NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people mistake the feminism of the early and mid twentieth century with the feminisim of the sixties and beyond. And I think this mistake is only further perpetuated by many feminists themselves. This is how I would see it, and I wondered if others here would take a view on it

Feminisim of the early twentieth century was, a political pressure group. And like all politiacal pressure groups, its aims were to change government policy. In this case it was to give women the same rights as men. Specificly equal voting rights, equal pay, legal protection against discrimination etc. All noble and worthwhile causes.

However by the 1960's, all of these had been acomplished in most of the nations where feminism was most prevelent (if I am mistaken about that I apologise). Now in most of Western Europe, the United States and other major industrialised powers, women have equal rights before the law.

But now feminism is continuing, and it is no longer a political pressure group. It is a social movement, the movements intention being to advance women's standing and position in society. Whilst this to is a noble goal to some extent, it is a very diffrent goal to changing government policy. Social opinions and social standings are far more difficult and complex entities than are government policies, so to go about attempting to change them in the manner that some feminists do now (IE rather bluntly) is something that isnt going to work.

Whilst trying to advance womens place in socity is all well and good, the femisim of today is overlooking the important fact that although men and women should be equal before the law, men and women are very diffrent, and striving for them to be the same at every level can be counter productive. This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal.

Of course this is my set of understandings and opinions, I'm sure plenty of you out there have your own

Yes, but then again, individual men or women are also very different from each other. We are all different and gender is just one difference of many, and one no more worth discriminating against than any other. I think feminists, or at least the smart ones, want to be recognized as individuals who aren't dismissed because of differences they may have from most men.

interesting analysis, and fairly correct

the early feminist movement did have to fight to remove legal barriers to equality. the right to vote, the right to work, the right to decide about your own life. very important things

but laws are laws. you cant legislate societal attitudes. it was necessary for feminism to change the way women are looked at by society. when i was a girl, women had 3 choices of profession. secretary, nurse and teacher. sure there were already women doctors, women lawyer, women engineers but it was considered very unusual. (for example my cousin thought that the female gynecologist must be a lesbian even though she was married)

it is utterly necessary to fight against people like yourself who would seem to think that they know what women can do and what men can do. who even in this day and age think that women are so different from men that it is wrong to force the opening of traditional men's jobs to women. or to decide how families MUST be or what roles women are naturally and universally destined for.

with 150million female americans and 3 billion women in the world, its ridiculous to suggest that there is some gender line that can't be crossed by at least ONE of them.

no one is saying that woman are incapable of doing a job: in our modern society, we know that thinking that someone is inferior in a certain task because of their gender is ludicrous.

However, I do have a problem with the radical feminists in America now-a-days. . . The one's that believe that they are still being stereotypically thought of as 1950's housewives. Just to clear this up, women are not thought of like that unless that is the path they so choose, and some women do choose that path, and that's not them bending to the whim of society, that's their choice.

Also, I have to say, in my opinion, I believe that the radical feminsists don't want equality: they want superiority. If they wanted equality, then they wouldn't attack ever single social value that in just the slightest way "offended" women. Honestly, when it comes to a man looking at a woman is "sexual harrasment," there has to be a line drawn.

If the radicals want equality, then they should think of the benefit of society, not just themselves. The radicals have become so detached with their movement that in America, many women don't want to be associated with the feminist movement; sure, they advocate equality and want equal pay for equal work and so on and so forth, and that's good. However, becoming socially dominant to men? It's just like affirmative action: it doesn't promote equality, it promotes more segregation and racism, just as the radical feminist movement for equality promotes sexism.

And that's my two cents.

interesting analysis, and fairly correct

the early feminist movement did have to fight to remove legal barriers to equality. the right to vote, the right to work, the right to decide about your own life. very important things

but laws are laws. you cant legislate societal attitudes. it was necessary for feminism to change the way women are looked at by society. when i was a girl, women had 3 choices of profession. secretary, nurse and teacher. sure there were already women doctors, women lawyer, women engineers but it was considered very unusual. (for example my cousin thought that the female gynecologist must be a lesbian even though she was married)

it is utterly necessary to fight against people like yourself who would seem to think that they know what women can do and what men can do. who even in this day and age think that women are so different from men that it is wrong to force the opening of traditional men's jobs to women. or to decide how families MUST be or what roles women are naturally and universally destined for.

with 150million female americans and 3 billion women in the world, its ridiculous to suggest that there is some gender line that can't be crossed by at least ONE of them.

Did I miss a point in the OP as I am sure they did not state that they 'know' what women can do and what men can do.

I believe wholly in meritocracy and therfore everyone should be looked at and treated as an individual rather than a component of a group/s.

Did I miss a point in the OP as I am sure they did not state that they 'know' what women can do and what men can do.

I believe wholly in meritocracy and therfore everyone should be looked at and treated as an individual rather than a component of a group/s.

i was reading between the lines of this part


Whilst trying to advance womens place in socity is all well and good, the femisim of today is overlooking the important fact that although men and women should be equal before the law, men and women are very diffrent, and striving for them to be the same at every level can be counter productive. This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal.


if he knows how men and women are different and if that MAKES a difference in greater society, he must think that there are things that no woman can do and roles that arent natural for men.

feminism does advocate meritocracy. people being judged on their own merits not on preconceived notions of what they are capable of. the problem is that people DO judge other based on stereotypes and assumptions. feminism actively works against that rather than just advocating doing the right thing on your own.

i was reading between the lines of this part



if he knows how men and women are different and if that MAKES a difference in greater society, he must think that there are things that no woman can do and roles that arent natural for men.

feminism does advocate meritocracy. people being judged on their own merits not on preconceived notions of what they are capable of. the problem is that people DO judge other based on stereotypes and assumptions. feminism actively works against that rather than just advocating doing the right thing on your own.

Ok, though I can think of one thing that is not natural for men, having babies. If you discount Arnie that is :)

with 150million female americans and 3 billion women in the world, its ridiculous to suggest that there is some gender line that can't be crossed by at least ONE of them.
Standing round scratching their balls and talking 'bout sport.
Like to see a woman try that!

i was reading between the lines of this part



if he knows how men and women are different and if that MAKES a difference in greater society, he must think that there are things that no woman can do and roles that arent natural for men.

feminism does advocate meritocracy. people being judged on their own merits not on preconceived notions of what they are capable of. the problem is that people DO judge other based on stereotypes and assumptions. feminism actively works against that rather than just advocating doing the right thing on your own.
You know, it is this reactionary hyperfeminism that pisses me off. The OP didn't say any of that crap. He noted women are different to men. They are. Physically, psycologically, and socially. It is a losing battle to try and blackmail society into thinking otherwise. It doesn't mean a woman can't do a 'mans' job, or vice versa, it just means women and men have differences which should be acknowledged, even cherished, rather than ignored. It actually has little to do with their employability, though. Physically, women are as similar to men that they can do pretty much anything the average man can do. The big difference is social. Women have seperate social perceptions, because they have a seperate psyche to that of men. It is not inferior, or superior, just different.

if he knows how men and women are different and if that MAKES a difference in greater society, he must think that there are things that no woman can do and roles that arent natural for men.


There are things that men do better than women and things that women do better than men, its a fact. What that doesnt mean is that there are things men shouldnt do and things that women shouldnt do, it just means that we should be aware of the facts.

There are things that men do better than women and things that women do better than men, its a fact. What that doesnt mean is that there are things men shouldnt do and things that women shouldnt do, it just means that we should be aware of the facts.

What it also means - and what I tend to have the most problems with - is that the things women do better are regarded as having less value than the things men do better.

Equality before the law has been achieved, but attitudes take far longer to change. The attitudes represented by stereotypes, judgements, assumptions, even things like slang, "conventional wisdom" and "common sense" are still wavering between equality and male dominance. One look at MTV will show you that.

There are things that men do better than women and things that women do better than men, its a fact. What that doesnt mean is that there are things men shouldnt do and things that women shouldnt do, it just means that we should be aware of the facts.

there are things that ON AVERAGE men do better than women and vice versa.

in the specific, there are women who can do better than certain men. to say "ok only MEN can do this" leaves mediocre men in place when there are women who can outperform that specific man.

if we take people as people, we will find a reasonable mix of men and women in every workplace and social situation. the mix will be based on interest and ability, not on preconceived notions of what gender is better at it than the other.

there are things that ON AVERAGE men do better than women and vice versa.

in the specific, there are women who can do better than certain men. to say "ok only MEN can do this" leaves mediocre men in place when there are women who can outperform that specific man.

if we take people as people, we will find a reasonable mix of men and women in every workplace and social situation. the mix will be based on interest and ability, not on preconceived notions of what gender is better at it than the other.
Ok, so what job can't a woman do in this shockingly sexist society? There are female construction workers in the construction site across the road from me. They aren't even 'butch'. What is your battle?

Ok, so what job can't a woman do in this shockingly sexist society? There are female construction workers in the construction site across the road from me. They aren't even 'butch'. What is your battle?

many of the battles of feminism have been won. as you can see from your window. changing the law ensured that women have recourse when unfairly denied employment. we should all thank the last generation of feminists for this improvement.

that doesnt mean that all the battles have been won. if you read the OP, you see a man (im assuming) who thinks that there are natural limits on equality that need to be taken into consideration. if he were the only one, it wouldnt matter but there are plenty of people who still think that way and who stand in the way of true equality. perhaps if he clarifies his problems with modern feminism we will see a battle that still needs to be fought.

many of the battles of feminism have been won. as you can see from your window. changing the law ensured that women have recourse when unfairly denied employment. we should all thank the last generation of feminists for this improvement.

that doesnt mean that they all the battles have been won. if you read the OP, you see a man (im assuming) who thinks that there are natural limits on equality that need to be taken into consideration. if he were the only one, it wouldnt matter but there are plenty of people who still think that way and who stand in the way of true equality. perhaps if he clarifies his problems with modern feminism we will see a battle that still needs to be fought.
No he didn't. Here, see for yourself:
This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal.
First of all he is talking socially, where the genders diverge most dramatically for more than a few reasons. In his talkings on equality he did not mention employability. Secondly he is merely noting that they are equal in principle, but different in manifestation. A woman is not a man with breasts, nor is a man a woman with a penis. There are serious sociological and psychological differences.

Feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. I do not know of any current nation in which feminism has achieved social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Establishing something close to legal equality has been one step along the way, and a very important one, but it hardly means that the goals of feminism have been accomplished.

Furthermore, the notion that equality requires sameness is the same old BS that was spouted by the racists of yesteryear. Blacks and whites are different, they said, so we shouldn't be pushing for "sameness"! We're not, you goombas. Feminism isn't about saying that men and women are the same. It's not about making them be the same. Equality =/= sameness.

No he didn't. Here, see for yourself:

First of all he is talking socially, where the genders diverge most dramatically for more than a few reasons. In his talkings on equality he did not mention employability. Secondly he is merely noting that they are equal in principle, but different in manifestation. A woman is not a man with breasts, nor is a man a woman with a penis. There are serious sociological and psychological differences.

i dont see where claiming that there is no inferiority implied negates my point. he feels that there are natural divisions between men and women that must be taken into consideration. im saying that he is wrong. the natural diversity of humanity means that there is overlap in abilities and psychology. to take general differences and call them absolute is wrong.

if you or he would like to give an example of how feminism is incorrect in its quest for equality, id be happy to consider it.

Feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. I do not know of any current nation in which feminism has achieved social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Establishing something close to legal equality has been one step along the way, and a very important one, but it hardly means that the goals of feminism have been accomplished. Political and economic seems to be down pat in the west. However socially I think it is difficult. That is, political equality required lobbying to realise. Economic equality, well I would argue that women have always been economically equla, but that has more to do with definitions (everything is equal in the eyes of economics, only society/humans get in the way of what would be a perfect system). I know what you mean though. In terms of employment, many women face a negative attitude that men usually do not. However, I would split this into two issues, political (the legality of hiring women and paing them equally) and social (the attitudes of the employers). So by my definitions, if you choose to accept them, there are two fronts of equality; political, and social.

Politically women are equal in the west. Do we need to argue? Socially however, is complicated. How does one fight a social battle? You can't lobby, blackmail, brainwash, or bully people into thinking a certain way, especially not if they have thought otherwise for a long time. All you can really do is set posityive role-models aand precedents. This is why political equality is so important, as it forms the foundation from which women can 'prove' their equal worth in the courts of public opinion. Furthermore, I believe that if women are truly equal, then society will eventually recognise this, once the platform of political wequality is granted. I believe this is the way the situation is unfolding too. I doubt protests and feminist blogs are winning this 'war, so much as successful career women and polititians and such.

Furthermore, the notion that equality requires sameness is the same old BS that was spouted by the racists of yesteryear. Blacks and whites are different, they said, so we shouldn't be pushing for "sameness"! We're not, you goombas. Feminism isn't about saying that men and women are the same. It's not about making them be the same. Equality =/= sameness.
Wait..you mean goomba as in Mario? If so, that would have to be the coolest insult I have ever recieved. Back on track..

Ok, now nobody said equality is sameness. In fact the op actually stated:
This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal. Note the parts about being different whilst being equal. This is the second time I have posted this sentence.

Once laws were changed the feminist movement seemed to cool off considerably. It is difficult to comply with demands, no matter how right the demands might be, when demands are ethereal in nature and in the realm of general attitudes of a vast number of people. Traditional means of protest become less useful and possibly counterproductive towards that equality which still eludes women. Im not sure what tactics might work best, and Im not sure that the remaining high visibility feminist organisations do either. Setting aside the occassional egregious fuck-up done to women by some individual bonehead for the moment, I think that equality of the sexes may now be down to changing attitudes on a grass roots level individual by individual in most parts of the US and Europe.

But now feminism is continuing, and it is no longer a political pressure group. It is a social movement, the movements intention being to advance women's standing and position in society.

Not entirely true. Most feminists recognize the fact that societal attitudes, especially those based in stereotypes, cannot (and should not) be changed only towards women. The goal of feminism, in its barest form, is to ensure that human beings are all viewed as individuals, rather than as a member of a particular sex or gender. This means that issues where men are stereotyped based on their sex or gender are equally a problem.

Whilst trying to advance womens place in socity is all well and good, the femisim of today is overlooking the important fact that although men and women should be equal before the law, men and women are very diffrent, and striving for them to be the same at every level can be counter productive. This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal.

As Bottle said, equal is not the same thing as "same". Meanwhile, there are very few true differences between men and women as a whole. Basically, you are looking at physical differences - ones which make little difference in society or in the workplace. They really only matter in the bedroom and in childbearing. There are certainly generalities. Men, on average are stronger than women. Women on average are more openly emotional than me (although this might be a result of society, rather than a cause). And so on...

But the point of feminism is that, when it comes to the individual, these generalities may or may not hold, and thus an individual should never be judged by them. A woman is no less a woman if she doesn't meet the stereotypically "feminine" roles. And vice versa for men.

The big difference is social. Women have seperate social perceptions, because they have a seperate psyche to that of men. It is not inferior, or superior, just different.

Societal differences are externallly applied to individuals, not created by their psyche. A difference that is inherent will be there regardless of how society views it. A man who truly wants to stay home and take care of the kids, rather than working, will want to do that whether society says he should or shouldn't. However, society can put unfair pressures on him. A woman who truly wants to pursue a career in engineering and never wishes to have children will want to do that whether society says she should or shouldn't. Hoewver, society cvan put unfair pressures on her.

i dont see where claiming that there is no inferiority implied negates my point. he feels that there are natural divisions between men and women that must be taken into consideration. im saying that he is wrong. the natural diversity of humanity means that there is overlap in abilities and psychology. to take general differences and call them absolute is wrong. Nope, nobody said anything about absolute divisions. Here let me post the entire relevant paragraph:
Whilst trying to advance womens place in socity is all well and good, the femisim of today is overlooking the important fact that although men and women should be equal before the law, men and women are very diffrent, and striving for them to be the same at every level can be counter productive. This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal. All I see there is the acknowledgemnet of natural differences. Nothing rock solid, nothing absolute. I am certain there are deviations from the norm, there always are. On the whole, mainly in the areas of social and psychological differences, the genders are quite different.

if you or he would like to give an example of how feminism is incorrect in its quest for equality, id be happy to consider it. Nobody has asserted that. Again you are being defensive. But, now that you bring it up, Feminism is, by very definition, about the advancement of the female gender, not gender equality. Although, their goals entail the advancement of the female gender to an equality with that of the male gender. Nevertheless, the core of feminism is not in equality, but rather the advancement of females. This is fine, as long as their goals remain fixed at equality, and nothing further, a line a number of feminists cross.

Men and women are usually very different. After all they get different amounts of different hormones at different times and there isn't a part of the human body that hormones don't affect. Let's see a woman get someone pregnant. Let's see a man get pregnant. Let's see a very large group of women attack something when provoked while a large group of men talk about mundane things, like decorating and being paid less by the "man".

Yes, they do overlap in certain areas, but men and women, not counting the minority of oddities and genetic mishaps, tend to be biologically different. It's like how the average man has more muscles than the average woman while the average woman's brain is more connected together than the average man's brain. Plus, testosterone, which men usually get more of, makes your average man more aggressive than your average woman. But, since the human population is at a staggering 6 billion+, I'm surprised so many people are fed enough to live. Oh well, bomb third world countries into extinction and poverty levels will fall drastically. Less land needed, allowing for greater areas of the earth to fix themselves.

Once laws were changed the feminist movement seemed to cool off considerably. It is difficult to comply with demands, no matter how right the demands might be, when demands are ethereal in nature and in the realm of general attitudes of a vast number of people. Traditional means of protest become less useful and possibly counterproductive towards that equality which still eludes women. Im not sure what tactics might work best, and Im not sure that the remaining high visibility feminist organisations do either. Setting aside the occassional egregious fuck-up done to women by some individual bonehead for the moment, I think that equality of the sexes may now be down to changing attitudes on a grass roots level individual by individual in most parts of the US and Europe. Right. I feel as though the political/legislative platform for equality has been achieved, and now it is just a matter of time. I do believe women to be philosophically equal to men as individuals. As such, I would expect, providing that I am right, society will gradually come to agreeance with this fact, as women prove it to be so based upon their legal ability to do so. I don't think fighting is necceasry. Just setting of good examples (By men and women).

*snip*
Societal differences are externallly applied to individuals, not created by their psyche. A difference that is inherent will be there regardless of how society views it. A man who truly wants to stay home and take care of the kids, rather than working, will want to do that whether society says he should or shouldn't. However, society can put unfair pressures on him. A woman who truly wants to pursue a career in engineering and never wishes to have children will want to do that whether society says she should or shouldn't. Hoewver, society cvan put unfair pressures on her. I disagree, I believe there are definite psychological differences between men and women, which lead to legitimate sociologigical trends based upon these natural differences. This is not saying women can or cannot do, act, think, say certain things ,just that there are in fact intrinsic differences between men and women. I really am not talking about their chosen mode of employment however (this is a few levels higgher, or further on, from the point I am focussing on).

Feminism has branched out into a huge number of subideologies since the 1960s.

Nope, nobody said anything about absolute divisions. Here let me post the entire relevant paragraph:
All I see there is the acknowledgemnet of natural differences. Nothing rock solid, nothing absolute. I am certain there are deviations from the norm, there always are. On the whole, mainly in the areas of social and psychological differences, the genders are quite different.

so what is your point? what was HIS point? you both seem to have some bitch about feminism and i cant figure out what it is. yes, IN GENERAL there are social and psychological difference between men and women. so what? what does that have to do with feminism? are you suggesting that its wrong to see that there is a huge overlap between the genders and that there are many many exceptions to the general social and psychological profiles?


Nobody has asserted that. Again you are being defensive. But, now that you bring it up, Feminism is, by very definition, about the advancement of the female gender, not gender equality. Although, their goals entail the advancement of the female gender to an equality with that of the male gender. Nevertheless, the core of feminism is not in equality, but rather the advancement of females. This is fine, as long as their goals remain fixed at equality, and nothing further, a line a number of feminists cross.

sorry, feminism might seem to imply an unfair advancement of the female gender but in practice it isnt. it is the striving for gender equality through the process of "liberating" women and men from sexual stereotypes.

you are very attached to that sentence from the OP "This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal." seperate but equal ISNT equal. its a lie told to women by men for millennia. "oh honey your taking care of the children is just as important as my being a corporate lawyer. now shut up and fix me a sammich"

equal is equal when we all get the same shot at fullfilling our dreams.


if you have no example of what problem you or the OP might have with feminism, we probably dont have anything to debate about.

Nope, nobody said anything about absolute divisions. Here let me post the entire relevant paragraph:
All I see there is the acknowledgemnet of natural differences.

When you say, "Men are very different from women," and leave it at that, you are discussing absolute differences. To point out that men, on average, are very different from women, on average, is all well and good, but it means very little about how an individual human being should be treated.

When it comes right down to it, the only way that men are categorically "very different" from women is in the secondary sex characteristics and the sexual organs. And even that line gets fuzzy if we begin to discuss gender rather than biological sex.

Nobody has asserted that. Again you are being defensive. But, now that you bring it up, Feminism is, by very definition, about the advancement of the female gender, not gender equality.

This is patently incorrect. And as such, anything based in it is also patently incorrect.

