NationStates Jolt Archive

'Fraid not dear. Dad's a Texan. We either punch or shoot people. He did teach me to shoot, but in spite of the fact that he's a markman, I can't hit the broad side of a barn. I have to stick to shotguns.

Then you should do sabre. My fencing teacher: "Fencing foil is like a pistol...I hate pistols, you can't hit anything with them. Fencing épée is like a sniper rifle. Fencing sabre is like a shotgun shoot-out."

my husband taught my girls how to smush bugs and open jars..........I think that's the only stereotypical "male" thing he is teaching them.
I learned early on that if there was a bug in my room and I wanted somebody to get rid of it, I should ask Dad.

Because Mom would just say, "Do it yerself, child, you have hands."

Maybe I'm just not thinking of all the important "manly" lessons. What would be examples of stereotypically "male" skills that a father might impart to his offspring?

Spitting?

my husband taught my girls how to smush bugs and open jars..........I think that's the only stereotypical "male" thing he is teaching them.

How is opening jars a male thing?

My dad never taught me to fight, at least not physically. (My mother insists that my father and I have the same style of verbal fighting.)

In fact, I think the only stereotypically "manly" thing I learned from my dad was how to throw and catch a ball. He and I would play catch a lot when I was little.

Maybe I'm just not thinking of all the important "manly" lessons. What would be examples of stereotypically "male" skills that a father might impart to his offspring?

my husband taught my girls how to smush bugs and open jars..........I think that's the only stereotypical "male" thing he is teaching them.

My dad's not a stereotypical dad... he hates fighting, and when I tried to watch sports as a kid he actually prevented me from doing it because it was "stupid." But my dad has taught me not to let people take advantage of me, not to give up, the importance of science and math, and playing (but not watching) sports. I would have never learned any of these things from my mother, and most women don't seem to be very good at those things. I'm not dissing my mom or anything, I've also learned stereotypical feminine things from my mom that my dad could never teach me, like how to write and how to get along with people.

I don't think fathers need to take more interest in their daughters, just a different kind of interest. I think some fathers are too concerned with "protecting" their daughters, when they should be helping them become independent.

Ack, we appear to have entered a wormhole. Stupid time-warping.

Then you should do sabre. My fencing teacher: "Fencing foil is like a pistol...I hate pistols, you can't hit anything with them. Fencing épée is like a sniper rifle. Fencing sabre is like a shotgun shoot-out."
Kewl.
I had some SCA friends who tried to teach me to fight with those padded weapons.(forget what they're called) I wanted so much to look all graceful with fancy swordwork, but the only thing I could handle well was the battle ax. *sigh*

And as for stereotypical male traits, I suppose I have quite a few. But I had some fairly negative ideas about feminity, since my Mom was such a doormat. I learned to associate strength and assertiveness with men. For a long time I didn't even like most other women, viewing them as weak and passive. I know better now.

How is opening jars a male thing?

there is some kind of leverage that boys use to open them that most women don't know......

he taught them.

so now, when he isn't home, they can open pickle jars for me. :p

there is some kind of leverage that boys use to open them that most women don't know......

he taught them.

so now, when he isn't home, they can open pickle jars for me. :p

I think it's more an issue of application of force. We have, on average, a better ability to open jars because we can, again, on average, put more muscle behind it. I still don't see how it's a guy thing, though now that I think about it, I am called on to brute force jars a bit too often at home.

And as for stereotypical male traits, I suppose I have quite a few. But I had some fairly negative ideas about feminity, since my Mom was such a doormat. I learned to associate strength and assertiveness with men. For a long time I didn't even like most other women, viewing them as weak and passive. I know better now.
Yeah, when I was a kid people were always telling me about how girls like pink, girls like ponies, girls are sweet and cute and like to play dress up, girls want to be Mommies, girls do this, girls do that. And 90% of it sounded boring and lame to me, so I concluded that I clearly could not be a girl.

My poor mother did everything she could to teach me that girls don't HAVE to like any of that crap, nor do boys HAVE to like any particular crap either, but there were just so many outside people telling me otherwise that I think her message got buried a bit. It wasn't until I got older that I started to put things together. Yet another annoying case of, "Fuck, I guess Mom was right after all!"

I think it's more an issue of application of force. We have, on average, a better ability to open jars because we can, again, on average, put more muscle behind it. I still don't see how it's a guy thing, though now that I think about it, I am called on to brute force jars a bit too often at home.
See, I always thought it was about hand strength. In my house, Mom and I were the ones who could open the jars because both of us were piano players and we had freakishly strong hands.

Of course, my mother also once beat my gym teacher in an arm-wrestling contest. So she's just freakishly strong all around.

I fail to see any great divide between feminism and active and interested fathers. I don't see much overlap, either.

So you dismiss the influence of a father can have have on the drive and confidence of a girl?

How are active and interested fathers going to enforce equal pay laws?

How many women actively demand raises? (It's a genuine question without any finger pointing as I really don't know as a whole). Guys do it all the time. I have noticed (in my own little universe) that males tend to ask for everything. I don't see that too often from women. I see them putting up with crappy computers(speaking from my work) when they can simply ask for a new one. I have gotten upgrades for them after seeing what they have when responding to a problem call and they are surprised.

Is this a plot to keep women down or could it be a confidence issue?

and yet How are active and interested fathers going to stop making it okay to try the victim in sexual assault cases?


Try the victim? I am not sure what you mean? Society blaming the woman?

How many women make frequent bad male choices. How many of those women didn't have a positive male influence in their early lives?

How are active and interested fathers going to make sure that women get equal service from health care providers and in terms of medical research?


Equal service? What do you mean? Afghanistan vs the US?

To be honest with you, TBF, your question sounds to me just a little like, "Is it really necessary to stand up for women's rights at all?

Nothing wrong with being honest love. It saves problems on miscommunication. Especially when a question raised makes sense to you but not the reader.

Womans rights is an issue. I am not suggesting it wasn't. I am suggesting the problem will take both genders to solve it if we are to be truely equal.

You can legislate equality but will there really be equality?

Wouldn't it be better if we just let men look out for their little girls? That way women could trust men to safeguard their fates, and wouldn't that solve the problem?" Gosh, I wonder why that doesn't appeal to me.

Looking out for girls isn't really being involved in their lives and their raising. It's just a body guard.

The influence of a father can greatly increase the confidence of a girl. Does this say that only the male can do it? Of course not. Hell even some do it badly. But my own little observations and a couple things I read suggest girls have greater confidence early on if the father raises her as a child rather then the pretty little girl(I am not sure that's coming across right). Such girls tended to avoid the jackass boyfriends. Avoid abusive situations. (Mind you I am excluding the predators of course.) Demand more in their careers.

So a question.

Does a father who wants their children to succeed in life; make him a feminist?

Kewl.
I had some SCA friends who tried to teach me to fight with those padded weapons.(forget what they're called) I wanted so much to look all graceful with fancy swordwork, but the only thing I could handle well was the battle ax. *sigh*

And as for stereotypical male traits, I suppose I have quite a few. But I had some fairly negative ideas about feminity, since my Mom was such a doormat. I learned to associate strength and assertiveness with men. For a long time I didn't even like most other women, viewing them as weak and passive. I know better now.

*pictures bipolar woman running around with battle-ax*
j/k
...I'm going to take some valium and lie down. :p

no, it's def. a leverage thing. My 4 year old can open jars and bottles that I am not able to. I am much stronger than she is.

Fair enough.

Aww, come on! You mean you don't like the suggestion that the solution to sexism and discrimination against women is to focus more on what men can do with the females in their lives?

You see Bottle. Sometimes you go a little rabid on people who are not your enemy.

Kewl.
I had some SCA friends who tried to teach me to fight with those padded weapons.(forget what they're called) I wanted so much to look all graceful with fancy swordwork, but the only thing I could handle well was the battle ax. *sigh*

And as for stereotypical male traits, I suppose I have quite a few. But I had some fairly negative ideas about feminity, since my Mom was such a doormat. I learned to associate strength and assertiveness with men. For a long time I didn't even like most other women, viewing them as weak and passive. I know better now.

Jolly good.

Anyway, sabre would definitely before for you if you could only handle the battle-ax.

http://www.redrocktrainingcenter.com/Fencing/images/OlymGold.jpg

Indeed. The last thing a young girl needs is her father taking an active interest in making sure that she's a good little submissive wife.


So equality will only happen from the female enforcing it?

I think it's more an issue of application of force. We have, on average, a better ability to open jars because we can, again, on average, put more muscle behind it. I still don't see how it's a guy thing, though now that I think about it, I am called on to brute force jars a bit too often at home.

no, it's def. a leverage thing. My 4 year old can open jars and bottles that I am not able to. I am much stronger than she is.

You see Bottle. Sometimes you go a little rabid on people who are not your enemy.
Oh dear. You think THAT was "rabid"?

That was an off-hand chuckle, my lad, a joke, a larf, a spoof.

Chill out.

...girls like ponies...

http://www.nlsc.co.uk/images/o_horseback.jpg

Why are nerdy people so into fencing?

*pictures bipolar woman running around with battle-ax*
j/k
...I'm going to take some valium and lie down. :pLol. Yeah, it scares a lot of people.

Yeah, when I was a kid people were always telling me about how girls like pink, girls like ponies, girls are sweet and cute and like to play dress up, girls want to be Mommies, girls do this, girls do that. And 90% of it sounded boring and lame to me, so I concluded that I clearly could not be a girl.

My poor mother did everything she could to teach me that girls don't HAVE to like any of that crap, nor do boys HAVE to like any particular crap either, but there were just so many outside people telling me otherwise that I think her message got buried a bit. It wasn't until I got older that I started to put things together. Yet another annoying case of, "Fuck, I guess Mom was right after all!"

I am currently trying to help my girls sift through all that BS. One of them wants a microscope for Christmas while all her female friends want Webkins. She has the idea that she is somehow abnormal. I tried to explain to her many times that a microscope is much more useful and fun than a stuffed animal.

Just so...unless he includes fencing in that.He always wanted me to play sports, just not watch them. He had some kind of hangup with his dad watching sports or something, and as soon as his dad died he started watching football. I don't really get it.

