are biologically unable to work in that kind of places. Also i don't block people's opportunities or rights. I also would like to hear "rights". What rights you talking about?


well, I'm glad you accept that biology is not the only thing that determines people's social roles today...
as for women being unable to work as blacksmith etc.. I disagree.
I agree that women will never be 100% as strong as men, but a lof of women's physical weekness is culturally induced... there's this biologist (forgot her name) who found out that girls are often scolded for behaving wildly (running and jumping around, fighting with each other etc) whereas this is considered normal behaviour for boys ("boys will be boys").. this way boys get a lot of physical activity while girls are expected to sit still and their body stays virtually underdeveloped....

if you think of pre-industrial times or women in Africa today, they've always had to do hard physical labour, like carrying litres and litres of water home from the well, wood from the forest.. in the moutain regions they practically _ran_ up the mountains with a backpack, while knitting socks....

by the way, my dear anticapitalistic friend, the rigid division between the public sphere with it's paid (male) labour and the domestic sphere with it's (unpaid) female work was only introduced in this form during the industrialisatoin!
this way, men could be set free to work for others (rather than run their own business/farm/craft shop) and only their work was called "work" and paid, whereas women's work became their natural destiny and was not called "work"
only when more and more cheap labour was needed were women called upon to join the "workforce", e.g. when there weren't enough male labourers, or when they are/were too expensive to pay or when there was war.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> Then feel free to bring up the side of the issue you think is not getting properly addressed. .


I think I have, if you'll look at some of my other posts in this thread.




> I'm a guy, and not a feminist.


For the record most women I know don't define themselves as feminists either. It's a term which some people (male and female) are uncomfortable with partly because of negative associations, some of which have been brought up here, namely man-hating and hating being a woman. But I think mostly because it's considered to be a label and people don't like being labeled. Personally, I don't mind. If the label fits I'm happy wearing it. (As long as my a** doesn't look big in it... oh crikey a feminist trying to make a joke  :Tongue: ) 




> and since the question is about feminism _replacing_ the patriarchy, I think it's fair to explore and critique feminism (the suggested replacement ideology) in order to assess the validity of the thread's initiating question.


Nope, it was about feminism *dismantling* patriarchy*... Not the same thing at all at all... I don't think feminism should *replace* patriarchy... For me feminism is a discourse which questions the status quo and seeks to bring about a change. It isn't the answer in itself but it's *one of many means* by which we can hopefully improve the world we live in and make it fairer, more productive place.

*A concept which in itself I find very problematic as you'll see from a previous post of mine.

----------


## Turk

> A woman may wish to advocate for herself and other women, for any number of things. Equal pay for equal work, to raise awareness regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, an awareness that women aren't just baby making machines but have brains and intellect too and _any number of other issues. 
> _


Well, it doesn't related to be woman. Equal pay for equal work is a human right. But do they pay less to women? When did it happen? Also i don't understand connection of femminism with other things you've said about domestic/sexual violence, because every normal man is against violence using on women? Also i would like to say; blocking violence against women isn't related to laws or your femminist protests, it's directly related to a culture's style of growing men. And let mey say this; violence in religious families is much much lesser than non-religious families. Man doesn't scared of people, if he doesn't have God fear. So stopping violence is directly depends to men, and femminism can't change men.

I would like to say most of men doesn't think women are baby making machines too and nobody thinks women doesn't have intellect skills. But you may be right in a way; we have different cultures, so there may be some differences in some subjects. But our religion gave women almost every right; according to İslam a woman even doesn't have to do homeworks, she doesn't have to serve guy; if she does them it's her kindness to his husband, if she doesn't guy can't force him to work.

Anyway...




> well, I'm glad you accept that biology is not the only thing that determines people's social roles today...
> as for women being unable to work as blacksmith etc.. I disagree.
> I agree that women will never be 100% as strong as men, but a lof of women's physical weekness is culturally induced... there's this biologist (forgot her name) who found out that girls are often scolded for behaving wildly (running and jumping around, fighting with each other etc) whereas this is considered normal behaviour for boys ("boys will be boys").. this way boys get a lot of physical activity while girls are expected to sit still and their body stays virtually underdeveloped...


But in past it was much important. Because of life standarts and coniditons of world. Also if there's women who is able to work in places like blacksmith (did you ever see a blacksmith by the way, it's really tiring and hard even today) they are exceptions while men who's unable to work in places like blacksmiths are exceptions. 

Examples you've give made me smile; so women are virtually underdeveloped because they don't jump and run. Well, then i would like to advice you to jump a lot.  :Smile:  Gosh sometimes i can't believe you buddy (and other buddies); when we talk about homosexuality you all sound like it's something you born with; but when we talk about femminism you all sound like woman didn't born with those feminine specialities but men and social conditions made them woman.  :Smile: 




> if you think of pre-industrial times or women in Africa today, they've always had to do hard physical labour, like carrying litres and litres of water home from the well, wood from the forest.. in the moutain regions they practically ran up the mountains with a backpack, while knitting socks....


Of course in past *both* women and men had to spend more physical labour; but if you compare what they do then still men did harder and dangerous jobs. Compared to hunting with spears carrying woods to home seems much more easier and safer. I don't condemn women for not doing harder jobs by the way; i am just telling it's normal and it's the way it should be. 




> by the way, my dear anticapitalistic friend, the rigid division between the public sphere with it's paid (male) labour and the domestic sphere with it's (unpaid) female work was only introduced in this form during the industrialisatoin!


I didn't get it completely. What's unpaid female work or what's paid male work? Also i think you mixed concept of "work"? Before industrialisation people were running their own crafts or farms etc. but they still were "_working_" and getting fruits of their _work_. So the only difference between pre-industrial and industrial eras was; people were their own boss before, and after industrial revolution fabrica owners became their boss; _but concept and results of working and labor_ didn't change so much. After this much words, i will say; i can't see a direct connection of this explanation with my old posts too...

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Well, it doesn't related to be woman. *Equal pay for equal work is a human right.* But do they pay less to women? When did it happen? Also i don't understand connection of femminism with other things you've said about domestic/sexual violence, because every normal man is against violence using on women? Also i would like to say; blocking violence against women isn't related to laws or your femminist protests, *it's directly related to a culture's style of growing men.* And let mey say this; violence in religious families is much much lesser than non-religious families. Man doesn't scared of people, if he doesn't have God fear. So stopping violence is directly depends to men, and femminism can't change men.


very good points, Turks.. very feminist points, in a way  :Smile: 
i think many feminists would agree that for violence against women to stop, the role of (some) men has to change 
the point is, that before feminism arose, many people didn't realize that equal pay is a matter of _human_ rights...
and yes, women still get paid less for the same amount and same quality of work, especially in the developing world, where they are often exploited by transnational companies.. working in sweat shops etc.. but also in the West there is still an income gap between man and women with the same level of qualifications and same job description

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then maybe we should start a *new* thread, with a *new* opening post/question. I don't think that replacing patriarchy is the goal of mainstream feminism, but rather *radical* feminism. I don't even think it would be possible to dismantle patriarchy 100%....it seems to have become rather innate. I think it is more practical and attainable to implement goals of mainstream feminism....especially since the radicals seem to garner so much hatred and disapproval.


I agree. I guess I might ask how clear it is to the general, non-academic public that there is a difference between "mainstream" and "radical" feminism? Does the media emphasize one over the other, both equally, or neither?




> Indeed, and women don't fare much better in popular culture/stereotypes _to this day_. "Oh, I broke a nail, my life is over! Wah!" "I'm a one dimensional femme fatale with homewrecking on my mind!" "I'm pretty, so I must be vapidly stupid" "I'm over 45....I am now a genderless, asexual hag."


True - but it's less politically correct to disrespect women than it is men; when charicatures such as the one you gave show up, we know its a joke - but I think that when fun is made of men, the implicit idea is that _that's just how they are._




> Those stereotypes exist and have done so for years...pretty dismissive, I think. If men don't like masculinity being equated with a joke, then how about acknowledging that women don't like femininity being equated with a joke? Just for the record, I do think there is male bashing going on...it is right up there with what is being done to women and none of it is right, in my opinion.


I agree - but I'll stand on my point: it's not considered politically correct to disrespect women, but I think our media has made it clear that men and masculinity are not generally shown in a positive light (unless we're killing a bad guy) which may be due to some sort of atonement we supposedly owe for centuries of chauvanism.




> Nope, it was about feminism *dismantling* patriarchy*... Not the same thing at all at all...


Either way, patriarchy disappears and feminism takes it's place. I don't see a huge difference, really. Things that get "dismantled" generally get replaced with something else eventually.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> Well, it doesn't related to be woman. Equal pay for equal work is a human right. ...


Yes and women are human, what's your point? You seem to think that feminism is not a part of other human rights movements or that there's *no need for it because it's all covered under some general term "human rights"...* If we follow this logic then there is no need for any specific forums to highlight injustices... no need for organization to lobby against racism, against child abuse... It's all covered under human rights... no need to get into the nitty gritty of details... Let's all assume we agree what those rights are and leave it at that shall we? Well I'm sorry but socio-political debate would stop dead if we didn't look at the specifics of individual groups and see how they interact with others... Yes feminism is about human rights the human rights of women... 




> But do they pay less to women? When did it happen? ...


What? Are you kidding? Yes *they* (who ever you think *they* are) do pay less to women. When did it happen...? When didn't it happen? My mother and my sisters can tell you all about it. And about seeing men less qualified than them get jobs over them. 




> Also i don't understand connection of feminism with other things you've said about domestic/sexual violence, because every normal man is against violence using on women? Also i would like to say; blocking violence against women isn't related to laws or your feminist protests, it's directly related to a culture's style of growing men. ...


You don't understand the connection between feminism and domestic/sexual violence? Well that's simple, feminism has brought greater attention to the problem domestic violence than ever before... That's the connection. This goes back to my first point which is that feminism is an aspect of human rights, specifically interested in highlighting problems that effect women... *problems which have not always been effectively addressed or dealt with under the banner of more general human rights mandates...*  I really don't see what your problem with this is and I'll say again, feminism is about human rights, the human rights of women... It's not about taking away anyone else's rights or suggesting that women's socio-cultural problems are more important than others.... If women's rights had been effectively dealt with under more general human rights mandates (eg the right to vote) then I don't think feminism would ever have existed... but they weren't and sometimes still aren't addressed, hence feminism exists. 




> blocking violence against women isn't related to laws.....


It does help when the law takes violence against women seriously... 




> or your feminist protests.....


Oh, how nicely phrased.




> And let mey say this; violence in religious families is much much lesser than non-religious families.....


What's your basis for this statement? 




> Man doesn't scared of people, if he doesn't have God fear.....


I don't understand this. But if you are suggesting that "man" (and by man I assume you mean men and women (but maybe not)) wouldn't be violent if he believed in and feared god then I must disagree. Fear doesn't stop people hurting each other... be it fear of God or anything else... respect for and an understanding of your fellow human beings is much more likely to stop people hurting each other. 




> So stopping violence is directly depends to men, and feminism can't change men.....


No feminism can't change men, it can't change women either... primarlily change comes about through individual choice... but feminism, like other social commentary and debate, attempts to highlight specific issues, and therefor has the potential to help people become more informed and that can aid individual choice. 





> I would like to say most of men doesn't think women are baby making machines too and nobody thinks women doesn't have intellect skills. But you may be right in a way; we have different cultures, so there may be some differences in some subjects. But *our religion* gave women almost every right; according to İslam a *woman even doesn't have to do homeworks, she doesn't have to serve guy;* if she does them it's her kindness to his husband, if she doesn't guy can't force him to work......


I'm not going to get into what Islam or any other religion has "done" for women.




> Examples you've give made me smile; so women are virtually underdeveloped because they don't jump and run. Well, then i would like to advice you to jump a lot.  ......


Ahem. Thanks for the advice.




> Gosh sometimes i can't believe you buddy (and other buddies); when we talk about homosexuality you all sound like it's something you born with; but when we talk about femminism you all sound like woman didn't born with those feminine specialities but men and social conditions made them woman. ......


I assume you mean when "we talk about feminity"?.. Anyway, what femine specialities are you talking about...? Being kind and caring and good with children? I doubt very much you can decide where "natural" caplibities and "social" learing start and end in the formation of these "skills"... and by the by if we take this a step futher does this mean that women are naturally better parents than men? A lot of father's rights lobbies would take issue with you there.




> Of course in past *both* women and men had to spend more physical labour; but if you compare what they do then still men did harder and dangerous jobs. Compared to hunting with spears carrying woods to home seems much more easier and safer. I don't condemn women for not doing harder jobs by the way; i am just telling *it's normal and it's the way it should be.*


*Normal and they way it should be?* My friend, I have grave grave issues with that... 





> I didn't get it completely. *What's unpaid female work or what's paid male work? Also i think you mixed concept of "work"?* Before industrialisation people were running their own crafts or farms etc. but they still were "_working_" and getting fruits of their _work_. So the only difference between pre-industrial and industrial eras was; people were their own boss before, and after industrial revolution fabrica owners became their boss; _but concept and results of working and labor_ didn't change so much. After this much words, i will say; *i can't see a direct connection of this explanation with my old posts too*...


Well I can, and I don't think Sleepywitch has mixed her concepts of "work". I believe she is suggesting that after the industrial revolution (and lets remember there are men and women in the world who are still living in pre-industrial conditions) the idea of "work" became more associated with earning money rather than self sufficiency and that in this change the work that men did was valued more highly. So women continued to work at home... (now often doing the work that both her and her husband used to do at home...) without any direct wages, instead relying on their husbands to give and/or share their money with them. This left women almost entirely dependent on their husbands' "generosity" and as a result often left women less power over their own lives.

----------


## ELizabeth McC

> Either way, patriarchy disappears and feminism takes it's place. I don't see a huge difference, really. Things that get "dismantled" generally get replaced with something else eventually.


Totally disagree. I think there is a huge difference between the two. Just because "Things that get "dismantled" generally get replaced with something else eventually" doesn't mean that the means of dismantling is the replacement... feminism is rather a tool that can be used to question aspects of patriarchy and possibly help dismantle patriarchy (if that is valid or necessary) but *feminism is not an alternative to patriarchy*... I may use a wrench to help me undo some faulty plumbing but I want to get some good pipes put in there after  :Biggrin:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Well I can, and I don't think Sleepywitch has mixed her concepts of "work". I believe she is suggesting that after the industrial revolution (and lets remember there are men and women in the world who are still living in pre-industrial conditions) *the idea of "work" became more associated with earning money rather than self sufficiency and that in this change the work that men did was valued more highly.* *So women continued to work at home... (now often doing the work that both her and her husband used to do at home...) without any direct wages, instead relying on their husbands to give and/or share their money with them.* This left women almost entirely dependent on their husbands' "generosity" and as a result often left women less power over their own lives.


yep, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying it, Elizabeth

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Totally disagree. I think there is a huge difference between the two. Just because "Things that get "dismantled" generally get replaced with something else eventually" doesn't mean that the means of dismantling is the replacement... feminism is rather a tool that can be used to question aspects of patriarchy and possibly help dismantle patriarchy (if that is valid or necessary) but *feminism is not an alternative to patriarchy*... I may use a wrench to help me undo some faulty plumbing but I want to get some good pipes put in there after


Fair enough and well-said.

----------


## kathycf

> I agree. I guess I might ask how clear it is to the general, non-academic public that there is a difference between "mainstream" and "radical" feminism? Does the media emphasize one over the other, both equally, or neither?


I think the responses earlier in this thread speak to that pretty well. I mean, I think Virgil is a great guy, I like him a lot, but as soon as he reads the thread he posts quotes from _radical_ feminists. Radical feminists are the ones who get *so* much attention because they are perceived as "man hating". Just for the record, I don't think that is true straight across the board. I think feminism gets equated with this whole "radical" bra burning, man hating, hairy legs and flannel shirts stereotype so "mainstream" folks are sometimes reluctant to identify themselves as feminists....because that stereotype doesn't fit them. I can't actually think of too many people that is does fit, really, but it still exists. Lots of people seem to have the idea that feminists think women are better than men. I don't want to be put on a pedestal , nor do I want to be ground into the dirt under a man's boot. I don't want to be superior to, I want to be equal. I want to be allowed to have all the same faults, foibles, strengths, rights and autonomy that men seem to take so much for granted. 

BTW, It maybe less politically correct to bash women, but it still happens, and it isn't joking. Remember the no fat chicks t-shirts I mentioned previously? I am a bigger person and some uber dork screamed that at me as I was walking my dog...it didn't appear to *me* that he was joking. 




> Well, it doesn't related to be woman. Equal pay for equal work is a human right. But do they pay less to women? When did it happen?


I think ELizabeth McC answered that already, and I am quite surprised that you even ask that. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but here in the States the average female worker earns 70 cents to the male worker earning one dollar. Never mind getting passed over for promotion in favor of a less qualified male coworker, or hitting that old glass ceiling. Not so long ago, a woman would have been lucky to get even half of what a man earned, and young women were often expected to quit their jobs when they got married, ignoring the fact that the household may well need two incomes to survive. This has changed in recent years, and I think a greater awareness of the inequalities that women face in the workplace deserves much of the credit for that. Maybe those silly, pesky feminist protesters actually accomplished something. 



> Also i don't understand connection of femminism with other things you've said about domestic/sexual violence, because every normal man is against violence using on women? Also i would like to say; blocking violence against women isn't related to laws or your femminist protests, it's directly related to a culture's style of growing men.


Then you need to do some reading. Rape and sexual abuse still are vastly under reported. VASTLY. Why? The answer is simple...there is a huge stigma attached to it...defense lawyers rountinely ask for the confidential medical and counseling records of the plaintiff and rape still remains a crime where it is far *easier* an acceptable to blame the victim...by the courts, police, and society. Think I am talking out of my hat? I do volunteer work at my local rape crisis center and have been doing so for the last several years. 

There are many people out there, who are otherwise regular people who insist no woman can be raped, all rape "victims" are liars, that if a man buys a woman dinner he is entitled to the use of her body and a *host* of other *misogynistic claptrap*. It's nauseating. 

Regarding domestic violence, that is still sometimes seen as a private matter between a man and his wife (or partner). "Oh we shouldn't interfere when Bob beats Sally, it isn't any of our business" *or* "That Sally is such a b***ch, no wonder Bob hits her...she drives him to it.". I mean honestly, it would be nice to believe that everybody in the world is against this sort of thing, but I am afraid I am *far too* cynical to believe that. I hear a heck of a lot of stories. (I do volunteer work for the Massachusetts Dept of social services as well. )

The situation for victims of these crimes currently is better than it was years ago. It wasn't all that long ago that rape was treated as a property crime. Feminism brought a great deal of attention to crimes against females. I will post tomorrow statistics from the United States Dept of Justice that shows that while rape, childhood sexual abuse and domestic violence are crimes that DO happen to males, the overwheming majority of the victims are female. But it is going to have to wait until tomorrow because it is currently after midnight and I need to go to bed.  :Yawnb:  



> I would like to say most of men doesn't think women are baby making machines too and nobody thinks women doesn't have intellect skills. But you may be right in a way; we have different cultures, so there may be some differences in some subjects.


Maybe not in such a flippant way, no...but old attitudes are still around. There are plenty of people that think I am dumb because I am female. My intellect is judged based on my bra size in an inverse ratio. Not trying to be vulgar....just making a point.

----------


## kathycf

> Women experience significantly more
> partner violence than men do: 25 percent of
> surveyed women, compared with 8 percent
> of surveyed men, said they were raped
> and/or physically assaulted by a current or
> former spouse ...Because women are
> also more likely to be injured by intimate
> partners, research aimed at understanding
> and preventing partner violence against
> women should be stressed.


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf





> Almost 18 million women and almost 3 million men in the United States have been raped. One of every six women has been raped at some time...Although the word  r a p e is gender neutral, most rape victims are female (almost 86 percent), and most rapists are male.


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf



Rainn.org stats

Children under the age of 12

----------


## Turk

> I think ELizabeth McC answered that already, and I am quite surprised that you even ask that. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but here in the States the average female worker earns 70 cents to the male worker earning one dollar.


Then it's a problem with your culture, and actually i am quite surprised it actually happens. First of all it's unfair, you don't need to be a feminist to fight against unfair. 

Also the other things you mentioned aren't my country's problems mostly. We respect women and they respect us, no need a law for that, because our culture is that way. In my country i see femminists as snob rich women who comes from bourgoueis families, grown up in a micro-social environment which is far from realities of country and grown up with western values. And from their comfortable chairs they try to tell people what they should do, how they should live etc. with their little brains they are putting dynamites to a nation's basis, imposing western values without never thinking about if they are right or not. This is number one reason i don't like femminists. You pointed the second one; radical femminists makes so much noise, and almost everything they pointed are dumb. If defending basic human rights (like equal pay) is femminism then you would have to call me femminist too, but no, i don't think people should be titled as femminist just because they defend human rights. 

Numbers you've given are unbelievable; i can't believe 18 million women could be raped, also 3 million men is surprising a lot. So basically &#37;15 of USA population raped? Are you sure that's true? If that's true; you need to criticize your system and culture a lot, not just masculinity but everything in general, because %15 is just sick. Since you are always gentle it's my obligation to talk gentle with you, now drawing a line and answer some other arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------




> You don't understand the connection between feminism and domestic/sexual violence? Well that's simple, feminism has brought greater attention to the problem domestic violence than ever before...


I am not telling they did something bad with this; but if your society needs an "ism" for everything, than that's shame. Justice is justice, we shouldn't need "isms" for justice.




> (who ever you think they are)


Who ever you think pays salary to people, it's clear enough.




> What's your basis for this statement?


Personal observations.




> Ahem. Thanks for the advice.


You are welcome, i think if you try you can jump on your head too.




> I don't understand this. But if you are suggesting that "man" (and by man I assume you mean men and women (but maybe not)) wouldn't be violent if he believed in and feared god then I must disagree. Fear doesn't stop people hurting each other... be it fear of God or anything else... respect for and an understanding of your fellow human beings is much more likely to stop people hurting each other.


Term "God fear" is used to describe loving God and respecting his rules. Not like scaring from zombies.




> No feminism can't change men, it can't change women either... primarlily change comes about through individual choice...


Some problems occurred in "homosexuality" thread too, because of "individualist" culture of you. Choices are may be individual, but there's certain effects of culture-system on people's choices, because generally it's what gives people their choices.




> Well I can, and I don't think Sleepywitch has mixed her concepts of "work". I believe she is suggesting that after the industrial revolution (and lets remember there are men and women in the world who are still living in pre-industrial conditions) the idea of "work" became more associated with earning money rather than self sufficiency and that in this change the work that men did was valued more highly. So women continued to work at home... (now often doing the work that both her and her husband used to do at home...) without any direct wages, instead relying on their husbands to give and/or share their money with them. This left women almost entirely dependent on their husbands' "generosity" and as a result often left women less power over their own lives.


Before revolution people were using money, it existed since Lydians. And people were always worked for earning money because a farmer's crop is not enough for life by itself, only difference is they were making less before industrial revolution. And concept of work didn't change a lot. Since first ages man worked because he needed to eat, drink and have a place to live. And today money is the way to earn your needs, so it's basically still means, not the purpose (mentally/psychologically ill, greedy people are out of my argument). And i don't think if people would get free everything they needed they would like to work. Also in a normal family man doesn't think woman needs his genorosity, and woman wouldn't think he's something like parasite. If your understanding of family is that; it's completely materialistic/capitalist way of thinking, and in my opinion that's just sick (it's my opinion, you may think my opinions are sick too).