Although, their goals entail the advancement of the female gender to an equality with that of the male gender.

Equality is not possible unless the disadvantages of both genders are taken care of. And equality is not necessarily about "advancement." By that very sentence, you have already assumed that the traditionally male gender role is somehow better or more advanced than the traditional female gender role. Feminism, however, would state that the important thing is the particular role of the indivudal, regardless of whether they are male or female.

Nevertheless, the core of feminism is not in equality, but rather the advancement of females.

Incorrect, yet again.


I disagree, I believe there are definite psychological differences between men and women, which lead to legitimate sociologigical trends based upon these natural differences.

What are these "definite psychological differences"? What such differences are inherent to one gender or the other? Note that "men tend to be..." or "women tend to be..." won't cut it any more than, "Black people are, on average, more athletic," means that there are "definite physical differences" between blacks and whites.

We can go in circles about which "sociological trends" are simply a matter of average differences and which are a matter of externally applied pressure. But until we remove societal pressures to fit a given mold, we'll never know. It may be that, with no societal pressures at all, there would be more women staying at home and taking care of the children than men, and that men would be more likely to be "breadwinners." However, as it stand, women are seen societally as the nurturers, as the ones who should take care of the children. Societal pressure pushes women who would rather not take that role into it anyways, and pushes men who would like to take that role out of it. Until such pressures are removed, individuals will continue to be pushed into gender roles that don't suit them, simply because we think the "average" man or woman meets such a description.

This is not saying women can or cannot do, act, think, say certain things ,just that there are in fact intrinsic differences between men and women.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. But, aside from the obvious physiological differences, what difference can you name that applies to every single man and every single woman?

If the femenists don't want to be seen as Amazonian chavanists, maybe they should change the word to something else, something less female, something that screams "EQUALITY" instead of "Woman..um...IST". People should take biological differences into account more.

i dont see where claiming that there is no inferiority implied negates my point. he feels that there are natural divisions between men and women that must be taken into consideration. im saying that he is wrong. the natural diversity of humanity means that there is overlap in abilities and psychology. to take general differences and call them absolute is wrong.

if you or he would like to give an example of how feminism is incorrect in its quest for equality, id be happy to consider it.

Men are, in general terms physically stronger than women

Women are, in general terms more emotionally intuitive than men

This is not always true obviously, but it is a general trend that should be taken into consideration.

so what is your point? what was HIS point? you both seem to have some bitch about feminism and i cant figure out what it is. yes, IN GENERAL there are social and psychological difference between men and women. so what? what does that have to do with feminism? are you suggesting that its wrong to see that there is a huge overlap between the genders and that there are many many exceptions to the general social and psychological profiles? Still defensive. The OP was merely expressing his thoughts in search of some feedback. To quote:
Of course this is my set of understandings and opinions, I'm sure plenty of you out there have your own If you are looking for something to latch on to, I believe most of his opinions on the matter revolved around the idea that whilst the 'old' feminism was a noble fight, the 'new' feminism is markedly different from the old one in that it's goals are not as black and white, and seems to be fighting a fight it cannot win, or rather fighting a fight that shouldn't be a fight. Basically he seems to be noting the differences in the struggle for political equality, and social equality.

Me? I don't have a point, I just got jilted the wrong way by your reactionary hyper-feminism so I felt like defending his point. In doing so, I expressed a few of my own, mostly the same as above, except that I view the social equality of women to be something of a natural progression once the platform of political equality has been provided (which it has).

You seem to have a kinda cool 'fight club'-esque mentality. You know, there is no dominating stuggle for you to participate in, so you just look for fights. However the unique/cool part is that it is keyed to your gender, as it was to men in 'Fight club'. By cool I mean gratingly irritating.

sorry, feminism might seem to imply an unfair advancement of the female gender but in practice it isnt. it is the striving for gender equality through the process of "liberating" women and men from sexual stereotypes. Nothing unfair about it.Thus far, feminism has largely been about the just struggle to bring equality to half of the world. I am just saying equality is not implicit to feminism.

you are very attached to that sentence from the OP "This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal." seperate but equal ISNT equal. its a lie told to women by men for millennia. "oh honey your taking care of the children is just as important as my being a corporate lawyer. now shut up and fix me a sammich" Different but equal is equal. Unless you want to argue that equality means sameness. You keep returning to employment, this I feel is an area where there is little room for seperation, based on the idea that physically, women can do pretty much anything men can do. The context of the quote is in reference to social differences. So yes, socially women are quite distinct from men, and yet equal. I do not feel that the answer is to make them the same. If you do, perhaps you should take it up with Bottle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11835595&postcount=17).

equal is equal when we all get the same shot at fullfilling our dreams. I always have considered this to be the asymptote of humanity. True equality for all individuals, regardless of race, gender, religion, genetic phenotype, ect is something we seem to be getting closer and closer towards, yet will never truly reach.

if you have no example of what problem you or the OP might have with feminism, we probably dont have anything to debate about. That is correct. Nobody was looking for a fight, except you.

Men are, in general terms physically stronger than women

Women are, in general terms more emotionally intuitive than men

This is not always true obviously, but it is a general trend that should be taken into consideration.

Taken into consideration how? When we deal with people, are we dealing with their entire sex, or just with them?

Taken into consideration how? When we deal with people, are we dealing with their entire sex, or just with them?

That its an acceptable perception, and unless specificly disproven, it isnt sexist to hold it.

Men are, in general terms physically stronger than women

Women are, in general terms more emotionally intuitive than men

This is not always true obviously, but it is a general trend that should be taken into consideration.

thats very true but so what?

taken into consdieration HOW?

and what about those phsyically strong but emotionally cold women and weak but intuitive men? shouldnt THEY get some consideration too?

and what does that have to do with feminism then and now?

That its an acceptable perception, and unless specificly disproven, it isnt sexist to hold it.

Yes, it is, just as it is racist to assume a black man is good at sports until it is "specifically disproven." It is perfectly acceptable to note that men and women (or members of different ethnicities), on average meet certain general descriptions. However, it becomes bigotry the moment you begin to expect specific members of that gender/ethnicity to meet that description.

The proper way to look at an individual is to assume very little unless it is specifically demonstrated. Anything other than that is a form of bigotry.

and what does that have to do with feminism then and now?

Feminists shouldnt treat those views as if they are somehow sexist, they arnt. Feminsits of the now seek to create a world where general opinion of men and women is identical. Now while I agree that general opinion should be the same in terms of esteem (IE no one should think men are better than women/women better than men) its acceptable to have general views that men and women are diffrent because they are.

Still defensive. The OP was merely expressing his thoughts in search of some feedback. To quote:
If you are looking for something to latch on to, I believe most of his opinions on the matter revolved around the idea that whilst the 'old' feminism was a noble fight, the 'new' feminism is markedly different from the old one in that it's goals are not as black and white, and seems to be fighting a fight it cannot win, or rather fighting a fight that shouldn't be a fight. Basically he seems to be noting the differences in the struggle for political equality, and social equality.

Me? I don't have a point, I just got jilted the wrong way by your reactionary hyper-feminism so I felt like defending his point. In doing so, I expressed a few of my own, mostly the same as above, except that I view the social equality of women to be something of a natural progression once the platform of political equality has been provided (which it has).

You seem to have a kinda cool 'fight club'-esque mentality. You know, there is no dominating stuggle for you to participate in, so you just look for fights. However the unique/cool part is that it is keyed to your gender, as it was to men in 'Fight club'. By cool I mean gratingly irritating.

Nothing unfair about it.Thus far, feminism has largely been about the just struggle to bring equality to half of the world. I am just saying equality is not implicit to feminism.

Different but equal is equal. Unless you want to argue that equality means sameness. You keep returning to employment, this I feel is an area where there is little room for seperation, based on the idea that physically, women can do pretty much anything men can do. The context of the quote is in reference to social differences. So yes, socially women are quite distinct from men, and yet equal. I do not feel that the answer is to make them the same. If you do, perhaps you should take it up with Bottle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11835595&postcount=17).

I always have considered this to be the asymptote of humanity. True equality for all individuals, regardless of race, gender, religion, genetic phenotype, ect is something we seem to be getting closer and closer towards, yet will never truly reach.

That is correct. Nobody was looking for a fight, except you.

gee you do seem to have been reading different posts than mine. if you think that THAT is looking for a fight you must not spend much time online.

the OP asked for opinions and i gave them. if you have a problem with that.. well.. i guess that is your problem.

When you say, "Men are very different from women," and leave it at that, you are discussing absolute differences. To point out that men, on average, are very different from women, on average, is all well and good, but it means very little about how an individual human being should be treated. But I don't just leave it at that. Nothing in this world is absolute. I am not trying to assert an opinion on how individuals should be treated, I am just defending the OP from Ashmorias reactionary crap.

When it comes right down to it, the only way that men are categorically "very different" from women is in the secondary sex characteristics and the sexual organs. And even that line gets fuzzy if we begin to discuss gender rather than biological sex. Yeah, that and psychological, and nuerological tendancies. Plus the sociological products of these tendancies.

This is patently incorrect. And as such, anything based in it is also patently incorrect. You do know the difference between an arguement and an assertion, don't you?

Equality is not possible unless the disadvantages of both genders are taken care of. And equality is not necessarily about "advancement." By that very sentence, you have already assumed that the traditionally male gender role is somehow better or more advanced than the traditional female gender role. Feminism, however, would state that the important thing is the particular role of the indivudal, regardless of whether they are male or female. First of all, the traditional and historical standing of men has indeed more been more 'advanced' than that of women, to suggest otherwise would render the feminist movement invalid. That being said, I will have to disagree with you in that feminism is about the ..females (and the nature of feminity). Not equality in general. As far as your specific quote, I do not quite understand the point of reference as to the 'role of the individual'.

Incorrect, yet again. Another assertion.

[/QUOTE]What are these "definite psychological differences"? What such differences are inherent to one gender or the other? Note that "men tend to be..." or "women tend to be..." won't cut it any more than, "Black people are, on average, more athletic," means that there are "definite physical differences" between blacks and whites.[/QUOTE] No I am talking scientifically. Women have more and less hormones of various varieties than men, they have different structuring to their brain, I hear their neurons are closer together. Do you want me to google up a bunch of neuropsychological differences between men and women, or do you want to do it for me? Possibly a result of these neuro-psychological differences, and possibly a result of sociological influences, women are also prone to psychological differences to men too.

We can go in circles about which "sociological trends" are simply a matter of average differences and which are a matter of externally applied pressure. But until we remove societal pressures to fit a given mold, we'll never know. It may be that, with no societal pressures at all, there would be more women staying at home and taking care of the children than men, and that men would be more likely to be "breadwinners." However, as it stand, women are seen societally as the nurturers, as the ones who should take care of the children. Societal pressure pushes women who would rather not take that role into it anyways, and pushes men who would like to take that role out of it. Until such pressures are removed, individuals will continue to be pushed into gender roles that don't suit them, simply because we think the "average" man or woman meets such a description. Ok, well geez. Uh, how do you propose to remove these societal pressures? The way I feel about it, is that the societal pressures will shift to support whatever is the closest to the truth, given the platform of equality. I hope I'm right, because I cannot for the life of me even think of a way to combat society.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. But, aside from the obvious physiological differences, what difference can you name that applies to every single man and every single woman? There are no absolutes in anything. I never asserted such. The intrinsic differences would have more to do with say, levels of teststerone, which chemically alter the behaviour of the brain to make it more agressive, and also horny. Seeing as men have significantly larger quantities of this hormone (in most cases) then women, it would constitute an intrinsic difference.

gee you do seem to have been reading different posts than mine. if you think that THAT is looking for a fight you must not spend much time online.

the OP asked for opinions and i gave them. if you have a problem with that.. well.. i guess that is your problem.


interesting analysis, and fairly correct

the early feminist movement did have to fight to remove legal barriers to equality. the right to vote, the right to work, the right to decide about your own life. very important things

but laws are laws. you cant legislate societal attitudes. it was necessary for feminism to change the way women are looked at by society. when i was a girl, women had 3 choices of profession. secretary, nurse and teacher. sure there were already women doctors, women lawyer, women engineers but it was considered very unusual. (for example my cousin thought that the female gynecologist must be a lesbian even though she was married)

it is utterly necessary to fight against people like yourself who would seem to think that they know what women can do and what men can do. who even in this day and age think that women are so different from men that it is wrong to force the opening of traditional men's jobs to women. or to decide how families MUST be or what roles women are naturally and universally destined for.

with 150million female americans and 3 billion women in the world, its ridiculous to suggest that there is some gender line that can't be crossed by at least ONE of them. Your first post in this thread. Check the bolded text. ;)

Feminists shouldnt treat those views as if they are somehow sexist, they arnt. Feminsits of the now seek to create a world where general opinion of men and women is identical. Now while I agree that general opinion should be the same in terms of esteem (IE no one should think men are better than women/women better than men) its acceptable to have general views that men and women are diffrent because they are.

yes its a complicated world. back in your grandfather's time he could generalize about women and be spot on 95% of the time. those women who did fit the stereotypes were considered exceptional or freaks.

today you not only have to keep in mind general differences between men and women--differences which are still in flux and will be for a long time-- but you also have to keep in mind that today those generalizations are weaker, smaller and only cover maybe 75% of people. you will meet more men and women who dont fit the generalizations that your grandfather would have dreamed existed.

so what does that have to do with feminism? are you suggesting that we should enforce/encourage stereotypes rather than support the idea that each person is an individual?

Your first post in this thread. Check the bolded text. ;)

you have a problem with that?

have you READ any other threads on this forum?

you have a problem with that?

have you READ any other threads on this forum? Irrelevant. You simply identified him s an aggressor to the female gender because he apparently seemed to know what women cand do and men can do. This was not at all evident in the original post, and seemed to be nothing other than another article of reactionary feminist man-hate. I'm just sick of it, so I felt like taking it up with you. Now you are running on the "But everyone else does it" line. I was not criticising you, so you don't have to defend yourself. I was merely pointing out that your first post was inaccurate and undue.

Feminists shouldnt treat those views as if they are somehow sexist, they arnt. Feminsits of the now seek to create a world where general opinion of men and women is identical. Now while I agree that general opinion should be the same in terms of esteem (IE no one should think men are better than women/women better than men) its acceptable to have general views that men and women are diffrent because they are.

But it is not acceptable to assume that a given man or woman meets any given "average". No one is saying that trends don't exist. No one is saying that it is wrong to acknowledge that some trends exist.

But it *is* wrong to assume that a particular man or woman will meet those trends unless they have specifically demonstrated that they do.


Yeah, that and psychological, and nuerological tendancies. Plus the sociological products of these tendancies.

"Tendencies." There it is again. Even you admit that these "differences" are not inherent to being male or female. That they are, quite simply, average differences.

First of all, the traditional and historical standing of men has indeed more been more 'advanced' than that of women, to suggest otherwise would render the feminist movement invalid.

It has been seen as being more advanced. The stereotypical "man's role" has been seen as being more important, more glorified, etc. The point of feminism is that there are no set "roles" that a person must meet because they are male or female. And even if men and women, on average, choose different roles, they are not more important or more advanced in society because of these roles.

That being said, I will have to disagree with you in that feminism is about the ..females (and the nature of feminity). Not equality in general.

Then you are, quite simply put, wrong. There is no way to address "femininity" without addressing "masculinity". There is no way to address the roles that women are under social pressure to assume without addressing the roles that men are under social pressure to assume. Even if the goals of a particular feminist are focussed on women's issues, it would be impossible for him to address them without also addressing men's issues as well.

As far as your specific quote, I do not quite understand the point of reference as to the 'role of the individual'.

Then you missed the entire point. There are no "men's roles" or "women's roles" in society. There are roles most often assumed by men and roles most often assumed by women - often more due to societal pressures than any inherent differences. The point is that an individual, whether male or female, can fit into either (or really fit squarely into neither) role. The important thing in dealing with people is not whether or not they are male or female, not whether or not they meet the stereotypical "male" or "female" descriptions. The imortance is the role that the individual chooses, based on the individual's traits, interests, desires, etc.


Another assertion.

And?

No I am talking scientifically.

So am I.

Women have more and less hormones of various varieties than men, they have different structuring to their brain, I hear their neurons are closer together. Do you want me to google up a bunch of neuropsychological differences between men and women, or do you want to do it for me? Possibly a result of these neuro-psychological differences, and possibly a result of sociological influences, women are also prone to psychological differences to men too.

Everything you have thus brought up still falls under the "on average" category. Most of the hormonal differences fall under the "secondary sex characteristics" I discussed before, although they *can* have other physiological effects. But even you admit that they are not inherent differences. "Women are prone to....." In other words, the "differences" you are describing do not apply to all men and all women.

Ok, well geez. Uh, how do you propose to remove these societal pressures?

By fighting them wherever they exist and allowing human beings to make their own decisions. By pointing out that "A man who stays home with the kids is a pussy," is just as disgusting a statement as any bigotted statement.

The way I feel about it, is that the societal pressures will shift to support whatever is the closest to the truth, given the platform of equality. I hope I'm right, because I cannot for the life of me even think of a way to combat society.

The point is that societal pressures shouldn't be applied in the first place, and we should work to minimize them as much as possible. Human beings should be free to be themselves, based on their own physiology, psychology, wants, needs, desires, interests, etc. No one should be shoved into a little mold that they don't fit into.

There are no absolutes in anything.

Precisely. And, as such, there is no reason to work off of stereotypes.

I never asserted such. The intrinsic differences would have more to do with say, levels of teststerone, which chemically alter the behaviour of the brain to make it more agressive, and also horny. Seeing as men have significantly larger quantities of this hormone (in most cases) then women, it would constitute an intrinsic difference.

It would constitute an intrinsic difference between a particular man and a particular woman, not between men and women. It would constitute a difference between men, on average, and women, on average. See the difference?

If it doesn't happen in 100% of the cases, then it is not intrinsic. You need not have lower testosterone levels than a man to be a woman. You need not be more horny than a woman to be a man. You need not be more emotionally expressive than a man to be a woman. You need not be physically stronger than a woman to be a man. Because these things are not necessary to the categorization, they are not intrinsic to the categorization. They are merely averages.

Irrelevant. You simply identified him s an aggressor to the female gender because he apparently seemed to know what women cand do and men can do. This was not at all evident in the original post, and seemed to be nothing other than another article of reactionary feminist man-hate. I'm just sick of it, so I felt like taking it up with you. Now you are running on the "But everyone else does it" line. I was not criticising you, so you don't have to defend yourself. I was merely pointing out that your first post was inaccurate and undue.

i stand by my first post. we DO have to fight against gender stereotypes. if you think that is man-hate then you are the one who is reading into things.

he has had ample time and opportunity to clarify his stance in the OP. i see nothing in his responses to indicate that i was offbase my interpretation of his meaning. i

Ashmoria, decaf, the big mean evil men aren't out trying to disenfranchise you. Now, please, can you, in a lucid, calm matter, explain exactly how the OP's more general idea that feminism, while no longer defined as a cohesive political pressure group (I.e. NOW does not represent all feminist's beliefs, neither does NARAL), is still using the same blunt methods to change society in a way that may be counterproductive is somehow a grave insult to the notion of equal rights for all?

And, finally, considering that women are equal in just about every major regard that comes to mind, can you please explain a few ways where women are discriminated against?

(Note: I do not consider crime necessarily discrimination: if more men commit crimes on women, it is most likely because the criminal decided that he had a better chance of success against his target than he would have against another preson. Apathy towards beaten women and harsher sentences for when those women defned themselves may very well be another story.)

*snip*
"Tendencies." There it is again. Even you admit that these "differences" are not inherent to being male or female. That they are, quite simply, average differences. Yes, tendancies which are intrinsically related to gender. They are not absolute, but they are intrinsic. There are no absolutes. I can say, women have more e..shit how does one spell...Oestrogen? Anyhow, I could say women have more oestrogen in their system and consequentialy tend to exhiibit these characterists. That is a generalisation, but it is a justified, one. Maybe *this* woman doesn't, but women do. You surely could scour the nation and find a man with aberrant oestrogen levels higher than that of a woman, but then he's an exception isn't he?

It has been seen as being more advanced. The stereotypical "man's role" has been seen as being more important, more glorified, etc. The point of feminism is that there are no set "roles" that a person must meet because they are male or female. And even if men and women, on average, choose different roles, they are not more important or more advanced in society because of these roles. Right, but the genders have been unequal in the past, correct? If so, then there must have been some need to 'equalise' them, correct? If so, regardless of societal perceptions, feminists must have percieved some inequality in order for them to campaign for womens rights. I love al of this subjectivity of perception when it comes to roles, but when a man can vote, and a woman can't you have inequality in which situation, the man has more rights than the woman.

Then you are, quite simply put, wrong. There is no way to address "femininity" without addressing "masculinity". There is no way to address the roles that women are under social pressure to assume without addressing the roles that men are under social pressure to assume. Even if the goals of a particular feminist are focussed on women's issues, it would be impossible for him to address them without also addressing men's issues as well. Ok, so why wasn't it called feminomasculism and why didn't it campaign for the rights of men also? I understand that the societal roles of men are key to an assesment of the societal roles of women, but the point is to bring equality to women, not all individuals. I'm not saying that feminism is bad, just that it is focussed on women, as is implicit in it's name.