My dad's not a stereotypical dad... he hates fighting, and when I tried to watch sports as a kid he actually prevented me from doing it because it was "stupid."

Just so...unless he includes fencing in that.

I am currently trying to help my girls sift through all that BS. One of them wants a microscope for Christmas while all her female friends want Webkins. She has the idea that she is somehow abnormal. I tried to explain to her many times that a microscope is much more useful and fun than a stuffed animal.
For whatever it's worth, if your girls ever seem to be ignoring you or not hearing what you're saying about that stuff, take heart! It really does make a difference, and it really does sink in.

I know that my mom sometimes felt really discouraged when I would say things like, "I don't want to play with girls, girls are stupid and wimpy." But years later she enjoyed the immense and lasting satisfaction of being able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO" when I finally had my first real feminist epiphany. :D

Oh dear. You think THAT was "rabid"?

That was an off-hand chuckle, my lad, a joke, a larf, a spoof.

Chill out.

:D

I am not upset lass.

Carry on! ;)

He always wanted me to play sports, just not watch them. He had some kind of hangup with his dad watching sports or something, and as soon as his dad died he started watching football. I don't really get it.

Meh. I wouldn't know..they don't have fencing on t.v. here...and I don't have a t.v. anyhoo.

http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1024627&hid=2141213386

However, as you can see, some fencing does look stupid.

Meh. I wouldn't know..they don't have fencing on t.v. here...and I don't have a t.v. anyhoo.

http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1024627&hid=2141213386
Hey... I actually know the person who posted that video. Weird.

I used to do fencing, but I never really knew if I was improving or not. I guess the instruction I got wasn't that great.

Hey... I actually know the person who posted that video. Weird.

I used to do fencing, but I never really knew if I was improving or not. I guess the instruction I got wasn't that great.

It's God-awful fencing, but it is done that way often.

It's God-awful fencing, but it is done that way often.

Fecning should more like this: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1118128636&fr=yfp-t-501

But then again that's foil.

And is there also no such thing as a male role model in arts and letters? How is writing a "stereotypically feminine thing"? I'm sure macho-man writers like Ernest Hemingway would be surprised to hear that. What does that even mean? I'm sorry, you just blew my mind.
It does make me wonder...

If writing is "feminine," then how come you have to take a "women's lit" course if you want to read classics by female authors? How come standard English Lit is overwhelmingly dominated by male authors?

My dad's not a stereotypical dad... he hates fighting, and when I tried to watch sports as a kid he actually prevented me from doing it because it was "stupid." But my dad has taught me not to let people take advantage of me, not to give up, the importance of science and math, and playing (but not watching) sports. I would have never learned any of these things from my mother, and most women don't seem to be very good at those things. I'm not dissing my mom or anything, I've also learned stereotypical feminine things from my mom that my dad could never teach me, like how to write and how to get along with people.

I don't think fathers need to take more interest in their daughters, just a different kind of interest. I think some fathers are too concerned with "protecting" their daughters, when they should be helping them become independent.
Because women need men to teach them how to live. Mothers can't teach daughters how to be independent. :rolleyes:

Thank you for perpetuating all the standard, unrealistic, unfairly limiting stereotypes. Women can't do science or math. Women can't stand up for themselves. Only men can teach the value of sports. There's no such thing as female role models in athletics or the sciences. Right.

And is there also no such thing as a male role model in arts and letters? How is writing a "stereotypically feminine thing"? I'm sure macho-man writers like Ernest Hemingway would be surprised to hear that. What does that even mean? I'm sorry, you just blew my mind.

Because women need men to teach them how to live. Mothers can't teach daughters how to be independent. :rolleyes:

Thank you for perpetuating all the standard, unrealistic, unfairly limiting stereotypes. Women can't do science or math. Women can't stand up for themselves. Only men can teach the value of sports. There's no such thing as female role models in athletics or the sciences. Right.

And is there also no such thing as a male role model in arts and letters? How is writing a "stereotypically feminine thing"? I'm sure macho-man writers like Ernest Hemingway would be surprised to hear that. What does that even mean? I'm sorry, you just blew my mind.I was writing from my personal experience. I didn't say all men are like my father and all women are like my mother.

I'm really sick of people on this forum arguing with something that they hallucinate that I said.

My grandfather taught me how to open jars - using a tool (heavy spoon, knife handle, whatever) to strike the lid in such a way as to loosen it with minimal effort or force. No big, strong hands needed. He figured that out with his brain because he was into engineering.
My grandpa taught me most of the curse words I use when I'm opening a really tough jar. I find that jars are more responsive if you curse at them in German. :D

I was writing from my personal experience. I didn't say all men are like my father and all women are like my mother.

I'm really sick of people on this forum arguing with something that they hallucinate that I said.

Welcome to the general lad! Here is your taco!

there is some kind of leverage that boys use to open them that most women don't know......

he taught them.

so now, when he isn't home, they can open pickle jars for me. :p

My grandfather taught me how to open jars - using a tool (heavy spoon, knife handle, whatever) to strike the lid in such a way as to loosen it with minimal effort or force. No big, strong hands needed. He figured that out with his brain because he was into engineering.

It does make me wonder...

If writing is "feminine," then how come you have to take a "women's lit" course if you want to read classics by female authors? How come standard English Lit is overwhelmingly dominated by male authors?

I think he means like handwriting, you know for when you make grocery lists or write notes for your kids to get out of gym class (girls only though, God knows they can't run or throw or any of that "guy stuff")

:rolleyes:

I think he means like handwriting, you know for when you make grocery lists or write notes for your kids to get out of gym class (girls only though, God knows they can't run or throw or any of that "guy stuff")

:rolleyes:
Ahhhh, that would make more sense. On that score I guess I have to agree that penmanship was always a "girly" activity when I was growing up. Girls were expected to want to learn to make pretty letters, kind of like how girls were supposed to want to draw pretty pictures. Boys were supposed to want to use bold, blocky letters and draw bold, blocky pictures of trucks and policemen and such.

My grandfather taught me how to open jars - using a tool (heavy spoon, knife handle, whatever) to strike the lid in such a way as to loosen it with minimal effort or force. No big, strong hands needed. He figured that out with his brain because he was into engineering.

my husband mentioned something to them about torque. I wasn't really listening much, I just wanted the jar opened so I could eat.

Kewl.
I had some SCA friends who tried to teach me to fight with those padded weapons.(forget what they're called) I wanted so much to look all graceful with fancy swordwork, but the only thing I could handle well was the battle ax. *sigh*

And as for stereotypical male traits, I suppose I have quite a few. But I had some fairly negative ideas about feminity, since my Mom was such a doormat. I learned to associate strength and assertiveness with men. For a long time I didn't even like most other women, viewing them as weak and passive. I know better now.

Battle axe...

Fitting. :p

I'm feeling appreciative of my Dad all over again. He taught me to box (he boxed Golden Gloves), encouraged me to take TaeKwon Do and Karate, and when he was called to my Jr High School because I punched some guy for snapping my bra Dad gave me a high five right in front of the principal.
Yay Dad!

That's awesome! :)

I was happy that my Dad encouraged my sister in taking martial arts and playing sports. And that he was willing to give her the "tougher" household chores. She didn't just do cleaning in the house. She got to mow and pull weeds and help build things too. And my brother and I did cleaning in addition to yard work. She was also encouraged to think for herself, just like I was.

I still remember when she got into a fight at school because she defended a friend of hers that was being bullied. I was proud of her for that, and my parents were too. And my parents and I were really pissed that the school officials took a less harsh stance towards the bullies because they thought that my sister and her friend didn't believe in God, so somehow they were deserving of the bullying.

See, I always thought it was about hand strength. In my house, Mom and I were the ones who could open the jars because both of us were piano players and we had freakishly strong hands.

Of course, my mother also once beat my gym teacher in an arm-wrestling contest. So she's just freakishly strong all around.
Haha! My mom is also very good at arm wrestling. She's also a freakish wiz at breaking into cars when the keys have been locked inside.

And my grandmother as well as my grandfather taught me jar-opening techniques -- she used hot water to loosen the lid, he used the vibration of glancing blows with an object. I prefer his method because it's faster, if a bit riskier.

Is feminism the answer? Or would things improve for women if men took more of an interest in their daughters lives?

yes feminism is the answer

and men have always taken an interest in their daughter's lives.

So you dismiss the influence of a father can have have on the drive and confidence of a girl?
Adorable attempt to put words in my mouth. Nothing in my post was meant to be taken out of context with the rest of it. Do better next time.

How many women actively demand raises? (It's a genuine question without any finger pointing as I really don't know as a whole). Guys do it all the time. I have noticed (in my own little universe) that males tend to ask for everything. I don't see that too often from women. I see them putting up with crappy computers(speaking from my work) when they can simply ask for a new one. I have gotten upgrades for them after seeing what they have when responding to a problem call and they are surprised.

Is this a plot to keep women down or could it be a confidence issue?
Not a "finger pointing" thing, but you begin from the assumption that women don't ask for raises based on something lacking in their personalities (confidence), and that is an unfounded assumption.

Women ask for raises, and they usually get them. BUT they START from a lower pay level and on a lower pay rate than their male counterparts, so even if they get the same percentage raise, they're still getting paid less for the same job. And since most employers do their best to keep secret what they are paying individual employees, many people do not know that they are being comparatively underpaid until it has been going on for some time. So lack of information and lack of employer honesty is the issue, not lack of confidence in women.

So this attempt to put the blame for lower pay onto women's lack of assertiveness fails.

Try the victim? I am not sure what you mean? Society blaming the woman?
That, plus the specific practice of attempting to smear the victim in an actual trial by bringing up irrelevant details about her private life.

How many women make frequent bad male choices. How many of those women didn't have a positive male influence in their early lives?
Who cares? What possible relevance can such a question have to anything? why not ask how many women make bad chocolate choices or bad hair color choices while you're at it? It would be as meaningful.

Equal service? What do you mean? Afghanistan vs the US?
Are you being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to cloud the discussion?