----------


## kathycf

> Then it's a problem with your culture, and actually i am quite surprised it actually happens. First of all it's unfair, you don't need to be a feminist to fight against unfair. 
> 
> Also the other things you mentioned aren't my country's problems mostly. We respect women and they respect us, no need a law for that, because our culture is that way. In my country i see femminists as snob rich women who comes from bourgoueis families, grown up in a micro-social environment which is far from realities of country and grown up with western values. And from their comfortable chairs they try to tell people what they should do, how they should live etc. with their little brains they are putting dynamites to a nation's basis, imposing western values without never thinking about if they are right or not. This is number one reason i don't like femminists. You pointed the second one; radical femminists makes so much noise, and almost everything they pointed are dumb. If defending basic human rights (like equal pay) is femminism then you would have to call me femminist too, but no, i don't think people should be titled as femminist just because they defend human rights. 
> 
> Numbers you've given are unbelievable; i can't believe 18 million women could be raped, also 3 million men is surprising a lot. So basically %15 of USA population raped? Are you sure that's true? If that's true; you need to criticize your system and culture a lot, not just masculinity but everything in general, because %15 is just sick. Since you are always gentle it's my obligation to talk gentle with you, now drawing a line and answer some other arguments.


Well, I agree one doesn't need a label such as "feminist" to want change for things that are unfair. I think there are a lot of "isms" that should be gotten rid of...there are so many prejudices. Discriminating against a person based merely on the color of his (or her) skin springs to mind. 

Human rights should be always considered, but often times women fall into the cracks of that, so I think that is why I consider them to be similiar in nature to human rights, but one is more general and one is specifically gender oriented. In other words, the goals may be the same, but because issues _specific_ to WOMEN need to be addressed then the need for feminism arises. 

I understand a bit of what you are saying about feminism being the province of wealthy dilettantes in your country, Turk. In that context, I can understand your dislike better, I might not like them either myself. But those types aren't the only people who are interested in women's rights in the West or more specifically the United States. I am sure some of the women from other countries can speak about their homelands far better than I could, so I will limit myself to the US. I am not rich, not even close. I am basically disabled (although I can walk) and I attend school and do volunteer work when I am physically able to. 

Regarding the statistics, yes I do think they are correct. They are compiled by the US Dept. of Justice, which is an official part of the United States govt. It does seem like a lot of people, but one thing to keep in mind is that the US is a huge country. There are many things I love about my country, but one thing you will get no argument from me about is there is violence here. Too much violence. That is about all I can or will say about it, since forum rules forbid the discussion of politics. 

It seems rape/sexual abuse/domestic abuse are a human rights issue, and since they are crimes that overwhelmingly happen to females, then it also becomes a feminist issue. That doesn't mean that I, as a feminist, ignore the needs of my "brothers". Nope....I have come across men who have been victimized sexually and my heart goes out to them just as much as anybody else who has been hurt.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Interjection (of tangentially related importance):

I think an issue that needs exploration by feminism is the idea of femininity and masculinity and how they interact. See, there are certain "equalities" between men and women that absolutely should exist - period. Women should be accorded equal respect, pay, and opportunity as men. But, I sometimes wonder if (radical) feminism has pushed the pendulum so far in the opposite direction so as to lose sight of the value and the beauty of femininity and how masculinity thrives in the presence of femininity - not a femininity that is masculinity in a dress, but a femininity that understands its inherent power - a power that does not need to ape masculine power but knows how masculine power is _augmented_ and _comlemented_ by feminine power (and vice versa). 

I suppose I'm questioning the "unisexing" of our culture - the business-suited female power-exec and the metro-sexual male: are we benefitting by "crossing over" in terms of masculine and feminine qualities? Are these "revisions" in gender identity benefitting society, and more importantly, our relationships as men and women? Sometimes I wonder. Are we hardwired or programmed a certain way - a way that may be in conflict with some of the "de-genderizing" our culture seems intent upon? Are marriages (and parenting) better, healthier, stronger because of our rejection of traditional male/female roles - if so, in what way? (Note: I'm not advocating a return to the 50s mentality - I'm asking if where we're at is a positive place, or do we need to swing the pendulum back towards the middle a bit?

Just a question.

----------


## kathycf

I think you raise some interesting points, Red. I don't think I have ever advocated that women should strive to be just like men...I am more about respecting a woman's inherent dignity and worth as a human being. I think women wanting to "ape" men does a disservice to the whole point of feminism...at least what it means to me. That femininity in and of itself is GOOD and *NOT* LESS than masculinity. 

Female is different from male and there is nothing wrong with that..it seems to me that sometimes people think the masculine way of thinking...doing...being is the only way and that women are by nature incomplete and just plain wrong. 

I honestly do not believe that all feminists want to be men in any way, shape of form. *I* certainly don't. I think feminism is about celebrating womanhood, not about wanting to change into men with breasts. 

I am going to think more about this issue of "Uni-sexing" and post at another time. I'm afraid I am not feeling well right now and my brain is a bit fatigued.  :Smile:

----------


## Turk

> I suppose I'm questioning the "unisexing" of our culture - the business-suited female power-exec and the metro-sexual male: are we benefitting by "crossing over" in terms of masculine and feminine qualities?


Good point. One of things i was trying to tell is that too; there's nothing wrong in being feminine and i think it's a part of being woman. In fact i think they should defend femmininty not try to be masculine. Feminine women who gets equal pay, equal rights and opportunities. I was trying to tell this since beginning in different ways but couldn't tell cuz of lacking English; thx for clarifying.  :Yawnb:

----------


## kathycf

> Good point. One of things i was trying to tell is that too; there's nothing in being feminine and i think it's a part of being woman. In fact i think they should defend femmininty not try to be masculine. Feminine women who gets equal pay, equal rights and opportunities. I was trying to tell this since beginning in different ways but couldn't tell cuz of lacking English; thx for clarifying.


Well, excuse me, but could you please quote from my posts *where* I said the goal of feminism is to become "mannish"? I think you might have a difficult time with that because I have consistently said *otherwise.*  

Once again: *feminists don't want to be men.* That whole concept is _quite at odds_ with the *whole point* of feminism...which is that women are *not* inferior beings who need to change to be like men....but simply have their own inherent worth and dignity, autonomy and freedoms acknowledged and upheld. 

Let's consider history for a moment, shall we? Can we honestly say women have been treated equally over the ages? Really? It wasn't so long ago that women were considered to be chattel....property owned by the woman's husband. Yes, that has changed. Yes, things are better now. Does that not mean things can't be better? 

My boyfriend has the basic freedom to walk outside to the convenience store after dark. He isn't afraid to, because predatory people don't see *him* and see a "victim". I, on the other hand will not walk outside after dark...simply because my gender makes me a handy target to some predator out looking for trouble. That is perhaps an extreme example, but I am tired of having to restrict activities because of being female. The simple fact remains that many people still think of women as "less than" and that is just wrong.

----------


## kathycf

> I suppose I'm questioning the "unisexing" of our culture - the business-suited female power-exec and the metro-sexual male: are we benefitting by "crossing over" in terms of masculine and feminine qualities? Are these "revisions" in gender identity benefitting society, and more importantly, our relationships as men and women? Sometimes I wonder. Are we hardwired or programmed a certain way - a way that may be in conflict with some of the "de-genderizing" our culture seems intent upon? Are marriages (and parenting) better, healthier, stronger because of our rejection of traditional male/female roles - if so, in what way? (Note: I'm not advocating a return to the 50s mentality - I'm asking if where we're at is a positive place, or do we need to swing the pendulum back towards the middle a bit?
> 
> Just a question.


Ok...am I not sure if I really agree on your statement of "degenderizing" of our culture. I understand your examples of the metrosexual male, but do you think that is such a prevalent phenomenom? I see men using skin care products, but that doesn't seem to be negative thing...I used to really get after my ex husband to wear sunscreen because it helps prevent skin cancer. I guess there are some traditionally feminine things (skincare regimens, maybe) that some men are adopting, but as far as the average male goes...do you really see that acting "girly" is an issue? I very rarely see men, even ones I know are gay acting in any stereotypically "girl" sort of way...peer pressure perhaps inhibits this...I don't know. Maybe among younger people it is different, so maybe the question could be better answered by someone in their late teens or twenties better than I could answer it. 

Ragarding the business suited woman executive, don't you think that is more a stereotype than anything else? I do. I think maybe twenty or thirty years ago it might have been more common for women to dress like that, simply because men didn't take them seriously as "professionals" otherwise. It seems like there is no pleasing people sometimes....if a woman dresses femininely she isn't taken seriously, and if she dresses more masculine she is criticized for that.

Well, at any rate, I think that sort of stereotype is a bit outdated. I would hazard a guess that I read more fashion magazines then you, Red. (a feminist?! reading fashion magazines!!? Wow!  :Wink:  ) Anyways...the business woman who dresses up in those mannish suits is definitely a fashion _don't_. I tend to think for younger women, it seems natural to be in business and still dress and behave like women because they don't remember the days when things were quite quite different. 

Regarding a loosening of roles within the family...I don't see that it has to be a bad thing. I often wish my father could have been more nurturing...more open to expressing affection and caring. I think rigid adherence to gender roles is hard on men and women both. Should the role of fathers be done away with? Certainly not...I don't think women forced into the role of singe parent should be looked at as doing something bad...I think some people have to make the best of a situation that may not be of their own choosing. Children need good parents...a mum and a dad. 

Well, I told you I was a bit fatigued....I suppose I have rambled on enough for tonight.

----------


## weepingforloman

I'm basically just going to jump on the bandwagon here-- it really bothers me that many of the overly-agressive, not-quite-getting-the-concept militant feminists complain about people who claim men and women are different. Quite frankly there are obvious psychological differences, and, to be honest, if men and women were psychologically the same, wouldn't that make women just physically weaker men? I was forced to watch a film on gender differences in a middle school class, during which one woman made the claim that girls and boys behave differently only because parents treat them differently... If this were true, I think it would be a blow to the dignity of women, because that essentially makes the only difference between male and female that females are the literally "weaker sex."

----------


## weepingforloman

> well, I'm glad you accept that biology is not the only thing that determines people's social roles today...
> as for women being unable to work as blacksmith etc.. I disagree.
> I agree that women will never be 100% as strong as men, but a lof of women's physical weekness is culturally induced... there's this biologist (forgot her name) who found out that girls are often scolded for behaving wildly (running and jumping around, fighting with each other etc) whereas this is considered normal behaviour for boys ("boys will be boys").. this way boys get a lot of physical activity while girls are expected to sit still and their body stays virtually underdeveloped....
> 
> if you think of pre-industrial times or women in Africa today, they've always had to do hard physical labour, like carrying litres and litres of water home from the well, wood from the forest.. in the moutain regions they practically _ran_ up the mountains with a backpack, while knitting socks....
> 
> by the way, my dear anticapitalistic friend, the rigid division between the public sphere with it's paid (male) labour and the domestic sphere with it's (unpaid) female work was only introduced in this form during the industrialisatoin!
> this way, men could be set free to work for others (rather than run their own business/farm/craft shop) and only their work was called "work" and paid, whereas women's work became their natural destiny and was not called "work"
> only when more and more cheap labour was needed were women called upon to join the "workforce", e.g. when there weren't enough male labourers, or when they are/were too expensive to pay or when there was war.


Female professional athletes are not much stronger than the average male (if at all) and are much weaker (physically) than their male counterparts. The chief cause of physical differences (in terms of strength and muscle development) is the difference in hormonal make-up. Males have much more testosterone, which allows for much easier build-up of muscle, and discourages storage of fat. Estrogen does the opposite, causing fat storage (it is necessary for child birth) and discouraging muscle growth. Women are often in better cardiovascular shape than men (be honest guys--lots of us are lazy), but very few are stronger. This is proven, and even very physically active girls (of which there are more and more--most girls I know play at least one sport, often soccer or lacrosse) are not as strong as most guys I know.

----------


## Turk

> Well, excuse me, but could you please quote from my posts *where* I said the goal of feminism is to become "mannish"? I think you might have a difficult time with that because I have consistently said *otherwise.*


Did i say you said "the goal of feminism is to become "mannish"?

----------


## kathycf

> Did i say you said "the goal of feminism is to become "mannish"?


Not by name no, but I took myself to mean part of the group you were referring to when you said this:




> In fact i think *they* should defend femmininty not try to be masculine.


I took the liberty of bolding "they" because I assumed that I was part of "they" since I have been an _active participant in this thread,_ call myself a feminist and also because you had posted previously that you thought feminism was (paraphrasing here) women who were ashamed to be women and wanted to act like men.

----------


## kilted exile

I want to disagree with the assertion that women are automatically weaker: I have known plenty of women in my life who were stronger, tougher and could kick the behind of a lot of men I've met.

----------


## Turk

> I took the liberty of bolding "they" because I assumed that I was part of "they" since I have been an _active participant in this thread,_ call myself a feminist and also because you had posted previously that you thought feminism was (paraphrasing here) women who were ashamed to be women and wanted to act like men.


No, no. I didn't mean that.



> I want to disagree with the assertion that women are automatically weaker: I have known plenty of women in my life who were stronger, tougher and could kick the behind of a lot of men I've met.


That's in Scotland!  :FRlol:

----------


## kilted exile

> That's in Scotland!


Sure is, and thats why the assertion of them being weaker is wrong. We have good breeding in Scotland (I've been to Turkey also by the way (Marmaris/Dalyan area - also got to see Pammukale which is incredible, and I would lay money on the women I mean against any turkish guy I met there :Biggrin:  )

----------


## kathycf

> No, no. I didn't mean that.


Ok, well then we had a misunderstanding then.  :Smile: 

While I agree women are generally smaller and less physically strong then men, (I am not quite five foot two...for those who measure in metres...that is *short*.) there are always exceptions. Additionally women tend to be weaker in upper body strength...in lower body strength they are much stronger. I could use a weight lifting machine in the gym and press 245 pounds with my lower body and was hard pressed to lift even 15 pounds using free weights. 

Additionally, body strength is not really part of the equation for *me* when considering feminism. A weaker body does not imply a weaker mind...and should not be considered relevant to whether women deserve equality.

----------


## Turk

> Sure is, and thats why the assertion of them being weaker is wrong. We have good breeding in Scotland


Yeah i know you have good breeding, but that's women in Scotland! While women are so strong men wears skirt in there!  :FRlol:  

(What's lay money on women means? If you gonna visit Pamukkale don't forget visiting ancient cities too, but i would recommend İstanbul, queen of cities (if you have enough money to live near Bosphorus of course :Biggrin:  )

----------


## kilted exile

Lay money means bet.

Didnt make self clear, I have already been to pammukale. I spent two weeks in turkey. Did all of the river boat trips to the lagoons etc, was too warm for me however (went through about 7 bottles of water a day)

----------


## Turk

> Lay money means bet.
> 
> Didnt make self clear, I have already been to pammukale. I spent two weeks in turkey. Did all of the river boat trips to the lagoons etc, was too warm for me however (went through about 7 bottles of water a day)


Ooo, i see, then i can say you would win; because we wouldn't hurt women. :Smile:  :Wink: 

Well i understood, then good for you, Pamukkale is a really beatiful place.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Female professional athletes are not much stronger than the average male (if at all) and are much weaker (physically) than their male counterparts. The chief cause of physical differences (in terms of strength and muscle development) is the difference in hormonal make-up. Males have much more testosterone, which allows for much easier build-up of muscle, and discourages storage of fat. Estrogen does the opposite, causing fat storage (it is necessary for child birth) and discouraging muscle growth. Women are often in better cardiovascular shape than men (be honest guys--lots of us are lazy), but very few are stronger. This is proven, and even very physically active girls (of which there are more and more--most girls I know play at least one sport, often soccer or lacrosse) are not as strong as most guys I know.


yes. I agree that women will never be as strong as men, precisely because of the reasons you stated.
but on the other hand they don't need to be as physically weak as they can become through lack of exercise.
E.g. let's say a woman has two suitcases and one of them ways 80 kg. the other ways 30 kg. 
according to traditional gender roles (or assumptions about women's physical strengths) the woman is able to carry neither. so her husband has to lug both of them into the trunk of their car.
but actually, she could carry the 30 kg one. so the husband has to hoist only the 80 kg one, whereas she can tackle the lighter one herself.
that's what I meant. 
of course women are weaker than men, but there are some things they can do and they should be allowed to/ expected to do themselves.
of course, if a girl/woman sits around and is never expected to lift a finger in her life, she will not develop _any_ physical strengths and will not develop what potential she has (that potential for physical strenght is still lower than a man's, but it is there)

----------


## kathycf

> Female professional athletes are not much stronger than the average male (if at all) and are much weaker (physically) than their male counterparts.


While I agree with your assertion that male athletes are stronger physically with female ones, I am going to have to disagree with your assertion that female athletes are not any stronger physically than the average male. 

There are quite a few female body builders, for example that have rather intimidating muscles. I know there will be protests that such women use steroids to achieve such muscle mass. Maybe so, but I know there are competitions where drug screening is done to exclude steroid users. I also think that many women are able to become quite strong through aerobic exercise in conjunction with weight lifting.

As for the way parents treat children, there are subtle differences that reinforce roles. My bestfriend has a five year old daughter and one of her favorite toys is this tool belt thing, with little wrenches and hammers. It is meant to be a boy's toy, but she loves it. Of course she also loves Barbie and the Disney princesses too.  :Smile:  Back in the olden days when I was little....*cough cough--feeling old today* gender roles were perhaps emphasized more. Girls did dishes and boys took out the trash. Well, I grew up on a farm and my family had only daughters. I did dishes, mucked out stalls, took out trash mowed the lawn and fed animals. I think it was healthy and I think it is just as normal to have girls do "boy" chores and nothing wrong with boys doing dishes and laundry. 

Of course I am not saying you are using the example of chores when you had stated earlier that you thought someone saying boys and girls are different only because their parent's treat them differently was rubbish. There is more to it than that.





> yes. I agree that women will never be as strong as men, precisely because of the reasons you stated.
> but on the other hand they don't need to be as physically weak as they can become through lack of exercise....
> 
> of course, if a girl/woman sits around and is never expected to lift a finger in her life, she will not develop _any_ physical strengths and will not develop what potential she has (that potential for physical strenght is still lower than a man's, but it is there)


Yep, totally agree with this Sleepy. 



> While I agree women are generally smaller and less physically strong then men, (I am not quite five foot two...for those who measure in metres...that is *short*.) there are always exceptions. Additionally women tend to be weaker in upper body strength...in lower body strength they are much stronger. I could use a weight lifting machine in the gym and press 245 pounds with my lower body and was hard pressed to lift even 15 pounds using free weights.


I should clarify one part of my earlier statement. When I say in lower strength women are much stronger, I don't mean in comparision to men...I mean comparing a woman's upper body strength to her lower body strength. The example I use of pressing 245 pounds is a true one. I don't work out like that anymore, but at the time I was pretty fit. I felt kind of silly lifting all that weight with my lower body and then "wimping" out with free weights.... :FRlol:

----------


## Bastet

> That has always been my understanding of feminism as well. To me, it is about *equality*, and by definition equality cannot mean "superior to". I am always puzzled by people who consider "feminist" to be some sort of expletive; a nasty label. 
> 
> I probably shouldn't have made a silly joke earlier, I do understand that some people (not just men) are threatened by feminism.



I agree with you on the definition of feminism. I think what some people feel threatened by is the change.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok...am I not sure if I really agree on your statement of "degenderizing" of our culture. I understand your examples of the metrosexual male, but do you think that is such a prevalent phenomenom? I see men using skin care products, but that doesn't seem to be negative thing...I used to really get after my ex husband to wear sunscreen because it helps prevent skin cancer. I guess there are some traditionally feminine things (skincare regimens, maybe) that some men are adopting, but as far as the average male goes...do you really see that acting "girly" is an issue? I very rarely see men, even ones I know are gay acting in any stereotypically "girl" sort of way...peer pressure perhaps inhibits this...I don't know. Maybe among younger people it is different, so maybe the question could be better answered by someone in their late teens or twenties better than I could answer it. 
> 
> Ragarding the business suited woman executive, don't you think that is more a stereotype than anything else? I do. I think maybe twenty or thirty years ago it might have been more common for women to dress like that, simply because men didn't take them seriously as "professionals" otherwise. It seems like there is no pleasing people sometimes....if a woman dresses femininely she isn't taken seriously, and if she dresses more masculine she is criticized for that.
> 
> Well, at any rate, I think that sort of stereotype is a bit outdated. I would hazard a guess that I read more fashion magazines then you, Red. (a feminist?! reading fashion magazines!!? Wow!  ) Anyways...the business woman who dresses up in those mannish suits is definitely a fashion _don't_. I tend to think for younger women, it seems natural to be in business and still dress and behave like women because they don't remember the days when things were quite quite different.


The existence of stereotypes indicates a prevalent pattern - that doesn't justify the stereotype, but it explains its existence. It's not clothing and behavior I'm talking about so much as _attitude_ and _philosophy_. It is the entire idea as to how men and women should see each other and themselves - this push for men to take on traditionally feminine traits and vice versa.





> Regarding a loosening of roles within the family...I don't see that it has to be a bad thing. I often wish my father could have been more nurturing...more open to expressing affection and caring. I think rigid adherence to gender roles is hard on men and women both. Should the role of fathers be done away with? Certainly not...I don't think women forced into the role of singe parent should be looked at as doing something bad...I think some people have to make the best of a situation that may not be of their own choosing. Children need good parents...a mum and a dad. 
> 
> Well, I told you I was a bit fatigued....I suppose I have rambled on enough for tonight.


But do we do something to masculinity by asking it to do what femininity generally does more intuitively and naturally? Sure, dads could be more "nurturing" and such - and I think kids benefit from that - but I also think that one of the back-lashes of radical feminism has been this idea that a modern woman should be capable of traditionally masculine behaviors (competition, aggression, power) while men are encouraged to start manifesting more traditionally feminine traits (nurturing, compassionate, sensitive). To a certain extent, perhaps this is a good idea, but have we gone too far? Men today are by and large _wimps_. Masculine qualities such as aggression and competition are generally disdained (unless a woman is in need of protection - then its a valuable commodity) and modern culture seems to want to "polish" that "rough stuff" out of a man so that he's more socially acceptable; as well, the woman who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom (by which her children benefit tremendously) is almost vilified as a throw-back to the 50s. That's what I'm talking about.

----------


## kathycf

Stereotypes are a barometer of social attitudes, yes. I had brought up some stereotypes previously regarding women and you dismissed them, but I still see those stereotypes everyday, and they still don't seem like joking to me. I still think the "metrosexual" is not as widespread...because at least in my area men like that are often the butt of nasty jokes and/or worse. 

Regarding business women....I am unclear what the specific problem is that you have...could you clarify? Right now it seems to me you are saying women don't have a place in business, that they should stick to "pink collar" jobs. Are you arguing that a professional job will rob a woman of her femininity? I can't think that is what you mean...that seems extremely unfair and I think you must mean somethng else. 