Then you missed the entire point. There are no "men's roles" or "women's roles" in society. There are roles most often assumed by men and roles most often assumed by women - often more due to societal pressures than any inherent differences. The point is that an individual, whether male or female, can fit into either (or really fit squarely into neither) role. The important thing in dealing with people is not whether or not they are male or female, not whether or not they meet the stereotypical "male" or "female" descriptions. The imortance is the role that the individual chooses, based on the individual's traits, interests, desires, etc. Right, no disagreement here. I did indeed miss the point, by my own admission, in fact.This is mainly because I did not get any point at all. That is why I asked for a clarification, and you provided it. Thank you. :)

And? And an assertion contributes nothing to an intellectual debate.

So am I. Thats impossible, you are a woman. :p

Everything you have thus brought up still falls under the "on average" category. Most of the hormonal differences fall under the "secondary sex characteristics" I discussed before, although they *can* have other physiological effects. But even you admit that they are not inherent differences. "Women are prone to....." In other words, the "differences" you are describing do not apply to all men and all women. This is because there is no such thing as certainty or absolutes when it comes to science. This is also true of philosophy, but not everyone would agree with me on that one.

By fighting them wherever they exist and allowing human beings to make their own decisions. By pointing out that "A man who stays home with the kids is a pussy," is just as disgusting a statement as any bigotted statement. Ok, how do you 'fight' them wherever they appear? You think that telling people of for the way they think changes their values? Maybe so for children, but certainly not adults. No, to influence the values of adults you have to be more sublime. This why I feel as women are increasingly capable to achieve and defy stereotypical gender roles, society is increasingly becoming more accepting of the fact. The key is that they are given the platform of legislative equality from which achievement is made possible (or more possible). In my opinion, the just fight of feminism is over, at least the fighting part. Now comes the winning part.

The point is that societal pressures shouldn't be applied in the first place, and we should work to minimize them as much as possible. Human beings should be free to be themselves, based on their own physiology, psychology, wants, needs, desires, interests, etc. No one should be shoved into a little mold that they don't fit into. Right, but societal pressures will always be there as long as we have interaction with other individuals who also have wants, needs, desires, interests and such. So rather than try and somehow eliminate social pressure altogether, the goal is to redirect the social pressure away from unfounded or unjust purposes.

Precisely. And, as such, there is no reason to work off of stereotypes. Generalisations provide an effective way to aid the communication points. It is just important not to make sweeping generalisations. I don't work off stereotypes.


It would constitute an intrinsic difference between a particular man and a particular woman, not between men and women. It would constitute a difference between men, on average, and women, on average. See the difference?
Certainly, but in a world where nothing is certain, impossible, or absolute, words like 'always', 'never', 'can', 'can't', oh gd this will be a long list...ok, positive statements should have no place. But we use them when things are near certain, near impossible, and near absolute. So I say psychologically men are more aggressive than women. Some women are more agressive then men, but on the whole men are more agressive than women, because of the much higher testosterone levels they possess. Also, this generally true stereotp is then imposed on the men who do not have a biological reason to be agressive, further enforcing the situation. Yes it was a generalisation, yes there are exceptions, but one has to draw the line somewhere.

i stand by my first post. we DO have to fight against gender stereotypes. if you think that is man-hate then you are the one who is reading into things.

he has had ample time and opportunity to clarify his stance in the OP. i see nothing in his responses to indicate that i was offbase my interpretation of his meaning. i
Ok, so show me where in the OP you could see him te- *sigh*
Forget it. I am just not up for another hour of spin. You, madam, are most stubborn. I however, am most tired. If you will humour me, I would like to offer some criticsm, if not just retort with something snappy. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. Go through any of my posts, and if you can find something which you can show me to be objectively fallacious, I will gladly recant and restate. Well, maybe not gladly, but I'll definitely do it. What is the pont of being 'in the right' (in whoever's eyes) if you are not correct. I suppose it is about motivations. I post on these forums to learn. Others post to win.

Any woman who's not a feminist is either an idiot or a masochist.

Men are, in general terms physically stronger than women

Women are, in general terms more emotionally intuitive than men

This is not always true obviously, but it is a general trend that should be taken into consideration.
Or perhaps people should be judged on the basis of their individual abilities instead of what the average member of their gender or race is perceived to be.

Yes, tendancies which are intrinsically related to gender.

If they were intrinsic, they would be 100%. They would be necessary to be a certain gender.

Yes, those tendencies are related to gender, but they are not, in any way, intrinsic.

Are you aware, for instance, that many of the neurological differences you were talking about can be seen just as clearly between gay men and straight men as between most men and most women - in other words, that a gay man's brain is in many ways closer to a woman's than a straight man's? Are you aware that gay man's brain is likely to "light up" in much the same way as a straight woman's in response to male pheremones?

Obviously, there is nothing "intrinsic" about these differences. You can be a man or a woman and exhibit either characteristic.

Right, but the genders have been unequal in the past, correct? If so, then there must have been some need to 'equalise' them, correct?

Indeed, and they still, in many respects are. The difference is in how we viewed (and view) the particular inequalities - what the particular priorities were at the time.

If so, regardless of societal perceptions, feminists must have percieved some inequality in order for them to campaign for womens rights. I love al of this subjectivity of perception when it comes to roles, but when a man can vote, and a woman can't you have inequality in which situation, the man has more rights than the woman.

Indeed. But even earning that right to vote doesn't mean that men men and women are truly viewed and treated equally. It means that you have taken care of one symptom of that inequality. And we can surmise from the fact that it was one of the first symptoms addressed that it was seen as a priority. It is now taken care of (in the Western world, anyways), so it is no longer a priority to address in our society.

Ok, so why wasn't it called feminomasculism and why didn't it campaign for the rights of men also?

The OP was correct in that legal rights are now less of an issue. Equality of legal rights has very nearly been reached. With the exception of a few gender issues, most of the legal problems have been taken care of.

And, for the most part, in the area of legal "rights", men were advantaged. There was little need to fight for men's legal rights, because, for the most part, they already had them!

But now that we have moved largely out of legal issues and more into societal ones, both men's and women's issues are being addressed together. There is no way to address them alone. If a woman's role is not always to be in the home, taking care of the kids, then it is quite obviously equally incorrect that a man's role is *never* there. If a woman can be the primary breadwinner of a family, then it is quite obvious that a man does not necessarily have to be. If we are to fight gender stereotypes, there is no way to isolate one group and fight only those stereotypes, nor would doing so be productive.

I understand that the societal roles of men are key to an assesment of the societal roles of women, but the point is to bring equality to women, not all individuals.

That sentence is a logical impossibility. You cannot bring equality to one group without bringing equality to all groups. Otherwise, you don't have equality. It isn't a matter of one being "key" to the other. It is impossible to address one without also addressing the other. You cannot address the social inequities forced upon men without addressing those forced upon women and vice versa.

This is because there is no such thing as certainty or absolutes when it comes to science.

No, there isn't. But there are certain attributes that are necessary for a particular classification. We classify human beings as male or female (generally). From that classification, we can assume only that which is intrinsic to said classification - that which *must* be met in order to make said classification.

Ok, how do you 'fight' them wherever they appear?

In many ways. I support those who would break the mold, even in opposition to bigots who would attempt to prevent this. I serve as a positive role model for young men and women. And I explain to the young that the bigotted stances of their parents are just that - bigotted.

You are right that long-held viewpoints, no matter how irrational, are probably not going to be changed. We saw (and continue to see) this with ethnicity and we are seeing it with gender as well. But the old will die off and their influence on society will diminish. We will often tolerate bigotry from a member of the older generation where we will not from our own. Take, for instance, my uncle. For the most part, he is a good man. He was, however, raised in the pre-integration Southern US and is, simply put, a racist man. I know that while his views may mellow over time, they are not going to just go away, no matter what I say. So I don't argue with him. I generally express my distaste with his comments by leaving the room. I will not, however, tolerage racist remarks or behavior from my cousins, and I have no qualms about telling them so.

This why I feel as women are increasingly capable to achieve and defy stereotypical gender roles, society is increasingly becoming more accepting of the fact.

And, as men are increasingly defying gender roles, society is increasingly becoming more accepting of the fact. And it is by encouraging those who wish to defy them to do so, and supporting them when they do, that helps to fight the societal pressures placed upon them.

Right, but societal pressures will always be there as long as we have interaction with other individuals who also have wants, needs, desires, interests and such. So rather than try and somehow eliminate social pressure altogether, the goal is to redirect the social pressure away from unfounded or unjust purposes.

You mean unfounded or unjust purposes like, "Men should be this way and women should be that way"?

So I say psychologically men are more aggressive than women. Some women are more agressive then men, but on the whole men are more agressive than women, because of the much higher testosterone levels they possess. Also, this generally true stereotp is then imposed on the men who do not have a biological reason to be agressive, further enforcing the situation. Yes it was a generalisation, yes there are exceptions, but one has to draw the line somewhere.

And the problem comes in when we ostracize aggressive women or ridicule men who are not aggressive. The problem is when we try to push people into molds they don't fit just because it is true "on average." Like I said, no one is claiming that there are no average differences between men and women. No one is claiming that men and women, as a whole, should be the same.

The claim is, quite simply put, that no one should be expected to meet a role just because the "average" does. No one should be pressured to do so, just because the "average" does.

Ok, so show me where in the OP you could see him te- *sigh*
Forget it. I am just not up for another hour of spin. You, madam, are most stubborn. I however, am most tired. If you will humour me, I would like to offer some criticsm, if not just retort with something snappy. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. Go through any of my posts, and if you can find something which you can show me to be objectively fallacious, I will gladly recant and restate. Well, maybe not gladly, but I'll definitely do it. What is the pont of being 'in the right' (in whoever's eyes) if you are not correct. I suppose it is about motivations. I post on these forums to learn. Others post to win.


geez why am *I* accused of being a rabid manhater?

the only criticism i have of your posts is that i dont understand them. you defend the OP with no more info than *I* had and you accuse ME of being wrong. you havent stated anything. all i asked for is a concrete example of how feminism is going wrong and i never got it. the rest of my rant is in your head.

i would like to know how MY responses have differed from dempublicents. it seems to me that we are both saying the same thing in a calm rational manner. why am *I* the the feminazi bitch?

i would have appreciated any response to any of the questions i put in my posts but they were either ignored or answered in such a general manner as to be non responsive. what i understood i responded to in a a friendly and rational manner. i can only assume that you all are so used to being attacked that you cant recognize a polite give and take when you see one.

the only criticism i have of your posts is that i dont understand them. you defend the OP with no more info than *I* had and you accuse ME of being wrong. you havent stated anything. all i asked for is a concrete example of how feminism is going wrong and i never got it. the rest of my rant is in your head.

Feminism has gone wrong these days because it continues to champion the cause of women alone, and also that it continues in most cases to act as if the same problems of the past are still with us.

The fact is, men are sterotyoped these days also, as drunken, viloent, obesese perverts by the media and feminists continue to focus on only one issue. Their notion of gender equality is to fundimentally assume that it is the women, and women alone who are disadvantaged.

Feminism has gone wrong these days because it continues to champion the cause of women alone, and also that it continues in most cases to act as if the same problems of the past are still with us.

The fact is, men are sterotyoped these days also, as drunken, viloent, obesese perverts by the media and feminists continue to focus on only one issue. Their notion of gender equality is to fundimentally assume that it is the women, and women alone who are disadvantaged.

thank you for that.

i both agree and disagree with you on that but i have to run into town for a few. ill respond when i get back.

*snip* Ok, I'm going to stop with the science for two reasons. Firstly you present a very good arguement in form, and secondly I am somewhat uninformed. Whilst I do believe everyhting I have said regarding the marked differences between men and women, I cannot be sure if it as due to science as I believe it to be. The power of societal influence in routinely underestimated, so I'll look into it.

Indeed. But even earning that right to vote doesn't mean that men men and women are truly viewed and treated equally. It means that you have taken care of one symptom of that inequality. And we can surmise from the fact that it was one of the first symptoms addressed that it was seen as a priority. It is now taken care of (in the Western world, anyways), so it is no longer a priority to address in our society. Perhaps this is just my way of thinking, but who gives a damn how you are percieved? As an individual, I mean. Obviously we all do to a degree, but I think you catch my drift. If legally, and practically you are equal, but some idiots don't agree, then why bother? Stuff them, justy go and be equal and prove them wrong. Being a woman is really not an issue in practically any applied sense I can think of. Not too long ago, I was a teenager. During that time I 'went gothic'. Not because I was angry, nor because I wanted to rebel, but rather I saw it as an interesting way to filter my 'friends' from my 'aquantences'. It worked, despite how popular I was at the time, after gong goth, I walked away with only 1 friend. Sounds depressing, but I promise you it is not. That is still to this day a good mate, and a friend for life. The rest just liked me for my ability to follow. It was an interesting experiment, and I saw it as a superficiality filter. That was many years ago, however. The point is, when you cast away your need for social approval, you cast away the need to deal with superficial people. This is especially advantageous if your ability to operate as an equal human being is safeguarded by law. That is, nobody is going to not-hire you because you don't care if they care you are a woman or not.

The OP was correct in that legal rights are now less of an issue. Equality of legal rights has very nearly been reached. With the exception of a few gender issues, most of the legal problems have been taken care of.

And, for the most part, in the area of legal "rights", men were advantaged. There was little need to fight for men's legal rights, because, for the most part, they already had them! True, though my point was that the feminist movement was about the advancement and granting of equal rights to women. This is especially clear in the 'old' feminism.

But now that we have moved largely out of legal issues and more into societal ones, both men's and women's issues are being addressed together. There is no way to address them alone. If a woman's role is not always to be in the home, taking care of the kids, then it is quite obviously equally incorrect that a man's role is *never* there. If a woman can be the primary breadwinner of a family, then it is quite obvious that a man does not necessarily have to be. If we are to fight gender stereotypes, there is no way to isolate one group and fight only those stereotypes, nor would doing so be productive. Ok, this I can buy. Yet I must point out it is still based upon gender equality. Feminism has nothing to say on racism, or the societal implications of race. That being said, I would go further into feminism, despite its wonderful motives and methods, in it's core will always be about women. Feminism, feminity, Feminine, female, woman, women. It is written ito the name, woven into it's history, even if the mission is to make both genders equal, it's purpose is to do so because the female gender is at some kind of a disadvantage. If this is truly not the core of 'new' feminism, perhaps they should change their name.

That sentence is a logical impossibility. You cannot bring equality to one group without bringing equality to all groups. Otherwise, you don't have equality. It isn't a matter of one being "key" to the other. It is impossible to address one without also addressing the other. You cannot address the social inequities forced upon men without addressing those forced upon women and vice versa. Argh linguistics. Allow me to rephrase. Feminism is about helping women to become equal with men, due to a percieved lack of social oppurtunity or esteem. It does not concern itself with the equality of race, or nationality, or intelligence, just gender, specifically the female gender. The way I see it, Feminism is as much for the benefit of men and Martin Luther King was for the benefit of White people. Not saying that he wasn't.

No, there isn't. But there are certain attributes that are necessary for a particular classification. We classify human beings as male or female (generally). From that classification, we can assume only that which is intrinsic to said classification - that which *must* be met in order to make said classification.Yeah, more of the science stuff.

In many ways. I support those who would break the mold, even in opposition to bigots who would attempt to prevent this. I serve as a positive role model for young men and women. And I explain to the young that the bigotted stances of their parents are just that - bigotted. I personally think that you as a role model does infinitely more than all of the explanations you'll ever give on bigotry. This is how I think the path to equality (or something akin to it, if it can ever be truly reached) is in practise of freedoms granted on principle. You can vote and work and such because you have the freedom to, even if society doesn't encourage it, with time, if you and enough other women contradict what society tells you, others will moderate and dump their views as they litterally become obsolete.

You are right that long-held viewpoints, no matter how irrational, are probably not going to be changed. We saw (and continue to see) this with ethnicity and we are seeing it with gender as well. But the old will die off and their influence on society will diminish. We will often tolerate bigotry from a member of the older generation where we will not from our own. Take, for instance, my uncle. For the most part, he is a good man. He was, however, raised in the pre-integration Southern US and is, simply put, a racist man. I know that while his views may mellow over time, they are not going to just go away, no matter what I say. So I don't argue with him. I generally express my distaste with his comments by leaving the room. I will not, however, tolerage racist remarks or behavior from my cousins, and I have no qualms about telling them so. However I feel that long-held viewpoints can be comprimised, just not via direct debate. When people question their fundamental values it has to be a sublime process. Anything concious or direct is immediately rejected as absurd. But if they are innundated with social messages in contradiction to these values, they will quickly become a lot less staunch, and slowly mould themselves to fit the new, accepting set of values. This ties into what I said about rerouting negative societal pressures that guide people into restrictive stereotypes, and instead replace them with societal pressure to be accepting of diversity. Not sure if it works that way across the board, but I do know that my generation has been taught to hate racism. If it works for them, why not gender roles?

I had a similar situation with my grandfather, who like most old men, is somewhat racist. To give you an idea, his solution to nearly every problem involving brown people is to "Bloody nuke the barstards! Just flatten the place. It's a stinkin sand pit anyway. That'll show 'em.". As you well understand, rational debate does not work with this kind of issue./person. Nevertheless, as time goes on, his pointless racism has become more'token' then fervent, and has improved to the point that he has lovingly accpeted, welcomed and even fallen in love with my fiancee, who is chinese. He had a sound talking by my lovely grandmother before meeting her, and it has been roses ever since. Would this have been as easy/possible in the 50s? Probably not. But society has allowed for it to be so simply through the power of role models to display their inherent equality despite racial differences.

And, as men are increasingly defying gender roles, society is increasingly becoming more accepting of the fact. And it is by encouraging those who wish to defy them to do so, and supporting them when they do, that helps to fight the societal pressures placed upon them. Right, I am getting the gist that you are saying the final stage of feminism is the dismantling of gender roles. I'm not sure this is possible, in that there will always be a 'norm' and the desire to conform to it. I can even imagine a society which doesn't ostracise those who are 'different' in terms of gender roles. But I think that people who diverge from the norms will always strike a feeling of insecurity in those that do not...maybe. Actually, maybe not... must think on it.

You mean unfounded or unjust purposes like, "Men should be this way and women should be that way"? See above.



And the problem comes in when we ostracize aggressive women or ridicule men who are not aggressive. The problem is when we try to push people into molds they don't fit just because it is true "on average." Like I said, no one is claiming that there are no average differences between men and women. No one is claiming that men and women, as a whole, should be the same. Ok, but how much of a problem is this, anyhow? Perhaps this would account for the odd personality disorder. Hardly a ground shaking injustice though. There are bigger problems in the world. Actually, on that note, what injustices, in you opinion still plague western women? I always feel as though it is rather semantical to bitch about not haviong an equal utopia while people are starving in war torn shitholes next door. Or even women being subjugated next door, if you want relevance to the feminist agenda.

The claim is, quite simply put, that no one should be expected to meet a role just because the "average" does. No one should be pressured to do so, just because the "average" does.Nobody should, but I think we are being a little idealistic,no? I mean a world without social pressure and expectation? This is why I consider the cause of feminism to be somewhat complete. What little injustice is left fixes itself via the process in which women contradict the stereotypes via their political freedom to do so, and the stereiotypes change in accordances to this process.

"Feminism has gone wrong these days because it continues to champion the cause of women alone, and also that it continues in most cases to act as if the same problems of the past are still with us."

continues.....

traditional feminism sought to liberate men as well as women. they sought to make it OK for men to express what used to be called their feminine side. when a wife works, it take the pressure off her husband as primary breadwinner. when feminists fought for mandated levels of maternity leave they fought for the right of fathers to take time off also. when they pressed for a new understanding of rape, they included the idea that men can also be raped.

the liberation of women has been good for men.

"The fact is, men are sterotyoped these days also, as drunken, viloent, obesese perverts by the media and feminists continue to focus on only one issue. Their notion of gender equality is to fundimentally assume that it is the women, and women alone who are disadvantaged."

everyone is stereotyped in the media. i could point out that women dont control the media even if katie couric is anchor of the cbs evening news. for the most part men make those decisions. i dont really remember the last time anyone protested the stereotyping of women in the media. its been done in the past for sure but i cant recall the last time someone screamed about the outfits worn by football cheerleaders (for example) on anything but moral grounds.

some of the problems of the past are behind us, some are still here.

when i was in college there were a handful of women admitted to medical school every year, this year the entering class at UNM medical school contains more women than men. problem solved.

this year a handful of women are CEOs of multibillion dollar companies. the problem of the glass ceiling still lingers. i have no doubt that there will come a day when a majority of the fortune 500 companies are headed by women. problem still lingers.


let me make a couple of points...

1) women are not better than men and you shouldnt expect them to be.

i know that women like to THINK that we are better than men but the truth is that all people suck. in my experience feminists are very sensitive to men's issues when they are pointed out but arent all that good at noticing them on their own.