Health care service. That kind of service. The kind the sentence was about.

Nothing wrong with being honest love. It saves problems on miscommunication. Especially when a question raised makes sense to you but not the reader.
You do not have permission to address me as "love."

Womans rights is an issue. I am not suggesting it wasn't. I am suggesting the problem will take both genders to solve it if we are to be truely equal.

You can legislate equality but will there really be equality?
As long as I am not actively obstructed by unequal laws and/or unequal enforcement of the law, then I can take care of my own "real" equality. I am and will be as equal as people treat me, and when I am not being obstructed by law or authorities, I am generally treated with total equality, no matter what the other person may be thinking about me behind my back.

I do not care what other people think. I am not the thought police. I do not need men to think a certain way about women. I only need them to act a certain way towards women. If gender equality issues are handled right, then men will not find it burdensome to respect the equality of women, and that will be good enough for me. To expect to eradicate bigotry altogether, whether against women or any other group, is unrealistic. I am not bothered by the existence of bigots, only by their having power over me.

Looking out for girls isn't really being involved in their lives and their raising. It's just a body guard.
The assumption that girls need male body guards is a sexist assumption.

The influence of a father can greatly increase the confidence of a girl. Does this say that only the male can do it? Of course not. Hell even some do it badly. But my own little observations and a couple things I read suggest girls have greater confidence early on if the father raises her as a child rather then the pretty little girl(I am not sure that's coming across right). Such girls tended to avoid the jackass boyfriends. Avoid abusive situations. (Mind you I am excluding the predators of course.) Demand more in their careers.
There are so many qualifiers in your explanation as to make me think the initial statement was pointless. IF a man has an entire alphabet's worth of specific qualities and attitudes then he MIGHT be a postivie influence on the life of a child of either gender, but so might a mother as well. Fine. Point taken. Well done.

So a question.

Does a father who wants their children to succeed in life; make him a feminist?
Well, that depends on how he defines success in life, doesn't it?

I was happy that my Dad encouraged my sister in taking martial arts and playing sports.
My boyfriend has slowly been trying to win me over to the idea of maybe having kids one day, and thus far his most successful attempt was when he reminded me that he's a black belt and will teach his kids martial arts. The idea of having a kid may not appeal to me, but the idea of having a tiny ninja sure does...

You see Bottle. Sometimes you go a little rabid on people who are not your enemy.
She was joking. I got it. I even laughed, because it was funny.

So equality will only happen from the female enforcing it?

Yes. People only have the rights they can defend.

Asking an oppressor for permission to be treated equally =/= equality.

Here, I think maybe this is what The Black Forrest is looking for:

I don't believe a father can give anything to a child that a mother couldn't also give. And, with the exception of breastmilk and associated physical functions, I also believe the reverse is true.

I don't believe there is any lesson, value, or skill which can only be imparted by a father, or which can only be imparted by a mother.

Kids need good PARENTING. Kids need good role models. Kids need love, support, guidance, and provisioning.

What kids absolutely positively DO NOT NEED is more stereotypically gendered adults trying to convince them that sex is binary and you have to fit into one extreme end of the spectrum or the other. Kids will get plenty of that from every other area of society, thank you very much, and certainly don't ever need to get more of it at home.

My boyfriend has slowly been trying to win me over to the idea of maybe having kids one day, and thus far his most successful attempt was when he reminded me that he's a black belt and will teach his kids martial arts. The idea of having a kid may not appeal to me, but the idea of having a tiny ninja sure does...

Oh yeah, little ninja Bottles running around sounds like a great idea. :p

I was writing from my personal experience. I didn't say all men are like my father and all women are like my mother.

I'm really sick of people on this forum arguing with something that they hallucinate that I said.
I had a feeling you'd be offended by that. I should have edited it to clarify but I was too busy being annoyed by The Black Forrest. I apologize.

What I was responding to was the expansion of your personal experience to all women and men. For instance, you had a certain experience of the people in your family, and from that you came to believe that women in general are not as good as men at math and science, and that men in general are not as good as women at writing. And that's just not so. But the fact that you didn't draw a distinction between your personal experience and what happens in the rest of the world shows a perpetuation of gender myths.

My grandpa taught me most of the curse words I use when I'm opening a really tough jar. I find that jars are more responsive if you curse at them in German. :D
My grandfather taught me all the curse words I know, but not intentionally. Think Ralphie's dad from "A Christmas Story." That tapestry of obscenity is still hanging over Queens, NY, to this very day. But I did pick up his habit of liberally and continuously cursing any inanimate object I happen to be having even the slightest trouble with. The rest of the family joke about it, saying "It's like he's back from the grave. Some call an exorcist!"

I think he means like handwriting, you know for when you make grocery lists or write notes for your kids to get out of gym class (girls only though, God knows they can't run or throw or any of that "guy stuff")

:rolleyes:

I still don't get it. My elementary school taught penmanship equally to both sexes, and as far as I can tell US schools are nowadays not teaching it to both sexes equally (i.e. not teaching it at all). I have never heard of, nor personally seen, a gender gap in handwriting skills.

I had a feeling you'd be offended by that. I should have edited it to clarify but I was too busy being annoyed by The Black Forrest. I apologize.

What I was responding to was the expansion of your personal experience to all women and men. For instance, you had a certain experience of the people in your family, and from that you came to believe that women in general are not as good as men at math and science, and that men in general are not as good as women at writing. And that's just not so. But the fact that you didn't draw a distinction between your personal experience and what happens in the rest of the world shows a perpetuation of gender myths.It's not just because of my family. There just aren't many women who are into science in high school, college, or the real world. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it if they tried. Women often have to try harder than men, so it's not really fair. Women in high school are often discouraged from taking advanced math, and men are not. Almost all of my dad's coworkers at the lab are men. That's not sexist, that's the way the world is. You should have a clear picture of the way the world is, not a fake one.

I still don't get it. My elementary school taught penmanship equally to both sexes, and as far as I can tell US schools are nowadays not teaching it to both sexes equally (i.e. not teaching it at all). I have never heard of, nor personally seen, a gender gap in handwriting skills.
I can proudly say my handwriting is just as illegible as my father and brothers'.

Does a father who wants their children to succeed in life; make him a feminist?

Depends on what he considers to be "success". If "success" is "do all the womanly things like pop out babies and make a good marriage so their husbands can take care of them" then no, not in the least.

If "success" means exactly the same thing, regardless of the sex of the child, and the father seeks to impart the same knowledge and provide the same opportunities, regardless of the sex of the child, then yes.

So equality will only happen from the female enforcing it?

Huh? Do you have a serious case of poor reading comprehension today? Because there is absolutely no logical way you could have gotten that out of my statement.

My point was, quite simply, that a father "taking active interest" is not necessarily a good thing in the cause of feminism. If he is "taking an active interest" in order to enforce traditional gender roles and make his little girl a good wife for some man who will expect her to cook and clean and pop out babies for him at his whim, then it isn't going to be useful.

If he happens to be a feminist, on the other hand, he can certainly be another good role model for her.

It isn't the level of involvement that is important here - it is what that involvement entails. Some fathers would serve their daughters better by staying the hell out of their lives.

Adorable attempt to put words in my mouth. Nothing in my post was meant to be taken out of context with the rest of it. Do better next time.


:confused: So a question is putting words in your mouth?


So this attempt to put the blame for lower pay onto women's lack of assertiveness fails.

What was that about putting words in mouths?


Are you being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to cloud the discussion?

Health care service. That kind of service. The kind the sentence was about.

:rolleyes: Why is a question an attempt to cloud the discussion?

I really don't know what you are talking about. Bad health care service what against women? Bad docs exist everywhere. I once had a female doctor and she sucked. I have had males docs that suck.

My wife would tell you the same.

It's not just because of my family. There just aren't many women who are into science in high school, college, or the real world. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it if they tried. Women often have to try harder than men, so it's not really fair. Women in high school are often discouraged from taking advanced math, and men are not. Almost all of my dad's coworkers at the lab are men. That's not sexist, that's the way the world is. You should have a clear picture of the way the world is, not a fake one.
OK, so now you are again perpetuating the stereotype by expanding your personal experience to apply to the whole of humanity, despite the fact that I and others here have posted personal anecdotes that support the opposite view of gender roles and abilities. What part of "your experience =/= everyone's experience" is so difficult to grasp? Just because you personally don't know many women who went into the sciences does not mean that women are not good at science.

Also, I like how you specifically state that "Women in high school are often discouraged from taking advanced math, and men are not" and then claim that that isn't sexism.

I'm sorry that pointing out that you are perpetuating stereotypical gender myths offended you, but the fact is, that's what you are doing, so... oh, well.

I am currently trying to help my girls sift through all that BS. One of them wants a microscope for Christmas while all her female friends want Webkins. She has the idea that she is somehow abnormal. I tried to explain to her many times that a microscope is much more useful and fun than a stuffed animal.

I got a microscope for Christmas when I was a kid (don't remember what age)! It had a chemistry set with it too. It was awesome. *nodnod*

OK, so now you are again perpetuating the stereotype by expanding your personal experience to apply to the whole of humanity, despite the fact that I and others here have posted personal anecdotes that support the opposite view of gender roles and abilities. What part of "your experience =/= everyone's experience" is so difficult to grasp? Just because you personally don't know many women who went into the sciences does not mean that women are not good at science.

Also, I like how you specifically state that "Women in high school are often discouraged from taking advanced math, and men are not" and then claim that that isn't sexism.I said it's not sexism to admit that there aren't many women in science. Where are all of the female nobel prize winners? For the most part, they aren't there.

I'm mad that you're pretending these stereotypes don't exist, and you think anyone who points out they do exist is sexist. I'm not saying the stereotypes should exist - they shouldn't. In a fair world, women and men could have an equal chance to do anything they want to. However, the world we live in is not a fair world. It isn't sexist to admit that.

Again, it's not only my experience. Every single woman I know has experienced sexism. Do you know anyone who hasn't?