Sorry, I guess I don't see the prevalence of the attitudes you are referring to. Wimpy men? I don't get it. I suppose we just don't see things the same way...I also tend not to think that ALL personality or character traits are *biologically* specific to one sex or another. I feel there is a lot of cultural conditioning taking place. 

I am not sure which people are doing the vilifying regarding stay at home mothers...maybe 20 years or so ago that might have been the case...but now most of the people I know with young children either stay at home or work part time. A few people have put their kids in daycare in order to work full time, but I am not privy to their household's financial status, so can't comment on the reasons why. It seems perfectly acceptable for women to stay at home with their kids. 

I think women have different ways of channeling aggression than men, but humans overall tend to be aggressive beings anyway. At least that is the way it seems to me, but perhaps having been a victim of other people's aggression (male and female) I see it differently. 

I can be an extremely compassionate person, but I will behave aggressively if attacked, and I can be very competitive...nobody will be in the same room with me when _Jeopardy_ is on TV. I think overall I am pretty average woman in that respect.  :Smile:  Obviously I am being silly, but my point is that women can and do compete in various ways and have done so for a long time. It depends on what stirs that spirit of wanting to compete. My personal thing is academics. I am very competitive regarding my grades and accept nothing less from myself than a straight A average. I seriously don't think that is a male trait...to strive to be the best person you can be seems a very human quality.

----------


## kathycf

> I agree with you on the definition of feminism. I think what some people feel threatened by is the change.


Change can be very scary sometimes...I think you make a good point.

----------


## ennison

Electricity, washing machines, computers and oil - wimp makers. Nearly alll men and women in the West under 40 are wimps. They can't start a fire without firelighters. They cant wash and ring out clothes. They cant knit, sew, use a spade or stand the sun. Their lifestyles rely on the accumulated wealth of previous generations (who enjoyed little of that wealth) and the exploitation of resources in other countries. They are bone lazy and living on borrowed time as far as thir present lifestyles are concerned. Feminism? Trivia.

----------


## kathycf

Well, good to see we can make vast assumptions about each other. I think I have made about all the posts I am going to in this thread. See you folks around.  :Smile:

----------


## kiz_paws

> Electricity, washing machines, computers and oil - wimp makers. Nearly alll men and women in the West under 40 are wimps. They can't start a fire without firelighters. They cant wash and ring out clothes. They cant knit, sew, use a spade or stand the sun. Their lifestyles rely on the accumulated wealth of previous generations (who enjoyed little of that wealth) and the exploitation of resources in other countries. They are bone lazy and living on borrowed time as far as thir present lifestyles are concerned. Feminism? Trivia.


Ummm, not to slam you, ennison, but I think you watch too much tv.... none of this applies to any of the people that I know, including myself....

If you lived "in the West", you would see just how incredible this statement really is... 

Carry on, folks with the feminism thread, it was quite interesting, some very good points were being made.  :Smile:

----------


## Bakiryu

I hadn't see this thread in ages, but i'll answer this




> If it is worthwhile, why don't you join the feminist movement? Unless you are not in the side of the right? :P


I'm already a feminist!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm already a feminist!


What happens if I say I'm a "masculinist"? Can I do that? Or is that politically incorrect? If so - why?

----------


## NikolaiI

> What happens if I say I'm a "masculinist"? Can I do that? Or is that politically incorrect? If so - why?


Feminist means, by definition of m-w.com, 

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests 

Masculinist means, in contrast, 

: an advocate of male superiority or dominance 

And I would only ask, why do you advocate male superiority or dominance?

----------


## Bakiryu

Agree with NikolaiI, why do you call yourself a masculinists (is that even a word?)

----------


## NikolaiI

> Agree with NikolaiI, why do you call yourself a masculinists (is that even a word?)


Yes, apparently. Mormons are often masculinists, they think that the male should be the leader of the household in spiritual matters. It's not an absolutely terrible thing, but I don't think it's a good thing at all.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Feminist means, by definition of m-w.com, 
> 
> 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
> 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests 
> 
> Masculinist means, in contrast, 
> 
> : an advocate of male superiority or dominance 
> 
> And I would only ask, why do you advocate male superiority or dominance?


Hold on there, my friend. First, I honestly had no idea the actual word existed - I thought I was making it up. I was being facetious - but your handy dictionary work has brought up an interesting issue: why is it that adding "ist" to the adjective "feminine" is defined in _socially positive terms_, but adding "ist" to the adjective "masculine" is defined in _socially negative terms?_

For the record, I do not advocate "male superiority or dominance." But I think it is fascinating that the feminine "ist" is about women's "rights and interests" (a good thing) but the masculine "ist" is about negative stuff: "superiority and dominance." Yet both words are equally neutral in terms of their function: description of gender.

This is much like the hypocritical thing that goes on on HS and college campuses - you can have "black pride" and "brown pride" clubs, but a "white pride" club formulated on the same basis is automatically branded "racist." Nice double standards, eh?




> Agree with NikolaiI, why do you call yourself a masculinists (is that even a word?)


Answered above on both counts.

----------


## kiz_paws

> why is it that adding "ist" to the adjective "feminine" is defined in [I]socially positive terms[/I


Actually, this term "feminist" conjurs a lot of negative where I come from, sadly. So it would be interesting to see what the people here feel about this new term that has been coined here regarding the masculine side of life...

----------


## weepingforloman

> Hold on there, my friend. First, I honestly had no idea the actual word existed - I thought I was making it up. I was being facetious - but your handy dictionary work has brought up an interesting issue: why is it that adding "ist" to the adjective "feminine" is defined in _socially positive terms_, but adding "ist" to the adjective "masculine" is defined in _socially negative terms?_
> 
> For the record, I do not advocate "male superiority or dominance." But I think it is fascinating that the feminine "ist" is about women's "rights and interests" (a good thing) but the masculine "ist" is about negative stuff: "superiority and dominance." Yet both words are equally neutral in terms of their function: description of gender.
> 
> This is much like the hypocritical thing that goes on on HS and college campuses - you can have "black pride" and "brown pride" clubs, but a "white pride" club formulated on the same basis is automatically branded "racist." Nice double standards, eh?


Precisely right. There is a difference between disagreeing with a concept like racial or gender superiority and branding that race/gender as necessarily bad. Just the term "white pride" conjures up, as it should, images of men in white robes burning down houses and crosses, or bombing "black" churches. But black pride is often a positive term. 

We should not take pride in genetic heritage, and especially not in genetic chance (male or female is, after all, a difference of one chromosome). We should not take pride, at all, actually.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> We should not take pride in genetic heritage, and especially not in genetic chance (male or female is, after all, a difference of one chromosome). *We should not take pride, at all, actually*.


 :Thumbs Up:  
personally, I think the only thing we should take pride in is our own achievements. but most of the time, others (friends, teachers, parents, relatives) help us to achieve things, so we shouldn't be to proud of those, either.
in terms of class, race and gender, I believe everyone should be given an equal chance to achieve what they want to do. sadly, not everyone has those equal chances in the world we live in and often (if not always) this has to do with racial, sexist or class inequalities.


@Redzeppelin: I don't think "masculinist" is necessarily a negative word...maybe that was only Nikolai's personal interpretation? 
what's your definition of "masculinist"? do you have a personal "masculinist" manifesto or something?
would be interesting to hear your views.

----------


## NikolaiI

Okay, redzeppelin, if you read my posted I said, "And I would only ask why," because you asked a question and I answered it. If you said that you were, I would ask why.

I don't know why those particular words have those particular two meanings. Feminist means equal rights for both sexes because females have not always had equal rights (an understatement) and masculinist means male superiority. Males haven't been supressed by females in our society. And whether it is a negative thing or not is all according to opinion. I think it's negative, but if you asked a masculinist or misogynist, they would tell you a different story. And how many churches do not allow women in leadership roles? Even Presbyterians only recently allowed it I believe.

You know, it's been a while since I've been on a HS campus, and that was only one, so I'm not going to argue what should be the moral standard for all of them.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> masculinist or misogynist


This is the gist of my complaint; the latter word's meaning is clear; the former's is at odds with its lignuistic counterpart (_feminism_).

----------


## weepingforloman

I think it is important to remember that feminism could not _never_ have the opposite meaning of misogyny. If we ever succeed in total equality of the sexes, it is possible that a matriarchy will take the place of the patriarchy. A similar dynamic is visible in the Communist Revolutions of Russia and China.

----------


## NikolaiI

What are you guys talking about? What is your complaint, red? Feminist means equal rights because women have been suppressed. Masculinist means something else. Would you like them both to mean the same thing? Because feminist means equal rights, it's 100&#37; okay for men to be feminists. It's not feminine, it has to do with equal rights.

----------


## weepingforloman

I think his objection is that the word "feminism" has clearly positive connotations. The word "masculinism" has clearly negative connotations. If feminism concerns rights for women, shouldn't masculinism only mean rights for men?

Oh, just realized I made a mistake on the last post. Please read it again if you saw it and were confused.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What are you guys talking about? What is your complaint, red? Feminist means equal rights because women have been suppressed. Masculinist means something else. Would you like them both to mean the same thing? Because feminist means equal rights, it's 100% okay for men to be feminists. It's not feminine, it has to do with equal rights.


weeping is correct, but I will elaborate:

I have a strong problem with double-standards in culture - and I have noted this inequality for a number of years; that students wanting a "black pride" or "gay pride" club on HS campuses are free to do so, but a "caucausian pride" club is denied charter; that it is OK for women to take pride in who they are, but apparently, it's not OK for men to take pride in who they are and their unique contributions to life - and I saw this inequity in the definitions applied to two words that are - IMO - equal words: _feminine_ and _masculine_ are _equal_ words - they describe gender characteristics - but notice that - as weeping pointed out - the word _feminist_ has a positive connotation (it's good to be one of these); the word _masculinist_, however, gets a big "Boo! Hiss!" from the politically correct crowd. I'm sorry - I have a problem with that. Just because men have historically misbehaved in terms of their treatment of women doesn't mean I should be ashamed/apologetic for being a man - anymore than I should be ashamed/apologetic for being white because blacks were terribly mistreated in America. The definitions for those terms above points to an inequality that should not exist. _Masculinist_ should not be a negative word - because men face their own mistreatment today in the media's horrendous portrayal of masculinity and fatherhood. Culturally, men are taking a beating because of the past - why can't we be proud of being male like women can be proud of being female? Women, blacks and any other mistreated groups deserve equal and fair treatment - but let's not pretend that they are innocent of their own misbehaviors and that we (the "male white oppressors") are incapable of good and honorable actions.

That, my friend, is what I'm talking about.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I think it is important to remember that feminism could not _never_ have the opposite meaning of misogyny. If we ever succeed in total equality of the sexes, it is possible that a matriarchy will take the place of the patriarchy. A similar dynamic is visible in the Communist Revolutions of Russia and China.


You do acknowledge then that there is such a phenomenon as misogyny? Will you go further and condemn it as abhorrent? 

"If we ever succeed in total equality of the sexes, it is possible that a matriarchy will take the place of the patriarchy." That of course is the sort of fearful thinking of one whose party has held power. What do you have to fear in respect of a matriarchy? Would it inevitably be as unequal as the patriarchy has always been?

Is it beyond your power to imagine that "If we ever succeed in total equality of the sexes," we will have precisely that and nothing but that?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> weeping is correct, but I will elaborate:
> 
> I have a strong problem with double-standards in culture - As indeed you should, and what action have you taken to combat the greater preevalence of violence against women by men than the other way around? Or to attempt to redress sexual wage inequality? And the vastly higher unemployment rate among Afro-Americans?and I have noted this inequality for a number of years; that students wanting a "black pride" or "gay pride" club on HS campuses are free to do so, but a "caucausian pride" club is denied charter;Are the conditions equal? Have whites been persecuted for being white? Or heterosexuals for being heterosexual? Just because men have historically misbehaved in terms of their treatment of women doesn't mean I should be ashamed/apologetic for being a man - anymore than I should be ashamed/apologetic for being white because blacks were terribly mistreated in America. Maybe not, but you might be a bit more reticent in coming to the defense of the mighty against the weak. Culturally, men are taking a beating because of the past Specific examples, if you please.- why can't we be proud of being male like women can be proud of being female?


Please define your specific ideal of "male" vs female

----------


## kilted exile

> weeping is correct, but I will elaborate:
> 
> I have a strong problem with double-standards in culture - and I have noted this inequality for a number of years; that students wanting a "black pride" or "gay pride" club on HS campuses are free to do so, but a "caucausian pride" club is denied charter; that it is OK for women to take pride in who they are, but apparently, it's not OK for men to take pride in who they are and their unique contributions to life - and I saw this inequity in the definitions applied to two words that are - IMO - equal words: _feminine_ and _masculine_ are _equal_ words - they describe gender characteristics - but notice that - as weeping pointed out - the word _feminist_ has a positive connotation (it's good to be one of these); the word _masculinist_, however, gets a big "Boo! Hiss!" from the politically correct crowd. I'm sorry - I have a problem with that. Just because men have historically misbehaved in terms of their treatment of women doesn't mean I should be ashamed/apologetic for being a man - anymore than I should be ashamed/apologetic for being white because blacks were terribly mistreated in America. The definitions for those terms above points to an inequality that should not exist. _Masculinist_ should not be a negative word - because men face their own mistreatment today in the media's horrendous portrayal of masculinity and fatherhood. Culturally, men are taking a beating because of the past - why can't we be proud of being male like women can be proud of being female? Women, blacks and any other mistreated groups deserve equal and fair treatment - but let's not pretend that they are innocent of their own misbehaviors and that we (the "male white oppressors") are incapable of good and honorable actions.
> 
> That, my friend, is what I'm talking about.


I think one of the reasons such groups like "caucasian pride" are frowned upon is because we have allowed splinter groups such as neo-nazis, KKK, and the BNP to hijack it and use the term to assert superiority over other groups. I believe it is up to all right thinking white people to confront the venomous hatred spewed forth by such groups as them and finally succeed in getting rid of them once and for all. Unfortunately until we do this other groups will be rightly hesitant about the term and the connotations it includes.

I think Sleepy asked an important question, which seems to have got lost in the thread:




> @Redzeppelin: I don't think "masculinist" is necessarily a negative word...maybe that was only Nikolai's personal interpretation? 
> what's your definition of "masculinist"? do you have a personal "masculinist" manifesto or something?
> would be interesting to hear your views.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> As indeed you should, and what action have you taken to combat the greater preevalence of violence against women by men than the other way around? Or to attempt to redress sexual wage inequality? And the vastly higher unemployment rate among Afro-Americans?


What does any of this have to do with my opinion? Any particular reason you choose to attack instead of discuss? 




> Are the conditions equal? Have whites been persecuted for being white? Or heterosexuals for being heterosexual?


As expected. Apparently, past misbehavior means that a particular group gets denied equality in terms of the language used to refer to the group. Interesting. I addressed this in my post. The fact that "white" and "masculine" get to carry negative connotations based on past behavior despite the fact that denotation-wise, these words are no different than "black" "Hispanic" or "feminine" is unfair. You are free to criticize the _behavior_, but to allow language to become negatively connotative for one group but not another is a wrong - especially since the wrong-doing was largely cultural in nature and not genetic. It ends up doing to that group what the other once-persecuted groups got to experience. Nice. Apparently, once-persecuted groups get to return the favor without experiencing the nasty tag of "racist" or "sexist."





> Please define your specific ideal of "male" vs female


Unclearly stated question. Please revise so I understand clearly what you want. Thanks.




> I think one of the reasons such groups like "caucasian pride" are frowned upon is because we have allowed splinter groups such as neo-nazis, KKK, and the BNP to hijack it and use the term to assert superiority over other groups.


All groups have radical fringe movements; I've had plenty of my former students come back from Universities of California tell me about taking a black studies class where the black professor made it a clear point to vilify the white students in the room. Nice.




> I believe it is up to all right thinking white people to confront the venomous hatred spewed forth by such groups as them and finally succeed in getting rid of them once and for all. Unfortunately until we do this other groups will be rightly hesitant about the term and the connotations it includes.


Agreed.




> I think Sleepy asked an important question, which seems to have got lost in the thread:
> 
> @Redzeppelin: I don't think "masculinist" is necessarily a negative word...maybe that was only Nikolai's personal interpretation? 
> what's your definition of "masculinist"? do you have a personal "masculinist" manifesto or something?
> would be interesting to hear your views.


Right. "Masculinist" carries a negative definition courtesy of Miriam-Webster.com. I think that culture - due to the mistreatment of women - has allowed the pendulum to swing to the opposite side to where men are now seen as "bad guys" - we're violent, dumb, sexist brutes who need a "good woman to straighten us out." (Just check your average sit-com for a demonstration of this idea). Men are as equally valuable as women are (not just because we can kill things) - but our culture does not seem to see male characteristics - aggression, competition, single-mindedness of purpose (we can't multi-task) - as valuable - at least not as valuable as female qualities. There is a book out called _The War Against Boys_ (I forget the author, and the title may be inexact) but it lays out what I'm saying in a much more clear form.

----------


## kilted exile

> All groups have radical fringe movements; I've had plenty of my former students come back from Universities of California tell me about taking a black studies class where the black professor made it a clear point to vilify the white students in the room. Nice.


I believe however that the black community has done a far better job of marginalising the fringe elements than we as whites have (as an example the vast majority of people I have met dont consider "The Nation of Islam" as anything more than a joke)

Regarding the lecturer, I think most people would agree that that is solely poor teaching. However I would also say that anyone attending a black studies course should not go into it with any expectations of white people crowning themselves with glory.




> Right. "Masculinist" carries a negative definition courtesy of Miriam-Webster.com. I think that culture - due to the mistreatment of women - has allowed the pendulum to swing to the opposite side to where men are now seen as "bad guys" - we're violent, dumb, sexist brutes who need a "good woman to straighten us out." (Just check your average sit-com for a demonstration of this idea). Men are as equally valuable as women are (not just because we can kill things) - but our culture does not seem to see male characteristics - aggression, competition, single-mindedness of purpose (we can't multi-task) - as valuable - at least not as valuable as female qualities. There is a book out called _The War Against Boys_ (I forget the author, and the title may be inexact) but it lays out what I'm saying in a much more clear form.


I think sit-coms have always been the domain of the stereotype & every stereotype imaginable is played upon. Take Everybody Loves Raymond as an example: There is the stereotypical overbearing dragon of a mother in law, the stuck in his ways grandfather who is vulgar, obnoxious etc. the wife who cant cook, and the husband who is trying to escape responsibility & just wants to play golf. I dont see this as being directly over critical of the men. It is just stereotyping of every character, including the women to just as much of an extent.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> What does any of this have to do with my opinion? Any particular reason you choose to attack instead of discuss? 
> 
> I felt there was an Olympean tone at variance with material facts of how women have been treated as a matter of rule. 
> 
> As expected.Having criticized me for attacking you, it ill becomes you to indulge in this snide suggestion that my opinion is predictable. You are free to criticize the _behavior_, but to allow language to become negatively connotative for one group but not another is a wrong - especially since the wrong-doing was largely cultural in nature and not genetic. Please explain this.  It ends up doing to that group what the other once-persecuted groups got to experience. Nice. Apparently, once-persecuted groups get to return the favor without experiencing the nasty tag of "racist" or "sexist."Useless to express sweeping generalizations with nothing in evidence 
> 
> 
> All groups have radical fringe movements; I've had plenty of my former students come back from Universities of California tell me about taking a black studies class where the black professor made it a clear point to vilify the white students in the room. Nice."Plenty" is a little reminiscent of the late Sen. McCarthy's way of implying vaguely large numbers. Besides which, did you have numbers of black students who kept in touch with you? And if they had been slighted by a white professor would they have felt safe or comfortable speaking of it to you - assuming you are Caucasian?


As a former (?) academic you no doubt have respect for the power of words. I suggest to you, however, that even just one black youth, chained to the back of a pick up truck and dragged across a dirt road, speaks volumes to other black people.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I believe however that the black community has done a far better job of marginalising the fringe elements than we as whites have (as an example the vast majority of people I have met dont consider "The Nation of Islam" as anything more than a joke)


Regardless of who "manages" the extremists better, they exist - and the point I'm trying to make is that the existence of such groups "normalizes" the existence of white, male idiots. (By "normalize" - I mean that we see that such behavior is _human_, rather than a masculine/caucasian issue).




> Regarding the lecturer, I think most people would agree that that is solely poor teaching. However I would also say that anyone attending a black studies course should not go into it with any expectations of white people crowning themselves with glory.


The lecturer may well have been a brilliant teacher - but either way - suffering discrimination and mistreatment does not entitle _anybody_ to engage in identical behavior. Period. I should expect that if I attend a black studies course that I'll learn about black culture - not be vilified as part of a historical problem that I did not create nor participate in. Justifying that is sheer nonsense. How much guilt am I supposed to bear about that which I had no say in, no control over?





> I think sit-coms have always been the domain of the stereotype & every stereotype imaginable is played upon. Take Everybody Loves Raymond as an example: There is the stereotypical overbearing dragon of a mother in law, the stuck in his ways grandfather who is vulgar, obnoxious etc. the wife who cant cook, and the husband who is trying to escape responsibility & just wants to play golf. I dont see this as being directly over critical of the men. It is just stereotyping of every character, including the women to just as much of an extent.


Do you think this paragraph would give comfort to women complaining about the picture of femininity portrayed by, say, _Married with Children?_ Or is it reasonable because you're telling it to a man in the post-feminist 21st century? I'm not sure women in 1976 would have been comforted by this paragraph looking at the presentation of women in those sitcoms.





> Having criticized me for attacking you, it ill becomes you to indulge in this snide suggestion that my opinion is predictable.


My apologies; the comment was less about you than about the fact that I could virtually predict that someone would attack my suggestion in the fashion you did - the "politically correct" tone of our culture demands that such suggestions like mine be met with objections like yours because - for some silly reason - white males are supposed to meekly accept the burden of being denied the same rights/privileges as other groups. Don't get too bent - it wasn't really about you so much as about the culture that I knew would rise up against my statements.




> Please explain this.


In other words: you cannot take two "equal" terms (_feminine_ and _masculine_) - which are descriptive terms dealing with gender - and make one negative due to the bad choices and behavior of that group - choices and behavior that were largely cultural; in other words, the masculine oppression of women was not a genetically wired thing that men _had_ to do - definitions of words should deal with what things are - not what they might, on occasion, do. The definition of "pitbull" is not "viscious animal that ought to be destroyed due to its violent nature." That some can become that way doesn't mean that the term "pitbull" ought to become _denotatively_ negative - though the term may certainly acquire a negative _connotation_ due to the publicized incidents where the animal did misbehave.




> "Plenty" is a little reminiscent of the late Sen. McCarthy's way of implying vaguely large numbers. Besides which, did you have numbers of black students who kept in touch with you? And if they had been slighted by a white professor would they have felt safe or comfortable speaking of it to you - assuming you are Caucasian?


How many incidents of a black professor vilifying a white student because she's white do you need to take the issue seriously? In my opinion, one is sufficient to be outraged - as outraged as I assume you'd be if the races were reversed.