2) there is a conflict of interest in certain feminist issues

conflict of interest means that we naturally think that our own cause is always right. this is why judges and legislators recuse themselves from certain issues. they will have a natural tendency to be biased toward themselves

so. lets take child custody for example. women, feminists included, tend to think that minor children belong with their mothers. when a couple splits up and the children must live with one parent or the other, a woman will scream that she LOST her children if it is decided that they will live with their father. it doesnt naturally occur to her that if SHE had gotten the kid their father would have lost them. someone must lose, in a contested case 50% of the time that should be the mother. (sorta kinda) the interest of the children should be the most important thing not the rights of the parents.

similarily with rape. in some ways this issue got way out of hand with the pressing of the idea of date rape. date rape is almost always a "he said, she said" kind of thing. there are time when it is obviously a rape and then there are times when the subtle coercion of male/female relationships have come into play and to call it rape is a matter of perspective with the perspective most often drawn along gender lines.

the point is that until someone points out the male side of the issue, its unlikely for a feminist to be able to rise above her own conflict of interest.

3) men need to work on this stuff too.

until men step up and start working on their own issues, its unreasonable to expect women to get it right. we arent men. the things women think that men need to work on arent going to be the same things the men think they need to work on.

we arent your mommies. society is changing, its been changing for the past 40 years. if men feel they are getting the short end of the stick, they need to do the work themselves to get it fixed.

as we get closer to the line of equality, we will more often go over that line. its not the intent of feminism to put women above men but when things get unbalanced in women's favor, its MEN's job to speak up and help set it right. few people think to complain when things are going their way.

geez why am *I* accused of being a rabid manhater? Yeah..'man-hater' was harsh. Nevertheless, I was accusing you of such because I percieved you criticism of the OP to be unfounded and based in reactionary feminism. I brought it up with you and you became incredibly defensive. Thats all.

the only criticism i have of your posts is that i dont understand them. you defend the OP with no more info than *I* had and you accuse ME of being wrong. you havent stated anything. all i asked for is a concrete example of how feminism is going wrong and i never got it. the rest of my rant is in your head. I wasn't defending the OP in general, I was defending the OP of your specific criticism s of it. As such, i wasn't plannin g on giving concrete examples of where feminism was going wrong, as I saw it as a tactic to obfuscate the point that your initial attacks were unfounded, IMO. I can tell you what I don't like about feminism if you want, but only as long as you recognise that it wasn't my purpose thus far.

i would like to know how MY responses have differed from dempublicents. it seems to me that we are both saying the same thing in a calm rational manner. why am *I* the the feminazi bitch? Because you were agressive in your first post. Also, your posts are much clearer than Dempublicent's, I read on of Dem's posts and I think, "So..we seem to be disagreeing on something, but I'm not sure what, or how. She is talking a lot though, and making good points, which are relevant to something". I almost accused her of spinning a masterpiece of BS artistry. luckily I didn't, and it all came together later. Basically Dem wasn't argueing with me, so much as taking a round about way of guiding me to an eventual point. We, however, were locked in defensive (you)/passive-agressive (me) exchange.

i would have appreciated any response to any of the questions i put in my posts but they were either ignored or answered in such a general manner as to be non responsive. what i understood i responded to in a a friendly and rational manner. i can only assume that you all are so used to being attacked that you cant recognize a polite give and take when you see one. This is true, in that I did not answer your questions, but instead kept tying back to the issue, which i percieved you to be dodging. Also, I was primed for a hardcore feminazi, which you aren't so some of my posts may have come across quite intensely passive agressive. (Meaning I was trying to bait you into opening yourself to further attack). You didn't take the bait amazingly (you nibbled) and it turns out that I was making a big deal out of something which, while may have been uncalled for, was not an instance of hyper-feminist man-hate (a pet hate).

So to wind up, I was wrong, you are not a hyper-feminazi manhater, nor was your first post, but your first post was unfounded, IMO, and somewhat of reactionary feminism. This is really a non-issue, though. As you said, everybody does do this. So while I still feel I was justified in making my defence of the OP, it was not really neccesary. All in all, I was being a bit of a woman. ;)

Yeah..'man-hater' was harsh. Nevertheless, I was accusing you of such because I percieved you criticism of the OP to be unfounded and based in reactionary feminism. I brought it up with you and you became incredibly defensive. Thats all.

I wasn't defending the OP in general, I was defending the OP of your specific criticism s of it. As such, i wasn't plannin g on giving concrete examples of where feminism was going wrong, as I saw it as a tactic to obfuscate the point that your initial attacks were unfounded, IMO. I can tell you what I don't like about feminism if you want, but only as long as you recognise that it wasn't my purpose thus far.

Because you were agressive in your first post. Also, your posts are much clearer than Dempublicent's, I read on of Dem's posts and I think, "So..we seem to be disagreeing on something, but I'm not sure what, or how. She is talking a lot though, and making good points, which are relevant to something". I almost accused her of spinning a masterpiece of BS artistry. luckily I didn't, and it all came together later. Basically Dem wasn't argueing with me, so much as taking a round about way of guiding me to an eventual point. We, however, were locked in defensive (you)/passive-agressive (me) exchange.

This is true, in that I did not answer your questions, but instead kept tying back to the issue, which i percieved you to be dodging. Also, I was primed for a hardcore feminazi, which you aren't so some of my posts may have come across quite intensely passive agressive. (Meaning I was trying to bait you into opening yourself to further attack). You didn't take the bait amazingly (you nibbled) and it turns out that I was making a big deal out of something which, while may have been uncalled for, was not an instance of hyper-feminist man-hate (a pet hate).

So to wind up, I was wrong, you are not a hyper-feminazi manhater, nor was your first post, but your first post was unfounded, IMO, and somewhat of reactionary feminism. This is really a non-issue, though. As you said, everybody does do this. So while I still feel I was justified in making my defence of the OP, it was not really neccesary. All in all, I was being a bit of a woman. ;)

truth is that im not used to anyone responding to my posts so it does throw me off a bit when i get an unexpected sort of response

im sure that as we get to know each other better we will find ourselves on the same side of many issues and that when we are on opposite sides we will resepect each other's views.

I believe in what I call the "equalitist." That is, basing decisions on the individual, not on stereotyping.

However, let me explain that there are certain radical feminists that I despise. I have had a discussion with such a woman. She asked what field of study I wanted to enter. I was, and am, studying to be a psychologist. She then told me that I could do a lot of good for the movement by counseling every male patient that I will ever have to become a "House-husband" in order to begin the reversal of thousands of years of mistreatment. Obviously, I won't do this.

But there are those out there that call for the scientific community to discover a method that will either A) allow men to give birth

or B) allow people to switch biological sex at will.

or C, while we're at it) Keep all men underground and only bring them to the surface when a woman feels like having a child. They (the women) will go subterrainial, select their mate based on observation and a complete mapping of genetic code, and then bring him to the surface for a period of four days to either impregnate or fail to impregnate. After that, if the woman does not conceive, then she will try again next month.

I think we all see the problem here. There is a particualr reason that we have males and females. It is a stronger way to survive. The whole reshuffling of genes and all that. For as long as our ancestral hominids have existed, we have been male and female. I do not advocate the idea of "birthing fathers." call it evolution, God's will, Intelligent Design, or some evil space warlord's machinations (the Scientology view) on this, but the fact remains that we have males and females.

Please note, I only despise the reactionaries because they despise me for my Y chromosome. I do not hate "feminists" in the classical sense. Personally, I would prefer "gender equalitists" since many fought against both female and male stereotypes, but we men being so dominant over history have to accept the stereotypes of being nothing other than pillaging, gigantic luantics obsessed with attaining only godhood and a tramp for personal use. But hey, we're men, we can take it, right?

When media coverage is extremely alotted to the extremes, partisanship becomes rampant. You get hose that ask all men and women be lined up, paired off, and then have their consciousnesses switch bodies, and those that demand a stay at home woman with warm slippers and a freshly made dinner for the breadwinner when he comes home everyday, and drivers' licenses only for males. Center the attention on the center.

Good Night, and for al of you Radicals and Reactionaries out there, Good Luck.

However by the 1960's, all of these had been acomplished in most of the nations where feminism was most prevelent (if I am mistaken about that I apologise). Now in most of Western Europe, the United States and other major industrialised powers, women have equal rights before the law.

But now feminism is continuing, and it is no longer a political pressure group. It is a social movement, the movements intention being to advance women's standing and position in society. Whilst this to is a noble goal to some extent, it is a very diffrent goal to changing government policy.

I think the change came about once women realized the equality before the law (formal equality) did not translate into equality on the ground (substantive equality). Equality before the law translates into nothing more than "treating everyone the same". While this seems an admirable goal in principle, in practice it is not equality because it fails to recognize people's different needs and aspirations. If you treat both men and women the same, but that sameness is based on the way men want to be treated rather than the way women want to be treated, that is not equality. Having achieved formal equality, women realized they did not want to be treated the same way white males did. so the nature of the feminist movement changed (although there were other reasons, some of which have already been discussed on this thread). But there is nothing insidious about it. It is simply recognizing the reality that same treatment does not achieve equality.

Feminists ruined everything :mad:

Any woman who's not a feminist is either an idiot or a masochist.
Could the same be said about men who are feminists?
I think the change came about once women realized the equality before the law (formal equality) did not translate into equality on the ground (substantive equality). Equality before the law translates into nothing more than "treating everyone the same". While this seems an admirable goal in principle, in practice it is not equality because it fails to recognize people's different needs and aspirations. If you treat both men and women the same, but that sameness is based on the way men want to be treated rather than the way women want to be treated, that is not equality. Having achieved formal equality, women realized they did not want to be treated the same way white males did. so the nature of the feminist movement changed (although there were other reasons, some of which have already been discussed on this thread). But there is nothing insidious about it. It is simply recognizing the reality that same treatment does not achieve equality.
As a white man, I can see why people wouldn't want to be treated as white men are treated. (Feel free to pop in with the "oh poor opressed men, having all the power for thousands of years must be so hard" sarcastic remarks. At this point, I don't really care what the jackasses who would say such things think.)

Like so many have said, gender steriotyping is rampant on both sides of the gender line, and isn't a "benefit" to either of our genders. Being treated the same is a worthwhile goal, but the point is that the end result isn't to all be treated like men, but rather that we all be treated better than either men or women are being treated currently. No one should be made to feel mentally or emotionally inferior compared to a "norm". No one should be forced to supress their emotions on the basis of idiotic social steriotyping. No one should be forced into a social role, whether they're suited for it or not. We should all be free to chose our own destinies, and we shouldn't have to contend with being told what we can't do, or have an intrinsic part of our identity questioned when we decide to do something abnormal.

The original poster wasn't arguing the "evils of feminism" no matter how much some of you here have tried to misconstrue his post as such. He or she was saying that the same tactics used to advance the causes of legal equality in the earlier part of the century are not so effective at enacting social changes. The poster was suggesting that a confrontational additude (like some in this thread have adopted) was going to do more harm than good in the effort to reach the ultimate goal of true, humanitarian feminism.

The loud voices, the real female supremicists who validate the fears and steriotypes originally used to discredit the legitimate feminist movement, have done some damage to the cause. Feminism isn't about, or at least shouldn't be about, acheaving equality by having an equal number of chauvenists on each side of the gender line.

There are legal issues left to be addressed. The draft comes imediately to mind, and I'm sure there are other legal inequalities that will become apparent after a little thought on the subject (not to mention the legal issues outside the western world). The more confrontational tactics of the early feminist movement can be effective in addressing those types of issues, and should of course be used.

Confrontational tactics can't be used to change people's perceptions. Being agressive and confrontational isn't a way to make people like or respect whatever group you represent. Those of you who remember Dark Shadowy Nexus know what I'm talking about there. The fact is that the only way to "win" the social half of the movement is to live your life how you wish regardless of what social norms say and encourage others to do the same. If the law supports your right to do so, your example can spark a change in social perceptions.

Could the same be said about men who are feminists?

As a white man, I can see why people wouldn't want to be treated as white men are treated. (Feel free to pop in with the "oh poor opressed men, having all the power for thousands of years must be so hard" sarcastic remarks. At this point, I don't really care what the jackasses who would say such things think.)

Like so many have said, gender steriotyping is rampant on both sides of the gender line, and isn't a "benefit" to either of our genders. Being treated the same is a worthwhile goal, but the point is that the end result isn't to all be treated like men, but rather that we all be treated better than either men or women are being treated currently. No one should be made to feel mentally or emotionally inferior compared to a "norm". No one should be forced to supress their emotions on the basis of idiotic social steriotyping. No one should be forced into a social role, whether they're suited for it or not. We should all be free to chose our own destinies, and we shouldn't have to contend with being told what we can't do, or have an intrinsic part of our identity questioned when we decide to do something abnormal.

The original poster wasn't arguing the "evils of feminism" no matter how much some of you here have tried to misconstrue his post as such. He or she was saying that the same tactics used to advance the causes of legal equality in the earlier part of the century are not so effective at enacting social changes. The poster was suggesting that a confrontational additude (like some in this thread have adopted) was going to do more harm than good in the effort to reach the ultimate goal of true, humanitarian feminism.

The loud voices, the real female supremicists who validate the fears and steriotypes originally used to discredit the legitimate feminist movement, have done some damage to the cause. Feminism isn't about, or at least shouldn't be about, acheaving equality by having an equal number of chauvenists on each side of the gender line.

There are legal issues left to be addressed. The draft comes imediately to mind, and I'm sure there are other legal inequalities that will become apparent after a little thought on the subject (not to mention the legal issues outside the western world). The more confrontational tactics of the early feminist movement can be effective in addressing those types of issues, and should of course be used.

Confrontational tactics can't be used to change people's perceptions. Being agressive and confrontational isn't a way to make people like or respect whatever group you represent. Those of you who remember Dark Shadowy Nexus know what I'm talking about there. The fact is that the only way to "win" the social half of the movement is to live your life how you wish regardless of what social norms say and encourage others to do the same. If the law supports your right to do so, your example can spark a change in social perceptions.

Nicely put. *nods*

Nicely put. *nods*

Thanks.

(Though judging from my track record on feminist discussions on this forum, I imagine my post will prove full of mysogynistic messages so cleaverly concealed even I can't see them. Fortunately some of the "superior" intelects around here are sure to point them out to me.)

Could the same be said about men who are feminists?


No. Feminism is merely the belief that a woman is equal in value to a man. I don't date men who are not feminists.

Could the same be said about men who are feminists?

No.

Unless you wish to argue that whites in favor of equality for blacks, straights in favor of equality for gays, and Christians in favor of equality for non-Christians are all self-hating.

When people make that accusation against feminist males, they are merely indicating their own sexism.

No.

Unless you wish to argue that whites in favor of equality for blacks, straights in favor of equality for gays, and Christians in favor of equality for non-Christians are all self-hating.

When people make that accusation against feminist males, they are merely indicating their own sexism.

good answer!

snip

I agree with some of what you say, but I think many people (and I am not suggesting this includes you) merely use disapproval of the tactics as a way of actually masking their dissaproval of the aims. In other words, I am saying that some people will say they don't like feminist's tactics, but what they are actually uncomfortable with is gender equality itself.

with 150million female americans and 3 billion women in the world, its ridiculous to suggest that there is some gender line that can't be crossed by at least ONE of them.

They can't get another woman pregnant.

Not that it's necessarily a very important line, but it's a line. One exists. There may be others. That doesn't mean that women are necessarily inferior in any given role, but it's like the races in D&D. Each one is generally good at some stuff and kind of sucks at some stuff, depending on the general physical characteristics and social makeup of the members of that race. Certain individuals can spend the fruits of their experience to grow to be very good or even the best at what they are naturally weak doing, but if someone with a natural talent for the thing followed the exact same path then they would inevitably outpace the individual who started off with a natural weakness for it. Men, similarly, have their strengths and weaknesses. We should recognize and embrace them, not attempt to erase or ignore them or legislate/socialize the consciousness of them or response to them out of existence. We shouldn't exclude or discourage someone who wants to work hard to accomplish a thing, but we have to be realistic. People might want to fly without the use of machines, but we are not birds; our physical makeup makes it highly unlikely that we will ever do such a thing and we should probably do our best to stop anyone who wants to try if their dedication is extreme enough (e.g. jumping from a very high place).

Women are people, but they are not men, nor are men women. We all have to deal with that, which sucks 'cause I want my multiple orgasms, dammit.

Also, I have to say, in my opinion, I believe that the radical feminsists don't want equality: they want superiority.

I think that may be the point the OP is trying to make, and it's one I agree with. I think that sort of extremist thinking is as dangerous to society as a whole as any other kind of extremist thinking. And your analogy to affirmative action is spot-on.

*snip*

So what?

The moment we begin to act on the idea that "women can only do this" or "women can never do that", those differences cease being the result of nature and instead become enforced to a degree that extends beyond their rightful scope.

The only way to learn what is truly natural and what is merely the result of sexism is to abandon prejudice - which we haven't. Appeals to nature are no excuse.

If we do, I highly doubt that gender roles - if they remain - will be all that close to the present model.

What it also means - and what I tend to have the most problems with - is that the things women do better are regarded as having less value than the things men do better.

That is indeed a paradigm that needs changing. Unfortunately, feminists trying to force themselves into "valuable" roles by doing what men do, while it might have caused many to have more respect for women, doesn't help bring the perception of value to the jobs/roles they are now disdaining because they want the same recognition as men. It's a tough problem, because how do we assign specific value to a support role? The entire IT industry has struggled with this since its inception. I think that at least now people are getting the idea that behind every "valuable" success is at least one supporter without whom that goal could not realistically have been accomplished. It will take some more time and some more rational discussion and a bit of social upheval, but we'll get there.

seperate but equal ISNT equal.

Agreed.

"oh honey your taking care of the children is just as important as my being a corporate lawyer. now shut up and fix me a sammich"

Hold on, there. Yeah, there's guys, historically a large body of guys, who do just that, but isn't your generalization a bit of the same stuff you claim feminism is trying to eliminate? And by what criteria do you slander the intent behind the sentiment? How do you know the guy isn't actually really, really grateful that she's there to make him the sandwich 'cause he just doesn't have the energy to do it right now and he's really hungry after a hard day? If the woman and the man were switched in the exact same scenario, would it be OK for me to assume that she was simply condescending to him and didn't truly care about him or the job he was doing for her?

I often wonder if women don't stigmatize themselves in their own mind because THEY feel that the support role is somehow less valuable. Perhaps that is a reflection of what they've been seeing/enduring for most of history, but a little pride and a little forgiveness go a long way.

equal is equal when we all get the same shot at fullfilling our dreams.

Again, agreed. But, then, isn't our problem really about the division of rich and poor more than about the division of male and female?

all i asked for is a concrete example of how feminism is going wrong and i never got it.

I think I have one. After doing a bit of searching to update my knowledge on the subject, it has become very apparent to me that feminists aren't even really sure what feminism is about anymore. The word "equality" is tossed around a lot, but there seems to be a wide range of opinions on exactly what that means, what needs to be done to attain "equality" and what the role of the feminist movement should be relative to whatever the answers to the first 2 questions are.

I do believe that what I conceive to be "gender equality" has not been achieved in most, if any, countries. This provides advantages and disadvantages for both sides of this battle. Some might see a quantitative equality when comparing them. I don't know. I do know that, male or female or something else, we really ought to start doing a better job thinking of and treating ourselves and each other like human beings.

If a woman's role is not always to be in the home, taking care of the kids, then it is quite obviously equally incorrect that a man's role is *never* there. If a woman can be the primary breadwinner of a family, then it is quite obvious that a man does not necessarily have to be...You cannot address the social inequities forced upon men without addressing those forced upon women and vice versa.

O...O! Ooohh!!!

0mg! Did I just have a multiple orgasm? Is that what they feel like? :eek:

I don't know you, but I love you. Seriously. If I wanted anymore children, I'd offer to have your babies.

If you're a "feminist," then please found your own sect and lead it to power and glory. It would be exactly what the movement appears to need.

let me make a couple of points...

1) women are not better than men and you shouldnt expect them to be.

i know that women like to THINK that we are better than men but the truth is that all people suck. in my experience feminists are very sensitive to men's issues when they are pointed out but arent all that good at noticing them on their own.

2) there is a conflict of interest in certain feminist issues

conflict of interest means that we naturally think that our own cause is always right. this is why judges and legislators recuse themselves from certain issues. they will have a natural tendency to be biased toward themselves

so. lets take child custody for example. women, feminists included, tend to think that minor children belong with their mothers. when a couple splits up and the children must live with one parent or the other, a woman will scream that she LOST her children if it is decided that they will live with their father. it doesnt naturally occur to her that if SHE had gotten the kid their father would have lost them. someone must lose, in a contested case 50% of the time that should be the mother. (sorta kinda) the interest of the children should be the most important thing not the rights of the parents.

similarily with rape. in some ways this issue got way out of hand with the pressing of the idea of date rape. date rape is almost always a "he said, she said" kind of thing. there are time when it is obviously a rape and then there are times when the subtle coercion of male/female relationships have come into play and to call it rape is a matter of perspective with the perspective most often drawn along gender lines.

the point is that until someone points out the male side of the issue, its unlikely for a feminist to be able to rise above her own conflict of interest.

3) men need to work on this stuff too.

until men step up and start working on their own issues, its unreasonable to expect women to get it right. we arent men. the things women think that men need to work on arent going to be the same things the men think they need to work on.

we arent your mommies. society is changing, its been changing for the past 40 years. if men feel they are getting the short end of the stick, they need to do the work themselves to get it fixed.

as we get closer to the line of equality, we will more often go over that line. its not the intent of feminism to put women above men but when things get unbalanced in women's favor, its MEN's job to speak up and help set it right. few people think to complain when things are going their way.