I can proudly say my handwriting is just as illegible as my father and brothers'.
Illegible scribblers shouder to shoulder! We shall overcome -- as long as we can type our letters to our congresspeople. ;)

Huh? Do you have a serious case of poor reading comprehension today? Because there is absolutely no logical way you could have gotten that out of my statement.


At the time it made sense to me. On reflection it does not.

Comment withdrawn.

I'm mad that you're pretending these stereotypes don't exist, and you think anyone who points out they do exist is sexist. I'm not saying the stereotypes should exist - they shouldn't. In a fair world, women and men could have an equal chance to do anything they want to. However, the world we live in is not a fair world. It isn't sexist to admit that.


Yes, but why is the world this way? Surely testicles don't increase your ability at science.

this one hooks up to her laptop via a usb cable and she can show everyone on screen what her slide looks like, she can also take screen shots and post them on her web page or email them to friends.

My father-in-law has that and it's fun! My kid just loves it!

I got a microscope for Christmas when I was a kid (don't remember what age)! It had a chemistry set with it too. It was awesome. *nodnod*

this one hooks up to her laptop via a usb cable and she can show everyone on screen what her slide looks like, she can also take screen shots and post them on her web page or email them to friends.

It's not just because of my family. There just aren't many women who are into science in high school, college, or the real world. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it if they tried. Women often have to try harder than men, so it's not really fair. Women in high school are often discouraged from taking advanced math, and men are not. Almost all of my dad's coworkers at the lab are men. That's not sexist, that's the way the world is. You should have a clear picture of the way the world is, not a fake one.

Wait. It isn't sexist to discourage women from taking advanced math? An unfair system that disadvantages women who do go into math and science is not sexist?

Have you ever stopped to wonder why less women (to say that there aren't that many would be incorrect - and the numbers are ever-increasing) go into math and science than men? Could it be the fact that the stereotype you just discussed is ingrained in our society and young girls are told that math and science are "boy" things?

Meanwhile, you better be careful with these sorts of statements. You've got at least two female scientists in this very thread.


Meh. Looks like you clarified, but the above still remains for anyone who does try to claim that women simply can't go into science and math.


this one hooks up to her laptop via a usb cable and she can show everyone on screen what her slide looks like, she can also take screen shots and post them on her web page or email them to friends.

*is jealous*

Here, I think maybe this is what The Black Forrest is looking for:

I don't believe a father can give anything to a child that a mother couldn't also give. And, with the exception of breastmilk and associated physical functions, I also believe the reverse is true.

I don't believe there is any lesson, value, or skill which can only be imparted by a father, or which can only be imparted by a mother.

Kids need good PARENTING. Kids need good role models. Kids need love, support, guidance, and provisioning.

What kids absolutely positively DO NOT NEED is more stereotypically gendered adults trying to convince them that sex is binary and you have to fit into one extreme end of the spectrum or the other. Kids will get plenty of that from every other area of society, thank you very much, and certainly don't ever need to get more of it at home.

Damn Bottle.

Kudos!

I bow to you!

Now get out of my head! :D

Yes, but why is the world this way? Surely testicles don't increase your ability at science.Yeah, and I never said they did.

What is it with people fabricating opinions that I never expressed? It's annoying.

You want me to tell you WHY the world is this way? How the hell should I know?

Wait. It isn't sexist to discourage women from taking advanced math? An unfair system that disadvantages women who do go into math and science is not sexist?

Have you ever stopped to wonder why less women (to say that there aren't that many would be incorrect - and the numbers are ever-increasing) go into math and science than men? Could it be the fact that the stereotype you just discussed is ingrained in our society and young girls are told that math and science are "boy" things?

Meanwhile, you better be careful with these sorts of statements. You've got at least two female scientists in this very thread.


Meh. Looks like you clarified, but the above still remains for anyone who does try to claim that women simply can't go into science and math.
I never said it isn't sexist to prevent girls from taking math. If I said that, I'd be a total fucking retard.

Yeah, and I never said they did.

What is it with people fabricating opinions that I never expressed? It's annoying.

You want me to tell you WHY the world is this way? How the hell should I know?

If there isn't a concrete scientific answer behind it, then something is wrong.

Are women raised not to enjoy science as much as men?

If there isn't a concrete scientific answer behind it, then something is wrong.

Are women raised not to enjoy science as much as men?Yeah, I said that before. I don't think women are taken seriously in high school when they want to study advanced science and math. They have to work harder than their fellow male students to be taken seriously.

I don't think there can be concrete science behind observations of discrimination. It's subjective.

I never said it isn't sexist to prevent girls from taking math. If I said that, I'd be a total fucking retard.

No, but what you typed certainly could be read that way. You listed a bunch of ways in which women are discriminated against and then said, "It isn't sexist, it's reality!" or something equivalent. You apparently meant that pointing out the discrimination was the non-sexist action, but your original post didn't make that clear.

Yeah, I said that before. I don't think women are taken seriously in high school when they want to study advanced science and math. They have to work harder than their fellow male students to be taken seriously.

I was. In fact, I was highly encouraged to go into engineering by several of my teachers and ended up taking their advice.

Yeah, I said that before. I don't think women are taken seriously in high school when they want to study advanced science and math. They have to work harder than their fellow male students to be taken seriously.

Do you not know the definition of sexism? This is it.

I don't think there can be concrete science behind observations of discrimination. It's subjective.

Discrimination of the sexes is sexism. Just like people not taking blacks "seriously" in science is racism. Ya get it?

Damn Bottle.

Kudos!

I bow to you!

Now get out of my head! :D
No way, man, I'm setting up shop in here. It's roomy.

(Kidding! :D)

No way, man, I'm setting up shop in here. It's roomy.

(Kidding! :D)

Hey!

Well I am male so my brains are not located there! ;)

I said it's not sexism to admit that there aren't many women in science. Where are all of the female nobel prize winners? For the most part, they aren't there.

I'm mad that you're pretending these stereotypes don't exist, and you think anyone who points out they do exist is sexist. I'm not saying the stereotypes should exist - they shouldn't. In a fair world, women and men could have an equal chance to do anything they want to. However, the world we live in is not a fair world. It isn't sexist to admit that.
All right, let me see just how far off the same page we are:

Yes, the stereotypes exist. However, I say they are wrong and should not be perpetuated by pretending that they reflect the true natures of women and men. I say they are myths, and if people live by them, they should be encouraged to stop doing that.

What do you say about them?

Again, it's not only my experience. Every single woman I know has experienced sexism. Do you know anyone who hasn't?
I do not know anyone who has accepted it as the way of the world. I do not know anyone who choose to perpetuate those stereotypes. Rather, all the people I know choose to stand against them. That is my personal experience.

people do seem to be mistaking your discussing the way the world is with the way you think it should be.

there are far too few women in math and science although it is much better than it was when i was in college.

And in computing. When I started out it they were a tiny amount of the workforce.

Now, I would say close to half of our employees are women.

I never said it isn't sexist to prevent girls from taking math. If I said that, I'd be a total fucking retard.

people do seem to be mistaking your discussing the way the world is with the way you think it should be.

there are far too few women in math and science although it is much better than it was when i was in college.

Hm. Strange. I wrote a lengthy reply to TBF, but it's not here. Jolt-warps? I'll come back later. If it's still not here, I'll try again. Would rather not have to try to remember all of what I wrote all over again.

It's probably because I dropped out stuff that was more about "poking" you then an actual discussion.

Hm. Strange. I wrote a lengthy reply to TBF, but it's not here. Jolt-warps? I'll come back later. If it's still not here, I'll try again. Would rather not have to try to remember all of what I wrote all over again.

people do seem to be mistaking your discussing the way the world is with the way you think it should be.

there are far too few women in math and science although it is much better than it was when i was in college.
Yes, that seems to be exactly what happened. I did not see a break between ClodFelter saying "this is the way it is" and "that isn't sexism." There was no "acknowleging this" in front of the "isn't sexism."

Although, to ClodFelter, I would point out that your argument still doesn't make sense to me. Now it seems as if you were trying to point out that it isn't sexism to acknowledge sexism, but I am not aware that anyone was saying it was.

Hm. Strange. I wrote a lengthy reply to TBF, but it's not here. Jolt-warps? I'll come back later. If it's still not here, I'll try again. Would rather not have to try to remember all of what I wrote all over again.

I haven't deleted anything, and there's nothing of yours in the Jolt spam filter, so I dunno.

Oh. Well, screw it then. It's not worth it. Let it suffice to say, "You're wrong." :)

:D

Actually, could you respond to the medical question as I really don't know what you are talking about. Bad medicine for women or bad docs?

Bad docs exist everywhere. I had a female doc once and she sucked. I have had male docs that sucked as well.

It's probably because I dropped out stuff that was more about "poking" you then an actual discussion.

Oh. Well, screw it then. It's not worth it. Let it suffice to say, "You're wrong." :)

I haven't deleted anything, and there's nothing of yours in the Jolt spam filter, so I dunno.
Well, all I know is I've been watching Jolt time warp posts from one page to another second by second, so I'm just going to chalk it up to some miscommunication in the series of tubes that is the interwebs.

:D

Actually, could you respond to the medical question as I really don't know what you are talking about. Bad medicine for women or bad docs?

Bad docs exist everywhere. I had a female doc once and she sucked. I have had male docs that sucked as well.
*grumbles* Fine.

I mean bad medicine.

Trying to remember my original post:

Leaving aside all questions of the the quality of individual doctors, women often do not get the same level of service from health care providers as men. Women's complaints and reported symptoms are more often overlooked or discounted than men's. Women are more often prescribed inappropriate medicines (such as anti-depressants for conditions that are actually physiological) than men. Women often cannot get the same services and/or rates from health insurance providers as men. And women are under-represented as subjects in medical studies. As an example, until very recently, all studies into heart disease looked at the disease in men only, and totally ignored it in women. In fact, until about a couple of decades ago, many medical authorities denied that women could get heart disease at all, leading to countless deaths annually, despite reports concerning symptoms in female patients coming from doctors. To this day, doctors have to work with studies that have less information about heart disease in women than in men.