I am caucasian, and yes they would have confided that to me because I teach my students to confront professors on their assumptions and attitudes because good educators should always be prepared to defend these things to students.




> As a former (?) academic you no doubt have respect for the power of words. I suggest to you, however, that even just one black youth, chained to the back of a pick up truck and dragged across a dirt road, speaks volumes to other black people.


Nothing I'm saying justifies horrific behavior against any group - but I'm trying to point out that misbehavior by a specific group in the past does not sentence that group forever to negative publicity - and white males are almost uniquely allowed by culture to be targeted by other groups because we must apparently "atone" for the past. You don't hold people in the present responsible for what they did not enact or believe. Period.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The lecturer may well have been a brilliant teacher - but either way - suffering discrimination and mistreatment does not entitle _anybody_ to engage in identical behavior. Period. I should expect that if I attend a black studies course that I'll learn about black culture - not be vilified as part of a historical problem that I did not create nor participate in. Justifying that is sheer nonsense. How much guilt am I supposed to bear about that which I had no say in, no control over?


Of course people _should_ ideally rise above the ill treatment they received - even if it was virtually endemic and over the course of a very long time - but not all people are capable of being saints or martyrs nor should they be expected to be.

And even if your ancestors were faultless in their behaviour, they - and you - are the beneficiaries to some extent of current economic conditions that were created to some extent on the backs of slaves.





> My apologies; the comment was less about you than about the fact that I could virtually predict that someone would attack my suggestion in the fashion you did - the "politically correct" tone of our culture demands that such suggestions like mine be met with objections like yours because - for some silly reason - white males are supposed to meekly accept the burden of being denied the same rights/privileges as other groups. Don't get too bent - it wasn't really about you so much as about the culture that I knew would rise up against my statements.


Do I hear a chorus of poor white males singing _Nobody knows the trouble I've seen?_ What rights, pray tell, have you recently or ever been denied or seen diminished? 




> In other words: you cannot take two "equal" terms (_feminine_ and _masculine_) - which are descriptive terms dealing with gender - and make one negative due to the bad choices and behavior of that group - choices and behavior that were largely cultural; in other words, the masculine oppression of women was not a genetically wired thing that men _had_ to do - definitions of words should deal with what things are - not what they might, on occasion, do. The definition of "pitbull" is not "viscious animal that ought to be destroyed due to its violent nature." That some can become that way doesn't mean that the term "pitbull" ought to become _denotatively_ negative - though the term may certainly acquire a negative _connotation_ due to the publicized incidents where the animal did misbehave.


Interesting analogy - males and pitbulls! Perhaps you are more of the feminist persuasion than you realize?

I understand that pitbulls are often trained or encouraged to display their aggressive capabilities, which might therefore be argued to be culturally conditioned rather than genetic. Unlike bi-ped males, however, pitbulls do not have the capability to examine and either mnodify or reject their conditioning.




> How many incidents of a black professor vilifying a white student because she's white do you need to take the issue seriously? In my opinion, one is sufficient to be outraged - as outraged as I assume you'd be if the races were reversed.


I agree, but who here is not taking it seriously? And who is blowing it up into a symptom of some tsunami of backlash against white male supremacy?





> Nothing I'm saying justifies horrific behavior against any group - but I'm trying to point out that misbehavior by a specific group in the past does not sentence that group forever to negative publicity - and white males are almost uniquely allowed by culture to be targeted by other groups because we must apparently "atone" for the past. You don't hold people in the present responsible for what they did not enact or believe. Period.


"Forever"? How long ago was the last lynching?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Of course people _should_ ideally rise above the ill treatment they received - even if it was virtually endemic and over the course of a very long time - but not all people are capable of being saints or martyrs nor should they be expected to be.


One need not be a "saint" or "martyr" to behave appropriately in terms of putting blame where it belongs and not on those who resemble the original perpetrators. I can't believe I have to explain this.




> And even if your ancestors were faultless in their behaviour, they - and you - are the beneficiaries to some extent of current economic conditions that were created to some extent on the backs of slaves.


That doesn't entitle the black community (or the female community) to pour out its derision upon me simply by virtue of what ethnicity/gender _I was born into._ I should be judged on my words and behavior - not on those who looked like me in generations past - such behavior towards blacks would warrant the strongest of censuring.




> Do I hear a chorus of poor white males singing _Nobody knows the trouble I've seen?_ What rights, pray tell, have you recently or ever been denied or seen diminished?


What you hear is yourself being patronizing and sarcastic instead of dealing with my point. Look around culturally - there are sublte marks present that its OK to bash men and caucasian men especially if you are not one of them.




> Interesting analogy - males and pitbulls! Perhaps you are more of the feminist persuasion than you realize?


This is what we call the _straw man fallacy_ - nice job ignoring the point.




> I understand that pitbulls are often trained or encouraged to display their aggressive capabilities, which might therefore be argued to be culturally conditioned rather than genetic. Unlike bi-ped males, however, pitbulls do not have the capability to examine and either mnodify or reject their conditioning.


Irrelevant. I was discussing _language_: what do words mean, and how do we assign meaning? I picked what I picked because it was on the news while I was posting.





> I agree, but who here is not taking it seriously? And who is blowing it up into a symptom of some tsunami of backlash against white male supremacy?


I am simply contending the there is a subtle double-standard in culture about sensitivity that apparently does not apply to white males. I'm not saying we're "oppressed"; I'm arguing for fairness in terminology (_feminist_ vs. _masculinist_) and against the idea that once-oppressed groups are entitled to vent their anger perpetually against the formerly oppressive group (especially when any current "oppressing" is done by individuals rather than a collective society per se).




> "Forever"? How long ago was the last lynching?


As I said above - there is a vast difference between the isolated incidences today and the tacit cultural _approval_ of them decades ago. Certainly you understand the difference.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<How much guilt am I supposed to bear about that which I had no say in, no control over?>

Well, when it comes to original sin, you have to bear the whole responsibility don't you?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> One need not be a "saint" or "martyr" to behave appropriately in terms of putting blame where it belongs and not on those who resemble the original perpetrators. I can't believe I have to explain this.


My point was, rather, that those who resemble the original perpetrators are indeed still the beneficiaries of the practice of slavery.




> That doesn't entitle the black community (or the female community) to pour out its derision upon me simply by virtue of what ethnicity/gender _I was born into._ I should be judged on my words and behavior - not on those who looked like me in generations past - such behavior towards blacks would warrant the strongest of censuring.


And as you ought to be aware they get that censuring from those who see themselves as blameless. Human behaviour is not always confined within what it _should_ be. 




> What you hear is yourself being patronizing and sarcastic instead of dealing with my point. Look around culturally - there are sublte marks present that its OK to bash men and caucasian men especially if you are not one of them.


"Subtle" appears at least twice in this post alone, as did the ambiguous "plenty of students" in another of your posting. Perhaps by "subtle" you really mean as you subjectively perceive it, through a lens that may be clouded by fear or xenophobia. Or it may be a code word meaning _I don't have the evidence at hand and am not sure I could find it but - trust me!_





> Irrelevant. I was discussing _language_: what do words mean, and how do we assign meaning? I picked what I picked because it was on the news while I was posting.


If you're referring to the pitbull analogy, it was yours. When you offer an analogy you must be prepared to have others see it differently than you do.




> I am simply contending the there is a subtle double-standard in culture about sensitivity that apparently does not apply to white males. I'm not saying we're "oppressed"; I'm arguing for fairness in terminology (_feminist_ vs. _masculinist_) and against the idea that once-oppressed groups are entitled to vent their anger perpetually against the formerly oppressive group (especially when any current "oppressing" is done by individuals rather than a collective society per se).


Again, I asked for examples of this double-standard. Generalities won't do.




> As I said above - there is a vast difference between the isolated incidences today and the tacit cultural _approval_ of them decades ago. Certainly you understand the difference.


How blythe you are about these "isolated incidences"! How many white young men would need to be chained behind a pick-up truck and dragged over a country road would cease in your mind to be an "isolated incident" and be the occasion for fear and outrage, as supposed to "subtle" cultural references that you detect in the air?

----------


## kilted exile

I dont want to continue to take things off an a tangent with regards to the racial aspect, I understand your opinion on the subject and in both agree & disagree with your various points.




> Do you think this paragraph would give comfort to women complaining about the picture of femininity portrayed by, say, _Married with Children?_ Or is it reasonable because you're telling it to a man in the post-feminist 21st century? I'm not sure women in 1976 would have been comforted by this paragraph looking at the presentation of women in those sitcoms.


I do not type to give comfort, I give my opinion as I see it. Whether or not it makes people comfortable or they agree with it is unimportant, I realise it is my opinion no more no less. You bring up the example of Married with Children, this is another case I think which is critical of both sides, does anyone see Al Bundy as a role-model & someone they would like to be like?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well, when it comes to original sin, you have to bear the whole responsibility don't you?


What? Each person is responsible for his/her own behavior.




> My point was, rather, that those who resemble the original perpetrators are indeed still the beneficiaries of the practice of slavery.


What? No I'm not. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I get to receive scorn and derision from angry blacks about what happened in the US in prior centuries. What are you talking about?




> And as you ought to be aware they get that censuring from those who see themselves as blameless. Human behaviour is not always confined within what it _should_ be.


Maybe I need more coffee but I don't get how this is a response to what I said at all. This response contains unexplained assumptions. The final sentence is obvious, but what does it have to do with what I said?




> "Subtle" appears at least twice in this post alone, as did the ambiguous "plenty of students" in another of your posting. Perhaps by "subtle" you really mean as you subjectively perceive it, through a lens that may be clouded by fear or xenophobia. Or it may be a code word meaning _I don't have the evidence at hand and am not sure I could find it but - trust me!_


Oh, of course: the _perception_ issue. Once you play this card, I assume you're aware that it cuts both ways? A very handy tactic - dismiss the other person's position as merely a subjective "fantasy." Nice.

Here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520514.shtml 
http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/001429.html
http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A965948260
http://www.popmatters.com/tv/feature...-bashing.shtml
http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...f_male_bashing

Next?




> If you're referring to the pitbull analogy, it was yours. When you offer an analogy you must be prepared to have others see it differently than you do.


I used the analogy to make a point about language and its definitions and you decided to discourse on the analogy instead of the point it was meant to make. That's called a _strawman_ fallacy.




> Again, I asked for examples of this double-standard. Generalities won't do.


Cf. above.





> How blythe you are about these "isolated incidences"! How many white young men would need to be chained behind a pick-up truck and dragged over a country road would cease in your mind to be an "isolated incident" and be the occasion for fear and outrage, as supposed to "subtle" cultural references that you detect in the air?


OK - I kind of figured you sieze upon the use of "isolated" and make a big deal out of it instead of dealing with my point. *sigh* Let me try to make my point yet again.

I am in no way trying to diminish the outrage of racist/sexist behavior towards blacks, hispanics, women, etc, etc, etc. My point was that there is a difference between violence towards a group that receives _tacit cultural approval_ and that which _outrages the society_ within which it occurs. Please don't act like nothing has changed in the last 150 years. Granted, equality is still imperfect and people are still ignorant, but nobody can realistically say that things are unchanged. That is the point I was trying to make. If you would deal with what I'm saying instead of constantly resorting to _strawman_ arguments, we might get somewhere in this discussion.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

I'm not prepared to go over each of my points and your rebuttals one by one. Apropos your feeling that you and the group you associate yourself with are under threat by feminism I will say only that as a white, middle class American male you enjoy material and intellectual privileges beyond what has been known in most of human history. Which of those privileges have recently been torn from you by feminism or feminists?

I venture to believe that you could give up something like half of what you have and you'd still be better off materially than a very large portion of the American - let alone the world - population, and that as a white middle class American male you'd have an advantage over any comparably educated female in applying for an executive level job.

And could you do without the various _ad hominem_ ploys such as that you expected me to say this or that?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm not prepared to go over each of my points and your rebuttals one by one. Apropos your feeling that you and the group you associate yourself with are under threat by feminism I will say only that as a white, middle class American male you enjoy material and intellectual privileges beyond what has been known in most of human history. Which of those privileges have recently been torn from you by feminism or feminists?
> 
> I venture to believe that you could give up something like half of what you have and you'd still be better off materially than a very large portion of the American - let alone the world - population, and that as a white middle class American male you'd have an advantage over any comparably educated female in applying for an executive level job.
> 
> And could you do without the various _ad hominem_ ploys such as that you expected me to say this or that?


1. I have never indicated that I or any group I associate with are "under threat" by feminism. I noted a linguistic disparity that I thought was telling. It is OK to "male bash" in our culture, and it's also OK to "caucasian bash" as well.

2. Your attack proves my point: all a white male has to do is say "Hey, I don't think that the ideas of 'tolerance' and 'sensitivity' are being distributed across the board" and suddenly I'm under attack. Radical feminism and liberal media say that any protest made by men is "tough luck" because we earned this scorn from hundreds of years of being "cavemen" - I don't accept that.

3. Please don't preach at me about how good I have it - I never said I had it bad. I said I dislike double-standards, and there are double standards about how white males are portrayed and spoken of in society.

4. No _ad hominem_ being used - I'm not trying to attack you or diminish your credibility as an arguer - but I expect much of what you say because you're giving me the script that society essentially gives me. Political correctness virtually _requires_ that somebody here confront me with your points.

----------


## NikolaiI

It's not a double-standard, the words mean different things because of the way things are. Feminist simply means one thing and masculinist means another. As for men being seen as bad, well, a lot of them are, but that's not really the issue. I mean really not. The issue is the rules that discriminate towards females, and their legitimacy. For instance, is it allright for women to be spiritual leaders or have leadership roles in church? Things like that.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's not a double-standard, the words mean different things *because of the way things are*. Feminist simply means one thing and masculinist means another. As for men being seen as bad, well, a lot of them are, but that's not really the issue. I mean really not. The issue is the rules that discriminate towards females, and their legitimacy. For instance, is it allright for women to be spiritual leaders or have leadership roles in church? Things like that.


The part in bold is the part I have a problem with: the "way things are" currently is that it's OK to bash white males but not any other demographic group. Double-standard. Nothing has to be "the way it is." It got that way somehow.

----------


## NikolaiI

It's only that way to certain people, and I think they are far fewer than you think. I don't know what your source is for saying that, I'd say there's still a lot more bashing of females, gays (oh especially gays), mexicans, jews, etc., etc. What do you think? And anyway, because masculinist means male superiority, that means nothing. It's just a word.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's only that way to certain people, and I think they are far fewer than you think. I don't know what your source is for saying that, I'd say there's still a lot more bashing of females, gays (oh especially gays), mexicans, jews, etc., etc. What do you think? And anyway, because masculinist means male superiority, that means nothing. It's just a word.


It means something to me; I'm a scholar of language and literature and I see a problem with the definitions; as I just posted in "answerless questions":

the suffix "ist" means "of, relating to, or characteristic of". 

"Feminine" means 
1 : FEMALE 1a(1)
2 : characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women 

and "masculine" means 
1 a : MALE b : having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

As such: adding "ist" to the ending should not make one word positive in definition 
("Feminist" - 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests) 

and another negative in connotation ("Masculinist" - : an advocate of male superiority or dominance ).

I have a problem with the language here because (as I already said again and again) the words "feminine" and "masculine" have identical definitions, but the addition of "ist" makes one positive and one negative. That's a double-standard.

----------


## NikolaiI

Okay, but that doesn't mean society all around you accepts male-bashing, it's just what the two words mean, and it happened over time with usage and what not.

Let me put it this way; feminist means a raise in women's status and rights- that they be equal - and masculinist also means a raise in status or rights, or that they remain the same. Does that make sense to you? Do you see how it wouldn't make sense for masculinist to mean the same thing as feminist? Feminist; equal rights. Masculinist; equal rights.




> the suffix "ist" means "of, relating to, or characteristic of".


Okay, I don't know exactly what to say to you. Again, it's a small thing and the fact is our society is still a patriarchal society. Women can't lead in church for Christ's sake! These two words, masculinist and feminist, I dare say, have not caused significant suffering. The people who are masculinist (not by declaration, but by definition) have a different set of values from feminists. They think that women shouldn't have the same rights as men.

Um, you may be right about the suffix thing, but understand that feminist means equal rights, and it doesn't have to do with being male or female. So there are male feminists as well as female. In fact, who's to say there are not an equal number.

Anyway, I am signing off. I will come back tomorrow, if I can. Thanks for your time.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Okay, but that doesn't mean society all around you accepts male-bashing, it's just what the two words mean, and it happened over time with usage and what not.


Check some of the links I gave PrinceMyshkin seven posts prior - at least two of them deal with the issue of the portrayal of men in culture.




> Let me put it this way; feminist means a raise in women's status and rights- that they be equal - and masculinist also means a raise in status or rights, or that they remain the same. Does that make sense to you? Do you see how it wouldn't make sense for masculinist to mean the same thing as feminist? Feminist; equal rights. Masculinist; equal rights.


I understand how language works and how words take their definitions; but that doesn't mean I have to like what's happened to certain words (just like "gay" - that word used to have a legitimate meaning that I cannot use anymore because it's been appropriated as a euphemism for homosexuality - a loss of a perfectly good word). Your definitions do not match the dictionary.





> Okay, I don't know exactly what to say to you. Again, it's a small thing and the fact is our society is still a patriarchal society. Women can't lead in church for Christ's sake! These two words, masculinist and feminist, I dare say, have not caused significant suffering. The people who are masculinist (not by declaration, but by definition) have a different set of values from feminists. They think that women shouldn't have the same rights as men.


I never implied that this was a significant issue or that men were suffering - I'm pointing out (yet again) that it isn't fair to "turn the tables" on a group formerly guilty of "oppression" and then oppress them (even subtlely) in return. It's OK to make jokes about white males but not about any other group - it's not "PC" to do so.




> Um, you may be right about the suffix thing, but understand that feminist means equal rights, and it doesn't have to do with being male or female. So there are male feminists as well as female. In fact, who's to say there are not an equal number.


Feminist does not mean "equal rights' - it is a lable taken on by those who advocate femininity as being equal to masculinity - but it in and of itself is not a synonym for equal rights.




> Anyway, I am signing off. I will come back tomorrow, if I can. Thanks for your time.


See you

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> It means something to me; I'm a scholar of language and literature and I see a problem with the definitions...
> 
> I have a problem with the language here because (as I already said again and again) the words "feminine" and "masculine" have identical definitions, but the addition of "ist" makes one positive and one negative. That's a double-standard.


It's a problem only if you consider language to be an autonomous domain, which it never is.

In the context of history - a history in which men have ruled the roost - feminist means the desire to elevate women to equal status. What could or does "masculinist" mean other than the preservation of traditional masculine rights of predominance?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's a problem only if you consider language to be an autonomous domain, which it never is.
> 
> In the context of history - a history in which men have ruled the roost - feminist means the desire to elevate women to equal status. What could or does "masculinist" mean other than the preservation of traditional masculine rights of predominance?


Look - I'm about worn out arguing this point. I made a note of a disparity in language; I'm quite aware why the difference exists - I'm making a philosophic/linguistic point, but it seems most of my opponents want to argue history with me or tell me that I've got it good as a man and quit complaining. I thought it interesting that two words so close in descriptive meaning could be so far apart in denotation. That to me was reflective of the current cultural status quo where it's not PC to make jokes at any group's expense EXCEPT white males. That's all I was trying to point out.

By the way: Have you read those links I gave you yet? If not, why? If so - well?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Look - I'm about worn out arguing this point. I made a note of a disparity in language; I'm quite aware why the difference exists - I'm making a philosophic/linguistic point, but it seems most of my opponents want to argue history with me or tell me that I've got it good as a man and quit complaining. I thought it interesting that two words so close in descriptive meaning could be so far apart in denotation. That to me was reflective of the current cultural status quo where it's not PC to make jokes at any group's expense EXCEPT white males. That's all I was trying to point out.
> 
> By the way: Have you read those links I gave you yet? If not, why? If so - well?


Perhaps others won't engage with you on your preferred philosophic/linguistic point because you want to talk about fleas while others want to talk about the actual dog.

No, I have not referred to the links you provided. Have you read either of the two books I recommended to you?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Perhaps others won't engage with you on your preferred philosophic/linguistic point because you want to talk about fleas while others want to talk about the actual dog.
> 
> No, I have not referred to the links you provided. Have you read either of the two books I recommended to you?


OK - why don't you go ahead and tell me what the "dog" is that I'm ignoring.

I'll consider taking a look at the books - but I went to the trouble of finding links because you implied that my claims had no basis in reality beyond my _perception_ - so I answered that charge and you haven't taken the time to check my response. 

As well, the books were not offered as argumentative support as my links were.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Check some of the links I gave PrinceMyshkin seven posts prior - at least two of them deal with the issue of the portrayal of men in culture.


I think a lot of people are concerned that there is still sexism existant if not rampant in our culture. Lots of people are proud to be sexist. It's a problem. And like I tried to say earlier, I don't see white men made fun of so much as other groups. 




> I understand how language works and how words take their definitions; but that doesn't mean I have to like what's happened to certain words (just like "gay" - that word used to have a legitimate meaning that I cannot use anymore because it's been appropriated as a euphemism for homosexuality - a loss of a perfectly good word). Your definitions do not match the dictionary.


Don't you remember how I answered your original statement about masculinist with definitions from m-w.com? I wasn't saying those were the definitions, I said, do you see how it wouldn't make sense for the two words to mean the same thing, as in; masculinist is equal rights and feminist is equal rights? It wouldn't make sense for them to be the same thing.





> I never implied that this was a significant issue or that men were suffering - I'm pointing out (yet again) that it isn't fair to "turn the tables" on a group formerly guilty of "oppression" and then oppress them (even subtlely) in return. It's OK to make jokes about white males but not about any other group - it's not "PC" to do so.


It's not discrimination in the minds of those who discriminate. Or, it's not an oppression of rights that the person should have, you know, they rationalize it by saying things like "putting them in their place" or whatever. Tell me who thinks that women should make more than men, let's say for a certain period of time, to make up for wages lost? Or who thinks men should lose the right to vote for a few years - for one, it's not even the same people.

Also and again, politically correct is a joke, and people don't usually go by it. Listen to some comedians, they're virtually all sexist. And why? People like it. So there you go.





> Feminist does not mean "equal rights' - it is a lable taken on by those who advocate femininity as being equal to masculinity - but it in and of itself is not a synonym for equal rights.


1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests 

what is this then? It means exactly equal rights. And it has nothing to do with femininity, it has two do with equality between the sexes.






> See you


Yeah, see ya.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> OK - why don't you go ahead and tell me what the "dog" is that I'm ignoring.
> 
> I'll consider taking a look at the books - but I went to the trouble of finding links because you implied that my claims had no basis in reality beyond my _perception_ - so I answered that charge and you haven't taken the time to check my response. 
> 
> As well, the books were not offered as argumentative support as my links were.



The "dog" is the manifest sexism and racism that is still rampant in our society. Although of course it is important to productive civilized discourse that we use words precisely and that we all mean approximately the same things by those words, sooner rather than later I would hope we return to examining and hopefully redressing the conditions that necessitated feminism and that produced "masculinism" as a frightened reaction to it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The "dog" is the manifest sexism and racism that is still rampant in our society. Although of course it is important to productive civilized discourse that we use words precisely and that we all mean approximately the same things by those words, sooner rather than later I would hope we return to examining and hopefully redressing the conditions that necessitated feminism and that produced "masculinism" as a frightened reaction to it.