Ladies, please. I'm at work and my partner's starting to look at me funny. If y'all don't quit putting up such awesome shit then I'm gonna have to stop reading until I get home.

<snip>

What he said.

Many people mistake the feminism of the early and mid twentieth century with the feminisim of the sixties and beyond. And I think this mistake is only further perpetuated by many feminists themselves. This is how I would see it, and I wondered if others here would take a view on it

Feminisim of the early twentieth century was, a political pressure group. And like all politiacal pressure groups, its aims were to change government policy. In this case it was to give women the same rights as men. Specificly equal voting rights, equal pay, legal protection against discrimination etc. All noble and worthwhile causes.

However by the 1960's, all of these had been acomplished in most of the nations where feminism was most prevelent (if I am mistaken about that I apologise). Now in most of Western Europe, the United States and other major industrialised powers, women have equal rights before the law.

But now feminism is continuing, and it is no longer a political pressure group. It is a social movement, the movements intention being to advance women's standing and position in society. Whilst this to is a noble goal to some extent, it is a very diffrent goal to changing government policy.

from the seneca falls declaration, 1848:

"...He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in Church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God..."

sounds like trying to advance women's position and standing in society to me

why do you post this stuff after ive gone to bed?? now im way behind and i dont know that i can even pull together a coherent post!


They can't get another woman pregnant.

Not that it's necessarily a very important line, but it's a line. One exists. There may be others. That doesn't mean that women are necessarily inferior in any given role, but it's like the races in D&D. Each one is generally good at some stuff and kind of sucks at some stuff, depending on the general physical characteristics and social makeup of the members of that race. Certain individuals can spend the fruits of their experience to grow to be very good or even the best at what they are naturally weak doing, but if someone with a natural talent for the thing followed the exact same path then they would inevitably outpace the individual who started off with a natural weakness for it. Men, similarly, have their strengths and weaknesses. We should recognize and embrace them, not attempt to erase or ignore them or legislate/socialize the consciousness of them or response to them out of existence. We shouldn't exclude or discourage someone who wants to work hard to accomplish a thing, but we have to be realistic. People might want to fly without the use of machines, but we are not birds; our physical makeup makes it highly unlikely that we will ever do such a thing and we should probably do our best to stop anyone who wants to try if their dedication is extreme enough (e.g. jumping from a very high place).

Women are people, but they are not men, nor are men women. We all have to deal with that, which sucks 'cause I want my multiple orgasms, dammit.

tell that to the female fertility doctors!

my point was (or would have been since you are the first to actually respond) is that if there IS a natural line, we cant cross it. women cant be sperm donors. you can bring one into the office and give her a naughty magazine but when she come out of that bathroom there will be no sperm in the jar.

the rest is up for grabs. we'll know that we have truly reached the line when no woman can get past it. i think we'll find that for the vast majority of things and for everything that truly matters its a matter of individual ability and desire. when the job is done, there wont necessarily be a 50/50 split in all areas of life but a range that reflects the general trends between the genders (so there will still be more male construction workers and more female preschool teachers, maybe, we'll see)

study tantric sexual techniques. you too can have multiple orgasms if you want to put in the time and effort.


Hold on, there. Yeah, there's guys, historically a large body of guys, who do just that, but isn't your generalization a bit of the same stuff you claim feminism is trying to eliminate? And by what criteria do you slander the intent behind the sentiment? How do you know the guy isn't actually really, really grateful that she's there to make him the sandwich 'cause he just doesn't have the energy to do it right now and he's really hungry after a hard day? If the woman and the man were switched in the exact same scenario, would it be OK for me to assume that she was simply condescending to him and didn't truly care about him or the job he was doing for her?

I often wonder if women don't stigmatize themselves in their own mind because THEY feel that the support role is somehow less valuable. Perhaps that is a reflection of what they've been seeing/enduring for most of history, but a little pride and a little forgiveness go a long way.

the sammich example is really one from the past. few women today hop up off the couch to get their husband (who is already in the kitchen) a beer. the problem WAS that women were told that wife, mother and housekeeper was of great importance but society never actually treated it that way. especially after we left the farm and became a modern industrial society. besides, it IS a great job to do, but only if you want to do it. being forced to be supportive sucks. having wife and mother be the ONLY acceptable role for women in society sucks.

its interesting that today feminists have had to rethink this whole "stay at home mom" thing. for a long time it was considered "less" and perhaps even demeaning to stay at home and raise your own children. many women are rejecting the idea that its better to be working 80 hours a week in corporate law and hiring a nanny to care for the kids. (or any profession that takes you out of the house for 40+ hours a week). feminists are being brought around to the understanding that feminism does mean CHOICE, not just "doing what men do"


Again, agreed. But, then, isn't our problem really about the division of rich and poor more than about the division of male and female?

yes it is. the biggest success of feminism has been that upper middle class women can do whatever they want.

pardon my lack of applause...

the work on the rest of society is still ongoing.

I think I have one. After doing a bit of searching to update my knowledge on the subject, it has become very apparent to me that feminists aren't even really sure what feminism is about anymore. The word "equality" is tossed around a lot, but there seems to be a wide range of opinions on exactly what that means, what needs to be done to attain "equality" and what the role of the feminist movement should be relative to whatever the answers to the first 2 questions are.

its an especially thorny question for professional feminists--writers and college professors. thats why the most outrageous (egregious?) abuses come from college campuses. the need to convince new female college students coming to an ivy league campus that they must become feminists is very strong but hard to achieve. these women are at the top of the heap and some professor has to convince them that they have it BAD? good luck. so the professors exaggerate the problems facing ivy league educated women. its a reach but you cant expect a person to not try to advance their own position in society.


I do believe that what I conceive to be "gender equality" has not been achieved in most, if any, countries. This provides advantages and disadvantages for both sides of this battle. Some might see a quantitative equality when comparing them. I don't know. I do know that, male or female or something else, we really ought to start doing a better job thinking of and treating ourselves and each other like human beings.

yeah. and as you alluded to above, much of what remains to be worked on isnt male/female but have/have not. if more people had a positive outlook on the future they wouldnt worry so much about women (and blacks and immigrants) taking something from them.

They can't get another woman pregnant.



Thanks to modren methods of recombining DNA that hard black "line" has faded to a very light gray indeed. Let's hope that there are still other darker lines.

the problem WAS that women were told that wife, mother and housekeeper was of great importance but society never actually treated it that way.

Agreed. I think general consciousness of this has been raised, but maybe that should be the next big goal of the feminist movement: getting more than lip service paid to the importance of the role of the homemaker. Not that it's necessary to earn money to demonstrate that importance, but something should be done. Maybe mandatory time off or something. But I digress...

it IS a great job to do, but only if you want to do it. being forced to be supportive sucks. having wife and mother be the ONLY acceptable role for women in society sucks.

Absolutely. Where else would my hookers come from? ;)

the biggest success of feminism has been that upper middle class women can do whatever they want.

pardon my lack of applause...

I love it when you talk dirty. ;)

You're completely correct, though. It's about choice for everyone. I think probably the only reason there's so many focused special interest groups is that the problem used to be so bad all around that it needed to be attacked from multiple fronts. I wonder if it would be feasible yet to combine the divided, focused human rights efforts into a single Humanist effort? Probably not, but to me that would be a huge milestone of achievement: a time when we don't have women and blacks and gays and every other separately definable group struggling to be recognized as human beings, and we can all just work together to make sure no one's left out or prevented from making their own choices.

Thanks to modren methods of recombining DNA that hard black "line" has faded to a very light gray indeed. Let's hope that there are still other darker lines.

Women do not inherently possess any of the equipment necessary to impregnate other women. The artificial tools they use to simulate or replace the equipment is not a natural ability of thiers. Just like when we "fly" it's not us doing the flying: the PLANE is flying, we're just along for the ride. I have a problem with saying that a woman who took donated sperm and artificially inseminated another woman or started an embryo in-vitro and then implanted it into another woman is responsible for "impregnating" her, though I suppose in a literal sense she is. The bottom line is that if there were no men or no women, there would be no pregnancy. Period. It takes nuts and ovaries. Unless you're cloning...

Does cloning count? Ack! New thread! :headbang:

EDIT: I feel there's a certain irony in this being my 69th post...

Confrontational tactics can't be used to change people's perceptions.

bullshit

from the seneca falls declaration, 1848:

"...He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in Church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God..."

sounds like trying to advance women's position and standing in society to me

so i won the thread, yeah?

Women are still struggling in this day and age.

Well, I hate hyperfeminists, who hate men for no reason other than "They are men". Hopefully the OP was talking about that kind of crap.

Many people mistake the feminism of the early and mid twentieth century with the feminisim of the sixties and beyond. And I think this mistake is only further perpetuated by many feminists themselves. This is how I would see it, and I wondered if others here would take a view on it

Feminisim of the early twentieth century was, a political pressure group. And like all politiacal pressure groups, its aims were to change government policy. In this case it was to give women the same rights as men. Specificly equal voting rights, equal pay, legal protection against discrimination etc. All noble and worthwhile causes.

However by the 1960's, all of these had been acomplished in most of the nations where feminism was most prevelent (if I am mistaken about that I apologise). Now in most of Western Europe, the United States and other major industrialised powers, women have equal rights before the law.

But now feminism is continuing, and it is no longer a political pressure group. It is a social movement, the movements intention being to advance women's standing and position in society. Whilst this to is a noble goal to some extent, it is a very diffrent goal to changing government policy. Social opinions and social standings are far more difficult and complex entities than are government policies, so to go about attempting to change them in the manner that some feminists do now (IE rather bluntly) is something that isnt going to work.

Whilst trying to advance womens place in socity is all well and good, the femisim of today is overlooking the important fact that although men and women should be equal before the law, men and women are very diffrent, and striving for them to be the same at every level can be counter productive. This is not to suggest that the womens position in society is inferior to the mans, but it may be diffrent, whilst being equal.

Of course this is my set of understandings and opinions, I'm sure plenty of you out there have your own

what i find offensive in feminism is the feeling that a raped/murdered woman is morally superior to one who kills her attacker before she is hurt

:sniper:

what i find offensive in feminism is the feeling that a raped/murdered woman is morally superior to one who kills her attacker before she is hurt

:sniper:

do you have some instance in mind where this actually was stated?

i need some proof that feminism judges the morality of rape victims.

bullshit

No, true

If you go around shouting "You should treet X group of people with more respect!!" and just shout that the whole time, people will ignore you.

Women are still struggling in this day and age.

But they arnt struggling in the same ways as they were before, and thus it is a mistake to claim so. Hence it is also a mistake to try and force social opinions to change in a similar fashion to the way in which they did in the early and mid 20th century. Women now have equal rights, and there is no sense in claiming otherwise. Social perceptions may be unequal but then that is true of all groups.

No, true

If you go around shouting "You should treet X group of people with more respect!!" and just shout that the whole time, people will ignore you.

that is far from the only confrontational tactic available. and on the other hand, playing nice and keeping your head down has almost never accomplished anything by itself.

that is far from the only confrontational tactic available. and on the other hand, playing nice and keeping your head down has almost never accomplished anything by itself.

No, indeed it hasn't. But confrontation tatics in general do not work. What actually works is rather than women whining about how poorly represented they are in certian sectors, its far better to go and make themselves represented if that is what they want.

No, indeed it hasn't. But confrontation tatics in general do not work. What actually works is rather than women whining about how poorly represented they are in certian sectors, its far better to go and make themselves represented if that is what they want.

Right... we've got what we want, let the women fight for it if they want the same.

I love that attitude, I really do. :rolleyes:

Right... we've got what we want, let the women fight for it if they want the same.

I love that attitude, I really do. :rolleyes:

I hate to break it to you, but you've got nothing more to moan about with regard to employment. Women have equal rights, they have the same legal protection. Therfore there is nothing stopping them going to work in the professions where they claim they are unrepresented. So to claim they are unrepresented is no ones fault but their own. Unless it can be demonstrated with evidence that there is true prejudice in a professions employment system (which can now be legally challenged) then there is no complaint there to be made.

I hate to break it to you, but women have equal rights, they have the same legal protection. Therfore there is nothing stopping them going to work in the professions where they claim they are unrepresented. So to claim they are unrepresented is no ones fault but their own.

You made a leap in there which is totally unfounded.

Yes, women have legal equality in some nations. Does this mean that the continued under-representation of women is the fault of women alone? Hell no. Society is composed of 49% males, so at least 49% of the responsiblity rests with those men. Given that men are starting out in a position of political, social, and economic superiority, I don't think it is unfair to say that they bear at least slightly more responsibility due to that imbalance. After all, with great power comes great responsibility.

Both women AND men are responsible for the continued gender inequities we live with. Both women AND men suffer from a culture that sees gender as a justification for abuse or inequality.

Just because women are nominally equal under the law doesn't mean that equality is now theirs. It's amazingly naive to pretend that this is how the world works. It's no different than blaming blacks for the racism they endure, or blaming Jews for anti-Semitism, or any of the other bigotry-appeasing nonsense that is spouted by cute little freshman who just got done reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time.


Unless it can be demonstrated with evidence that there is true prejudice in a professions employment system (which can now be legally challenged) then there is no complaint there to be made.
"Unless"? Honestly, do you not read the papers at all?

Such challenges are being made on an HOURLY basis, and have been for a generation at least. The fact that sexism can sometimes be legally prosecuted doesn't stop it from happening, nor does it stop women from being denied rights, freedoms, and actual equality.

It's illegal to rape somebody. Do you really think this means that rape never happens, or that the victims of rape don't suffer? Do you really think that all rapists are caught, and all are punished fairly? Do you really think all rape victims receive the justice that the law says they are supposed to receive? Do you really think that making rape illegal has created a world in which no woman's life is ever disrupted or disturbed by rape? Then why the hell would you be so naive as to think that we could pass a few laws and make sexism go away?

I hate to break it to you, but you've got nothing more to moan about with regard to employment. Women have equal rights, they have the same legal protection. Therfore there is nothing stopping them going to work in the professions where they claim they are unrepresented. So to claim they are unrepresented is no ones fault but their own. Unless it can be demonstrated with evidence that there is true prejudice in a professions employment system (which can now be legally challenged) then there is no complaint there to be made.

Really?
One example (of many) : A friend of mine finished school a few years back and wanted to start an apprenticeship as carpenter. She approached the workshops that were at that time within reach for her, in a 150 km radius of her home town. She talked to about 20 of them, and each single one declined her. Why? Well, about 1/3 of them believed she wouldn't be able to do the same work as a man, and wouldn't even take her on for a internship so she could prove otherwise. The rest of them pointed out that if she started, they would have to install a seperate toilet (which she really didn't want), or else that she might distract the male employees and cause accidents.

Sounds really like she was given the same chance as every man, doesn't it?

Perhaps this is just my way of thinking, but who gives a damn how you are percieved? As an individual, I mean. Obviously we all do to a degree, but I think you catch my drift. If legally, and practically you are equal, but some idiots don't agree, then why bother?

Some people are more impressionable than others. Some will buy into the social pressures. Do you know how many young girls are still told that they shouldn't be interested in math and science because that is "boy's stuff"? If a young girl is told this when she is still impressionable, and she neglects those subjects, do you think she'll end up going into them in the end? If a young boy is interested in fashion, but he is constantly labeled as "gay" and ridiculed by his friends for it, do you think he will likely be strong enough to say, "Screw you guys, I'm doing what I want!"? Some are, this is true, but many people, especially young people, are very impressionable.

True, though my point was that the feminist movement was about the advancement and granting of equal rights to women. This is especially clear in the 'old' feminism.

But that is a logical impossibility. You can't "grant equal rights to women," without also granting equal rights to men. This makes the movement, fundamentally, an issue of gender overall, not one particular gender.

Ok, this I can buy. Yet I must point out it is still based upon gender equality. Feminism has nothing to say on racism, or the societal implications of race.

Indeed.

That being said, I would go further into feminism, despite its wonderful motives and methods, in it's core will always be about women. Feminism, feminity, Feminine, female, woman, women. It is written ito the name, woven into it's history, even if the mission is to make both genders equal, it's purpose is to do so because the female gender is at some kind of a disadvantage. If this is truly not the core of 'new' feminism, perhaps they should change their name.

Why? Because some people can't realize that the English language changes over time? Because so many men (generally due to social pressure) are scared to be associated with anything that might sound "feminine."

Right, I am getting the gist that you are saying the final stage of feminism is the dismantling of gender roles.

Not necessarily. I think that men and women, on average will always tend to take slightly different roles in society. The goal is not to dismantle gender roles themselves, but to dismantle any societal pressure that says a man or woman *must* meet them. If a man chooses "traditional" gender roles because they suit him, more power to him. But he should not be pushed into said roles.

Ok, but how much of a problem is this, anyhow?

A pretty large one, as far as our society goes. The societal enforcement of "traditional" gender roles has a lot to do with the current discrimination (and, often, violence) against members of the LGBT community. And, perhaps because of those attitudes, any men who would challenge their "traditional" gender roles are immediately labeled as gay and often have to deal with the same problems.

I am quite certain that some women have children, not because they should or even want to, but because they are *expected* to want to. And a woman who doesn't truly want a child should never have one - for the child's sake. Men who want to nurture children are, by some, immediately seen as pedophiles, because men aren't "supposed to" want to take care of children, especially when those children are not their own.

Young girls are still often told that they are inherently bad at math and science, pushing them out of classes and fields in which they are interested. Young men are still often told that certain fields are "women's work" and that they shouldn't be interested - and may be treated with violence if they still express interest.

Young girls in some areas are still taught, from birth, to submit to men in their lives - that their goal in life should be to please man. This helps push the rate of teen pregnancy higher in these areas, quite likely causing huge problems in a young couple's lives.

And so on...

Some of the problems may seem small, but they add up.

There are bigger problems in the world. Actually, on that note, what injustices, in you opinion still plague western women? I always feel as though it is rather semantical to bitch about not haviong an equal utopia while people are starving in war torn shitholes next door. Or even women being subjugated next door, if you want relevance to the feminist agenda.

Are you under the impression that a person can only pay attention to one problem?

Nobody should, but I think we are being a little idealistic,no? I mean a world without social pressure and expectation?

I don't think it will ever be fully achieved, any more than I think we will ever have world peace, or a complete lack of homeless people, or a complete lack of starvation in the world, or world-wide vaccination and adequate healthcare. But I don't think getting as close to these things as we can is a bad thing.

Yes, women have legal equality in some nations. Does this mean that the continued under-representation of women is the fault of women alone? Hell no. Society is composed of 49% males, so at least 49% of the responsiblity rests with those men. Given that men are starting out in a position of political, social, and economic superiority, I don't think it is unfair to say that they bear at least slightly more responsibility due to that imbalance. After all, with great power comes great responsibility

I do not think it is the responsablity of men to make womens place in the workplace stronger artifically. To do so would be to create another inequality

Just because women are nominally equal under the law doesn't mean that equality is now theirs. It's amazingly naive to pretend that this is how the world works. It's no different than blaming blacks for the racism they endure, or blaming Jews for anti-Semitism, or any of the other bigotry-appeasing nonsense that is spouted by cute little freshman who just got done reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time.

I didnt say that they have complete equality. What I said is they have the only kind of equality that can be guarnteed. Of course people will break the laws, hence the phrase "eternal vigelence". Laws do not stop things happening. What they do is to make sure that if they happen they do not go unpunished. They detur which is a secondary function, but deterence is not going to stop all breakings of the law.


"Unless"? Honestly, do you not read the papers at all?

Such challenges are being made on an HOURLY basis, and have been for a generation at least. The fact that sexism can sometimes be legally prosecuted doesn't stop it from happening, nor does it stop women from being denied rights, freedoms, and actual equality.

Of course, it still happens, but what can be done. Its been made illegal, so what more can be done. Feminists complain as if more can be done to stop this. All other pressure groups accept that once something has been made illegal, all that can be done has been done.


It's illegal to rape somebody. Do you really think this means that rape never happens, or that the victims of rape don't suffer? Do you really think that all rapists are caught, and all are punished fairly? Do you really think all rape victims receive the justice that the law says they are supposed to receive? Do you really think that making rape illegal has created a world in which no woman's life is ever disrupted or disturbed by rape? Then why the hell would you be so naive as to think that we could pass a few laws and make sexism go away?

It wont make sexism go away, but it will have done all that can be done against it. Culture is never changed by legitmate force.

Like so many have said, gender steriotyping is rampant on both sides of the gender line, and isn't a "benefit" to either of our genders. Being treated the same is a worthwhile goal, but the point is that the end result isn't to all be treated like men, but rather that we all be treated better than either men or women are being treated currently. No one should be made to feel mentally or emotionally inferior compared to a "norm". No one should be forced to supress their emotions on the basis of idiotic social steriotyping. No one should be forced into a social role, whether they're suited for it or not. We should all be free to chose our own destinies, and we shouldn't have to contend with being told what we can't do, or have an intrinsic part of our identity questioned when we decide to do something abnormal.

Precisely.


O...O! Ooohh!!!