It was concluded a couple of decades ago that there was no medical reason -- no obsolete set of information -- that led doctors and the AMA to assume women could not develop heart disease. It was merely a legacy of the previous century's sexist tradition of dismissing women's heart-related complaints as hysteria, so if a man said he had shortness of breath it must be a disease, but if a woman said it, the poor dear must just be upset about something. Even after it was acknowledged that women could get heart disease, studies of the disease in women were not immediately begun because of an equally unfounded assumption that, on the inside, women are just men with uteruses instead of penises, so there was no need to study the disease in women. Whatever they did for men should be good enough. Only it often isn't. In the case of heart disease in women, we see a clear case of sexist and dismissive assumptions about women damaging the level of health services available to women.

people do seem to be mistaking your discussing the way the world is with the way you think it should be.

there are far too few women in math and science although it is much better than it was when i was in college.Ok, everyone, I'm sorry everything I say is unclear. It's stupid of me to get angry about that.

I think I was trying to point out stereotypical gender roles in society, and people jumped on me saying I was being sexist. I'm not. I think a women has the same mental capabilities as a man does. However, in this society women don't reach the same positions of influence as often as men do. This isn't a good thing, but that's the way it is.

Ok, everyone, I'm sorry everything I say is unclear. It's stupid of me to get angry about that.

I think I was trying to point out stereotypical gender roles in society, and people jumped on me saying I was being sexist. I'm not. I think a women has the same mental capabilities as a man does. However, in this society women don't reach the same positions of influence as often as men do. This isn't a good thing, but that's the way it is.
Ok, that's good. I will gladly grant that point.

Now to it, I would add that, starting from that point, the goal of feminism is to change that condition and bring the social status of women into line with the social status of men and eliminate that inequality. For the reason you state above, I also say that the job of feminism is not finished. That is why I am proud to call myself a feminist, because there is a clear need for feminism.

I suppose the term "femminist" has become like the world "liberal".

Society, the media and so forth have morphed the originally positive connotations of the word into having a negative, unfavourable meaning.

To me, 'feminists' in this day and age, do not necessarily believe in equality, but in putting women above men. I believe men and women should both have equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal standing. I believe that a woman's dreams should not be affected by her gender. However, unlike many 'feminists', I still believe that there are gender roles. By gender roles, I don't mean that the woman is supposed to cook, clean and look after children, and that the man should be the breadwinner. What I mean is that there are certain differences between men and women that are unique and should be celebrated.

Many 'feminists' seem to believe that men and woman are no different, and that's simply not the case. Some women (and to a lesser extent, some men) tend to be more gentle, caring and in tune with their emotions. Some men, and even some women, tend to be physically strong, with a passion for hard work. Every single person is different, but there are still attributes that are generally common to either men or women. Most men are physically stronger than women, therefore it is understandable that perhaps women should not fight in the front row of combat. Men certainly can't produce babies, so it is understandable that a woman's role after having the child is to care for the baby. Of course, it's both parents' roles, but until the feminazis invent milk-filled-tits for men, breastfeeding is a woman's job.

I can see that what I'm saying isn't coming out as intended. I am simply trying to say that I don't consider myself a feminist, but rather an "equalist", because I belief in equality without denying nature.

Every single person is different, but there are still attributes that are generally common to either men or women.

Once you grant the bolded parts, you cannot possibly accept gender roles... because you must also grant that the simple fact of someone's biological sex cannot possibly serve as a basis for that role. People are different; just because most men or most women are a certain way does not mean that we should have concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" that incorporate those common attributes.

You cannot justify to me, the individual, that just because I have a penis I should behave in certain ways or be excluded from some activities or occupations. It may be that I have the appropriate attributes for those judgments, it may be that I do not; that answer to that question should not be presupposed based on my biological sex when I could be different from the others.

That is what feminism demands: that every individual be free from having their life choices predetermined for them by virtue of whether they are male or female. If, after we have achieved this objective, it remains true that most women go one way and most men the other, fine. (Of course, we are still very far away... and in that context, massive differences in gender representation suggest more "different socialization" than "gender natural differences.")

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9982969
IN THE cause of equal rights, feminists have had much to complain about. But one striking piece of inequality has been conveniently overlooked: lifespan. In this area, women have the upper hand.

[...]

Dr Clutton-Brock reckons that the sex difference in both human rates of ageing and in the usual age of death is an indicator that polygyny was the rule in humanity's evolutionary past—as it still is, in some places. That may not please some feminists, but it could be the price women have paid for outliving their menfolk.

:p

I suppose the term "femminist" has become like the world "liberal".

Society, the media and so forth have morphed the originally positive connotations of the word into having a negative, unfavourable meaning.

To me, 'feminists' in this day and age, do not necessarily believe in equality, but in putting women above men. I believe men and women should both have equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal standing. I believe that a woman's dreams should not be affected by her gender. However, unlike many 'feminists', I still believe that there are gender roles. By gender roles, I don't mean that the woman is supposed to cook, clean and look after children, and that the man should be the breadwinner. What I mean is that there are certain differences between men and women that are unique and should be celebrated.

Many 'feminists' seem to believe that men and woman are no different, and that's simply not the case. Some women (and to a lesser extent, some men) tend to be more gentle, caring and in tune with their emotions. Some men, and even some women, tend to be physically strong, with a passion for hard work. Every single person is different, but there are still attributes that are generally common to either men or women. Most men are physically stronger than women, therefore it is understandable that perhaps women should not fight in the front row of combat. Men certainly can't produce babies, so it is understandable that a woman's role after having the child is to care for the baby. Of course, it's both parents' roles, but until the feminazis invent milk-filled-tits for men, breastfeeding is a woman's job.

I can see that what I'm saying isn't coming out as intended. I am simply trying to say that I don't consider myself a feminist, but rather an "equalist", because I belief in equality without denying nature.
Specifically referring to the bolded parts:

It's possible that I an not understanding you right, but I can only respond to what you've written, so if I'm wrong, I hope you'll be able to use my comments to help clarify what you are trying to say.

I want to respond to the negative attitude towards the word "feminism."

It is true that there have been a few feminists who I just want to tell to shut the fuck up (and in fact, I usually do). For the most part, I consider them just as sexist in their views as anti-feminists and just as invested in telling women how they should behave. However, that said, even more feminists have had their reputations unfairly tarnished by anti-feminism critics taking their remarks out of context. I will say that it is my sense that it is the media, not the feminists, who are responsible for any negative connotations of the word "feminist" by focusing more on inflammatory and sensational stunts and feuds than on actual issues. But you do not help the issue by just buying into the media's shallow and stupid ideas. I will also point out that derogatory terms such as "feminazi" were coined by anti-feminists, and it is not used narrowly to describe bigots who attach themselves to the feminist movement. Instead, it is used indiscriminately to insult all feminists.

If we are going to be persnickety about the use of labels, I will say that I am not ready to give up on the word "feminist." I believe that feminism is a worthy movement with an inspiring history, and it is still very much needed in the world. I believe that reclaiming the word "feminist" is vital to maintaining the link to the movement's history for the next generation of women who will have to fight for their and their sisters' rights. Therefore, I take that word as a label for myself. I am proud of it, because I am proud of its history. I am also proud of its enemies, because they are exactly the kind of people I stand against in life, and if they hate what I am, then I am confident I am doing something right. If the price I have to pay for that word is that I have to cleanse it of the stain of female bigots, then I am happy to take on that battle as well.

On the other hand, I will not stand by and allow words like "feminazi" to be tossed about without a response. IF that word were actually used only to describe certain female bigots, I MIGHT be less concerned with it, but we all know it is not used that way. Claims otherwise are disingenuous, and just because I believe you that you do not intend to insult feminists by it, that does not mean I will let your use of it slide. (This applies to anyone who uses the word, not just you in particular.)

By the way, I also agree 100% with everything Soheran said in response to your post as well.

However, unlike many 'feminists', I still believe that there are gender roles. By gender roles, I don't mean that the woman is supposed to cook, clean and look after children, and that the man should be the breadwinner. What I mean is that there are certain differences between men and women that are unique and should be celebrated.

Many 'feminists' seem to believe that men and woman are no different, and that's simply not the case. Some women (and to a lesser extent, some men) tend to be more gentle, caring and in tune with their emotions. Some men, and even some women, tend to be physically strong, with a passion for hard work. Every single person is different, but there are still attributes that are generally common to either men or women. Most men are physically stronger than women, therefore it is understandable that perhaps women should not fight in the front row of combat. Men certainly can't produce babies, so it is understandable that a woman's role after having the child is to care for the baby. Of course, it's both parents' roles, but until the feminazis invent milk-filled-tits for men, breastfeeding is a woman's job.



so outside of extreme weightlifting, producing babies and breast feeding, are you OK with men and women behaving as they please?

because really i suppose some people would love to have men be able to have babies but its not going to happen any time soon. the rest needs to be up to the individual to decide, not society.

Really? So there are radical feminists who, say, want men to be confined to the home, do the housework, and submit to their wives? And these alleged "radical feminists" have gotten into control of the feminist movement?

If a movement as large and influential as feminism has indeed been "hijacked" by such people, surely it should be easy to find a few of them?

Name names. And stances that you think constitute advocating "a reversal of what we had in the 1950s" (by which I assume you mean pervasive female domination and supremacy.)

Valerie Solanas was a radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. In her book, "The SCUM Manifesto," (SCUM probably stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men, though it is never elaborated upon in the book) she says: "Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

Valerie Solanas was a radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. In her book, "The SCUM Manifesto," (SCUM probably stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men, though it is never elaborated upon in the book) she says: "Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

well theres one quote from 40 years ago that pretty much no one remembers now or paid attention to when it was written.

got any more?

I'm a feminist and proud of that fact.

As as aside; I am perturbed at the recent development of women who identify with the anti-feminist viewpoint shared by misanthropes and chauvinists.

EDIT: Oh. And I am for the Equal Rights Amendment. I'm disgusted that it hasn't passed yet. I mean really now, the failure of the ERS's passing is volumes worth of commentary in and of itself.

Speaking of manifestos, I had to read the companion species manifesto for english class. Only problem is, I'm supposed to understand it. Can anyone shed some light on this book?