I'm aware of the "rampant racism and sexism" - I'm also aware that attitudes that fostered such conditions are largely out of fashion and considered inappropriate - which (while not being a complete solution) still indicates good progress in the right direction; once attitudes change, behaviors follow. 

NONETHELESS: the continued presence of racism/sexism towards ethnic groups and women does not mitigate the inappropriateness of those particular groups responding in kind: it is the height of hypocrisy to protest bigotry and then participate in it oneself. Nothing you say will change that reality. MLK made it clear in a number of his letters and speeches that he felt it imperative that blacks did not resort the tactics of the whites oppressing them in their struggle for equality; I believe he'd be shocked at the kind of "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" that is currently present in our culture.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I'm aware of the "rampant racism and sexism" - I'm also aware that attitudes that fostered such conditions are largely out of fashion and considered inappropriate - which (while not being a complete solution) still indicates good progress in the right direction; once attitudes change, behaviors follow. 
> 
> NONETHELESS: the continued presence of racism/sexism towards ethnic groups and women does not mitigate the inappropriateness of those particular groups responding in kind: it is the height of hypocrisy to protest bigotry and then participate in it oneself. Nothing you say will change that reality. MLK made it clear in a number of his letters and speeches that he felt it imperative that blacks did not resort the tactics of the whites oppressing them in their struggle for equality; I believe he'd be shocked at the kind of "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" that is currently present in our culture.


It's an all too familiar tactic to seize on the bad behaviour of any one or two or three members of a minority or oppressed group, smear the lot of them with it, and then in high-sounding 'liberal' rhetoric insist that they ought to live up to the highest moral standards of society, even if the group in power does not. 

Indeed Martin Luther King might react as you suggest and Jesus Christ might say: _"Cast out the mote that is in your own eye."_

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's an all too familiar tactic to seize on the bad behaviour of any one or two or three members of a minority or oppressed group, smear the lot of them with it, and then in high-sounding 'liberal' rhetoric insist that they ought to live up to the highest moral standards of society, even if the group in power does not. 
> 
> Indeed Martin Luther King might react as you suggest and Jesus Christ might say: _"Cast out the mote that is in your own eye."_


"One or two or three members of a minority or oppressed group" - what? Who and what are you talking about? I'm referring to a cultural phenomena, one evident to other people besides me (have you checked the links I gave you yet?) - so what's the 1-2-3 people bit? 
 
Second, I'm not asking anybody to "live up to the highest moral standards of society" - I'm asking that culture not endorse the double-standard it currently does.

You ought to at least quote the Bible correctly if you're going to try and use it against me. Here's what it actually says:

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5

Since I have not expressed any racist/sexist opinions here, what "plank" should I be searching in my "eye" for whilst I comment on the racist/sexist "speck" that is present in culture's "eye" in reference to white males?

----------


## Derringer

> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520514.shtml 
> http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/001429.html
> http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06.htm
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A965948260
> http://www.popmatters.com/tv/feature...-bashing.shtml
> http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...f_male_bashing
> 
> 
> 
> .


If those are your examples of racism then you are playing baseball with a beachball.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If those are your examples of racism then you are playing baseball with a beachball.


Not "racism" per se, my friend - in fact I would never go as far as to qualify the examples I've found (would you like more?) as out-and-out "racism" or "sexism" - but (and I must just be talking to myself here since just about everybody wants to take me to task on this idea) I simply have noted a double-standard that is clearly present in culture. I think if people weren't so buried in collective guilt and blinded to the PC universe that we now live in, they might see the discrepancy. The irony here is that my point is being proven simply via the responses launched against my point. I notice a double-standard, point it out, and lo-and-behold, look how many people wish to tell me I've go no position worth defending. Fascinating.

PS: Here's some more for you: http://www.amren.com/antiwht.htm

----------


## Derringer

> Not "racism" per se, my friend - in fact I would never go as far as to qualify the examples I've found (would you like more?) as out-and-out "racism" or "sexism" - but (and I must just be talking to myself here since just about everybody wants to take me to task on this idea) I simply have noted a double-standard that is clearly present in culture. I think if people weren't so buried in collective guilt and blinded to the PC universe that we now live in, they might see the discrepancy. The irony here is that my point is being proven simply via the responses launched against my point. I notice a double-standard, point it out, and lo-and-behold, look how many people wish to tell me I've go no position worth defending. Fascinating.
> 
> PS: Here's some more for you: http://www.amren.com/antiwht.htm


It's not so much a double standard - with regards to your last url, those statements would be an offense, ie you could ( or should) go to jail for saying stuff like that. That is more a failure of the justice system then a double standard. 
ex.
I don't know what things are like in US, but in Canada, a Native tribe leader named David Ahenakew was stripped of his Order of Canada -- the highest civilian prize -- for suggesting that the holocaust was justified. I wouldn't call this 'reverse racism' though, just straight up 'racism'. 

There is a stereotyped middle class 'white male', but this does all come down to perception. Intelligent people (and don't take this as you're not intelligent, please) know that stereotypes don't really mean anything- many black people think that Dave Chappelle (and Richard Prior, et al) is a funny man for stereotyping black people. The obvious response to this is when will our children learn that stereotyping is wrong (or when will less intelligent people learn), and this is obvious that it should be taught in schools, which it is -- programs such as Racism Awareness Week, books such as To Kill a Mockingbird, and songs by Woody Guthrie. 'Stereotyping' and 'racism' is more a failure of education and capitalism then a ploy by miniorities to subvert white man.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's not so much a double standard - with regards to your last url, those statements would be an offense, ie you could ( or should) go to jail for saying stuff like that. That is more a failure of the justice system then a double standard. 
> ex.
> I don't know what things are like in US, but in Canada, a Native tribe leader named David Ahenakew was stripped of his Order of Canada -- the highest civilian prize -- for suggesting that the holocaust was justified. I wouldn't call this 'reverse racism' though, just straight up 'racism'. 
> 
> There is a stereotyped middle class 'white male', but this does all come down to perception. Intelligent people (and don't take this as you're not intelligent, please) know that stereotypes don't really mean anything- many black people think that Dave Chappelle (and Richard Prior, et al) is a funny man for stereotyping black people. The obvious response to this is when will our children learn that stereotyping is wrong (or when will less intelligent people learn), and this is obvious that it should be taught in schools, which it is -- programs such as Racism Awareness Week, books such as To Kill a Mockingbird, and songs by Woody Guthrie. 'Stereotyping' and 'racism' is more a failure of education and capitalism then a ploy by miniorities to subvert white man.


I call it a double-standard because any white man saying the equivalent of the statements on the link I left would be skinned-alive (consider the Don Imus episode from a few months ago or the Michael what's-his-name from Seinfeld who blew up at black patrons at a comedy club). The media pilloried those two for their comments - one lost his job and another's career has been said to have been derailed due to the backlash. I'm still waiting to see that happen for a black man saying something equivalent about a white man, or a woman getting heat over derogatory comments about men.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Monotheism endorsed sexism (is there any monotheist religion where the supreme deity is feminine?), and through its aggressive attitude to other gods (accept our supreme god or face the consequences), necessarily endorsed racial prejudices too. Much polytheism, on the other hand, at least incorporated the beliefs of other races into its overall divine milieu. As monotheism moves into modernity, is it any wonder that its believers may feel that they are not racists or sexists, when their belief alone implies that they are?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I call it a double-standard because any white man saying the equivalent of the statements on the link I left would be skinned-alive (consider the Don Imus episode from a few months ago or the Michael what's-his-name from Seinfeld who blew up at black patrons at a comedy club). The media pilloried those two for their comments - one lost his job and another's career has been said to have been derailed due to the backlash. I'm still waiting to see that happen for a black man saying something equivalent about a white man, or a woman getting heat over derogatory comments about men.


Once again you're straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. There *is* a double-standard in society and has been for millennia, a palpable, material double-standard and people fight back with whatever weapons they have. It may not be 'nice,' it may not - in this case - involve the sort of language you would use towards them, but see to the causes of their anger first.

If I might paraphrase: 

*Hath not a black man or any woman eyes? Have they not hands, organs.. 
If you prick them, do they not bleed
And spew out vile epithets in response? 
But look you, blood is more precious even
And far more limited than words. 
And while you reproach them for their uncivil,
Nay unchristian speech, prithee notice
That their wounds still go on leaking blood...*

----------


## motherhubbard

> When patriarchy is demolish, won't there still be patriarchy? That is women as masculine, and men as cowards?


 I think that the things being brought up are valid points but I want to bring them back to this original question.

It seems to me that the concern is not so much about patriarchy as it is men feeling like men. For some reason, men must (at least think they) hold all the power to be real men. If a woman asserts herself then his manhood is threatened. Only men can have self respect or self determination according to todays patriarchy. I would say that real men are not threatened by a strong, intelligent, educated, capable, self-respecting woman. These qualities do not make a woman masculine, but merely human. Discrimination against others comes back to this. Some people feel threatened when other people are capable. It is easier to keep someone else down that to elevate yourself.

----------


## Granny5

> I think that the things being brought up are valid points but I want to bring them back to this original question.
> 
> It seems to me that the concern is not so much about patriarchy as it is men feeling like men. For some reason, men must (at least think they) hold all the power to be real men. If a woman asserts herself then his manhood is threatened. Only men can have self respect or self determination according to todays patriarchy. I would say that real men are not threatened by a strong, intelligent, educated, capable, self-respecting woman. These qualities do not make a woman masculine, but merely human. Discrimination against others comes back to this. Some people feel threatened when other people are capable. It is easier to keep someone else down that to elevate yourself.


You have said a mouthfull. You were taught well.

----------


## motherhubbard

> You have said a mouthfull. You were taught well.


I guess you can just pat yourself on the back.

----------


## Granny5

I already have a cramp from trying. You do realize that being raised by a strong woman who was raised by a stronger woman has made you see things a little different from some. And it's made you very strong.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Once again you're straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. There *is* a double-standard in society and has been for millennia, a palpable, material double-standard and people fight back with whatever weapons they have. It may not be 'nice,' it may not - in this case - involve the sort of language you would use towards them, but see to the causes of their anger first.


Look, you and I have said the same thing with different words a number of times now. You are distorting my words to make an argument. I will try one last time:

Society is full of inequalities for ethnic groups and women; although we have made strides in positive directions, we still have a ways to go. The forward progres we have made has resulted in an improvement in many aspects of the lives of various ethnic groups and for women, enough to where - at least in American culture - it has been firmly established via the ideas of _toleration_ and _diversity_ that these groups ought not be denigrated for who they are. That is established fact. Culture implicitly permitted these groups in former decades to be subjected to ridicule - but such is not acceptable anymore in terms of media presentation and public discourse.

However: as a result of the collective guilt that America possesses in the wake of the Civil Rights movement and its exposure of the ugly nature of American racism, our culture displays a tacit approval of the ridicule and hostility being aimed at the former "oppressor" of these groups - white males. Unless white males as a cultural group are still advocating for the former inappropriate attitudes, there is no good reason to continue to pour out hostility and ridicule upon them just by virtue that they belong (by no choice of their own) to a group that has a history of "oppressing" the groups who now have amassed considerable social power.

Racism and sexism are unacceptable - and equally so when exercised by groups that once suffered under such repellent ideologies. That is the only point I'm trying to make - and you continue to respond as if nothing has changed in America since 1840. Things have changed, and for the better - but that doesn't mean that once a formerly disenfranchised group attains social power that it is appropriate to try and punish the group (using the disgusting ideologies that that group once used) that has - on a social level - admitted its wrongs and tried to change for the better.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Look, you and I have said the same thing with different words a number of times now. You are distorting my words to make an argument. I will try one last time:
> 
> Society is full of inequalities for ethnic groups and women; although we have made strides in positive directions, we still have a ways to go. The forward progres we have made has resulted in an improvement in many aspects of the lives of various ethnic groups and for women, enough to where - at least in American culture - it has been firmly established via the ideas of _toleration_ and _diversity_ that these groups ought not be denigrated for who they are. That is established fact. Culture implicitly permitted these groups in former decades to be subjected to ridicule - but such is not acceptable anymore in terms of media presentation and public discourse.
> 
> However: as a result of the collective guilt that America possesses in the wake of the Civil Rights movement and its exposure of the ugly nature of American racism, our culture displays a tacit approval of the ridicule and hostility being aimed at the former "oppressor" of these groups - white males. Unless white males as a cultural group are still advocating for the former inappropriate attitudes, there is no good reason to continue to pour out hostility and ridicule upon them just by virtue that they belong (by no choice of their own) to a group that has a history of "oppressing" the groups who now have amassed considerable social power.
> 
> Racism and sexism are unacceptable - and equally so when exercised by groups that once suffered under such repellent ideologies. That is the only point I'm trying to make - and you continue to respond as if nothing has changed in America since 1840. Things have changed, and for the better - but that doesn't mean that once a formerly disenfranchised group attains social power that it is appropriate to try and punish the group (using the disgusting ideologies that that group once used) that has - on a social level - admitted its wrongs and tried to change for the better.


Agreed. We ought all to speak respectfully of each other. And while feminists and Afro-Americans may now feel more free to speak disparagingly of men and of whites, the latter still indulge in their sexist and bigotted remarks about the other. Notwithstanding the 7 or 8 examples you provide, this is hardly a "pouring out" (loaded language similar to your references to "subtle" and to the "several" former students of yours).

Apropos double standards, you'd accord your own position more credibility if you spoke out other than in passing of the incivility or intolerance of the dominant groups.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Agreed. We ought all to speak respectfully of each other. And while feminists and Afro-Americans may now feel more free to speak disparagingly of men and of whites, the latter still indulge in their sexist and bigotted remarks about the other. Notwithstanding the 7 or 8 examples you provide, this is hardly a "pouring out" (loaded language similar to your references to "subtle" and to the "several" former students of yours).
> 
> Apropos double standards, you'd accord your own position more credibility if you spoke out other than in passing of the incivility or intolerance of the dominant groups.


Individual examples of inappropriate behavior exist on both sides of the various gender/ethnic fences; but culture does not give its tacit approval of such things these days except when the target is white males. As per your denial of my assertion that this is a cultural phenomena - here:

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/index.htm
http://www.amren.com/antiwht.htm
http://www.rense.com/general70/ana.htm
http://www.australian-news.com.au/gender_bias.htm
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/l/l-misc/leo090402.htm
http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0071.htm
http://www.christianparty.net/antimale.htm
http://childadvocate.org/1f_antiboyattitude.htm

I don't need to point out the discrimination pointed at women/ethnic groups - that is a cultural "given" - we know, agree and accept the ugly fact that these things still go on; the media attests to that - what the media ignores is the double-standard towards white males.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I think that the things being brought up are valid points but I want to bring them back to this original question.
> 
> It seems to me that the concern is not so much about patriarchy as it is men feeling like men. For some reason, men must (at least think they) hold all the power to be real men. If a woman asserts herself then his manhood is threatened. Only men can have self respect or self determination according to todays patriarchy. I would say that real men are not threatened by a strong, intelligent, educated, capable, self-respecting woman. These qualities do not make a woman masculine, but merely human. Discrimination against others comes back to this. Some people feel threatened when other people are capable. It is easier to keep someone else down that to elevate yourself.


 :Thumbs Up:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Individual examples of inappropriate behavior exist on both sides of the various gender/ethnic fences; but culture does not give its tacit approval of such things these days except when the target is white males. As per your denial of my assertion that this is a cultural phenomena - here:
> 
> http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/index.htm
> http://www.amren.com/antiwht.htm
> http://www.rense.com/general70/ana.htm
> http://www.australian-news.com.au/gender_bias.htm
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/l/l-misc/leo090402.htm
> http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0071.htm
> http://www.christianparty.net/antimale.htm
> ...


Again "the media" is a convenient blanket term. But the media that I am familiar with is more likely to broadcast incidences of black vocal or physical violence against whites, than the reverse, on the general principle that "Dog bites man" (i.e, white racism) is NOT news while "man bites dog" (black racism) is.

I've looked at a few of the sites you list and what I saw looked like hysteria to me.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Again "the media" is a convenient blanket term. But the media that I am familiar with is more likely to broadcast incidences of black vocal or physical violence against whites, than the reverse, on the general principle that "Dog bites man" (i.e, white racism) is NOT news while "man bites dog" (black racism) is.
> 
> I've looked at a few of the sites you list and what I saw looked like hysteria to me.


No doubt. I was also going to point out that the media is a lousy source of information, and they lie all the time. I don't know about racism, as far as a problem, but I think sexism is still very large in our society. 

A teacher once said to a kid in my class that he had it worst of any race and gender, he was a white male, which would make it much harder for him to get into schools and stuff, because of affirmitive action, and things like that. Well, it affirmitive action was done away with (illegal?) or is being done away with, but still I guess it's hardest for white males...in that sense. But in so many other ways it's still ridiculously sexist. I hate it, I really do, because I don't think we are male or female, we are all both male and female. I seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously, don't think there's much of a problem with reverse sexism or racism.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It seems to me that the concern is not so much about patriarchy as it is men feeling like men. For some reason, men must (at least think they) hold all the power to be real men. If a woman asserts herself then his manhood is threatened. Only men can have self respect or self determination according to todays patriarchy. I would say that real men are not threatened by a strong, intelligent, educated, capable, self-respecting woman. These qualities do not make a woman masculine, but merely human. Discrimination against others comes back to this. Some people feel threatened when other people are capable. It is easier to keep someone else down that to elevate yourself.


You have spoken well, but a bit stereotypically of males. For some, power is an issue, but I think the underlying issue is _respect_. With power generally comes respect. Men want to know that they're important, needed, admired, respected. Power is one way to generate that respect (from both men and women) but it is not necessarily the primary concern in a man's life. I would also question the idea that we can't handle an "assertive" woman; the term "assertive" is often used by both men and women to describe personal behavior that is actually more aggressive and even rude. There is a difference. A woman can be assertive, but if that assertiveness carries the attitude of "I don't need you - I'm capable of taking care of everything without you" - well, PC or not, I think men ultimately like to be depended upon - not because we like the power, but because it makes us feel necessary; we like "coming through" for the woman in our life. When "assertive" women let us know that we're unnecessary - that she can "come through" for herself with or without us, well, that's hard for us to take - just as a woman being told that she's not worth fighting for or pursuing would crush her.

Yes - there are cavemen out there who want power - but let's not paint all of us that way. As much as women like to say that men don't understand them, the same goes true for women's understanding of men. We both judge from a disadvantage of being (at our core) totally opposite. How can opposites truly understand each other?

----------


## motherhubbard

> As much as women like to say that men don't understand them, the same goes true for women's understanding of men. We both judge from a disadvantage of being (at our core) totally opposite.


I so agree with this! I have more I want to say in response to your last post, but I have a final today and need to study on that first. I'll have to get back to it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I so agree with this! I have more I want to say in response to your last post, but I have a final today and need to study on that first. I'll have to get back to it.



Good luck with your final exam  :Smile:

----------


## motherhubbard

I’m going to try to nutshell this so it won’t be pages long.

You are saying (in a nutshell) Men may like power, but they really like respect and to know that women need them. Assertive can equal aggressive or rude. Then there is this part that strikes me most


A woman can be assertive, but if that assertiveness carries the attitude of "I don't need you - I'm capable of taking care of everything without you" - well, PC or not, I think men ultimately like to be depended upon - not because we like the power, but because it makes us feel necessary; we like "coming through" for the woman in our life. When "assertive" women let us know that we're unnecessary - that she can "come through" for herself with or without us, well, that's hard for us to take 

I agree with this and it makes me mad. Women are expected to consider first how something may affect the ego of men. Denying who you are to coddle a man is woman’s greatest mistake. This is why high school girls don’t speak up in science and never let on when they can change the oil. It’s the idea that it is a woman’s duty to stroke egos, act subservient or weak, and say nice things regardless of what they really think, Smile pretty, cook clean and rush to the bedroom not because it may make her happy or whole but because it will please men. I’ve always been somewhat sexists believing in very traditional roles for men and women and I liked the idea of being “that” woman. During my marriage I’ve had to become independent. I have had to learn to not depend on others. As it is now I can take care of everything without my husband. I didn’t want it to be this way, but it is much more convenient for him. Should I put on an act? Should I rub his chest and look up into his face and with all sincerity say something about how he’s so strong and I just couldn’t have opened that pickle jar without him? I’m asking because I do and I hate it. It’s a lie and I do it just to stroke his ego. I think that if men want to feel indispensable they should make themselves so by working hard, not by restricting women which is often the case. Believe me, if my husband wanted to help out a little he could quickly become indispensable and elevated and nearly worshiped! But I have to act that way because he put his own socks in the drawer after I washed and matched them.

----------


## firefangled

> Im going to try to nutshell this so it wont be pages long.
> 
> You are saying (in a nutshell) Men may like power, but they really like respect and to know that women need them. Assertive can equal aggressive or rude. Then there is this part that strikes me most
> 
> 
> A woman can be assertive, but if that assertiveness carries the attitude of "I don't need you - I'm capable of taking care of everything without you" - well, PC or not, I think men ultimately like to be depended upon - not because we like the power, but because it makes us feel necessary; we like "coming through" for the woman in our life. When "assertive" women let us know that we're unnecessary - that she can "come through" for herself with or without us, well, that's hard for us to take 
> 
> I agree with this and it makes me mad. Women are expected to consider first how something may affect the ego of men. Denying who you are to coddle a man is womans greatest mistake. This is why high school girls dont speak up in science and never let on when they can change the oil. Its the idea that it is a womans duty to stroke egos, act subservient or weak, and say nice things regardless of what they really think, Smile pretty, cook clean and rush to the bedroom not because it may make her happy or whole but because it will please men. Ive always been somewhat sexists believing in very traditional roles for men and women and I liked the idea of being that woman. During my marriage Ive had to become independent. I have had to learn to not depend on others. As it is now I can take care of everything without my husband. I didnt want it to be this way, but it is much more convenient for him. Should I put on an act? Should I rub his chest and look up into his face and with all sincerity say something about how hes so strong and I just couldnt have opened that pickle jar without him? Im asking because I do and I hate it. Its a lie and I do it just to stroke his ego. I think that if men want to feel indispensable they should make themselves so by working hard, not by restricting women which is often the case. Believe me, if my husband wanted to help out a little he could quickly become indispensable and elevated and nearly worshiped! But I have to act that way because he put his own socks in the drawer after I washed and matched them.


Very nicely constructed nutshell, MH. 

I happen to be married to a very powerful woman. She is personnaly powerful and has always been since she was a teenager and she is in a very powerful position professionally. I have a certain personal power that has nothing to do with her as hers has nothing to do with me. I am so proud to know her, not to mention be married to her. 

Sometimes folks, a pickle jar is just a pickle jar. Open it and carry on. In America, the movements for equality have been perverted for everyone, women, various races, genders...It has all been perverted by three letters ISM. I have always said, if you want to be treated equally, don't let someone single you out...be equal. We have a day, or week, or month dedicated to just about every ism out there. How about Human Being days, 365 of them. Forget feminism, racism, sexism...it won't work that way. Go for why we are the same, not different and dwell on that.