0mg! Did I just have a multiple orgasm? Is that what they feel like?

I don't know you, but I love you. Seriously. If I wanted anymore children, I'd offer to have your babies.

If you're a "feminist," then please found your own sect and lead it to power and glory. It would be exactly what the movement appears to need.

LOL! If I did give you a multiple orgasm, I rock!

Really?
One example (of many) : A friend of mine finished school a few years back and wanted to start an apprenticeship as carpenter. She approached the workshops that were at that time within reach for her, in a 150 km radius of her home town. She talked to about 20 of them, and each single one declined her. Why? Well, about 1/3 of them believed she wouldn't be able to do the same work as a man, and wouldn't even take her on for a internship so she could prove otherwise. The rest of them pointed out that if she started, they would have to install a seperate toilet (which she really didn't want), or else that she might distract the male employees and cause accidents.

Sounds really like she was given the same chance as every man, doesn't it?

Then she is quite capable of sueing them and getting the intrunship she wanted.

what i find offensive in feminism is the feeling that a raped/murdered woman is morally superior to one who kills her attacker before she is hurt

:sniper:

Um..........what?

Um..........what?

The meaning is in the gunman's expression, often known as 'the gunman's face'.

Think about it.

Then she is quite capable of sueing them and getting the intrunship she wanted.

On what grounds? There are no laws forcing anybody to give you a job or an internship. He/she can decline that without ever giving you any reason at all.

Then she is quite capable of sueing them and getting the intrunship she wanted.

you dont make any sense.

lawsuits cost money, there are few individuals who can sue on their own with their own limited financial resources. this is especially true of those who are just out of school and looking for internships.

suing for the proper enforcement of the law IS what modern feminism does. if enough women were denied internships at carpentry shops, a local feminist group might well make a fuss. they might even start a class action suit (if it were in the US)

there is a huge suit against walmart right now alleging discrimination on the basis of gender. THAT is feminism in action even if the suit wasnt brought by NOW.

now and then someone realizes that something we have taken for granted forever should be changed in law. its not too too current but laws against rape inside of marriage is one of those things that modern feminism got passed. changing laws is not common because, as you say, women are pretty much equal under the law.

however, if that law isnt enforced what good is it? what good is enforcement if girls and boys are taught from the cradle that they have only certain roles in life?

modern feminism both seeks enforcement of laws criminal and civil, and to remove gender stereotypes that keep many people from their own "pursuit of happiness". and YES, sometimes women have to be "pushy" to get it done. thats not a bad thing.

today you not only have to keep in mind general differences between men and women--differences which are still in flux and will be for a long time-- but you also have to keep in mind that today those generalizations are weaker, smaller and only cover maybe 75% of people. you will meet more men and women who dont fit the generalizations that your grandfather would have dreamed existed.



Just as an example of what you are talking about here are the lyrics from a song first performed in 1971. The lyrics are relevent for far fewer people, and especially women today than they were 35 years ago. Things change.

Harvest by Neal Young

Did I see you down
in a young girl's town
With your mother in so much pain?
I was almost there
at the top of the stairs
With her screamin' in the rain.

Did she wake you up
to tell you that
It was only a change of plan?
Dream up, dream up,
let me fill your cup
With the promise of a man.

Did I see you walking with the boys
Though it was not hand in hand?
And was some black face
in a lonely place
When you could understand?

Did she wake you up
to tell you that
It was only a change of plan?
Dream up, dream up,
let me fill your cup
With the promise of a man.

Will I see you give
more than I can take?
Will I only harvest some?
As the days fly past
will we lose our grasp
Or fuse it in the sun?

Did she wake you up
to tell you that
It was only a change of plan?
Dream up, dream up,
let me fill your cup
With the promise of a man.

Women do not inherently possess any of the equipment necessary to impregnate other women. The artificial tools they use to simulate or replace the equipment is not a natural ability of thiers. Just like when we "fly" it's not us doing the flying: the PLANE is flying, we're just along for the ride. I have a problem with saying that a woman who took donated sperm and artificially inseminated another woman or started an embryo in-vitro and then implanted it into another woman is responsible for "impregnating" her, though I suppose in a literal sense she is. The bottom line is that if there were no men or no women, there would be no pregnancy. Period. It takes nuts and ovaries. Unless you're cloning...

Does cloning count? Ack! New thread! :headbang:

EDIT: I feel there's a certain irony in this being my 69th post...

I was talking about taking DNA from one egg and combining it with DNA from another.

I was talking about taking DNA from one egg and combining it with DNA from another.

AFAIK, this is not a viable endeavor. If you have some information on it, please post it. I would find it very interesting.

AFAIK, this is not a viable endeavor. If you have some information on it, please post it. I would find it very interesting.

A short blurb
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200305/ai_n9206782

The way they are working on it

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10862002&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum


In other mouse news

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/22/MNGHD692EA1.DTL&type=printable

No.

Unless you wish to argue that whites in favor of equality for blacks, straights in favor of equality for gays, and Christians in favor of equality for non-Christians are all self-hating.

When people make that accusation against feminist males, they are merely indicating their own sexism.
What accusation? Bitchkitten stated her view that the only women who don't identify themselves as feminists are idiots or masochists. Since she limited her statements to women, I inquired if the oposite was true of males. Please stop trying to make me out to be mysogynistic. It gets old, especially if you read only the first, half joking sentence of a post in which I extol the values of the feminist ideology and try to constructively identify the steps needed to come closer to the final goal.

Confrontational tactics can't be used to change people's perceptions.bullshit
Oh wait, now I'm convinced that being confrontational can change people's perceptions. Your confrontational approach really did the trick :rolleyes:
Precisely.

That's strange. You're usually one of the ones finding hidden mysogynistic messages in my posts.

Oh wait, now I'm convinced that being confrontational can change people's perceptions. Your confrontational approach really did the trick :rolleyes:

the exclamation was not meant to change your perception. it was an expression of disbelief that someone would say something that is so obviously and trivially false.

the exclamation was not meant to change your perception. it was an expression of disbelief that someone would say something that is so obviously and trivially false.

Run a forum search for posts by user Dark Shadowy Nexus. Then tell me being confrontational is a useful way to win converts to your cause.

Run a forum search for posts by user Dark Shadowy Nexus. Then tell me being confrontational is a useful way to win converts to your cause.

it doesn't have to work all the time for it to work ever


btw,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/300px-Tianasquare.jpg

i win

it doesn't have to work all the time for it to work ever


btw,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/300px-Tianasquare.jpg

i win

You only win once you manage to change my perception of you or those you represent in a positive way by being deliberately confrontational. Until you can do so, my statement stands.

(Of course if it's as "obviously false" as you claim it is, you should have no problem proving your point.)

You only win once you manage to change my perception of you or those you represent in a positive way by being deliberately confrontational. Until you can do so, my statement stands.

(Of course if it's as "obviously false" as you claim it is, you should have no problem proving your point.)

organized labor
civil rights
women's rights
the anti war movement for vietnam
gay rights
marxism
antiapartheid
french revolution

organized labor
civil rights
women's rights
the anti war movement for vietnam
gay rights
marxism
antiapartheid
french revolution

more generally, nearly everything that has ever successfully changed anything. change does not come from keeping your head down, playing nicely, and just getting by.

You only win once you manage to change my perception of you or those you represent in a positive way by being deliberately confrontational. Until you can do so, my statement stands.

(Of course if it's as "obviously false" as you claim it is, you should have no problem proving your point.)

Even Ghandi was confrontational.... :rolleyes:

Confrontational tactics can't be used to change people's perceptions.
Rosa Parks. I win. You lose. You can have either a complimentary T-shirt or what's in the box.

many of the battles of feminism have been won. as you can see from your window. changing the law ensured that women have recourse when unfairly denied employment. we should all thank the last generation of feminists for this improvement.

that doesnt mean that all the battles have been won. if you read the OP, you see a man (im assuming) who thinks that there are natural limits on equality that need to be taken into consideration. if he were the only one, it wouldnt matter but there are plenty of people who still think that way and who stand in the way of true equality. perhaps if he clarifies his problems with modern feminism we will see a battle that still needs to be fought.

I have listened in to your arguments thus far, Ashmoria. I cannot, with good conscience, call you the one seeking equality.

You, in my opinion, seem to desire something more than equality. You want homogeny. And, as long as I have a say in it, this will never happen.

Men and women are different. They have different organs, hormones, thoughts, desires, urges, dislikes, and "turn-off"s. What YOU want to do is ignore these. That would be denying what women are. And that is horrible, for women are a wonderful thing.

Rosa Parks. I win. You lose. You can have either a complimentary T-shirt or what's in the box.

Go for the box! Go for the box!

the T-shirt's compliments are all lame like: "You look mostly acceptable." and "You don't reek today." and "I see you finally clipped your toenails. Well done."

Go for the box. *nod*

I have listened in to your arguments thus far, Ashmoria. I cannot, with good conscience, call you the one seeking equality.

You, in my opinion, seem to desire something more than equality. You want homogeny. And, as long as I have a say in it, this will never happen.

Men and women are different. They have different organs, hormones, thoughts, desires, urges, dislikes, and "turn-off"s. What YOU want to do is ignore these. That would be denying what women are. And that is horrible, for women are a wonderful thing.

Isn't it funny how these arguments have a tendency to be made exclusively by men?
It was arguments such as yours that didn't allow my friend to get the job she wanted. And it's arguments like these, shoved and pushed upon kids from a very early age that will have women constantly struggling with her "naturally passive" role in society, it's this kind of argument that will put single or working moms under unnecessary additional stress, and it's this kind of thinking that will keep the thought alive that women who change partners more often than accepted by society have "an emotional problem", whereas men get a pat on the shoulder for being such a stud.
Of course men and women are different. But that should in no way affect the way they are treated by society. Ever.

and it's this kind of thinking that will keep the thought alive that women who change partners more often than accepted by society have "an emotional problem", whereas men get a pat on the shoulder for being such a stud.

If it makes you feel better I have a healthy disrespect for both sexes who do this. :)

If it makes you feel better I have a healthy disrespect for both sexes who do this. :)

I always knew you secretly despised me :p ;)

I always knew you secretly despised me :p ;)

Nah, not really, I'm only teasing. I'm not as prudish in real life as I often come across on here. :p

Well, I hate hyperfeminists, who hate men for no reason other than "They are men". Hopefully the OP was talking about that kind of crap.A woman who hates men because they're men is by definition not a feminist. Please look up the word before you use it next time.

And, finally, considering that women are equal in just about every major regard that comes to mind, can you please explain a few ways where women are discriminated against? Ashmoria hasn't responded to this, so I will:

Men have full reproductive rights, women do not.
Men can marry women, women cannot. (Except in Massachusetts and a few European countries.)
Men can be Catholic Priests, women cannot.

...for women are a wonderful thing.
And that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

It's not just that women are things. It's that women, collectively, are ONE thing.

Because, of course, gender is so very defining that we can lump all female persons together under a single heading. This is in no way like trying to lump all black people together under a single heading! Shut up! Saying that women are naturally "submissive" or "passive" or "emotional" is nothing whatsoever like saying that all black people are "lazy" or "less intelligent" or "built for physical labor." No it's not!!!!

I have listened in to your arguments thus far, Ashmoria. I cannot, with good conscience, call you the one seeking equality.

You, in my opinion, seem to desire something more than equality. You want homogeny. And, as long as I have a say in it, this will never happen.

Homogeny? Hardly. Ashmoria has been describing a society which would actually be much more diverse than the one we have now. Imagine not being pushed into a gender role that simply doesn't suit you - being yourself, regardless of who anyone else is. Such a society would be full of diversity.

Men and women are different. They have different organs,

Yup.

hormones,

Nope. Name a hormone that men have, but women don't. Or one that women have, but men don't. The hormones are the same, although the levels and the levels of reaction to them may be different.

thoughts,

What thoughts are exclusive to one sex?

desires,

What desires are exclusive to one sex?

urges,

What urges are exclusive to one sex?

dislikes,

What dislikes are exclusive to one sex?

and "turn-off"s.

What "turn-offs" are exclusive to one sex?

What YOU want to do is ignore these. That would be denying what women are. And that is horrible, for women are a wonderful thing.

And you get to decide what women are? Shouldn't we let....well....individual women decide who they are?

Homogeny? Hardly. Ashmoria has been describing a society which would actually be much more diverse than the one we have now. Imagine not being pushed into a gender role that simply doesn't suit you - being yourself, regardless of who anyone else is. Such a society would be full of diversity.



Yup.



Nope. Name a hormone that men have, but women don't. Or one that women have, but men don't. The hormones are the same, although the levels and the levels of reaction to them may be different.



What thoughts are exclusive to one sex?



What desires are exclusive to one sex?



What urges are exclusive to one sex?



What dislikes are exclusive to one sex?



What "turn-offs" are exclusive to one sex?



And you get to decide what women are? Shouldn't we let....well....individual women decide who they are?
I've decided to coin a phrase:

Demigasm (n): The intense pleasure experienced upon watching Demipublicents1 get her pwn on.

I have listened in to your arguments thus far, Ashmoria. I cannot, with good conscience, call you the one seeking equality.

You, in my opinion, seem to desire something more than equality. You want homogeny. And, as long as I have a say in it, this will never happen.

Men and women are different. They have different organs, hormones, thoughts, desires, urges, dislikes, and "turn-off"s. What YOU want to do is ignore these. That would be denying what women are. And that is horrible, for women are a wonderful thing.

when you say YOU, do you mean *ME* or do you mean feminists?

if you mean feminists then i challenge you to prove your point. PROOF would involved finding one (1) quote by a prominent feminist from any time in history that supports the idea that feminists want men and women to be exactly the same. good luck

if you mean ME, then point it out from the posts in this thread. at the point you took this quote from all *I* have advocated is that people be allowed to live the life that gives them the most satisfaction without being hamstrung by gender stereotypes. and that posters clarify what they mean.

that men and women are different is obvious. what ISNT obvious is how those differences mandate gender roles. in my experience, no matter what the stereotype, someone defies it. from boys who love to play with barbie dolls to women soldiers on patrol in iraq.

A woman who hates men because they're men is by definition not a feminist. Please look up the word before you use it next time.

By definition, a feminist doesn't have to exclusively be a woman. I know many men who consider themselves "feminists" because they believe in equality among men, women, and the transgendered.

Ashmoria hasn't responded to this, so I will:

Men have full reproductive rights, women do not.
Men can marry women, women cannot. (Except in Massachusetts and a few European countries.)
Men can be Catholic Priests, women cannot.

You left out that women are the ones who have the exclusive duty to carry on the human race. Men can't get pregnant, and women are stuck with all of the hard work in child bearing. Probably good thing, because if men had to be the ones to get pregnant, there'd be a whole lot less people in the world.

Catholics aren't the only religion that discriminates against women in the clergy. Very few religions all women full equality.

Go for the box! Go for the box!

the T-shirt's compliments are all lame like: "You look mostly acceptable." and "You don't reek today." and "I see you finally clipped your toenails. Well done."

Go for the box. *nod*
All right, the box it is. Maybe it'll be a flaming bag of dog doo I can throw at someone.

Anyway, the point was that social acceptance of your policy couldn't be acheaved through strictly and directly confrontational means. People tend to develop negative feelings toward you and your cause if all you ever do is attack everyone.

So, what's in the box?
And that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

It's not just that women are things. It's that women, collectively, are ONE thing.

Because, of course, gender is so very defining that we can lump all female persons together under a single heading. This is in no way like trying to lump all black people together under a single heading! Shut up! Saying that women are naturally "submissive" or "passive" or "emotional" is nothing whatsoever like saying that all black people are "lazy" or "less intelligent" or "built for physical labor." No it's not!!!!
See, this is the problem right here. A single sentence, taken out of context, the basis of which was celebrating the differences between the genders, and you've taken it as a blatant mysogynistic attack. Maybe if you'd quoted something more than you did, it might've seemed appropriate, but the hostility over that single quoted sentence?

What thoughts are exclusive to one sex?

I really can't argue with that one. No matter how little sense it makes to me, some men probably do have the urge to have a ten pound screaming larva burst out of their abdomen.
when you say YOU, do you mean *ME* or do you mean feminists?

His post seemed to me to be quite clearly reffering specifically to you.

if you mean feminists then i challenge you to prove your point. PROOF would involved finding one (1) quote by a prominent feminist from any time in history that supports the idea that feminists want men and women to be exactly the same. good luck

Why should anyone bother? Anyone who says these things will be called not a feminist by you anyway, so you've got an unfalsable requirement here.

if you mean ME, then point it out from the posts in this thread. at the point you took this quote from all *I* have advocated is that people be allowed to live the life that gives them the most satisfaction without being hamstrung by gender stereotypes. and that posters clarify what they mean.

Interesting that you limit his options to this thread when he seemed to be reffering to a broader pattern of behavior over multiple threads. Something to hide?

that men and women are different is obvious. what ISNT obvious is how those differences mandate gender roles. in my experience, no matter what the stereotype, someone defies it. from boys who love to play with barbie dolls to women soldiers on patrol in iraq.
On that, I agree completely. I'd actually go so far as to say you'd be hard pressed to find a flesh and blood person who actually adheres fully to a steriotype.

You left out that women are the ones who have the exclusive duty to carry on the human race. Men can't get pregnant, and women are stuck with all of the hard work in child bearing. Probably good thing, because if men had to be the ones to get pregnant, there'd be a whole lot less people in the world.

That has got to be the most blatantly mysandronous statement I've ever seen. Is this from the viewpoint that men can't take the pain, or that men in general don't value children? Honestly, in a thread about a social movement who's stated goal is equality between the genders, and which so strongly oposes steriotyping of this sort, you think it's okay to make such a chauvenistic joke (on the same level as the sammich one earlier)?

All right, the box it is. Maybe it'll be a flaming bag of dog doo I can throw at someone.

Anyway, the point was that social acceptance of your policy couldn't be acheaved through strictly and directly confrontational means. People tend to develop negative feelings toward you and your cause if all you ever do is attack everyone.

So, what's in the box?

NOTHING!

/Wheel of Fish

That has got to be the most blatantly mysandronous statement I've ever seen. Is this from the viewpoint that men can't take the pain, or that men in general don't value children? Honestly, in a thread about a social movement who's stated goal is equality between the genders, and which so strongly oposes steriotyping of this sort, you think it's okay to make such a chauvenistic joke (on the same level as the sammich one earlier)?

No one started advocating that men are inferior yet. I was merely stating a fact that I have noticed from personal observation. If we are to have true gender equality, then women cannot be the ones who are stuck with the check when something messes up in the copulatory process. Don't go accussing people of misandry before you know where they are coming from. You're assumption is the equivalent of me assuming you are a misogynist because you violently attacked a statement that could possibly be construed to be degrading to men.

NOTHING!

/Wheel of Fish

Oh well. At least I got a box out of the deal. Better than another lousy T-shirt

Oh well. At least I got a box out of the deal. Better than another lousy T-shirt

You only get what was in the box.

Homogeny? Hardly. Ashmoria has been describing a society which would actually be much more diverse than the one we have now. Imagine not being pushed into a gender role that simply doesn't suit you - being yourself, regardless of who anyone else is. Such a society would be full of diversity.

That's not what I got out of it. The implied tones and underlying patterns of text pointed toward homogeny, even if not at a conscious level.

Yup.



Nope. Name a hormone that men have, but women don't. Or one that women have, but men don't. The hormones are the same, although the levels and the levels of reaction to them may be different.

It's not a hormone. It's the amount. In this case, the amount of testosterone. and that "y" chromosome, both of which radically change the body.

What thoughts are exclusive to one sex?

They are as a whole different. I'm saying that the average person of each category is different. Using outlayers to try and dislodge my argument is not a scientific (or whatever you would refer to it as) process.

What desires are exclusive to one sex?


They are as a whole different. I'm saying that the average person of each category is different. Using outlayers to try and dislodge my argument is not a scientific (or whatever you would refer to it as) process.

What urges are exclusive to one sex?


They are as a whole different. I'm saying that the average person of each category is different. Using outlayers to try and dislodge my argument is not a scientific (or whatever you would refer to it as) process.

What dislikes are exclusive to one sex?


They are as a whole different. I'm saying that the average person of each category is different. Using outlayers to try and dislodge my argument is not a scientific (or whatever you would refer to it as) process.

What "turn-offs" are exclusive to one sex?


They are as a whole different. I'm saying that the average person of each category is different. Using outlayers to try and dislodge my argument is not a scientific (or whatever you would refer to it as) process.

And you get to decide what women are? Shouldn't we let....well....individual women decide who they are?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I did not mean that in that sense but more in a laudable context.

Responses bolded.

No one started advocating that men are inferior yet. I was merely stating a fact that I have noticed from personal observation.

What was that observation Trotsky? That men don't give birth? Nothing about your statement remotely follows from anything but bad steriotypes and personal bais. Your assumption that were men the ones to give birth there would be less people is as rediculus as the assertion that a world without men would be one without violence.

If we are to have true gender equality, then women cannot be the ones who are stuck with the check when something messes up in the copulatory process.

Excuse me? I was under the impression legal measures like child support were specifically designed so that both parents need to "pay up" when something goes wrong.

Don't go accussing people of misandry before you know where they are coming from.