To me, 'feminists' in this day and age, do not necessarily believe in equality, but in putting women above men.

This is one case where I am very confident simply saying that you are wrong.

Feminism, BY DEFINITION, cannot mean "putting women above men."

Anybody who advocates that is not a feminist. By definition.


I believe men and women should both have equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal standing. I believe that a woman's dreams should not be affected by her gender. However, unlike many 'feminists', I still believe that there are gender roles. By gender roles, I don't mean that the woman is supposed to cook, clean and look after children, and that the man should be the breadwinner. What I mean is that there are certain differences between men and women that are unique and should be celebrated.

Name a difference that is unique to men, or unique to women.


Many 'feminists' seem to believe that men and woman are no different, and that's simply not the case.

Name one feminist who believes that men and women are no different.


Some women (and to a lesser extent, some men) tend to be more gentle, caring and in tune with their emotions. Some men, and even some women, tend to be physically strong, with a passion for hard work. Every single person is different, but there are still attributes that are generally common to either men or women.

It appears you do not, in fact, believe that there are traits that are unique to men or unique to women, then. You agree that the traits you are talking about can exist in individuals of either sex. So why, then, would you want to "celebrate unique differences" which actually are not unique to either sex?


Most men are physically stronger than women, therefore it is understandable that perhaps women should not fight in the front row of combat.

1) Define "strength." Females tend to have higher pain thresholds and tend to be better able to endure serious discomforts (like extreme heat or cold). Females also tend to have hardier immune systems. These are both strengths which are at least as useful, if not more so, than the tendency to lots of upper body muscle mass.
2) Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that males tend to be "stronger" than females, this STILL does not lead to the conclusion that only men should be on the front row. After all, plenty of males aren't strong enough to be on the front row. We can't just put them up there and say, "But males tend to be stronger than females!" And plenty of females will be strong enough to be on the front row, so it would be stupid to tell them, "But females tend to be weaker than males!"

QUALIFIED people should fill whatever positions are required. Maleness is not a qualification for combat.



Men certainly can't produce babies, so it is understandable that a woman's role after having the child is to care for the baby. Of course, it's both parents' roles, but until the feminazis invent milk-filled-tits for men, breastfeeding is a woman's job.

Yes, because only one person can be caring for a baby at a time, and bottles don't exist, and breastfeeding is the only way that a baby needs to be cared for.

Seriously, do you even think these things through a tiny little bit?


I can see that what I'm saying isn't coming out as intended.

I hope not, because it's coming out as yet another person trying to find polite ways to justify the same old status quo, while insisting that he's not a sexist.


I am simply trying to say that I don't consider myself a feminist, but rather an "equalist", because I belief in equality without denying nature.
You shouldn't consider yourself a feminist because you clearly aren't one. You can call yourself an "equalist" all you want, but you should be warned that "equalist" is basically just known as the title anti-feminists give themselves when they want to seem warm and fuzzy.

Valerie Solanas was a radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. In her book, "The SCUM Manifesto," (SCUM probably stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men, though it is never elaborated upon in the book) she says: "Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
So the best you can come up with is that one person, 40 years ago, flipped her shit?

Guess that kind of makes our point for us, then. If, in 40 years of radical feminism, you couldn't find a better example to support your theory, then I'd say the matter is closed. :D

1) Define "strength." Females tend to have higher pain thresholds and tend to be better able to endure serious discomforts (like extreme heat or cold). Females also tend to have hardier immune systems. These are both strengths which are at least as useful, if not more so, than the tendency to lots of upper body muscle mass.
2) Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that males tend to be "stronger" than females, this STILL does not lead to the conclusion that only men should be on the front row. After all, plenty of males aren't strong enough to be on the front row. We can't just put them up there and say, "But males tend to be stronger than females!" And plenty of females will be strong enough to be on the front row, so it would be stupid to tell them, "But females tend to be weaker than males!"



About number 1...wtf? Where'd you hear all that? From my experience it is females who can't stand extreme heat or extreme cold. About pain...how do you measure that? And immune systems...where's the proof? I'm genuinely curious.

About number 1...wtf? Where'd you hear all that? From my experience it is females who can't stand extreme heat or extreme cold. About pain...how do you measure that? And immune systems...where's the proof? I'm genuinely curious.
Oy. This would be an absolutely massive hijack.

PubMed is a good place to do a search for scholarly journal articles. If you want to know about pain research, you might need to start with a fundamentals textbook. Any major text on neuroscience should have a section on sensory receptors as well as one on the pain pathway.

As for the immune system, this has been pretty well established over a very long span of medical history. One of the key culprits is testosterone, if you can believe it, though LACK of testosterone also has some really rotten health effects.

This is one case where I am very confident simply saying that you are wrong.

Feminism, BY DEFINITION, cannot mean "putting women above men."

Out of interest, what word would you call the ideology of putting women above men? I would call it a subset of feminism.


You shouldn't consider yourself a feminist because you clearly aren't one. You can call yourself an "equalist" all you want, but you should be warned that "equalist" is basically just known as the title anti-feminists give themselves when they want to seem warm and fuzzy.
I call myself an egalitarian for use across debates regarding race, gender etc and don't think much of the reading comprehension those who'd call that 'anti-feminist'.

Out of interest, what word would you call the ideology of putting women above men?

Sexist.


I call myself an egalitarian for use across debates regarding race, gender etc and don't think much of the reading comprehension those who'd call that 'anti-feminist'.
It's not about reading comprehension, so much as it's about experience. Those of us who have been feminists for a while have long since grown familiar with the "equalist" types (several choice examples are on this thread).

Sexist.

Just as White Supremacist is a type of racist ideology. Feminism describes the idea of increasing women's rights. Supremacist feminism or chauvinist feminism would be a subset of it.


It's not about reading comprehension, so much as it's about experience. Those of us who have been feminists for a while have long since grown familiar with the "equalist" types (several choice examples are on this thread).

So I'm either feminist or sexist?

So I'm either feminist or sexist?

Actually, yeah, pretty much.

Dictionary.com

Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This fem·i·nism (fěm'ə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Just as White Supremacist is a type of racist ideology. Feminism describes the idea of increasing women's rights. Supremacist feminism or chauvinist feminism would be a subset of it.

I'll say it again:

Feminism is a belief in the social and political equality of the sexes.

A "chauvinist feminist" would, technically, be a feminist who believes feminists to be superior to a rival group or groups, as evidenced by an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of feminism. I suppose that could exist, but it would not remotely equate to a belief in FEMALE supremacy.

A person who believes that females are superior to males, or males to females, or that the sexes should be unequal socially and politically, IS NOT A FEMINIST.

It really is just that simple.


So I'm either feminist or sexist?
Do you believe in the social and political equality of the sexes?

If yes, you're a feminist.

If no, then there are two possibilities:

You simply don't have an opinion or haven't thought about it, OR you have thought about it and do not believe that the sexes should be equal. That second one is an example of a sexist belief. The first one is just a "nil" value, in this discussion.

Actually, yeah, pretty much.
I guess it's a good sign when people are ashamed to be called "sexist," even when they will openly identify their own sexist beliefs. At least we've managed to get across that sexism isn't something to be proud of.

1) Define "strength." Females tend to have higher pain thresholds and tend to be better able to endure serious discomforts (like extreme heat or cold). Females also tend to have hardier immune systems. These are both strengths which are at least as useful, if not more so, than the tendency to lots of upper body muscle mass.
2) Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that males tend to be "stronger" than females, this STILL does not lead to the conclusion that only men should be on the front row. After all, plenty of males aren't strong enough to be on the front row. We can't just put them up there and say, "But males tend to be stronger than females!" And plenty of females will be strong enough to be on the front row, so it would be stupid to tell them, "But females tend to be weaker than males!"


Beside, physical strength is meaningless nowadays. This isn't the Trojan War (actually, women fought in the that too. :p), you don't need to bash through armor. It's about speed and aiming your gun.

Beside, physical strength is meaningless nowadays. This isn't the Trojan War (actually, women fought in the that too. :p), you don't need to bash through armor. It's about speed and aiming your gun.

Speaking of which, the best sniper in the Red Army during WWII was a woman.

More proof that sexism is alive and well:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/276697

Gender bias seen in ICUs, study finds
Women 50 and older less likely to be admitted

Women 50 and older in need of critical care are less likely than men to be admitted to the intensive care unit or receive crucial life-supporting treatments in hospitals across the province, according to the findings of a new study.

The study, to be published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal next month, is just one of a number of recent articles that have indicated an inherent gender-bias exists in the health-care system, and may be putting elderly women at a disadvantage when it comes to treatment options – often with fatal consequences.

Beside, physical strength is meaningless nowadays. This isn't the Trojan War (actually, women fought in the that too. :p), you don't need to bash through armor. It's about speed and aiming your gun.
Yeah, I get really annoyed at that whole "men are stronger than women" thing. Nobody bothers to specify which type of strength in the first place, and when you press them to do so they generally just cherry-pick ONE type of strength which men TEND to be more likely to possess (upper body strength).

I am privileged to know a female athlete who made it to the most recent Summer Olympic games (track and field events), and she cracks up every time somebody tells her that men are stronger than women. She once told me that the likelihood a guy would tell her "men are stronger than women" increases in direct correlation with the likelihood that she can beat him at arm wrestling.

The tendency for men, on average, to have more of one particular type of strength than women, does not do a damn thing for an INDIVIDUAL man. The fact that other men might be strong doesn't somehow make him more buff by association.

This thread is drawing the liberals like a halogen light dangling over a stagnant pond draws mosquitos.

If any anti-feminist so much as makes a mild peep they are swarmed. Wowsers!

This thread is drawing the liberals like a halogen light dangling over a stagnant pond draws mosquitos.

If any anti-feminist so much as makes a mild peep they are swarmed. Wowsers!
I'm sure the manly-man tough guys will be more than able to take it, seeing as how they're stronger than us frail little girls. :D

More proof that sexism is alive and well:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/276697

Correlation does not prove causation.

This thread is drawing the liberals like a halogen light dangling over a stagnant pond draws mosquitos.