Remember guys, you can't really win this stupid power game until you share your guts and blood and carry around another human for 9 months and then go through the exercise (I know, that's an understatement) of getting that person into the world. So give it up. It's stupid and what is thought of as power is not that any way. Real power is fragile, illusive, supple, flexible, nearly invisible, soft and quiet.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You are saying (in a nutshell) Men may like power, but they really like respect and to know that women need them. Assertive can equal aggressive or rude. Then there is this part that strikes me most


Correctly summarized.





> I agree with this and it makes me mad. Women are expected to consider first how something may affect the ego of men. Denying who you are to coddle a man is womans greatest mistake.


*sigh*

No - you are not "required" to do _anything_ in your marriage except keep your vows. (I'm going to discuss my comments within the context of marriage because my relationship with other women does not involve what I'm about to say - casual relationships have different dynamics than marriage does).

As I said, you don't _have_ to do anything to "coddle" us - just like we men don't _have_ to do _anything_ to "coddle" you (talk to you after sex, bring you flowers on Valentines Day, get up and feed the baby while you sleep, rub your back/feet after a hard day's work or in your 6th month of pregnancy). The idea that it's "coddling" to give your man something that means much to him is a clear sign of how deeply entrenced feminist ideology is within the minds of women - as if any "gift" of the sort I mentioned is some sort of "surrender" of "who a woman is." How is it "denying who you are" to make your man feel needed, important and necessary? You've equated this "coddling" with a violation of a woman's identity - and what identity would that be? Isn't it a violation of a man's identitiy to ask us to communicate with you more, to be more sensitive to your needs, to put the seat down? I hope my written tone isn't coming across as bugged as I am - but it's like we're supposed to "give" certain things that don't necessarily come easy for us to keep women happy, but any compromise on their part is some sort of violation of their essential identity?





> This is why high school girls dont speak up in science and never let on when they can change the oil. Its the idea that it is a womans duty to stroke egos, act subservient or weak, and say nice things regardless of what they really think, Smile pretty, cook clean and rush to the bedroom not because it may make her happy or whole but because it will please men.


This is why I put my comments within the context of marriage; if I had a daughter I would teach her to change her oil, how to buy a car and how to be independent - because she should be strong and independent; HOWEVER, I would also tell her how men are, because I also want her to have a fulfilling and happy marriage - and I think that when women ignore _how men_ are (just like what happens when men ignore _how women are_) that relationships start to develop tension and dissatisfaction. If a man deals with a woman as if she's another guy, things generally don't work well. Men are not very verbal; women are; how well would it work for a man to deal with his wife like he does with his male friends: "Oh hon, just get over it" (because guys can "just get over it" rather quickly).

My daughter would understand that she should be able to change her oil, but that it costs her nothing to ask her husband to do it because a) she avoids a messy task, b) she helps him feel important to her because he was able to "come through" and do something for her (because we men like doing things - it's how we express our love, not verbally (as women do much better)). There is nothing weak about letting your man do certain things for you that you're capable of doing.





> Ive always been somewhat sexists believing in very traditional roles for men and women and I liked the idea of being that woman. During my marriage Ive had to become independent. I have had to learn to not depend on others. As it is now I can take care of everything without my husband. I didnt want it to be this way, but it is much more convenient for him. Should I put on an act? Should I rub his chest and look up into his face and with all sincerity say something about how hes so strong and I just couldnt have opened that pickle jar without him?


Should you "put on an act"? Depends: is your relationship thriving in its current configuration? Does your husband seem happy and enjoy being around you? If yes, then keep things the way they are. But, just as an experiment (and this is a rhetorical question, mind you), what happens when you do all those things? What does his face do? How does he act? Have you ever tried that? Don't couples do things for each other that make the other feel good because they love each other? Am I sacrificing my maleness to stay awake after sex and talk to my wife and hold her softly - shouldn't I just roll over and snore cause I'm a guy and I've done my "job" and now I'm tired?




> Im asking because I do and I hate it. Its a lie and I do it just to stroke his ego. I think that if men want to feel indispensable they should make themselves so by working hard, not by restricting women which is often the case. Believe me, if my husband wanted to help out a little he could quickly become indispensable and elevated and nearly worshiped! But I have to act that way because he put his own socks in the drawer after I washed and matched them.


You and your husband are free to configure your relationship any way that works. I'm only suggesting something that I believe is fundamental in males that women - instead of learning how to use to create a happier relationship - wish to get angry about because their "independence" is more important to them than their relationship. I think that doing so kills a relationship - just as when a man puts his independence over his relationship with his wife it begins to suffer.

It's just my opinion, and I'm sorry you're unhappy. Don't do things that make yourself unhappy; my vision of marriage means that I do certain things whether I'm "into" them or not because it makes my wife happy; as well, there are a number of things I put up with because I've realized that this is how women are and it is unreasonable of me to expect her to be like me.

Thanks for responding.

----------


## NikolaiI

I don't think there is any necessary way to _how men are_. Just because some are sexist doesn't mean all are. Just because most are, doesn't mean all are. Why would you put limitations on her?- on her happiness? I am not speaking as an idealist, but I strongly believe you can be exceedingly happy in relationships without compromising your beliefs. Especially in today and future generations.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I don't think there is any necessary way to _how men are_. Just because some are sexist doesn't mean all are. Just because most are, doesn't mean all are. Why would you put limitations on her?- on her happiness? I am not speaking as an idealist, but I strongly believe you can be exceedingly happy in relationships without compromising your beliefs. Especially in today and future generations.


OK - now I'm bugged.

First, I speak in generalities - you're allowed to disagree. Men are performance-oriented individuals for the most part; as such, we like feeling needed, we like accomplishing things, and our innate protective nature is activated when we feel like our wife needs us. That's all I was saying. If you're different, great. Whether you like it or not, there are certain constants that are generally true for most men. Gender is not this wide open variable - certain things are generally predicatable.

Second, I strongly resent the charge of "sexist" - perhaps you ought to learn what the word actually means before you associate it with someone - because you are asking for a rather pointed confrontation when you do. Nothing I said indicated that men were better than women or that women were inferior to men. I said we're _different_. I suggest you be perfectly clear on the basis of making such an inflamatory charge in the future.

Third, I put no "limitations" on motherhubbard's "happiness." I'm quite clear that some couples have arrangements that they're quite happy with that I think I wouldn't be happy with. I never asked her to change.  I gave her my perspective on males. She's free to reject it - she's got one of her own and can draw her own conclusions if she wishes.

"Compromising beliefs"? What? I never asked anybody to do so - the "belief" that my personal independence and how I feel about myself as an independent being takes _priority_ over my marriage is a destructive attitude _IMO_- I think couples survive because they "love" each other - by that I don't mean they feel the "warmies" everytime that person walks into the room, but that they do what nourishes their partner and the relationship.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Im going to try to nutshell this so it wont be pages long.
> 
> You are saying (in a nutshell) Men may like power, but they really like respect and to know that women need them. Assertive can equal aggressive or rude. Then there is this part that strikes me most
> 
> 
> A woman can be assertive, but if that assertiveness carries the attitude of "I don't need you - I'm capable of taking care of everything without you" - well, PC or not, I think men ultimately like to be depended upon - not because we like the power, but because it makes us feel necessary; we like "coming through" for the woman in our life. When "assertive" women let us know that we're unnecessary - that she can "come through" for herself with or without us, well, that's hard for us to take 
> 
> I agree with this and it makes me mad. Women are expected to consider first how something may affect the ego of men.


I had a bit of an experience of this once, a little epiphany for me. I'd been having coffee with a woman, and as we got up to leave she gestured and said, "Don't forget your keys," which were lying on the table. "They're _my_ keys," I said (tactfully, I hope. "Please let me be responsible for them."

I do treasure it when a woman - or a male friend - expresses some caring for me; but if I ever thought it was owed to me, I hope I've long since left that behind me.

If the process of rubbing up against other people is what finally makes us human, marriage is certainly the graduate school, the one in which *every* attitude or value we were brought up with is up for reexamination and possible revision. 

People sdometime speak of wanting to be accepted as they are, of not wanting the other person in a relationship to change us, but if marriage doesn't change us what's the point of it? It then becomes a process of mutual baby-sitting. And sadly, society having been the way it was for so long, men more often get to be the babies and women the sitters.

----------


## NikolaiI

> OK - now I'm bugged.
> 
> First, I speak in generalities - you're allowed to disagree. Men are performance-oriented individuals for the most part; as such, we like feeling needed, we like accomplishing things, and our innate protective nature is activated when we feel like our wife needs us. That's all I was saying. If you're different, great. Whether you like it or not, there are certain constants that are generally true for most men. Gender is not this wide open variable - certain things are generally predicatable.
> 
> Second, I strongly resent the charge of "sexist" - perhaps you ought to learn what the word actually means before you associate it with someone - because you are asking for a rather pointed confrontation when you do. Nothing I said indicated that men were better than women or that women were inferior to men. I said we're _different_. I suggest you be perfectly clear on the basis of making such an inflamatory charge in the future.
> 
> Third, I put no "limitations" on motherhubbard's "happiness." I'm quite clear that some couples have arrangements that they're quite happy with that I think I wouldn't be happy with. I never asked her to change. I gave her my perspective on males. She's free to reject it - she's got one of her own and can draw her own conclusions if she wishes.
> 
> "Compromising beliefs"? What? I never asked anybody to do so - the "belief" that my personal independence and how I feel about myself as an independent being takes _priority_ over my marriage is a destructive attitude _IMO_- I think couples survive because they "love" each other - by that I don't mean they feel the "warmies" everytime that person walks into the room, but that they do what nourishes their partner and the relationship.


First, I didn't call you sexist, or anything like that. I have no idea where you got that, and also, I know well what sexist means. I looked it up just to make sure, and I do.

I thought you were saying that "how men are" was sexist. I guess you weren't, so it doesn't really apply. 

Ah, this is so tiring. I just meant, you don't have to compromise your beliefs, you can find someone who loves you as a person, and who has an open-minded view, or is willing to give up their beliefs, or whatever, or anything! I'm sorry you took so much offense, I didn't mean any of it personally. I wasn't calling you sexist. I thought you were basically calling men sexist, and I had a problem with that, and I don't think you should teach someone that people are a certain way, because some people are, and some people aren't. End of discussion, I hope.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> First, I didn't call you sexist, or anything like that. I have no idea where you got that, and also, I know well what sexist means. I looked it up just to make sure, and I do.


I spoke of "how men are" in terms of what it means to them to be counted on and you responded to the "how men are" statement by bringing in "sexism" - what was I supposed to assume except that you were referring to something I said?




> I thought you were saying that "how men are" was sexist. I guess you weren't, so it doesn't really apply.


No - nothing in my post even remotely hinted at chauvanism or male sexism.




> Ah, this is so tiring. I just meant, you don't have to compromise your beliefs, you can find someone who loves you as a person, and who has an open-minded view, or is willing to give up their beliefs, or whatever, or anything! I'm sorry you took so much offense, I didn't mean any of it personally. I wasn't calling you sexist. I thought you were basically calling men sexist, and I had a problem with that, and I don't think you should teach someone that people are a certain way, because some people are, and some people aren't. End of discussion, I hope.


I'm sorry if I sound really bothered, but I haven't any idea how anybody got sexism out of my comments about how I believe men to be.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I spoke of "how men are" in terms of what it means to them to be counted on and you responded to the "how men are" statement by bringing in "sexism" - what was I supposed to assume except that you were referring to something I said?


I never called you sexist.






> No - nothing in my post even remotely hinted at chauvanism or male sexism.


I'm sorry. I still disagree with you that people are necessarily a certain way, ever. Some are one way, others are another.






> I'm sorry if I sound really bothered, but I haven't any idea how anybody got sexism out of my comments about how I believe men to be.


That's okay, and I'm glad you're not sexist.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm sorry. I still disagree with you that people are necessarily a certain way, ever. Some are one way, others are another.


_People_ are unique and individual; _genders_ not always so; men all share certain characteristics _in general_ (as do women). There are always exceptions, but for the most part, men operate very similarly in terms of their gender (which is different from their _personality_ or _character_). If we didn't have certain characteristics, comedians would be out of business. Your average sitcom (especially those about couples) wouldn't make anybody laugh without certain "givens" in place about men and women.

----------


## Derringer

This reminds me of the Texan talking about 'the good ol' boys' in _Catch-22_.

----------


## blp

> _People_ are unique and individual; _genders_ not always so; men all share certain characteristics _in general_ (as do women). There are always exceptions, but for the most part, men operate very similarly in terms of their gender (which is different from their _personality_ or _character_). If we didn't have certain characteristics, comedians would be out of business. Your average sitcom (especially those about couples) wouldn't make anybody laugh without certain "givens" in place about men and women.


I think this is question that's still open to debate and, anyway, this kind of comedy's pretty cheap. My psychoanalyst thinks gender identity is something that's formed very early, but still done so by outside influences. I'm not sure what I think, except that, on the whole, when I see people conforming to preconceived ideas of masculinity or femininity, they do look like they're doing something learned and, in fact, being rather drably conformist. 


I remember, aged 6, starting at a new school. The teacher broke the ice by asking everyone their favourite colour. I said, with perfect honesty, purple. All the other boys said blue and all the girls said pink. I felt a bit like I was sitting a test where I was the only one who hadn't been given the correct answer. Not that I minded.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I think this is question that's still open to debate and, anyway, this kind of comedy's pretty cheap. My psychoanalyst thinks gender identity is something that's formed very early, but still done so by outside influences. I'm not sure what I think, except that, on the whole, when I see people conforming to preconceived ideas of masculinity or femininity, they do look like they're doing something learned and, in fact, being rather drably conformist. 
> 
> 
> I remember, aged 6, starting at a new school. The teacher broke the ice by asking everyone their favourite colour. I said, with perfect honesty, purple. All the other boys said blue and all the girls said pink. I felt a bit like I was sitting a test where I was the only one who hadn't been given the correct answer. Not that I minded.


We are hardwired to be different. A certain amount of social conditioning and family dynamics can alter or influence certain aspects of men and women (e.g. the "tomboy" or the "mama's boy") but gender is not culturally conferred. It can be culturally _contaminated_, but culture does not bestow our gender upon us. Men and women are what they are - and they do (by and large) share certain characteristics (color preference [a component of _personality_, not gender] not being one of them).

----------


## Granny5

> Remember guys, you can't really win this stupid power game until you share your guts and blood and carry around another human for 9 months and then go through the exercise (I know, that's an understatement) of getting that person into the world. So give it up. It's stupid and what is thought of as power is not that any way. Real power is fragile, illusive, supple, flexible, nearly invisible, soft and quiet.


Firefangled, you are amazing. Thank you for being the voice of reason.

----------


## motherhubbard

I second that, it was just what i expected to hear from you.

Red. I'm working on a response, but there was a lot to respond to. I'll try to get it posted this evening.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

I would only add that how can one have a daughter (as I do), good, beloved women friends (as I do),a mother, a sister, or women lovers (as I did), and _not_ be a feminist?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red. I'm working on a response, but there was a lot to respond to. I'll try to get it posted this evening.



Thank you - no rush.

And ignore the "I'm bugged" part of my post above - You gave an honest response to my posting and the least I owe you is a fair hearing. Please accept my apology for any terseness in my prior posting. No harm intended and I hope I have not discouraged you in responding to me. 

Sometimes I forget to put down the stress of the confrontational "Religious Forum" threads and it leaks into other discussions I'm having elsewhere. Sorry if any of that "dripped" on you.

----------


## motherhubbard

You were fine, I took the kids swimming and didn't get to spend too much time here. But, I’ve been working on this and have written pages and pages. I can’t really get it together so here is what I really want to say, with out necessarily responding to everything you said.

First of all, I was miffed at my husband when I wrote before. I don’t really know how to deal with that as it happens so rarely. In 15 years we have had less than ten arguments. We are generally very happy. In fact, I wish everyone could be as loving toward each other as we are. I do get annoyed with coddling him, but I realize that he coddles me in as well. The thing about that I would like to point out is that there is a huge difference in coddling and true appreciation. If my husband lets the hens out so that I can get a little extra sleep I truly appreciate that, but when he puts his plate on the counter after dinner and I tell him I really appreciate it it’s coddling. I would take the plate from the table because as a woman it is my job, but I don’t see why being a man means that you can’t put your plate in the dishwasher. This is of course an example and the best I can come up with right now.

I agree that couples make concessions for each other. But we do this out of love, not because of gender. However, many concessions are gender based. You must first understand that I live in an area where “libbers” and Hillary lovers don’t let it be known. It’s really a picture of the past, and not always the best part. Couples should make sacrifices for each other and do those special little things out of love, not necessarily out of obligation. What I see a lot of is women giving up something special to them because their husband expects them home when he gets there. I know women who cannot finish their degree because going to class would mean that husband would have to heat something in the microwave and watch the kids. This is beyond concession and is self sacrificing. 

What I am really opposed to is strict gender rules that often leave women in a bad spot. Today it is socially acceptable for a woman to work outside of the home. However, childcare and housework are still left in her charge. So the woman takes a job, but is still expected to have dinner ready and manage the enormous amount of things that come up with the kids. Even on the husband’s days off he is not responsible and shouldn’t be because that’s women’s work. He is the man and the head of the house and is not going to run the vacuum or heat up some hotdogs. It may not be like that in every area, but it really is in mine. If these circumstances were different men would be better husbands and fathers, women would be happier, and the family would operate better. Is that feminism or just humanity?

The idea of gender specific rolls are deeply entrenched. As for your daughter who can change her own oil if she wants, good luck with that. I don’t doubt in her ability to learn or your ability to teach. The problem comes from outside social conditioning. What does society teach your daughter about womanhood and sex appeal? Look at what teens look at, commercials, fashion magazines, movie stars. How many little girls play with Bratz dolls in this country? What message do these dolls send? There is a total social conditioning that goes on and people can’t help but learning the ropes. Regardless of what you say to encourage her, when a boy she likes makes a face because she knows more about oil changing than he does she will at the very least get a feeling in her stomach that will be remembered the next time she is in that situation. 

Then the standard in the general society must be considered. Women are often paid less for doing the same job as a man. Women who don’t look like the cover of a magazine are not as valuable, but when a man ages or gains weight it just fine. There are all kinds of derogatory remarks made about women from driving to holding positions of authority. If a woman looses her temper she’s a bad word, if a mad does it’s normal because that’s how men deal with things. I don’t know if the law has changed but it at least used to be that if a woman was raped and took the man to court her entire sexual past could be brought up, but his past was inadmissible. There is a total double standard. I’m not saying that all people are equal, but some are more equal. I’m saying that all people are human and have strong points and weaknesses. All people deserve to be treated fairly. Having a penis does not add to intellect or ability any more than breast do.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we all saw each other as people instead of only seeing gender, race, religion and the many other things that cause discord between people?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You were fine, I took the kids swimming and didn't get to spend too much time here. But, Ive been working on this and have written pages and pages. I cant really get it together so here is what I really want to say, with out necessarily responding to everything you said.


Thank you for taking the time to respond. You have said much of value worth commenting on.




> I do get annoyed with coddling him, but I realize that he coddles me in as well.


I agree; this was one of the points I was trying to get across - in a reasonably healthy relationship, this "coddling" should go both ways.




> The thing about that I would like to point out is that there is a huge difference in coddling and true appreciation.


This is true; but is it reasonable to ask that our spouse _always_ sincerely appreciate who we are and what we do? Look at our children: Aren't there times when we gush and "coo" over some "achievement" not because we truly appreciate what they've done, but because we want them to _feel_ good about what they've done - times when we express thankfulness not because we feel a sincere appreciation (like when the kids "make us breakfast" but destroy the kitchen in the process giving us an extra chore for the morning?) but rather because we know it's important to their sense of self and because we don't want to discourage them by being critical? You may respond that we're "adults" (and that is true), but I think that the need to be loved, appreciated, to feel important and "necessary" is very strong in all of us - no matter what age.




> If my husband lets the hens out so that I can get a little extra sleep I truly appreciate that, but when he puts his plate on the counter after dinner and I tell him I really appreciate it its coddling. I would take the plate from the table because as a woman it is my job, but I dont see why being a man means that you cant put your plate in the dishwasher. This is of course an example and the best I can come up with right now.


There are a number of ways to look at this (not all of them agreeable I'm sure):

1. One approach is to try and see the blessing: at _least_ he gets it to the counter; some men leave the table and the plate stays there waiting for the wife to deal with. (I know: I'm not telling you to accept this as legitimate - I'm just giving options, OK? Personally, I put my plates in the dishwasher and often my wife's as well - especially if she did the cooking.)

2. The other approach (though I'm sure there's more) would be to ask him to change the behavior - but how? Encouragement works better than nagging with most men. Perhaps the real question is "How big of a deal is it to you?"
Example: often on nights where I get home first and make dinner, I'll clean the kitchen and make dinner. I generally clean as I cook so the kitchen is neat when I finish the meal. My wife generally (because she's tired) will put her dishes in the sink. This annoys me to no end because the kitchen is CLEAN and it would take less than 10 seconds to clean the dish and put it in the dishwasher. Although I've brought up this fact during arguments (and we've had plenty throughout our 10 years...) I have realized that that is just how she does things. I could continue to be resentful about it or accept that that is a habit my wife has. My relationship with her is more important than the plate, so now I just rinse it off myself and put it away - why? Because I like the kitchen clean, and since I'm the one concerned about it, I'm just going to do it. Would I rather she did it? Yes; am I willing to go to war over it - no.




> I agree that couples make concessions for each other. But we do this out of love, not because of gender. However, many concessions are gender based.


The very point I wished to make: we "give" or "make concessions" because we love our spouse, and some of those concessions are due to our gender - because I think some of the things that each gender prefers or "needs" is due largely _because_ we're men and women, and because I think we're fundamentally different at our core, I believe that there are certain concessions we make for our spouses that we really cannot appreciate or understand (at least without considerable effort).




> You must first understand that I live in an area where libbers and Hillary lovers dont let it be known. Its really a picture of the past, and not always the best part. Couples should make sacrifices for each other and do those special little things out of love, not necessarily out of obligation.


Yes, but what do you mean by "love"? That term is the cause of many problems because it has such a wide-ranging use: I love vintage guitars; I love my dog; I love my wife. The word "love" in those three statements cannot (and should not) be equal. I mean something different (hopefully) in each case. I do many things for my wife because I love her - which doesn't mean I do them because they make me feel all warm inside; some of them bug me - but I see love as a conscious choice to do things for her that nourish our marriage (even though I'd prefer I didn't have to do them). I think partners do owe each other certain obligations, and that honoring those obligations is what cements the marriage for the long run; "love" (if defined as "I feel attracted to you and strongly affectionate towards you") is insufficient motivation because those _feelings_ come and go (sad to say).




> What I see a lot of is women giving up something special to them because their husband expects them home when he gets there. I know women who cannot finish their degree because going to class would mean that husband would have to heat something in the microwave and watch the kids. This is beyond concession and is self sacrificing.