Interestingly, you've yet to explain where you're coming from, and it was a mysandronous statement.

You're assumption is the equivalent of me assuming you are a misogynist because you violently attacked a statement that could possibly be construed to be degrading to men.
Wrong. My attack would be the equivalent of a feminist being offended by and attacking a poster for the common joke "now go make me a sammich woman!" You need to learn to construct better analogies. It's on the standardised tests, you know.

Responses bolded.

Completely useless responses, since you never bothered to support your argument, instead simply repeating your assertion as if we should take it as fact.

SNIP

I thank you for wading through the hyperactive comments here which proved my point.

Completely useless responses, since you never bothered to support your argument, instead simply repeating your assertion as if we should take it as fact.

I can't rebut if people misinterpret my words. I have to correct their hypersensitivity first.

And that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

It's not just that women are things. It's that women, collectively, are ONE thing.

Because, of course, gender is so very defining that we can lump all female persons together under a single heading. This is in no way like trying to lump all black people together under a single heading! Shut up! Saying that women are naturally "submissive" or "passive" or "emotional" is nothing whatsoever like saying that all black people are "lazy" or "less intelligent" or "built for physical labor." No it's not!!!!

Again, I have to clarify. I meant that in a laudable way, not that they are inhuman.

Can't even see that after one word.



People are things, you know. Just very complex ones.

You only get what was in the box.

I could've sworn I was offered the box. Oh well, at least it's one less T- shirt to deal with.

Simply put, I feel that women and men are DIFFERENT. Look down and you'll see some evidence.

But women and men are EQUAL. They deserve EQUAL (not affirmative action-based) protection, pay, etc.

His post seemed to me to be quite clearly reffering specifically to you.

Why should anyone bother? Anyone who says these things will be called not a feminist by you anyway, so you've got an unfalsable requirement here.

Interesting that you limit his options to this thread when he seemed to be reffering to a broader pattern of behavior over multiple threads. Something to hide?



why did you bother?

you have have no reason to suggest that i would do any such thing.

he seemed to me to be responding to THIS thread (if he was referring to me) but if he can find something anywhere on the net that indicates that i have ever advocated that men and women should be exactly the same or that in any way supports whatever his contentions about me are, he (or you) may feel free to quote them.

no one is saying that woman are incapable of doing a job: in our modern society, we know that thinking that someone is inferior in a certain task because of their gender is ludicrous.

However, I do have a problem with the radical feminists in America now-a-days. . . The one's that believe that they are still being stereotypically thought of as 1950's housewives. Just to clear this up, women are not thought of like that unless that is the path they so choose, and some women do choose that path, and that's not them bending to the whim of society, that's their choice.

Also, I have to say, in my opinion, I believe that the radical feminsists don't want equality: they want superiority. If they wanted equality, then they wouldn't attack ever single social value that in just the slightest way "offended" women. Honestly, when it comes to a man looking at a woman is "sexual harrasment," there has to be a line drawn.

If the radicals want equality, then they should think of the benefit of society, not just themselves. The radicals have become so detached with their movement that in America, many women don't want to be associated with the feminist movement; sure, they advocate equality and want equal pay for equal work and so on and so forth, and that's good. However, becoming socially dominant to men? It's just like affirmative action: it doesn't promote equality, it promotes more segregation and racism, just as the radical feminist movement for equality promotes sexism.

And that's my two cents.

QFT QFT.

All of this might have been discussed, but i wanted to get my say in before i was burnt out from reading all of these pages.


I agree with the person that i quoted. I feel that American Feminisim in American Society is become increasingly less of a good cause.

Ok let me get this out first, before i get bashed. I am an Anarchist. Not the "Whewt i can kill you and steal stuff lololomglazerpewpew" anarchist. But the Anarchist that bielives that if you show utmost love and compassion, then it will spread. It would take pages for me to explain my exact thoughts. Just figure it like this, I love Everyone. I dont care about religion, sexual preference, skin color, etc. I bielive we are all human.

With that being said, I feel that many feminists today are just trying to raise themselvs upon the podium through their crusades. Much like affirmative action.

I HATE it when people crusade for equality on one end, then when they begin to be treated like "the norm" (For instance, women in the work place being treated like the men in the work place, some get pissed off) they get mad that they arent being treated like "more equal" minorities.

I personally feel that these crusaders need to pick one or the other. They cant be treated equaly then turn around want to be treated better.

As for social change. I agree with Y'all. Changing social opinion is hard as lifting a greased up 2 ton piggie. I mean, i try to teach the practices of tolerance, non violence, and anarchism in a community of Racism, intollerance, violance, and pure statism (Needville Texas).

Now im rambling.

Cliff Notes:
1: Agree with quoted person
2: Despise the equality yet more equal "treatment" some suggest.
3: Agree that social change is hard.
4: I do this beacuse noone reads posts that are more then 4 words nowadays.

Simply put, I feel that women and men are DIFFERENT. Look down and you'll see some evidence.

But women and men are EQUAL. They deserve EQUAL (not affirmative action-based) protection, pay, etc.

i wish you would try to follow your OWN argument rather than just responding to the post at hand

you quoted this post of mine

many of the battles of feminism have been won. as you can see from your window. changing the law ensured that women have recourse when unfairly denied employment. we should all thank the last generation of feminists for this improvement.

that doesnt mean that all the battles have been won. if you read the OP, you see a man (im assuming) who thinks that there are natural limits on equality that need to be taken into consideration. if he were the only one, it wouldnt matter but there are plenty of people who still think that way and who stand in the way of true equality. perhaps if he clarifies his problems with modern feminism we will see a battle that still needs to be fought.

you made this response to it:
I have listened in to your arguments thus far, Ashmoria. I cannot, with good conscience, call you the one seeking equality.

You, in my opinion, seem to desire something more than equality. You want homogeny. And, as long as I have a say in it, this will never happen.

Men and women are different. They have different organs, hormones, thoughts, desires, urges, dislikes, and "turn-off"s. What YOU want to do is ignore these. That would be denying what women are. And that is horrible, for women are a wonderful thing.

MY response to YOU was:


when you say YOU, do you mean *ME* or do you mean feminists?

if you mean feminists then i challenge you to prove your point. PROOF would involved finding one (1) quote by a prominent feminist from any time in history that supports the idea that feminists want men and women to be exactly the same. good luck

if you mean ME, then point it out from the posts in this thread. at the point you took this quote from all *I* have advocated is that people be allowed to live the life that gives them the most satisfaction without being hamstrung by gender stereotypes. and that posters clarify what they mean.

that men and women are different is obvious. what ISNT obvious is how those differences mandate gender roles. in my experience, no matter what the stereotype, someone defies it. from boys who love to play with barbie dolls to women soldiers on patrol in iraq.

so my question is

what you are you TALKING about? your response quoted above doesnt not go with your contention that feminists want homogeny. you dont bring out where ANYONE has said that either known feminists from any time in history nor myself in this thread (or any other for that matter)

you seem to be FINE with the idea that gender stereotypes are fluid, that men and women can do most of the same jobs. you claim that we have differences in thoughts needs and desires but you cant NAME any differences.

so what is your freaking POINT? are you afraid that women want penises?? are you thinking that a feminist society would make us all eunuchs? WHAT?

follow you own argument and make your point.

yes, there are physical differences between men and women, SO WHAT?

QFT QFT.

All of this might have been discussed, but i wanted to get my say in before i was burnt out from reading all of these pages.


I agree with the person that i quoted. I feel that American Feminisim in American Society is become increasingly less of a good cause.

Ok let me get this out first, before i get bashed. I am an Anarchist. Not the "Whewt i can kill you and steal stuff lololomglazerpewpew" anarchist. But the Anarchist that bielives that if you show utmost love and compassion, then it will spread. It would take pages for me to explain my exact thoughts. Just figure it like this, I love Everyone. I dont care about religion, sexual preference, skin color, etc. I bielive we are all human.

With that being said, I feel that many feminists today are just trying to raise themselvs upon the podium through their crusades. Much like affirmative action.

I HATE it when people crusade for equality on one end, then when they begin to be treated like "the norm" (For instance, women in the work place being treated like the men in the work place, some get pissed off) they get mad that they arent being treated like "more equal" minorities.

I personally feel that these crusaders need to pick one or the other. They cant be treated equaly then turn around want to be treated better.

As for social change. I agree with Y'all. Changing social opinion is hard as lifting a greased up 2 ton piggie. I mean, i try to teach the practices of tolerance, non violence, and anarchism in a community of Racism, intollerance, violance, and pure statism (Needville Texas).

Now im rambling.

Cliff Notes:
1: Agree with quoted person
2: Despise the equality yet more equal "treatment" some suggest.
3: Agree that social change is hard.
4: I do this beacuse noone reads posts that are more then 4 words nowadays.


oh darlin, you need to put the cliff's notes at the top.

why did you bother?

you have have no reason to suggest that i would do any such thing.

he seemed to me to be responding to THIS thread (if he was referring to me) but if he can find something anywhere on the net that indicates that i have ever advocated that men and women should be exactly the same or that in any way supports whatever his contentions about me are, he (or you) may feel free to quote them.
I was answering your question and asking you to argue in a way that's conductive to actual debate by not demanding the impossible and not specifically ruling out certain kinds of valid evidence.

I wasn't accusing you of anything but poor debate style.

oh darlin, you need to put the cliff's notes at the top.

Oh DAMNIT. I knew i did something wrong.

Anyhow, you get my point.

<sources cited>

Very good stuff. Thank you.

btw,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/300px-Tianasquare.jpg

i win

No, you phail. That guy didn't convince those tanks or the Chinese government of a damn thing.

As can be seen in many, many cases (MTAE, Republicans, etc.), even when you confront someone with the absolute, unalterable, clear and present truth, if someone doesn't like what you're saying their response will be sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, "La! La! La!" Confrontation accomplishes almost nothing, especially against those determined to be ignorant.

"Hitting people only makes them afraid of you. It doesn't make you right, it only makes you a bully."

More beer!

No, you phail. That guy didn't convince those tanks or the Chinese government of a damn thing.

As can be seen in many, many cases (MTAE, Republicans, etc.), even when you confront someone with the absolute, unalterable, clear and present truth, if someone doesn't like what you're saying their response will be sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, "La! La! La!" Confrontation accomplishes almost nothing, especially against those determined to be ignorant.

"Hitting people only makes them afraid of you. It doesn't make you right, it only makes you a bully."

Thank you.

I was answering your question and asking you to argue in a way that's conductive to actual debate by not demanding the impossible and not specifically ruling out certain kinds of valid evidence.

I wasn't accusing you of anything but poor debate style.

geee its impossible to back up his statment about what feminists believe by quoting ANY feminist in all of human history? hmmmmm. maybe thats because it doesnt exist.

its impossible to back up what he said about ME in this thread by quoting something i said in this thread? HMMMM maybe thats because i didnt say what he thinks i did

i wasnt aware that asking for proof was a poorer debating technique than pulling your opponents answer out of your ass. i guess i wont be studying proper debate style from you.

No, you phail. That guy didn't convince those tanks or the Chinese government of a damn thing.

there is not only one audience that matters in a given situation. tank man is one of the most widely recognized and celebrated icons of liberty in the world. time magazine ranked him as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

there is not only one audience that matters in a given situation. tank man is one of the most widely recognized and celebrated icons of liberty in the world. time magazine ranked him as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

i have to agree with you. its been 17 years since that pic was taken and you didnt even have to label it.

Men have full reproductive rights, women do not.

My initial reaction to this was, "BULLSHIT!" But I think that maybe you might mean something different than I think of by the term "reproductive rights." So, what exactly do you mean?

geee its impossible to back up his statment about what feminists believe by quoting ANY feminist in all of human history? hmmmmm. maybe thats because it doesnt exist.

It's impossible to prove that statement because you always have the option of denouncing the person quoted as not being a feminist. Considering your statements so far and those of others in similar debates, you seem certain to do so.

After all, I haven't seen a lot of acknowledgement for the well known feminist author who made the infamous statement "all sex is rape".

its impossible to back up what he said about ME in this thread by quoting something i said in this thread? HMMMM maybe thats because i didnt say what he thinks i did

As I said, you specifically limited it to this thread when there might be evidence of this patter elsewhere. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I did everything I could, including spelling it out for you.

i wasnt aware that asking for proof was a poorer debating technique than pulling your opponents answer out of your ass. i guess i wont be studying proper debate style from you.

I really don't care if you value my advice or not. It's your arguements that will suffer, not mine. I had simply hoped to help you understand others points which you were asking for help understanding and to help you strengthen your arguement style by pointing out when you're asking for the logically impossible as evidence (which to a lot of people suggests a fear of actual informed debate).

It's impossible to prove that statement because you always have the option of denouncing the person quoted as not being a feminist. Considering your statements so far and those of others in similar debates, you seem certain to do so.

After all, I haven't seen a lot of acknowledgement for the well known feminist author who made the infamous statement "all sex is rape".

As I said, you specifically limited it to this thread when there might be evidence of this patter elsewhere. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I did everything I could, including spelling it out for you.


I really don't care if you value my advice or not. It's your arguements that will suffer, not mine. I had simply hoped to help you understand others points which you were asking for help understanding and to help you strengthen your arguement style by pointing out when you're asking for the logically impossible as evidence (which to a lot of people suggests a fear of actual informed debate).


you really are not a master debater

what other people do is irrelevant. i have NEVER denied an obviously correct source. that our missing middle man didnt bother to look for a quote and probably couldnt find one if he did, is the important point. he is the one who made the assertion. if he cant bring up anything for proof, his assertion fails.

YOU made the assumption that he was referring to my posts in other threads. you are wrong. how do i know? because i know what i have posted in the past. IF he had anything true to back up his claim, he would have posted it. if he had something in mind from another thread, he could have posted it and it would have stood as proof wouldnt it? he didnt because he cant.

there is not only one audience that matters in a given situation. tank man is one of the most widely recognized and celebrated icons of liberty in the world. time magazine ranked him as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

OK, but he was so influential he did what? What is different now that he's road pizza? Was the Chinese government so sorry that they changed their policies towards human rights? No. They've become even worse. Does anyone else think more about human rights now than they would have had they not seen him run over? Perhaps. But can anyone actually name one single person who has made a difference in the general world state of human rights who has referenced that guy (does anyone even know his name? Without googling it.) as their inspiration? I don't know of anyone. He's not even as influential as "Remember the Alamo!" At least some people fought harder while saying that.

i have to agree with you. its been 17 years since that pic was taken and you didnt even have to label it.

yeah, it's going down in history as just one of those images. like napalm girl. or the v-j day kiss.

i have to agree with you. its been 17 years since that pic was taken and you didnt even have to label it.

Unfortunately, the only reason I knew what it was a picture of without him labelling it was because I was there watching it happen. How many kids on this board knew before I specified it? How many even know now? I think that most people have an inkling when you mention "Tiannemen Square," but I seriously doubt most people who weren't around at the time could honestly tell you what exactly happened there or what it was about.

you really are not a master debater

*sigh* You're right. I'm not a master debater. I have a really hard time bringing myself to obvuscate the relavence of my oponents' valid points, and feel the need to address them rather than discredit them or deny them an opening to use them.

Saddly, I'll just have to keep relying on being right to make up for that deficiency.

what other people do is irrelevant. i have NEVER denied an obviously correct source. that our missing middle man didnt bother to look for a quote and probably couldnt find one if he did, is the important point. he is the one who made the assertion. if he cant bring up anything for proof, his assertion fails.

So, what do you have to say about that well known quote I posted? Let me guess. "Not a real feminist"?

YOU made the assumption that he was referring to my posts in other threads. you are wrong. how do i know? because i know what i have posted in the past. IF he had anything true to back up his claim, he would have posted it. if he had something in mind from another thread, he could have posted it and it would have stood as proof wouldnt it? he didnt because he cant.

You specifically stated he should find a post in this thread, which led me to question what might have been in other threads. You claim now you would've accepted his evidence, but honestly you specifically acted to discourage a certain kind of evidence from ever being introduced in the first place.

Please, I know you being a master debater and all could probably keep confusing the point of this forever, and maybe even trick me into arguing points I don't believe in (it's happened before), but in the end, the truth is going to win out. (Don't try to contradict me on that, it's the only thing resembling faith I have.)

I have to thank you guys (and don't yell at me for the English language; the masculine gender can indeed 'cover' the female one) for covering for me while I was gone.

Ashmoria, your evidence is a lo more subtle than quoting it, as I said earlier. The posts require analysis (i.e., looking at connotation, diction, etc.) to bring out your point-of-view and bias. It's right there if you take a look.

So unless you want me to take apart every last word, phrase, and sentence you said, diverting attention from the actual debate, then you don't get any evidence. And there is always the inevitable denouncement in the process... (Not that I care what you call me, but it really turns the debate to mudslinging, something I don't want).

YOU means you specifically. I didn't mention anybody else, so who else could it be?


Now to your last post. The forums crashed so I couldn't post my answer.

Basically, I fell that the average man and woman are very different from one another. But they are equal.

So treat US in the same way. Here is a series of questions for you:

-Who gets favored in divorce?

-Who gets favored in rape cases (See the teacher-student "relationship" cases as of late)?

-Who gets slammed with more sexual harassment lawsuits that are frivolous when looked into (like a man getting sued for a catcall)?

I realize these questions SEEM horribly sexist, so answer them as society sees them, regardless of your microcosmic experience.

You want equality? Sure.

You want inequality? OK, we can work it out.

But you CAN'T HAVE BOTH. And that is what you try to do.


I am not a misogynist. However, I cannot accept the supremacy women seek (supremacy meaning being equal AND unequal at the same time, with the choice being most beneficial).

This is the problem right here. I try to point out that what you seek is not what you claim, and you call me a misogynist. The similarities between this and the War On Terror are astounding... :o

Responses bolded.

I see, so you have no actual responses, considering that you didn't address the issue. Men and women are not homogeneous groups. There is no thought, desire, etc. that only a man or woman can have. As such, expecting men and women to be wholly different or treating them as such is ludicrous. In the end, we are all human beings. We all have thoughts, desires, wants, turn-ons, turn-offs, hobbies, etc. Different groups of people will demonstrate average differences in these things, but feminism is not about groups - it is about individuals. It is about ensuring that individuals can live their own lives based on their own wants, needs, desires, turn-ons, turn-offs, hobbies, etc.

Simply put, I feel that women and men are DIFFERENT.

Of course they are! Every individual human being is different from every other individual human being. Even twins are different from one another.

But the fact remains that the only inherent difference between what is "man" and what is "woman" (and even this depends on your specific definition - ie. morphological vs. genetic) is a single chromosome or a few body parts.

When people say that we should "celebrate the differences between the genders" or other such comments, it suggests that there actually are static differences between the genders, other than the physical. And yet, no one can come up with any such differences. All they have are "on average".

The feminist stance is that we should celebrate the differences between human beings. We should celebrate each person for who and what they are, rather than what they have between their legs or what stereotypical gender role they do or do not meet.

When people say that we should "celebrate the differences between the genders" or other such comments, it suggests that there actually are static differences between the genders, other than the physical. And yet, no one can come up with any such differences. All they have are "on average".


Because when they say different, they get their heads bitten off.


If I turned you into the opposite gender and gave you time to adapt, you would be a different person. THAT is my point as far as that goes.

After all, I haven't seen a lot of acknowledgement for the well known feminist author who made the infamous statement "all sex is rape".

That might have something to do with the fact that, from what I've seen, there is no such quote. Much like the CDC report that supposedly asked women to view themselves as "pre-pregnant," it simply doesn't exist. There is a quote that has largely been taken out of context to mean "all sex is rape." And, from what I recall, the woman who made the statement that has been construed in this way is pretty extreme in her views. But the exact quote simply doesn't exist.

This is the problem right here. I try to point out that what you seek is not what you claim, and you call me a misogynist.

How could you possibly know what Ashmoria seeks outside of her telling you what she seeks?

Are you a mind reader?

When people say that we should "celebrate the differences between the genders" or other such comments, it suggests that there actually are static differences between the genders, other than the physical. And yet, no one can come up with any such differences. All they have are "on average".


Indeed. On avarage. And those trends are indeed met across all people. And while there are people who do not conform to the avarage, to expect everyones peception of everyone else to be not informed to one extent or another by gender is unrealistic. People will respond diffrently to men and women. There is nothing wrong with that. People will make generalisations that have elements of truth in them. The problems only come when said generalisations are institutionalised. And that is where feminisim has a legitimate case. It does not have a legitimate case to force everyone to look at everyone else as blank sheets. All the time our perceptions of people are informed by diffrent factors about them. Gender is one, amoung many. Its absolutely fine as long as it does not become institutionalised or overly negative.

-Who gets favored in divorce?

Depends on the situation, the judge, the area in which a divorce occurs, and what you mean by "favored."

-Who gets favored in rape cases (See the teacher-student "relationship" cases as of late)?

Not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking if women tend to get lesser sentences when they are the rapists? If so, you are absolutely right. And this is based in gender stereotypes that feminsists are trying to dispel - ie. that men always want sex, no matter how it comes to them (even if they are very young and impressionable). Do a search for the description of a man who recently sued for rape in a European country (don't remember which one) because he fell asleep at a party and woke up with a woman giving him unsolicited oral sex. You might be surprised how many people, men and women alike, were suggesting that he had no reason to sue.