If any anti-feminist so much as makes a mild peep they are swarmed. Wowsers!

more like lions waiting in the tall grass for an anti-feminist gazelle to wander by.

you have a problem with that?

Correlation does not imply causation.
Sure it does. Imply: "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated."

Correlation often suggests causation.

I think what you meant is that correlation doesn't equal causation, which is true. The fact that two things are strongly correlated may suggest or imply that there is a causative link, but the correlation alone is not proof of any causative link.

You're right, the correct phrase is "Correlation does not prove causation," but I had always heard it described as "correlation does not imply..."

What if there simply is a difference? I suggest all you females who feel like they are held back by society use your strengths in your advantage instead of denying your weaknesses. If you try to fight for your female rights you've already lost. Women are sneaky. Take over the world. We won't notice.

I'm in a Dutch paramilitary force (Air Mobile Brigade) and women are very rarely accepted to this unit (between 3 to 7 a year, opposed to at least several hundred men, less than a percent total) and even less eventually finish the training. I have great respect for what these women do, but at the same time these are the least attractive women I know. Despite their physical appearance my natural stance is comparable to that to men. One woman in my platoon is always the slowest one in the platoon, but she is always the last one to give up. It's truly an honor to work besides people who have to take that extra step, but at the same time I have to wonder if they don't ruin their lives and possible future happiness by killing their inner woman, and possibly, their sexiness(?). Which could lead to happiness, both in terms of getting a man or even the effects of procreating (or practicing that, of course).

I think feminism is outdated and searching for the differences is only making them bigger. Personally, if I see an article about more men than women in higher positions, and the fact that the corporate world still runs as ever, those two combined just give me reason to put men in high positions. Screaming that there is a difference only makes the screamer look frustrated, looking for something to blame. I think the end of the conflict as far as other people see it, is the day that every man and woman goes out, and do their job in the way they do it best.

offmytopic:
Women are less likely to promote other women than are men to promote women. Read it in newspaper while ago, and I'm not going to search for sources. :cool:

Yeah, I get really annoyed at that whole "men are stronger than women" thing. Nobody bothers to specify which type of strength in the first place, and when you press them to do so they generally just cherry-pick ONE type of strength which men TEND to be more likely to possess (upper body strength).

I am privileged to know a female athlete who made it to the most recent Summer Olympic games (track and field events), and she cracks up every time somebody tells her that men are stronger than women. She once told me that the likelihood a guy would tell her "men are stronger than women" increases in direct correlation with the likelihood that she can beat him at arm wrestling.

The tendency for men, on average, to have more of one particular type of strength than women, does not do a damn thing for an INDIVIDUAL man. The fact that other men might be strong doesn't somehow make him more buff by association.

Just so. I was at the Highlander games once, and though competition there was separated into men and women, the strongest competitor by far was the lead woman.

Just so. I was at the Highlander games once, and though competition there was separated into men and women, the strongest competitor by far was the lead woman.

I looked up "Highlander Games" expecting to see people cutting off each others' heads with broadswords.

I was disappointed :(

I looked up "Highlander Games" expecting to see people cutting off each others' heads with broadswords.

I was disappointed :(

Nah. The main event was some weight tossing thing. You have to heave-up a weight, and toss it over a poll. The height she went to made me believe she was Super-Woman.

Yeah, I get really annoyed at that whole "men are stronger than women" thing. Nobody bothers to specify which type of strength in the first place, and when you press them to do so they generally just cherry-pick ONE type of strength which men TEND to be more likely to possess (upper body strength).

I am privileged to know a female athlete who made it to the most recent Summer Olympic games (track and field events), and she cracks up every time somebody tells her that men are stronger than women. She once told me that the likelihood a guy would tell her "men are stronger than women" increases in direct correlation with the likelihood that she can beat him at arm wrestling.

The tendency for men, on average, to have more of one particular type of strength than women, does not do a damn thing for an INDIVIDUAL man. The fact that other men might be strong doesn't somehow make him more buff by association.

Is there no biological factor that comes into this though? I'm sure that it's slightly harder for females to grow muscles on their limbs. For instance, my sister who is a gymnast, gets a lot more exercise then me, and ate just as much as me when growing up, yet my arms and legs are a lot thicker then hers. She doesn't have any disorders. This seems to be the trend amongst most ladies I know, in fact I don't believe I have ever met a women with as thick arms as mine who doesn't either eat a lot more or lift weights, and I doubt they all secretly throw up all their food when no one is looking. I don't go to the gym or do any weight lifting either. So, what I'm really saying is, isn't limb strength biologically more likely as well as statistically?

Is there no biological factor that comes into this though? I'm sure that it's slightly harder for females to grow muscles on their limbs. For instance, my sister who is a gymnast, gets a lot more exercise then me, and ate just as much as me when growing up, yet my arms and legs are a lot thicker then hers. She doesn't have any disorders. This seems to be the trend amongst most ladies I know, in fact I don't believe I have ever met a women with as thick arms as mine who doesn't either eat a lot more or lift weights, and I doubt they all secretly throw up all their food when no one is looking. I don't go to the gym or do any weight lifting either. So, what I'm really saying is, isn't limb strength biologically more likely as well as statistically?

And? The realities of biology mean that men are more likely to be able to acquire a lot of muscle mass.

It still doesn't matter when you do get a woman with more upper body strength or a man with less, does it?

Bottle's entire point is that "trends" don't matter in determining what an individual can do.

Valerie Solanas was a radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. In her book, "The SCUM Manifesto," (SCUM probably stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men, though it is never elaborated upon in the book) she says: "Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
Valerie Solanas was one psychotic would-be murderer. She sought to make herself famous by shooting Andy Warhol, who was a major celebrity at the time (who, by the way, she had also stalked). The fact that you would cite her as the lone representative of feminism is a clear insult against feminism, utterly lacking in any validity, since her actions were motivated by mental illness, not feminism, regardless of what she may have said about it. Remember, she was crazy.

But you want to say that one murderous lunatic can be cited as a stand-in for the feminist movement and, by extension, all feminsts?

Fine, let's play that game and say that David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam killer, is representative of all males, since he hunted down and shot at women, thus proving that men want to kill women. Or let's say he is representative of the animal rights movement because he claimed he took his killing orders from a dog, thus giving us proof by example that people who think animal rights is a worthy cause want to kill humans.

Do you see how ridiculous this is? The actions of a single psychotic individual cannot be used as an example of an entire social group or social/political movement. To try to use such an example is at best silly, and at worst an attempt to demonize the group.

more like lions waiting in the tall grass for an anti-feminist gazelle to wander by.

you have a problem with that?

Wouldn't it be the lioness waiting in the tall grass for the gazelle? From what I remember, it's the females who do most of the hunting work in the pride.

Correlation does not prove causation.
Excuse me, but the article he linked to specifically states that its source is a study to be published next month. So you have no reason to assume the information is mere correlation. For all you know, the information in the study may actually show direct causation. The study has not yet been publshed, but the article contains enough information about it that you could probably find more information about its content via google. Or you could accept what the article says about its findings for the sake of this discussion.

But I see that you are more willing to dismiss out of hand any information that might tend to show evidence of gender bias, rather than actually take a look at it to see if it has validity.

Correlation does not prove causation.

I am wondering how such a statement applies to the study I cited.

The study does not seek to explain why there is a gender-bias. It merely shows that one exists.

And? The realities of biology mean that men are more likely to be able to acquire a lot of muscle mass.

It still doesn't matter when you do get a woman with more upper body strength or a man with less, does it?


Of course, that's a given.

What if there simply is a difference? I suggest all you females who feel like they are held back by society use your strengths in your advantage instead of denying your weaknesses. If you try to fight for your female rights you've already lost. Women are sneaky. Take over the world. We won't notice.
An entire paragraph of sexist generalizations and dismissals.

I'm in a Dutch paramilitary force (Air Mobile Brigade) and women are very rarely accepted to this unit (between 3 to 7 a year, opposed to at least several hundred men, less than a percent total) and even less eventually finish the training.
Relevance?

I have great respect for what these women do, but at the same time these are the least attractive women I know.
An outrageously offensive remark. It is not their job to be attractive to you. Turning you on is not the only thing women have to do all day long, for their whole lives.

Despite their physical appearance my natural stance is comparable to that to men. One woman in my platoon is always the slowest one in the platoon, but she is always the last one to give up. It's truly an honor to work besides people who have to take that extra step, but at the same time I have to wonder if they don't ruin their lives and possible future happiness by killing their inner woman, and possibly, their sexiness(?). Which could lead to happiness, both in terms of getting a man or even the effects of procreating (or practicing that, of course).
Because, of course, no woman could ever achieve true happiness if she did anything with her life besides pop out the blessed product of a man's splooge. Give me a frigging break. What makes men think they are such a fucking gift? I really do wonder this? What is it that makes some men think that maleness alone is enough to make men the highest source of happiness in women's lives? Do these characters really think that those things between their legs are enough to make the average woman forget what whining droning boring jerks some of them can be? Or do they really think that their dicks are SO addictively wonderful that any woman who gets pleasure from education or athletics or fashion or reading or art or science or travel or any other aspect of life, is just short-changing herself because she hasn't had a true taste of what a man's magic wand can do? Of is it just that they don't think a woman is a woman unless she's got a either a penis or a baby stuck inside her?

I like sex with men. I also like my career. I have never felt that one interfered with the other. And I always feel like a woman, whether I'm working or having sex.

I think feminism is outdated and searching for the differences is only making them bigger.
Really? Have fun telling the women in Afghanistan how feminism is passe, and they don't need it anymore.

Personally, if I see an article about more men than women in higher positions, and the fact that the corporate world still runs as ever, those two combined just give me reason to put men in high positions.
I notice that you don't try to claim any evidence that women are not qualified to hold high positions, nor do you try to claim that corporations who do promote women to high positions do not run just as well as corporations that don't. The mere fact that a corporation has no women among its high level executives makes it good in your eyes. Text book sexist attitude, that.