What you're talking about though is not gender expectations but rather cultural or familial: the man who expects his wife home when he gets there is not expressing his "maleness" so much as he is a) the culture within which he was raised, or b) the family dynamics he grew up with and expects to carry on (either consciously or unconsciously). Your example of the wife sacrificing education because husband is slightly inconvenienced is wrong: a real man wants the best for his wife (like it says in Ephesians Chapter 5: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and _gave his life for her_." A lot of misguided Christian men like to quote the verse before which says "Wives submit to your husbands" but they often forget that men were told that this was a two way street: If you want her to respect your decisions, you'd best love her - and Christ gave his LIFE for the church. We men are asked to do the same. The cold/microwaved dinner I eat so my wife can pursue something of value to her is a much smaller price than sacrificing my very life).




> What I am really opposed to is strict gender rules that often leave women in a bad spot.


I agree totally. 




> Today it is socially acceptable for a woman to work outside of the home. However, childcare and housework are still left in her charge. So the woman takes a job, but is still expected to have dinner ready and manage the enormous amount of things that come up with the kids. Even on the husbands days off he is not responsible and shouldnt be because thats womens work. He is the man and the head of the house and is not going to run the vacuum or heat up some hotdogs. It may not be like that in every area, but it really is in mine. If these circumstances were different men would be better husbands and fathers, women would be happier, and the family would operate better. Is that feminism or just humanity?



y wife and I agreed that she would stay home and raise our children - a mutual decision, one instigated by both of us; I like having her home for the kids when they get home from school and I like feeling like the primary provider (one of those "guy things"). Unfortunately, we cannot afford to keep my wife home all week, so she does work two days a week. Even though she makes better money than I (she's a dental hygienist and I'm a high school teacher) we both like this arrangement. If she had to work full time, then I expect that my contributions to the house would have to increase. As it is, on days when she works, she gets home later than I and I make sure that I've got dinner ready and a clean house for her to come home to. I can't imagine sitting on the couch until 5:30 and telling her when she comes in the door "Hey, hon, I'm hungry - what's for dinner?" What's up with that attitude?




> The idea of gender specific rolls are deeply entrenched. As for your daughter who can change her own oil if she wants, good luck with that. I dont doubt in her ability to learn or your ability to teach.


Purely hypothetical - I've got three boys; but I have often wondered how I would bring up my daughter; since I teach high school I do pass on to my female students the things I would pass onto my daughter.




> The problem comes from outside social conditioning. What does society teach your daughter about womanhood and sex appeal? Look at what teens look at, commercials, fashion magazines, movie stars. How many little girls play with Bratz dolls in this country? What message do these dolls send? There is a total social conditioning that goes on and people cant help but learning the ropes. Regardless of what you say to encourage her, when a boy she likes makes a face because she knows more about oil changing than he does she will at the very least get a feeling in her stomach that will be remembered the next time she is in that situation.


I agree: culture sends girls the wrong message about who they are, their value and their relationships to men; one of the negative side effects of radical feminism (IMO) is that it has given girls the permission to be "equal" to males in negative ways: i.e. girls can now be as sexually irresponsible as men traditionally have been. That is not a positive benefit of feminism. The equality to be equally irresponsible is not an equality worth pursuing. At the risk of drawing some SERIOUS criticism, I'm going to quote Dr. Laura: as women go, so does morality - women set the "moral bar" of society. I agree: we men will take the easy way if it's present. I tell my high school girls that if they wish to hold out and have some standards (i.e. not be a slut) that they will have to endure some nights without dates - that's a reality primarily because of the girls out there who DO make it too easy for a guy to indulge his lower tendencies (both genders, by the way, have "lower tendencies"). I tell them that every girl they see on campus who's dressed like a streetwalker and promiscuous makes it a bit harder for them to hold the bar high because - if we men know that we're expected to "rise" to your standards, we'll do it; but if Sally over there will give it up for the price of a soda, why should I shave, put on a tie and seriously try to impress you who have standards about your worth? I'm not proud that men can be/are like this - but I'm more disturbed by women who've decided that the legacy of feminism is their "right" to behave similarly. Men take cues from women, and when they set the standard that we don't need to be much to get in bed with you - well, we're not going to argue to hard.

The other worry is that young girls will assume that this social conditioning is a message about their gender and who they are: it's not. Young girls give to young boys the kind of "compromises" or "concessions" that really should only occur within the context of a loving, equally-footed relationship (marriage).




> Then the standard in the general society must be considered. Women are often paid less for doing the same job as a man.


This is absolutely wrong, and one of the noble goals of feminism was/is to fix this and I fully support this; only performance/experience/qualifications should descriminate pay scale and nothing else.




> Women who dont look like the cover of a magazine are not as valuable, but when a man ages or gains weight it just fine.


This is changing but in an unforeseen way; now there are men's magazines (like _Men's Health_) that are now teaching men to be as obsessive about our looks as our culture has made women about theirs - filled with articles about "being a guy" (some of which is as silly as Cosmo's ideas about what it means to "be a woman") and pictures of guys with unbelievable muscles and wash-board abs that the rest of us middle-aged guys look at and go "yeah, right." Here's an interesting article that I came across dealing with this trend: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...30/ai_20588852




> There are all kinds of derogatory remarks made about women from driving to holding positions of authority.


This is wrong and could be due to either a) immaturity, or b) men's fears that their "necessary-ness" becomes threatened by powerful women who don't need/want them - or both.




> If a woman looses her temper shes a bad word, if a mad does its normal because thats how men deal with things. I dont know if the law has changed but it at least used to be that if a woman was raped and took the man to court her entire sexual past could be brought up, but his past was inadmissible. There is a total double standard. Im not saying that all people are equal, but some are more equal. Im saying that all people are human and have strong points and weaknesses. All people deserve to be treated fairly. Having a penis does not add to intellect or ability any more than breast do.


There are double-standards out there - and I agree with what you've said. We should be treated equally and considered equally - but that "equality" doesn't - in my mind - mean that we can or should expect the other gender to behave and "need" like we do; women tend to be relational and process their feelings verbally - guys don't. But if we're to get along, then I need to learn how to listen and be considerate (even if what I'd really like to do is veg out in front of the TV after a hard days work); that's a "concession" I do because I love my wife - but I mean "love" as _choice_ to do what is _right for my marriage_ - not "love" as in "It feels really good to hear about the many details of your day, hon" and for women to want their men to be happy about that is IMO unreasonable, just as it's unreasonable for me to expect my wife to be thrilled with my guy tendencies to want loud, fast "toys" to play with. In both cases, we concede and give in order to nourish our love - not because it necessarily makes us feel better - but guess what? Very often when I choose to serve my wife, I DO end up feeling better.




> Wouldnt it be nice if we all saw each other as people instead of only seeing gender, race, religion and the many other things that cause discord between people?


Yes, absolutely: but I think the secret to men and women (specifically married ones) really growing together is to realize and accept that we're different and that by working with those differences (instead of demanding that our spouse be a copy of us [just without the penis or breasts that we have]) we can create a wonderful relationship. I sometimes wonder how much damage has been caused by the incorrect idea tha gender is a social construct and that we are the "same" and the countless couples who pretended this and found dissatisfaction and discouragement because they were trying to relate to each other are identical beings (with different plumbing configurations) as opposed to two uniquely different beings with separate needs, desires, predispositions and perspectives.

Thanks for your well-thought-out response. A pleasure to read - and I agree with your thoughtful ideas on this topic. I believe we are (for the most part) in agreement.

----------


## Noisms

> Yes, absolutely: but I think the secret to men and women (specifically married ones) really growing together is to realize and accept that we're different and that by working with those differences (instead of demanding that our spouse be a copy of us [just without the penis or breasts that we have]) we can create a wonderful relationship. I sometimes wonder how much damage has been caused by the incorrect idea tha gender is a social construct and that we are the "same" and the countless couples who pretended this and found dissatisfaction and discouragement because they were trying to relate to each other are identical beings (with different plumbing configurations) as opposed to two uniquely different beings with separate needs, desires, predispositions and perspectives.
> 
> Thanks for your well-thought-out response. A pleasure to read - and I agree with your thoughtful ideas on this topic. I believe we are (for the most part) in agreement.


(Just sticking my oar in.) 

Anyone interested in reading a thorough, very well argued, well thought out, and entertaining demolition of the idea that men and women are the "same" and that gender is a social construct should check out _The Blank Slate_ by Steven Pinker. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, it is certainly food for thought, and he well demonstrates how the debate is often not about science but about politics. His dissection of the consequences of discounting genetic difference between men and women is spot on: it can often have the effect of making women feel inadequate for taking on roles they enjoy and are well-adapted for (homemaking, teaching, nursing) rather than becoming high-powered businesswomen or pilots or mechanics like "they should" according to the rules of absolute sameness and equality.

----------


## Noisms

> Wouldnt it be nice if we all saw each other as people instead of only seeing gender, race, religion and the many other things that cause discord between people?


Forgive me for sticking my oar in again. I'd just like to say that I'm not sure I would like to live in a world where we just saw people as people. Rather, I'd like to live in a world where people saw each other as men, women, children, Muslims, Christians, or whatever, and respected what those categories mean and the fact that those categories are not unequal or binding ones. Acknowledgement of diversity and difference doesn't have to be a source of discord if we don't allow it to be.

----------


## motherhubbard

> Forgive me for sticking my oar in again. I'd just like to say that I'm not sure I would like to live in a world where we just saw people as people. Rather, I'd like to live in a world where people saw each other as men, women, children, Muslims, Christians, or whatever, and respected what those categories mean and the fact that those categories are not unequal or binding ones. Acknowledgement of diversity and difference doesn't have to be a source of discord if we don't allow it to be.


I was in no way implying that we be blind to our differences, but that we view each others differences as strengths. I think often people will put a label on someone and that person becomes the label and is no longer human. We are a world nearing 7 billion individuals. Not every religious person is a religious fanatic, not every atheist is a bitter anti-god cynic, not every man is a chauvinist, but when we hear and see so much of one or two people with loud voices speaking for a group that did not ask them to represent it can be hard recognize individuals. When I say that people should see each other as human I mean that we should see everyone as having the same needs, rights, and value as ourselves.

----------


## Noisms

> I was in no way implying that we be blind to our differences, but that we view each others differences as strengths. I think often people will put a label on someone and that person becomes the label and is no longer human. We are a world nearing 7 billion individuals. Not every religious person is a religious fanatic, not every atheist is a bitter anti-god cynic, not every man is a chauvinist, but when we hear and see so much of one or two people with loud voices speaking for a group that did not ask them to represent it can be hard recognize individuals. When I say that people should see each other as human I mean that we should see everyone as having the same needs, rights, and value as ourselves.


Sure, and that's exactly what I was arguing too. It's why I see the idea that men and women are exactly the same other than the way they're socialised to be deeply unhelpful. The _genetic_differences between men and women are that they both have a separate set of strengths.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Noism said:<it can often have the effect of making women feel inadequate for taking on roles they enjoy and are well-adapted for (homemaking, teaching, nursing) rather than becoming high-powered businesswomen or pilots or mechanics like "they should" according to the rules of absolute sameness and equality.>

In what way are women "well-adapted for (homemaking, teaching, nursing)" as opposed to men? In what way is anyone, whether man or woman, well-adapted for being an airline pilot? It seems to me that the phrase you use "high-powered" is exactly why many men dislike women following their traditional professions. Many men can't handle the idea of women having power, after all, men aren't very well adapted to it. Furthermore, religious men especially equate power with masculinity and the male godhead. It's about time such people grew up and opened their eyes to the real world.

----------


## Noisms

> In what way are women "well-adapted for (homemaking, teaching, nursing)" as opposed to men? In what way is anyone, whether man or woman, well-adapted for being an airline pilot?


There are a whole host of biological reasons. To cite one, men tend to be better at focusing their vision than women. However, women's vision is generally wider than men's and better at spotting details at the periphery. This makes women rather better at work that requires the monitoring of a group of children, and it makes men rather better at work that requires extremely accurate controlled vision (like being a pilot). [There are lots of other reasons; that one should serve as a decent example.] That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of women who would make good pilots, or plenty of men who would make good nursery school teachers. It's just that we should expect the numbers of men and women in those careers to reflect biological realities.




> It seems to me that the phrase you use "high-powered" is exactly why many men dislike women following their traditional professions. Many men can't handle the idea of women having power, after all, men aren't very well adapted to it. Furthermore, religious men especially equate power with masculinity and the male godhead. It's about time such people grew up and opened their eyes to the real world.


Well, I agree. Men should be better at handling the idea of women having power. But that doesn't mean we should expect the same amount of women as men to enjoy being "high powered" just because the two sexes should be exactly the same in all things.

----------


## Granny5

> There are a whole host of biological reasons. To cite one, men tend to be better at focusing their vision than women. However, women's vision is generally wider than men's and better at spotting details at the periphery. This makes women rather better at work that requires the monitoring of a group of children, and it makes men rather better at work that requires extremely accurate controlled vision (like being a pilot). [There are lots of other reasons; that one should serve as a decent example.] That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of women who would make good pilots, or plenty of men who would make good nursery school teachers. It's just that we should expect the numbers of men and women in those careers to reflect biological realities.
> 
> Where I'm from, that kind of thinking is against the law. I do what was considered a man's job 20 years ago, and I do it better than a lot of men.
> I know women who are excellent at traditional "manly" jobs. I know a lot of men who excell at traditional "sissy" jobs. We are all different whether we are male or female. Our careers should reflect our strenghts, not our gender.
> 
> Well, I agree. Men should be better at handling the idea of women having power. But that doesn't mean we should expect the same amount of women as men to enjoy being "high powered" just because the two sexes should be exactly the same in all things.


Women in "high powered" jobs have to work harder, be nicer, and watch their backs more than men. If they succeed, it's because they outwitted the men trying to get their job.

----------


## Noisms

> Women in "high powered" jobs have to work harder, be nicer, and watch their backs more than men. If they succeed, it's because they outwitted the men trying to get their job.


Again, I agree. But again, that doesn't mean we should expect 50% of people who are in high-powered jobs to be women.

----------


## Granny5

> Again, I agree. But again, that doesn't mean we should expect 50% of people who are in high-powered jobs to be women.


I think we should expect the best qualified people to be in whatever job they are best qualified for whether they are male or female. Nothing will ever be equal until we stop looking at gender, stop trying to make amends for the past by putting unqualified women into postitions just because they are female. But to say I would be best at watching or teaching children just because I'm female is just what everyone is trying to make amends for.

----------


## Noisms

> I think we should expect the best qualified people to be in whatever job they are best qualified for whether they are male or female. Nothing will ever be equal until we stop looking at gender, stop trying to make amends for the past by putting unqualified women into postitions just because they are female. But to say I would be best at watching or teaching children just because I'm female is just what everyone is trying to make amends for.


I'm not saying "you would be best at watching or teaching children just because you're female." I'm saying that it is a fact of our biology that generally speaking, women will tend to perform better than men in, and be more attracted than men to, jobs in which they watch or teach children. That's not the same as saying all women are better than men at teaching or watching over children.

It also doesn't mean anybody should be forced to do anything, it and it doesn't mean anybody shouldn't be allowed to do the job they want to do.

I also disagree that "nothing will be equal until we stop looking at gender". I think a proper knowledge of gender is exactly what will help us to become equal.

----------


## Granny5

> I also disagree that "nothing will be equal until we stop looking at gender". I think a proper knowledge of gender is exactly what will help us to become equal.


Your opinion is valid for you because you have not had the experience of being female. My opinion is valid for me because I have had that experience and have been, up until just a few years ago, held to traditional "female" jobs. Now thanks to women before me being brave enough to buck the system, I have a career that is suited to my abilities with the possibilities of moving up. I also make as much or more than my male counterparts based on job performance. In the past it was considered that a woman's income was secondary and that men, the head of the households, should be paid more for the same or even lesser jobs. I am very proud that my granddaughters won't have to fight the same battles that I have to fight. Their options are as varied as their brothers are.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Your opinion is valid for you because you have not had the experience of being female. My opinion is valid for me because I have had that experience and have been, up until just a few years ago, held to traditional "female" jobs. Now thanks to women before me being brave enough to buck the system, I have a career that is suited to my abilities with the possibilities of moving up. I also make as much or more than my male counterparts based on job performance. In the past it was considered that a woman's income was secondary and that men, the head of the households, should be paid more for the same or even lesser jobs. I am very proud that my granddaughters won't have to fight the same battles that I have to fight. Their options are as varied as their brothers are.


If I may: 

Noisms' point is not that you should be limited to certain jobs but that our biological makeup as men and women make certain tasks easier for us to do. That is reality. I think radical feminism made a fatal mistake in peddling the idea that gender was irrelevant in terms of what kind of jobs we're best suited to do; this doesn't mean that a woman can't do the same jobs as a man; it simply means that her innate skills as a woman allow her to do some jobs better, with more competency or ease, than a man. I find that many women are quick to point out their "superior" areas to men: their ability to multi-task, their verbal ability, their intuitive grasp of relationships and complex thinking (both sides of the brain at once); however, these same women don't like to hear that there are certain things that men are generally better at: single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude; ability to "compartmentalize." 

We're different - that doesn't mean that a woman can't join the army and kill people if she wants to - but will her biology allow her to do this as effectively, easily and competently as a man can be trained to do? Will her different psyche process killing like a man's and will she suffer the same trauma, less, or more than a man? I don't suggest she can't: I ask a hypothetical question. Many women will adamantly deny that a man can be as effective a "mother" as a female - but they will often deny that a man can take their place in _anything_ (hence the increasing numbers of women who decide to have a child without a father). I'm not sure how many men out there think the same way: "I want a child, but that child doesn't need a mother" - _what?_

Either way, women should be allowed the same opportunities as men - but my question stands: should they really _want_ the all of the same ones and are they equally suited for the task? Should men _want_ equal access to all jobs that traditionally belong to women and are they equal to the task?

----------


## jon1jt

> If I may: 
> 
> Noisms' point is not that you should be limited to certain jobs but that our biological makeup as men and women make certain tasks easier for us to do. That is reality. I think radical feminism made a fatal mistake in peddling the idea that gender was irrelevant in terms of what kind of jobs we're best suited to do; this doesn't mean that a woman can't do the same jobs as a man; it simply means that her innate skills as a woman allow her to do some jobs better, with more competency or ease, than a man. I find that many women are quick to point out their "superior" areas to men: their ability to multi-task, their verbal ability, their intuitive grasp of relationships and complex thinking (both sides of the brain at once); however, these same women don't like to hear that there are certain things that men are generally better at: single-minded focus; *aggressive determination*; competitive attitude; ability to "compartmentalize." 
> 
> We're different - that doesn't mean that a woman can't join the army and kill people if she wants to - but will her biology allow her to do this as effectively, easily and competently as a man can be trained to do? Will her different *psyche process* killing like a man's and will she suffer the same trauma, less, or more than a man? I don't suggest she can't: I ask a hypothetical question. Many women will adamantly deny that a man can be as effective a "mother" as a female - but they will often deny that a man can take their place in _anything_ (hence the increasing numbers of women who decide to have a child without a father). I'm not sure how many men out there think the same way: "I want a child, but that child doesn't need a mother" - _what?_
> 
> Either way, women should be allowed the same opportunities as men - but my question stands: should they really _want_ the all of the same ones and are they equally suited for the task? Should men _want_ equal access to all jobs that traditionally belong to women and are they equal to the task?


red, i'm just curious, what on earth do you mean when you say, "aggressive determination?" and psyche process, what are we talking about here, a psyche process for women, a psyche process for men? fill me in. thanks.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I agree: culture sends girls the wrong message about who they are, their value and their relationships to men; one of the negative side effects of radical feminism (IMO) is that it has given girls the permission to be "equal" to males in negative ways: i.e. girls can now be as sexually irresponsible as men traditionally have been. That is not a positive benefit of feminism. The equality to be equally irresponsible is not an equality worth pursuing.


hey, for once, I agree with you, Red. wonders will never cease  :Smile:  I'm quite confident though that the agreeing/agreement(?) will cease once I've read the rest of your post  :Wink:   :Tongue:  *no offense*

----------


## Granny5

"Noisms' point is not that you should be limited to certain jobs but that our biological makeup as men and women make certain tasks easier for us to do. That is reality. I think radical feminism made a fatal mistake in peddling the idea that gender was irrelevant in terms of what kind of jobs we're best suited to do; this doesn't mean that a woman can't do the same jobs as a man; it simply means that her innate skills as a woman allow her to do some jobs better, with more competency or ease, than a man. I find that many women are quick to point out their "superior" areas to men: their ability to multi-task, their verbal ability, their intuitive grasp of relationships and complex thinking (both sides of the brain at once); however, these same women don't like to hear that there are certain things that men are generally better at: single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude; ability to "compartmentalize." "

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your points because I was raised with 6 brothers. I was expected to work and hard do as much as they were. I made sure I my grades were as good or better than theirs, that I was as good at baseball as they were and I could hold my own in a fight (single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude) and that I was still a girl (compartmentalize). And nothing changed as we grew older that I can recall.


"We're different - that doesn't mean that a woman can't join the army and kill people if she wants to - but will her biology allow her to do this as effectively, easily and competently as a man can be trained to do? Will her different psyche process killing like a man's and will she suffer the same trauma, less, or more than a man? I don't suggest she can't: I ask a hypothetical question. Many women will adamantly deny that a man can be as effective a "mother" as a female - but they will often deny that a man can take their place in anything (hence the increasing numbers of women who decide to have a child without a father). I'm not sure how many men out there think the same way: "I want a child, but that child doesn't need a mother" - what?"

We are different -- as humans. I have two brothers that raised their children on their own from the time the kids were very little and they did a pretty good job of it. My husband is at least as good at "mothering" our children as I am and I am as good at "fathering" as he is. I had two brothers that served in Vietman during the war. Our Mother always said that if they really wanted to win that war they would allow women into combat and draft me. Could I kill in combat? Without blinking an eye. Would I suffer? Yes. But so have my brothers. Would I suffer any more trama than my brothers? It would be hard to imagine suffering more than one of them has suffered. That's the price our government is willing to pay for war. I think that would be determined by the person, not the gender.
I know many single parents, both male and female. I don't know that they chose to be single parents but that is how it's worked out and like two parent familes, they do the best they can. They have extended familes and friends who help and offer guidance, just like my husband and I had. I don't see why a man can't raise a child as well as a woman. 

"Either way, women should be allowed the same opportunities as men - but my question stands: should they really want the all of the same ones and are they equally suited for the task? Should men want equal access to all jobs that traditionally belong to women and are they equal to the task?"