-Who gets slammed with more sexual harassment lawsuits that are frivolous when looked into (like a man getting sued for a catcall)?

Again, based in gender stereotypes that feminists are trying to dispel.

Because when they say different, they get their heads bitten off.

They can't come up with any differences because of the response when they bring up differences? Does the response cause amnesia or something?

If I turned you into the opposite gender and gave you time to adapt, you would be a different person. THAT is my point as far as that goes.

If I suddenly had a penis tomorrow, what precisely do you think would change to make me a "different person"??

Indeed. On avarage. And those trends are indeed met across all people. And while there are people who do not conform to the avarage, to expect everyones peception of everyone else to be not informed to one extent or another by gender is unrealistic. People will respond diffrently to men and women. There is nothing wrong with that.

Indeed. On average. ANd those trends are indeed met across all continents. And while there are people who do not conform to the average, to expect everyones perception of everyone else to be not informed to one extent or another by ethnicity is unrealistic. People will respond differently to blacks and whites. There is nothing wrong with that.


Do you still like your statement? Do you really think it is permissable to treat someone differently based on nothing more than their ethnicity? If not, why on earth do you think it is permissable based on nothing more than their genitalia?

Indeed. On average. ANd those trends are indeed met across all continents. And while there are people who do not conform to the average, to expect everyones perception of everyone else to be not informed to one extent or another by ethnicity is unrealistic. People will respond differently to blacks and whites. There is nothing wrong with that.

Do you still like your statement?

Yes, your quite correct. People who say that they ignore the differences between Black people and white people are silly. Obviously there are diffrences, and those diffrences inform perceptions. The problems come when the question of where the infomation about those perceptions come from, and to what extent they are postivie or negative, why and to what extent the perception affects your actions. Cultures of course are not nessecarly racial, so those diffrences may be meetered out with information about the person. What is important in both cases is that initial perceptions are not held with too vherment a beleif that they are correct. People should be prepared to be proven wrong. Also people should understand that diffrences does not mean inferior or superior people exist. Diffrent people exist, and some people have talents in areas that are greater than my own, and in other areas I have talents that are greater than theirs. But the fact remains I am not superior to them in a general term. I may be superior in my knowledge of the Arab-Isralei conflict or in my understanding of the workings of the EU, but they may be superior to me in the ability to deconstruct one of Shakespeares Sonnets. To go back to my original point, as much as we can percieve people as diffrent and act upon those diffrences, because of those diffrences what we are entitled to do is treet people diffrently and react in diffrent ways to them, but not differently with regard to treeting them as inferior or superior to us. And that is where institutions come in. Oppotunties must be open to all and be given on the grounds of merit, not on perception. If you expect that a general trend in someone may be an asset, that general trend must be objectively demonstrated to hold true for that particular person. Instutitonal decisions must not be made on the grounds of subjective perception

Yes, your quite correct. People who say that they ignore the differences between Black people and white people are silly. Obviously there are diffrences, and those diffrences inform perceptions.

The only difference I see between black people and white people are their physical features. Precisely what other differences do you think are inherent to ethnicity? And if there are none, why is it silly not to assume them to be there?

The only difference I see between black people and white people are their physical features. Precisely what other differences do you think are inherent to ethnicity? And if there are none, why is it silly not to assume them to be there?

Phsyically speeking yes, but there is a culture which is linked to that. If there were not then magazines such as "Black men" would not proliferate (Black men is a British black men's lifestyle magaizine). And thus a link can be made to a culture in that situation. Obviously however such a perception should not be a faithfully held assumption, just something that you can be aware of. As I said, be prepared to be proven wrong

And kindly do not drop the rest of my post. If you agree with it say so. If you do not, say so and demonstrate why. But do not ignore the thoughts people have expressed. It is rude in the extreme in this context

That might have something to do with the fact that, from what I've seen, there is no such quote. Much like the CDC report that supposedly asked women to view themselves as "pre-pregnant," it simply doesn't exist. There is a quote that has largely been taken out of context to mean "all sex is rape." And, from what I recall, the woman who made the statement that has been construed in this way is pretty extreme in her views. But the exact quote simply doesn't exist.

So, "not a feminist" then?

Bump

Depends on the situation, the judge, the area in which a divorce occurs, and what you mean by "favored."

Getting more out of the process

Not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking if women tend to get lesser sentences when they are the rapists? If so, you are absolutely right. And this is based in gender stereotypes that feminsists are trying to dispel - ie. that men always want sex, no matter how it comes to them (even if they are very young and impressionable). Do a search for the description of a man who recently sued for rape in a European country (don't remember which one) because he fell asleep at a party and woke up with a woman giving him unsolicited oral sex. You might be surprised how many people, men and women alike, were suggesting that he had no reason to sue.

For the first part, that is good. Equality is necessary. For the second, although he was not impregnated, he had a right to sue for discomfort he felt.

Not saying that that is necessarily uncomfortable, but he still has a right to sue if he felt that.

Again, based in gender stereotypes that feminists are trying to dispel.

Depends on which ones. The TRUE feminists, yes. The "feminists", no.

They can't come up with any differences because of the response when they bring up differences? Does the response cause amnesia or something?

Simply fear for a hyperreactive situation.

If I suddenly had a penis tomorrow, what precisely do you think would change to make me a "different person"??

Hormone levels will change and then so will your attitudes as a result. Your actions will differ and you will change.

:cool:

Phsyically speeking yes, but there is a culture which is linked to that.

No, there isn't. There is nothing inherent about different skin color that places someone in a different culture. Why would I assume that someone comes from a specific culture simply because of the way they look?

If there were not then magazines such as "Black men" would not proliferate (Black men is a British black men's lifestyle magaizine). And thus a link can be made to a culture in that situation.

If there were *never* a link, such a magazine could not proliferate. But what about black men who don't like the magazine? What about white women who do?

And kindly do not drop the rest of my post. If you agree with it say so. If you do not, say so and demonstrate why. But do not ignore the thoughts people have expressed. It is rude in the extreme in this context

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the part I quoted, which actually had to do with the conversation we were having. The rest of your post had much more to do with individual differences, and nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed differences you are trying to create between ethnicities and genders.


So, "not a feminist" then?

I know that reading isn't really that hard for you. I simply pointed out that there is no such quote. I do think that the more extreme views that people put under the heading of feminism are actually counter to its cause, just as I think that extremists in religion are counter to the purpose of religion. But I wouldn't claim that they aren't religious.


Getting more out of the process

Then, like I said, it depends on the specific judge, the specific situation, the social atmosphere, the background of the couple, and so on....

Most divorces end in a pretty even split. In some, one person or another gets more, for any number of reasons.

For the first part, that is good. Equality is necessary. For the second, although he was not impregnated, he had a right to sue for discomfort he felt.

LOL, "discomfort." If only rape were nothing more than "discomfort."

Hormone levels will change and then so will your attitudes as a result. Your actions will differ and you will change.

You have a really inflated view of hormones and just how much effect they generally have on human personality. What attitudes would change simply because my hormone levels changed? My hormones change quite a bit over the course of a month, naturally. My attitudes really don't.

What actions do you think I would take that would be different? Are you insinuating that a change in hormones would change my personality so significantly that I would be unrecognizable as myself? If that is true, why do those who take hormones and then have sex changes not have a different personality afterwards? Why don't they become "different people"?

I HATE it when people crusade for equality on one end, then when they begin to be treated like "the norm" (For instance, women in the work place being treated like the men in the work place, some get pissed off) they get mad that they arent being treated like "more equal" minorities.Do you have a specific example of feminists doing this?

My initial reaction to this was, "BULLSHIT!" But I think that maybe you might mean something different than I think of by the term "reproductive rights." So, what exactly do you mean?It means that men have a choice in all steps of their role in the reproductive process. Women do not. At a certain point, women aren't allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

So, what do you have to say about that well known quote I posted? Let me guess. "Not a real feminist"?



1) putting something in quotations marks doesnt make it a quote. if you can find an actual quote by an actual feminist from any time in history we can discuss it

2) it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. if you want to discuss "all sex is rape" start a new thread.

3) i never claimed that no feminist in the history of the world ever said anything stupid. im sure that you can find dozens of stupid things written by feiminists. when it fits the topic, post it here.

I have to thank you guys (and don't yell at me for the English language; the masculine gender can indeed 'cover' the female one) for covering for me while I was gone.

Ashmoria, your evidence is a lo more subtle than quoting it, as I said earlier. The posts require analysis (i.e., looking at connotation, diction, etc.) to bring out your point-of-view and bias. It's right there if you take a look.

So unless you want me to take apart every last word, phrase, and sentence you said, diverting attention from the actual debate, then you don't get any evidence. And there is always the inevitable denouncement in the process... (Not that I care what you call me, but it really turns the debate to mudslinging, something I don't want).

YOU means you specifically. I didn't mention anybody else, so who else could it be?


Now to your last post. The forums crashed so I couldn't post my answer.

Basically, I fell that the average man and woman are very different from one another. But they are equal.

So treat US in the same way. Here is a series of questions for you:

-Who gets favored in divorce?

-Who gets favored in rape cases (See the teacher-student "relationship" cases as of late)?

-Who gets slammed with more sexual harassment lawsuits that are frivolous when looked into (like a man getting sued for a catcall)?

I realize these questions SEEM horribly sexist, so answer them as society sees them, regardless of your microcosmic experience.

You want equality? Sure.

You want inequality? OK, we can work it out.

But you CAN'T HAVE BOTH. And that is what you try to do.


I am not a misogynist. However, I cannot accept the supremacy women seek (supremacy meaning being equal AND unequal at the same time, with the choice being most beneficial).

This is the problem right here. I try to point out that what you seek is not what you claim, and you call me a misogynist. The similarities between this and the War On Terror are astounding... :o

i dont know who called you a mysogynist. but it wasnt me, nor did i ever think you were.

so, what you are saying about ME is that when my posts are filtered through your brain's perceptions, you have decided certain things about me which are not borne out by the actual posts. you cant POINT to anything in them that supports your conclusions, you just have those conclusions. same for everyone i suppose. especially in a written form like this we miss so many of the usual imputs we have on people. we make judgements about everyone here (whether we realize it or not) that in fact have little basis in reality. all we have is what we think about you from the posts you make.

the evidence of women seeking or receiving an imbalance in society is evidenced in divorce, rape, and sexual harrassment.

no i dont see any evidence of a great imbalance in divorce. everyone loses in divorce but the laws (in the US, in the majority of states) are equal and are equally enforced. there are unfair verdicts in some cases but they fall just as often on women as on men. someone has the better lawyer, someone relied on "fairness" instead of pressing his or her case as firmly as possible, someone gave in rather than putting the children through an ugly court proceeding. there are biased judges going both ways.

i dont believe you were suggesting that women RAPISTS have it better than man rapists. they do, but woman on man rape is so rare and so much more rarely reported (percentage-wise) that the courts are lagging well behind in understanding that rape is rape. feminists are not arguing that no woman should be punished for the sexual exploitation of a man or boy.

as to what i THINK you are talking about, which is that when it comes to "he said, she said" rape cases (lack of firm evidence) that the woman is favored, well, all you have to do is to look at the highly publicized ones to see that it is indeed almost impossible for a woman to get a conviction on this kind of complaint. most prosecutors wont even take it to trial.

yes, when it comes to FRIVILOUS sexual harrassment cases, men are on the losing end. but when it comes to ACTUAL sexual harrassment, women lose hands down.

those are interesting points to make but im wondering where you are really going with it. yes, there are times when men are unfairly accused and unfairly punished for things that make no sense. that goes both ways. for every man shunned by his social circle for an unfair charge of date rape there is a woman shunned because she has been labeled a whore. what do you think would be the solution to this problem?

No, there isn't. There is nothing inherent about different skin color that places someone in a different culture. Why would I assume that someone comes from a specific culture simply because of the way they look?

Its an ASSCOCIASION, not a certianty. You can make a link to a certian culture, but it may or may not be there, hence the point I made in the rest of my post, had you examined it correctly, about assumptions being things that you should be prepared to deconstruct if people do not conform to them. Ultimately if you make no assumptions of any kind, you only can expect people to behave like yourself or your family/friends/aquaintes (as you have no frame of refernce beyond it), and to an extent that can be problematic.


If there were *never* a link, such a magazine could not proliferate. But what about black men who don't like the magazine? What about white women who do?

There must be a significent enough section of the population who do like it, and having read the magazine myself (curious about what said culture could involve) I can tell you there is very little in their for most women to find interesting, let alone white women.

The fact is there is a culture there, and its ok to have perceptions about people being linked to that culture. What is important is that

- Those perceptions are not fixed, that you can see when a person is not linked to that culture
- Those perceptions do not create any sense of superiority or inferiority

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the part I quoted, which actually had to do with the conversation we were having. The rest of your post had much more to do with individual differences, and nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed differences you are trying to create between ethnicities and genders.


Had you read it, (which given from this you dont seem to have done) you would have seen that the point I was making is that it is OK to have perceptions about groups of people having certian charterstics. I'll just post it again so that you will actually listen this time

What is important in both cases is that initial perceptions are not held with too vherment a beleif that they are correct. People should be prepared to be proven wrong. Also people should understand that diffrences does not mean inferior or superior people exist. Diffrent people exist, and some people have talents in areas that are greater than my own, and in other areas I have talents that are greater than theirs. But the fact remains I am not superior to them in a general term. I may be superior in my knowledge of the Arab-Isralei conflict or in my understanding of the workings of the EU, but they may be superior to me in the ability to deconstruct one of Shakespeares Sonnets. To go back to my original point, as much as we can percieve people as diffrent and act upon those diffrences, because of those diffrences what we are entitled to do is treet people diffrently and react in diffrent ways to them, but not differently with regard to treeting them as inferior or superior to us. And that is where institutions come in. Oppotunties must be open to all and be given on the grounds of merit, not on perception. If you expect that a general trend in someone may be an asset, that general trend must be objectively demonstrated to hold true for that particular person. Instutitonal decisions must not be made on the grounds of subjective perception

Its an ASSCOCIASION, not a certianty. You can make a link to a certian culture, but it may or may not be there,

Then why make it at all? If you actually have no idea whether or not it is there, why act as if it is?

hence the point I made in the rest of my post, had you examined it correctly, about assumptions being things that you should be prepared to deconstruct if people do not conform to them.

Why have them at all if you are aware that people won't necessarily conform to them?

Ultimately if you make no assumptions of any kind, you only can expect people to behave like yourself or your family/friends/aquaintes (as you have no frame of refernce beyond it), and to an extent that can be problematic.

You can only expect people to behave like people you have observed or read about anyways. No one has any frame of reference beyond their own experiences and reading. Of course I expect people to behave, in many ways, like my family/friends/acquaintances. Those are the people I have had interactions with and they form my knowledge about human behavior. And they actually form quite a broad one. I've interacted with people from different cultures, people of different ethnicities, people of different genders, people of different sexualities, and so on. I don't need to lump a person into a group immediately to try and anticipate their behavior ahead of time. I just go by how they *actually* act.

There must be a significent enough section of the population who do like it, and having read the magazine myself (curious about what said culture could involve) I can tell you there is very little in their for most women to find interesting, let alone white women.

And you are now the arbiter of what women find interesting?

Had you read it, (which given from this you dont seem to have done) you would have seen that the point I was making is that it is OK to have perceptions about groups of people having certian charterstics. I'll just post it again so that you will actually listen this time

(a) I did read it. I don't need to read it again to see that it is still irrelevant.

(b) You can certainly have perceptions about groups of people. For instance, the perception that a member of the KKK will be racist is pretty well backed-up. They have chosen to join a group with racist goals, so it would follow that they are most likely racist.

However, when we start talking about characteristics of a person that are not chosen, such as ethnicity or gender, its a whole new ballgame. At best, we can talk about "on average". But there is no reason to believe that a given person is going to be "on average" on a single thing, much less all of them. Thus, there is no reason to work from the assumption, even just to begin with, that they are.

What is important in both cases is that initial perceptions are not held with too vherment a beleif that they are correct. People should be prepared to be proven wrong. Also people should understand that diffrences does not mean inferior or superior people exist. Diffrent people exist, and some people have talents in areas that are greater than my own, and in other areas I have talents that are greater than theirs. But the fact remains I am not superior to them in a general term. I may be superior in my knowledge of the Arab-Isralei conflict or in my understanding of the workings of the EU, but they may be superior to me in the ability to deconstruct one of Shakespeares Sonnets. To go back to my original point, as much as we can percieve people as diffrent and act upon those diffrences, because of those diffrences what we are entitled to do is treet people diffrently and react in diffrent ways to them, but not differently with regard to treeting them as inferior or superior to us. And that is where institutions come in. Oppotunties must be open to all and be given on the grounds of merit, not on perception. If you expect that a general trend in someone may be an asset, that general trend must be objectively demonstrated to hold true for that particular person. Instutitonal decisions must not be made on the grounds of subjective perception

If you *know* that you know more about a conflict or that they know more about Sonnets, then you will certainly act upon those differences. However, this is not what you have been talking about in the rest of this thread (hence the reason that it is irrelevant). You have been talking about assuming that you know more about a conflict or that they know more about sonnets, based in nothing more than a physical feature - which, in the end, has nothing whatsoever to do with that knowledge.

Then why make it at all? If you actually have no idea whether or not it is there, why act as if it is?

Why have them at all if you are aware that people won't necessarily conform to them?

Firstly, I should point out people don't do this consiously. I'm talking about subconsious. Secondly, people will very often conform to the assumption to one degree or other. It is very rare that they do not, and if they do not it is an immidate chatacter trate so its very noticable


You can only expect people to behave like people you have observed or read about anyways. No one has any frame of reference beyond their own experiences and reading. Of course I expect people to behave, in many ways, like my family/friends/acquaintances. Those are the people I have had interactions with and they form my knowledge about human behavior. And they actually form quite a broad one. I've interacted with people from different cultures, people of different ethnicities, people of different genders, people of different sexualities, and so on. I don't need to lump a person into a group immediately to try and anticipate their behavior ahead of time. I just go by how they *actually* act.

Judging people on how they actually act is only a post action judgement. You can make very basic judgements, assumptions and links etc beforehand, and these can help inform you about people. Like I said though, do not hold to them too closely and be prepared for them to be inacurate. They are useful only to an extent, as I have always said.


And you are now the arbiter of what women find interesting?

I use my experiance, like anyone else. And the many women I know would not be that interested in dancing girls and car modifications, which were two of the magazines principle topics.


(a) I did read it. I don't need to read it again to see that it is still irrelevant.

You did not, or at least if you did you did not understand the point I was making fully.


(b) You can certainly have perceptions about groups of people. For instance, the perception that a member of the KKK will be racist is pretty well backed-up. They have chosen to join a group with racist goals, so it would follow that they are most likely racist.

Indeed, the same way you can know that the vast majority of women in the UK are more self consious than men, mainly due to the media and general socialisation. That is now slowly changing, but the metrosexual is not yet commonplace enough to revert it round.


However, when we start talking about characteristics of a person that are not chosen, such as ethnicity or gender, its a whole new ballgame. At best, we can talk about "on average". But there is no reason to believe that a given person is going to be "on average" on a single thing, much less all of them. Thus, there is no reason to work from the assumption, even just to begin with, that they are.

Of course, their is no reason to believe a person is avarage, but you can expect them to conform to the central trend to a greater or lesser degree. For instance, in my experiance, having many female friends, a good topic of conversation is often their clothing styles, because generlally (at least in Britan) women feel a certian sense of attachment to their image. Those that do not or do not care, make a point of it generally. Thus the general idea that women in the UK have a strong self consious sense and that their image is important to them is a good general assumption to remember. This is much less true with men, in my experiance and it would seem, acording to media and wider socialisation


If you *know* that you know more about a conflict or that they know more about Sonnets, then you will certainly act upon those differences. However, this is not what you have been talking about in the rest of this thread (hence the reason that it is irrelevant). You have been talking about assuming that you know more about a conflict or that they know more about sonnets, based in nothing more than a physical feature - which, in the end, has nothing whatsoever to do with that knowledge.

You misunderstood me

My point was that you can make judgements and assumptions about people being diffrent in certian ways from certian factors. However in these judgements, you should never assume that you are better/worse than anyone else, because the kind of judgements you can make are not of that nature. There are things on which you can be seen as superior or inferior (as I said, with knowledge about English literature or politics etc) but in terms of the nature of the judgements you can make at an early stage, they can be judgements of diffrence, not value.

I know I'm double posting without editing anything into my earlier post like I said I would, but I noticed that as soon as I added my response to this thread, others stopped responding.

Is this some subtle way of trying to insult me? Because if I recall correctly that was the reason on another board I go to...

no. you made a very thoughtful post but you didnt notice a few things.

1) the post before yours was made yesterday afternoon. on most forums thats nothing, here thats almost enough to declare a thread dead

2) your post was too thoughtful for the....approach... of the original poster whose level of analysis of modern feminism was incoherent at best.

3) you addressed it to the original poster but he may not have seen it. people have lives eh?

4) the antifeminism crowd and responders got waylaid by the "would you marry a feminist" thread that burned through the forum for most of the day.

timing is everything. dont let this discourage you, we need and appreciate throughful posters.