Why not? If a man want to do the jobs that men have traditionally labeled as belonging to women, why not? Why wouldn't they be equal to the task? The jobs that traditionally "belong" to women have traditionally been jobs that men didn't want or ones that men thought were beneath them. Remember, it was once considered un-womanly to write and men were considered to be the only gender fit to teach and it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed into med school or law school just because they were women.
I think your arguements are very close to what was used to deny equality for black men and women. Were they physically and mentally fit to do the same jobs as white men? It's just as wrong to feel that way about women as it was to feel that way about people of color.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Why not? If a man want to do the jobs that men have traditionally labeled as belonging to women, why not? Why wouldn't they be equal to the task? The jobs that traditionally "belong" to women have traditionally been jobs that men didn't want or ones that men thought were beneath them. Remember, it was once considered un-womanly to write and men were considered to be the only gender fit to teach and it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed into med school or law school just because they were women.
> I think your arguements are very close to what was used to deny equality for black men and women. Were they physically and mentally fit to do the same jobs as white men? It's just as wrong to feel that way about women as it was to feel that way about people of color.


in fact, there's a serious lack of male teaching and nursing staff, due to what is sometimes called the "feminization of education". this means that today's boys are tought mainly by women who don't really know what boys need. they don't have any male role models (seeing as their fathers spend most of their time at work), unless they have a grandpa who looks after them once in a while.
today, it's actually boys (not girls) who are discriminated against. girls get better marks, are more ambitious, hard-working etc than boys.. they don't have any problem sitting still for an hour or two because that's how they've been taught to behave... boys are more noisy and need to mover around more. but female teachers don't understand that's part of their "natural" development and unconsciously try to raise them as girls...
plus there is no role model for boys, seeing as the traditional super-macho gender role has become obsolete, but there's no new one to take its place and not enough male role models (fathers, teachers etc)...
so boys have more behavioural problems, get poor marks, are disadvantaged by the school system....

don't get me wrong, I'm talking about _boys_ not _men_.. girls might be more ambitious and hard-working or get better grades, but once women have reached a certain status, they still hit the glass ceiling

----------


## Pensive

> "Noisms' point is not that you should be limited to certain jobs but that our biological makeup as men and women make certain tasks easier for us to do. That is reality. I think radical feminism made a fatal mistake in peddling the idea that gender was irrelevant in terms of what kind of jobs we're best suited to do; this doesn't mean that a woman can't do the same jobs as a man; it simply means that her innate skills as a woman allow her to do some jobs better, with more competency or ease, than a man. I find that many women are quick to point out their "superior" areas to men: their ability to multi-task, their verbal ability, their intuitive grasp of relationships and complex thinking (both sides of the brain at once); however, these same women don't like to hear that there are certain things that men are generally better at: single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude; ability to "compartmentalize." "
> 
> I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your points because I was raised with 6 brothers. I was expected to work and hard do as much as they were. I made sure I my grades were as good or better than theirs, that I was as good at baseball as they were and I could hold my own in a fight (single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude) and that I was still a girl (compartmentalize). And nothing changed as we grew older that I can recall.
> 
> 
> "We're different - that doesn't mean that a woman can't join the army and kill people if she wants to - but will her biology allow her to do this as effectively, easily and competently as a man can be trained to do? Will her different psyche process killing like a man's and will she suffer the same trauma, less, or more than a man? I don't suggest she can't: I ask a hypothetical question. Many women will adamantly deny that a man can be as effective a "mother" as a female - but they will often deny that a man can take their place in anything (hence the increasing numbers of women who decide to have a child without a father). I'm not sure how many men out there think the same way: "I want a child, but that child doesn't need a mother" - what?"
> 
> We are different -- as humans. I have two brothers that raised their children on their own from the time the kids were very little and they did a pretty good job of it. My husband is at least as good at "mothering" our children as I am and I am as good at "fathering" as he is. I had two brothers that served in Vietman during the war. Our Mother always said that if they really wanted to win that war they would allow women into combat and draft me. Could I kill in combat? Without blinking an eye. Would I suffer? Yes. But so have my brothers. Would I suffer any more trama than my brothers? It would be hard to imagine suffering more than one of them has suffered. That's the price our government is willing to pay for war. I think that would be determined by the person, not the gender.
> I know many single parents, both male and female. I don't know that they chose to be single parents but that is how it's worked out and like two parent familes, they do the best they can. They have extended familes and friends who help and offer guidance, just like my husband and I had. I don't see why a man can't raise a child as well as a woman. 
> ...


I whole-heartedly support you here, Granny5! It just reminds me of George Eliot how she was forced to adopt a manly name because at that time a woman writer was not much acceptable in the sociaty. I have seen extremely talented women not being able to do a job because their husbands didn't like them working. And their arguments for it are extremely silly. Why can't a woman who got the highest marks in professional medical studies (amongst all boys and girls), do job as a doctor? 

Another thing that annoys me is the practice of sending boys to a better school than girls. I know many girls even polish themselves in those schools where the teachers can't even teach well. But I believe if they would be given the same studying conditions, it would be better. 

Oh well, this practice is also getting less now a days and I am glad for that!

----------


## Noisms

> I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your points because I was raised with 6 brothers. I was expected to work and hard do as much as they were. I made sure I my grades were as good or better than theirs, that I was as good at baseball as they were and I could hold my own in a fight (single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude) and that I was still a girl (compartmentalize). And nothing changed as we grew older that I can recall.


I can only reiterate: this isn't about you. It isn't about any specific woman. Everybody is different. You're you, and you're free to be how you want to be and do what you want to do, just as it should be. But the _law of averages_ should tell us that a given job is likely to contain more or less women or men based on what it entails. That's all. 




> We are different -- as humans. I have two brothers that raised their children on their own from the time the kids were very little and they did a pretty good job of it. My husband is at least as good at "mothering" our children as I am and I am as good at "fathering" as he is. I had two brothers that served in Vietman during the war. Our Mother always said that if they really wanted to win that war they would allow women into combat and draft me. Could I kill in combat? Without blinking an eye. Would I suffer? Yes. But so have my brothers. Would I suffer any more trama than my brothers? It would be hard to imagine suffering more than one of them has suffered. That's the price our government is willing to pay for war. I think that would be determined by the person, not the gender.
> 
> I know many single parents, both male and female. I don't know that they chose to be single parents but that is how it's worked out and like two parent familes, they do the best they can. They have extended familes and friends who help and offer guidance, just like my husband and I had. I don't see why a man can't raise a child as well as a woman.


Again, this isn't about your specific example, or about some people you know who buck the trend. It's about making generalizations. Generally speaking, men are more suited to fighting. Why? Generally, they have more testosterone than women do and therefore are stronger, tougher and more aggressive. That's biology. It doesn't mean that certain specific women out there aren't strong, tough or aggressive enough to be in the army, and it doesn't mean that women should be denied the chance of joining the army just because they're a woman. But it means the number of women in the army will be fewer than the number of men. And vice versa when it comes to single parents and child care. 




> Why not? If a man want to do the jobs that men have traditionally labeled as belonging to women, why not? Why wouldn't they be equal to the task? The jobs that traditionally "belong" to women have traditionally been jobs that men didn't want or ones that men thought were beneath them. Remember, it was once considered un-womanly to write and men were considered to be the only gender fit to teach and it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed into med school or law school just because they were women.


As I've already said, it's important to change people's attitudes about what jobs are valuable and what jobs aren't. Jobs that women are likely to excel at because of their biology should not be belittled. Feminine and masculine roles are equally important.

Again, this isn't about denying anybody the chance to apply for a job they want to apply for, and nor is it about saying that men and women can't perform in the same jobs equally. We're saying that expecting all jobs to be 50/50 men and women is reductive and unrealistic. That's all.




> I think your arguements are very close to what was used to deny equality for black men and women. Were they physically and mentally fit to do the same jobs as white men? It's just as wrong to feel that way about women as it was to feel that way about people of color.


I think this is very confused. In terms of biology, racial difference is so tiny as to be non-existent. I have more in common, genetically, with a given black man of my same height than I do with a given white man who is taller than me. And there is a far, far bigger difference biologically between me and a given woman of my same height! 

For the umpteenth time, though, we're not denying equality for anyone. In fact, if I can speak for Red, what we're saying is that the obsession with all men and women being the _same_, with the _same_ skill sets, is likely to work against equality - because if you artificially inflate the number of female soldiers to 50% of the army, and artificially inflate the number of male midwifes to 50% of the number in all hospitals, you will be denying a larger number of men the chance to be in the army, and you will be denying a larger number of women the chance to be midwifes. 

Women should be allowed to be in the army if they're good enough and want to enter. Men should be allowed to be midwifes if they're good enough and want to do it. But the numbers are not likely to be large, all things being equal. That's all.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Again, this isn't about your specific example, or about some people you know who buck the trend. It's about making generalizations. Generally speaking, men are more suited to fighting. Why? Generally, they have more testosterone than women do and therefore are stronger, tougher and more aggressive. That's biology.


yep, but there's more to fighting than biology. how much physical strength does it take to pull the trigger of a (semi-) automatic gun? 
how much strength do you need in single-combat? any old granny (no pun intended Granny5) can lay out a man three times her weight if she knows martial arts

before men are sent to war they need to be desensitized to violence... they need to be brainwashed into believing that the enemy is sub-human and inferior, otherwise killing people wouldn't come naturallyto them.
maybe men are a bit easier to desensitize than women? I don't know

----------


## Redzeppelin

> red, i'm just curious, what on earth do you mean when you say, "aggressive determination?" and psyche process, what are we talking about here, a psyche process for women, a psyche process for men? fill me in. thanks.


Good question - my terminology is imprecise. Guys are more aggressive and pursue things (IMO) with a higher level of focused determination than women (IN GENERAL). Sometimes this quality is derided by culture, but this quality has its values (check out your average war story). It is not that women are incapable of the same, but I think men are _wired_ this way.

Our psyche's are different - and my primary example of the killing is based on the idea of how men and women think. Men tend to compartmentalize (hence their ability to do one thing at a time well) while women tend to synthesize (hence their ability to multi-task); one of the primary differences between men and women is that women tend to connect together the various threads of their lives while men tend to be dissassociative - we can "bury" stuff and be done with it - with many women this is not so. 

As such, I believe that war and killing does more violence to a woman's psyche because of her innate synthesizing nature - everything in her life connects to everything else. When a man experiences trauma, he can "compartmentalize" it - cut it off from the rest of his life (which is not to suggest that it doesn't effect him); in this way, he "quarantines" a deadly poison (because I think war does terrible things to people's emotions and psyches). But for women - is this dangerous poison as easily contained? I believe that the female's tendency to connect all together makes it more difficult for her to "contain" this poison. To me, that means that she may pay a higher price for the equality to kill like a man. I expect this view will not be met with universal "huzzahs".




> I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your points because I was raised with 6 brothers. I was expected to work and hard do as much as they were. I made sure I my grades were as good or better than theirs, that I was as good at baseball as they were and I could hold my own in a fight (single-minded focus; aggressive determination; competitive attitude) and that I was still a girl (compartmentalize). And nothing changed as we grew older that I can recall.


I'm speaking less of what men and women can _learn_ to do and more of what their gender naturally allows them to do better, easier, or more intuitively than the other gender.





> We are different -- as humans. I have two brothers that raised their children on their own from the time the kids were very little and they did a pretty good job of it. My husband is at least as good at "mothering" our children as I am and I am as good at "fathering" as he is. I had two brothers that served in Vietman during the war. Our Mother always said that if they really wanted to win that war they would allow women into combat and draft me. Could I kill in combat? Without blinking an eye. Would I suffer? Yes. But so have my brothers. Would I suffer any more trama than my brothers? It would be hard to imagine suffering more than one of them has suffered. That's the price our government is willing to pay for war. I think that would be determined by the person, not the gender.
> I know many single parents, both male and female. I don't know that they chose to be single parents but that is how it's worked out and like two parent familes, they do the best they can. They have extended familes and friends who help and offer guidance, just like my husband and I had. I don't see why a man can't raise a child as well as a woman.


As I have said - it is not that either gender cannot do an equally good job as the other - it has to do with what natural advantages and deficiencies we possess as males and females. Women are more relational than men - that is a fact. Men are more aggressive than women - that is a fact. Those two facts mean that there are certain things that women do better than men and things men do better than women _naturally_; can we learn to do what the other gender can do naturally and intuitively? Yes - I think so.




> Why not? If a man want to do the jobs that men have traditionally labeled as belonging to women, why not? Why wouldn't they be equal to the task? The jobs that traditionally "belong" to women have traditionally been jobs that men didn't want or ones that men thought were beneath them. Remember, it was once considered un-womanly to write and men were considered to be the only gender fit to teach and it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed into med school or law school just because they were women.


Once again: I did not say they shouldn't get the jobs they want - I simply asked if men and women should want jobs that require things that they do not necessarily possess the innate qualities to excell at. You are correct that many "female jobs" were jobs men didn't want - but then again, is it not even remotely possible that some of those jobs were tasks that women were clearly better at? 




> I think your arguements are very close to what was used to deny equality for black men and women. Were they physically and mentally fit to do the same jobs as white men? It's just as wrong to feel that way about women as it was to feel that way about people of color.


At the risk of sounding like I want to fight (I don't) I will suggest that you are not understanding my argument; I've made it clear more than once that I'm not suggesting that women be denied equal access to any career or job they would like to pursue (and this is true for men as well). Likewise, I am not arguing that women are unsuitable for certain jobs. I am simply asserting that Noisms point is valid: there are certain things men do better than women and women do better than men - and, to be honest (and at the risk of drawing serious ire from the radical feminists in the crowd) it seems that almost any suggestion that women can't do certain things as good as a man is met by derision - but I think men acknowledge that there are many things that women can do better than us - MUCH better. Men who don't acknowledge that are not paying attention and do not understand women (or men) at all.

I appreciate your comments, but I less than half like that you are beginning to construe my argument in order to compare it to racism. Genders have strengths and weaknesses - and those should not decide what tasks were allowed to pursue (though I don't suppose you'd like your electrician to be color-blind?); competencey and ability shoud decide what tasks we are best suited to pursue; but, there are certain things that we do better than the other in terms of more natural, intutitve behavior. That's all I was saying.

----------


## Granny5

Where are you from?? It would be very hard for someone with your attitude to succeed in the United States if you were vocal about your beliefs. And again, if you will do some research, you'll find out that your's are the same arguements that white men used when trying to deny black people equality.
I'm sorry that you don't like the comparision, but it's the truth. It was just as wrong concerning people of color as it is concerning women.

----------


## SleepyWitch

is there any conclusive evidence that the ability to compartmentalize is 100% innate? how can you preclude that a great percentage of this ability is learned?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Good question - my terminology is imprecise. Guys are more aggressive and pursue things (IMO) with a higher level of focused determination than women (IN GENERAL).


Having writhed in irritation and frustration at your religious postings, may I commend you on your much more temperate tone here?

----------


## Noisms

> yep, but there's more to fighting than biology. how much physical strength does it take to pull the trigger of a (semi-) automatic gun? 
> how much strength do you need in single-combat? any old granny (no pun intended Granny5) can lay out a man three times her weight if she knows martial arts


But even modern warfare isn't just about pulling triggers. It's about the strength and stamina required to lug heavy loads of equipment over long distances. It's about being able to throw things a long way. It's about being able to pick up and lift things. It's about the capacity to withstand injuries and endure hardship. Sometimes, it's about fighting hand-to-hand. Some women can do those things as well as men, but the number is relatively small.




> before men are sent to war they need to be desensitized to violence... they need to be brainwashed into believing that the enemy is sub-human and inferior, otherwise killing people wouldn't come naturallyto them.
> maybe men are a bit easier to desensitize than women? I don't know


I think killing people actually does come naturally to men. Men in tribal and clan societies kill members of other groups with relative ease. Our society restricts that natural behaviour through laws and encouraging men not to be violent. Even then it doesn't work particularly well; men fight each other all the time even in our industrialised societies.

----------


## Noisms

> Where are you from?? It would be very hard for someone with your attitude to succeed in the United States if you were vocal about your beliefs. And again, if you will do some research, you'll find out that your's are the same arguements that white men used when trying to deny black people equality.
> I'm sorry that you don't like the comparision, but it's the truth. It was just as wrong concerning people of color as it is concerning women.


I have to back Redzeppelin up here. You're just trying to slur his (and my) arguments by comparing them to the logic racists used to use, rather than actually engaging in sensible debate. 

Firstly, racists in the past believed that black people were provably inferior in terms of intelligence to whites, which was why they were denied equality. Neither I nor redzeppelin has suggested that women are less intelligent than men. So our arguments are not the same as those used by racists in the past - and I suggest you follow your own advice and do some research about that.

Secondly, saying that black or white people have different skill sets based on their race is actually empirically, provably wrong. But there is plenty of empirical evidence that confirms that men and women do have different skills (as always with the caveat that there are individual exceptions). 

Thirdly, our arguments are not designed to "deny equality" to anybody. As both of us have said until we're blue in the face, nobody is denying anybody anything. All we're saying is that men and women should never be prevented from doing a given job because of their sex, but that it is likely that there will be more men in some careers and more women in others, all things being equal. Moreover, we're arguing that no career should be stigmatised or belittled because it's "women's work" or "men's work". 

Fourthly, if redzeppelin was vocal about his beliefs (I am about mine) most people would be likely to agree, because those beliefs are well reasoned, sensible, and unexceptionable. The number of people who argue that men and women are exactly the same, and that equality demands absolutely the same amount of men and women in all jobs, is extremely small.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Where are you from?? It would be very hard for someone with your attitude to succeed in the United States if you were vocal about your beliefs.


Why does where I come from matter? Were you going to make a generalization about me based upon geography? Why aren't you addressing my argument rather than heading for _ad hominem_ territory? Why discuss me rather than my points?




> And again, if you will do some research, you'll find out that your's are the same arguements that white men used when trying to deny black people equality.


Noisms handled this point quite effectively, but I will say this: I sometimes wonder when I get these kind of responses to what I say - almost like a knee-jerk response that seems to imply that anything that questions the equality of men and women in any way (here, of natural abilities) is somehow tantamount to some sort of sexism. It's not - it's called _reality_. Men and women are different - they are physically designed differently, emotionally wired differently, and I believe that are psyches are of different constructions. I have no problem with the fact that women possess certain strengths that I as a man have no natural access to. So what? I've got my own - not better, not worse, but sufficient for what I need to do. As I said before, you've not paid close attention to my points, and I'm sorry because within two posts I feel like I've made an enemy, and that is not my wish at all. I simply sought to validate a point that another poster was making.




> I'm sorry that you don't like the comparision, but it's the truth. It was just as wrong concerning people of color as it is concerning women.


Oh, it's not so much that I don't like the comparison - it's that it's inaccurate and flat-out _wrong_. That's what bothers me. I don't like it when my arguments are misread, misinterpreted or twisted in order to put me into a distasteful light.




> is there any conclusive evidence that the ability to compartmentalize is 100% innate? how can you preclude that a great percentage of this ability is learned?


How do you teach someone to "compartmentalize"? I think - if you wish to go anthropological here - that sociologists might argue that the male needed such focusing ability - the ability to block everything else out - in order to be a successful hunter. Think about it - haven't you ever been amazed or gotten annoyed at how men can seemingly tune out just about anything? I'd have to look to see if there is "evidence' - but I'm asking you to draw a casual inference from men in general that you've had experience with. We tend to forget things and be very single-minded - and I think that is partially due to our ability to put things into boxes and deal with only one at a time (which is why women can generally out-talk and out-argue men: we can't keep up because we're jumping from compartment to compartment trying to keep up).




> Having writhed in irritation and frustration at your religious postings, may I commend you on your much more temperate tone here?


Thank you. I tend to reflect what I'm receiving (but I have my moments - who here doesn't?).




> I have to back Redzeppelin up here. You're just trying to slur his (and my) arguments by comparing them to the logic racists used to use, rather than actually engaging in sensible debate.


I agree, and I thank you for your comments in my defense. One must be careful suggesting certain things about men and women I guess.

----------


## Derringer

Something tells me if a feminist read this thread they would be upset at how feminism is percieved in pop culture:

"Feminism is the struggle to end sexist opression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not priviledge women over men. it has the power to tranform in a meaningful way all our lives" - bell hooks. 

Feminism and 'jobs' doesn't say a whole lot. What job can't a women do? This argument is akin to "Men are stronger then women... unless women bodybuild" or Plato being upset that the poet can better describe the race better then the chariot racer ---> emotion or 'psyche' is absolutely dependent on the individual, not the gender.

----------


## Noisms

> Feminism and 'jobs' doesn't say a whole lot. What job can't a women do? This argument is akin to "Men are stronger then women... unless women bodybuild"


That's exactly the point! Men are stronger than women _unless women bodybuild_: in other words, men are generally stronger than women, and generally better suited to jobs requiring strength. Women can still do those jobs, but it will require them to bodybuild. If they want to do that, great, more power to them. But I doubt there'll ever be enough women who want to bodybuild so that they form half the number of all people who are in careers which require great strength.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<That's exactly the point! Men are stronger than women unless women bodybuild: in other words, men are generally stronger than women, and generally better suited to jobs requiring strength.>

So let's see where that logic taks us...... girls are brought up to be far more co-operative than boys. When boys are busy trying to impress by being the strongest, fastest, etc. girls are busy creating networks and social circles. This means that jobs requiring networking skills are far more suitable to women than men. Here's an example, my old boss was CEO of a govt run initiative in construction. For the great work she did, she was awarded an OBE. She had great skills in working with teams. It would seem then that any high-powered job needing the skills to draw people together and get them to work in teams should be done by women as they seem more co-operative than men. Right?

----------


## Noisms

> So let's see where that logic taks us...... girls are brought up to be far more co-operative than boys. When boys are busy trying to impress by being the strongest, fastest, etc. girls are busy creating networks and social circles. This means that jobs requiring networking skills are far more suitable to women than men. Here's an example, my old boss was CEO of a govt run initiative in construction. For the great work she did, she was awarded an OBE. She had great skills in working with teams. It would seem then that any high-powered job needing the skills to draw people together and get them to work in teams should be done by women as they seem more co-operative than men. Right?


Well no, that logic doesn't take us there, because it isn't the case that girls are better at networking than boys just because they're brought up that way, and it isn't the case that boys are stronger than girls just because they're trying to impress.

But your conclusion may well be right: women tend naturally to be better at co-operating than men in some situations (not all), which is why women can often succeed in jobs requiring co-operation and managing teams. That's part of the reason why more women are becoming managers and CEOs. If that's the way companies prefer to run things, then that's how they'll be run. But we aren't led to the conclusion that 50% of all CEOs should be women (or men) _just because that's equal_.

----------


## jon1jt

> Good question - my terminology is imprecise. Guys are more aggressive and pursue things (IMO) with a higher level of focused determination than women (IN GENERAL). Sometimes this quality is derided by culture, but this quality has its values (check out your average war story). It is not that women are incapable of the same, but I think men are _wired_ this way.
> 
> Our psyche's are different - and my primary example of the killing is based on the idea of how men and women think. Men tend to compartmentalize (hence their ability to do one thing at a time well) while women tend to synthesize (hence their ability to multi-task); one of the primary differences between men and women is that women tend to connect together the various threads of their lives while men tend to be dissassociative - we can "bury" stuff and be done with it - with many women this is not so. 
> 
> As such, I believe that war and killing does more violence to a woman's psyche because of her innate synthesizing nature - everything in her life connects to everything else. When a man experiences trauma, he can "compartmentalize" it - cut it off from the rest of his life (which is not to suggest that it doesn't effect him); in this way, he "quarantines" a deadly poison (because I think war does terrible things to people's emotions and psyches). But for women - is this dangerous poison as easily contained? I believe that the female's tendency to connect all together makes it more difficult for her to "contain" this poison. To me, that means that she may pay a higher price for the equality to kill like a man. I expect this view will not be met with universal "huzzahs"...


oh okay, i see what you mean now. thanks, red.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> oh okay, i see what you mean now. thanks, red.


You're welcome.

----------