Screaming that there is a difference only makes the screamer look frustrated, looking for something to blame.
That's right, dismiss the entire issue as hysterical behavior. Remember, while you're telling the women of Afghanistan that the movement for women's rights is outdated, to explain also how all their crying out for help just makes them look frustrated.

I think the end of the conflict as far as other people see it, is the day that every man and woman goes out, and do their job in the way they do it best.
Except that you just stated that you would reward corporations that prevent women from doing jobs. Oh, wait, that's right -- what you're not coming right out and saying is that you don't think women can perform high level jobs in corporations. You think women are only good at taking in penises and pushing out babies. Then I challenge you to explain away all the corporations in the world that do have high ranking female executives. While you're at it, explain away all the female presidents of nations and other high ranking female politicians in the world.

offmytopic:
Women are less likely to promote other women than are men to promote women. Read it in newspaper while ago, and I'm not going to search for sources. :cool:
Women are just as prone to sexist thinking as men. Just because women may buy into the myth, that doesn't mean it isn't a myth.

And? The realities of biology mean that men are more likely to be able to acquire a lot of muscle mass.

It still doesn't matter when you do get a woman with more upper body strength or a man with less, does it?

Bottle's entire point is that "trends" don't matter in determining what an individual can do.

Isn't it funny how my entire point was completely ignored by his response, and he actually continued making exactly the same bunk argument I was talking about?

Wait, no, "funny" isn't the word I'm looking for. Pathetic, that's the one.

Isn't it funny how my entire point was completely ignored by his response, and he actually continued making exactly the same bunk argument I was talking about?

Wait, no, "funny" isn't the word I'm looking for. Pathetic, that's the one.

It's funny how you constantly make assumptions out of pure speculation the whole time. I wasn't trying to argue back, your point was a given as I already said and didn't need to be discussed, I was simply politely asking a question. Why are you so damn paranoid?

I am wondering how such a statement applies to the study I cited.

The study does not seek to explain why there is a gender-bias. It merely shows that one exists.

It shows that there is a discrepancy, yes. But you posted that it shows that sexism is alive and well. The article does not show that.

Excuse me, but the article he linked to specifically states that its source is a study to be published next month. So you have no reason to assume the information is mere correlation. For all you know, the information in the study may actually show direct causation. The study has not yet been publshed, but the article contains enough information about it that you could probably find more information about its content via google. Or you could accept what the article says about its findings for the sake of this discussion.

But I see that you are more willing to dismiss out of hand any information that might tend to show evidence of gender bias, rather than actually take a look at it to see if it has validity.

And, Gift-of-god, it's ok for him to assume that it the information collected is directly correlated to sexism? What's your point?

Not every example of gender discrepancy is automatically correlated to sexism, you know, and I didn't find the evidence presented in the article as particularly supporting Gift-of-god's statement that it the study shows another example of sexism.

It shows that there is a discrepancy, yes. But you posted that it shows that sexism is alive and well. The article does not show that.
I would be interested to hear other explanations for why such a gender gap exists, then. I have already talked about how studies back in the 1970s (I think it was) concluded that sexism was the cause for the lack of research into heart disease in women. Please tell me what other causes there could be for women getting less ICU care than men, if it is not the same cause as the heart disease gap. Knowing all the causes is certainly vital to solving the problem, wouldn't you say?

I would be interested to hear other explanations for why such a gender gap exists, then. I have already talked about how studies back in the 1970s (I think it was) concluded that sexism was the cause for the lack of research into heart disease in women. Please tell me what other causes there could be for women getting less ICU care than men, if it is not the same cause as the heart disease gap. Knowing all the causes is certainly vital to solving the problem, wouldn't you say?

I'd be more interested in why women over 50 in particular were the ones suffering the most. Why over 50? What about men over 50 opposed to men below 50? Are more areas more inclined than others to show bias?

Also, why more women are admitted to hospitals than to men? Does this mean that we can make an assumption that hospitals are more willing to help women, overall? No, those are all assumptions that require further evidence to draw direct links.

I'm not saying there's not studies that show sexism in our culture, I'm just saying that one particular articles proves nothing as of yet. Maybe I'm being asinine, but oh well.

And, Gift-of-god, it's ok for him to assume that it the information collected is directly correlated to sexism? What's your point?

Not every example of gender discrepancy is automatically correlated to sexism, you know, and I didn't find the evidence presented in the article as particularly supporting Gift-of-god's statement that it the study shows another example of sexism.
I disagree because I already talked about another example in which sexism was identified as the cause of a gender gap in medical research. Check my other most recent post for a response on this point. I am of the opinion that -- only for the sake of discussion and with the caveat that the information is subject to review -- that past history can be used to give weight to a certain interpretation of the "teaser" information about the study given in the article.

Of course, if you want to say that, because the study has not been published, it cannot be cited in this discussion, that's a legitimate response. But that isn't exactly what you did say.

I'd be more interested in why women over 50 in particular were the ones suffering the most. Why over 50? What about men over 50 opposed to men below 50? Are more areas more inclined than others to show bias?

Also, why more women are admitted to hospitals than to men? Does this mean that we can make an assumption that hospitals are more willing to help women, overall? No, those are all assumptions that require further evidence to draw direct links.

I'm not saying there's not studies that show sexism in our culture, I'm just saying that one particular articles proves nothing.

Then there's no point in arguing about Gift of God's post so much. All you had to say is you would prefer to wait for the study to be published before accepting it as proof of sexism at work. Instead, you chose to emphasize the notion of it merely showing correlation rather than causation. In fact, as I pointed out a while ago, you don't know any better than GoG or I what the study shows. So rather than confuse the issue by using language about the article that can seem, to the reader, to be about the study, why not just say that you would prefer not to argue about that particular citation until the real source becomes available?

EDIT: In the meantime, I have fewer qualms about deciding a thing is likely to be a duck if it quacks and swims like one. As I said, there is already a history of sexism in medical research -- in the lack of research into heart disease in women up until the 1970s -- so I am more willing to believe that it may have happened again, since it did in fact, happen before.

Then there's no point in arguing about Gift of God's post so much. All you had to say is you would prefer to wait for the study to be published before accepting it as proof of sexism at work. Instead, you chose to emphasize the notion of it merely showing correlation rather than causation. In fact, as I pointed out a while ago, you don't know any better than GoG or I what the study shows. So rather than confuse the issue by using language about the article that can seem, to the reader, to be about the study, why not just say that you would prefer not to argue about that particular citation until the real source becomes available?

I felt I needed to express my opinion on correlation/causation because the rest of the thread was getting less interesting.

I felt I needed to express my opinion on correlation/causation because the rest of the thread was getting less interesting.
There are other threads for you to read. There is no excuse for a hijack here.

Really? So there are radical feminists who, say, want men to be confined to the home, do the housework, and submit to their wives? And these alleged "radical feminists" have gotten into control of the feminist movement?

If a movement as large and influential as feminism has indeed been "hijacked" by such people, surely it should be easy to find a few of them?

Name names. And stances that you think constitute advocating "a reversal of what we had in the 1950s" (by which I assume you mean pervasive female domination and supremacy.)

i'm goning to take a whack at it and assume ur a woman.

i'm goning to take a whack at it and assume ur a woman.

soheran is a man unless I've not paid attention these past years

i dunno, i havn't been around that long like some nerds around here, but "he" seems to be in an awful lto of favor towards feminists, which plenty of guys r too, but i don't think that many guys try to deflect all faults away from feminists. thats just wat i think though

i'm goning to take a whack at it and assume ur a woman.

Wrong.

But even if I were, that would not remotely be a legitimate argument.

but "he" seems to be in an awful lto of favor towards feminists,

He (yes, he) is a feminist....

which plenty of guys r too, but i don't think that many guys try to deflect all faults away from feminists.

Nor do many women... it's kind of impossible, since feminists disagree with each other all the time. Someone's opinion must be flawed.

But, yes, I defend feminism as a movement and a ideology, and radical feminism as a legitimate and valuable contribution to it. Why shouldn't I?

Why are nerdy people so into fencing?

Because fencing is just as much about the mental game as the physical. I miss SCA-style fencing... Damn hip.

Really? So there are radical feminists who, say, want men to be confined to the home, do the housework, and submit to their wives? And these alleged "radical feminists" have gotten into control of the feminist movement?

If a movement as large and influential as feminism has indeed been "hijacked" by such people, surely it should be easy to find a few of them?

Name names. And stances that you think constitute advocating "a reversal of what we had in the 1950s" (by which I assume you mean pervasive female domination and supremacy.)i'm goning to take a whack at it...

yay, someone is finally going to actually try to make a point and stop speaking in strangely vacuous generalities!

...and assume ur a woman.

or not

i'm goning to take a whack at it and assume ur a woman.

Because only women can be feminists? I'm sure redwulf will be surprised at that. And lots of other men who believe that 'equal under the law' should apply to everyone.

What if there simply is a difference? I suggest all you females who feel like they are held back by society use your strengths in your advantage instead of denying your weaknesses. If you try to fight for your female rights you've already lost. Women are sneaky. Take over the world. We won't notice.

I'm in a Dutch paramilitary force (Air Mobile Brigade) and women are very rarely accepted to this unit (between 3 to 7 a year, opposed to at least several hundred men, less than a percent total) and even less eventually finish the training. I have great respect for what these women do, but at the same time these are the least attractive women I know. Despite their physical appearance my natural stance is comparable to that to men. One woman in my platoon is always the slowest one in the platoon, but she is always the last one to give up. It's truly an honor to work besides people who have to take that extra step, but at the same time I have to wonder if they don't ruin their lives and possible future happiness by killing their inner woman, and possibly, their sexiness(?). Which could lead to happiness, both in terms of getting a man or even the effects of procreating (or practicing that, of course).

I think feminism is outdated and searching for the differences is only making them bigger. Personally, if I see an article about more men than women in higher positions, and the fact that the corporate world still runs as ever, those two combined just give me reason to put men in high positions. Screaming that there is a difference only makes the screamer look frustrated, looking for something to blame. I think the end of the conflict as far as other people see it, is the day that every man and woman goes out, and do their job in the way they do it best.

offmytopic:
Women are less likely to promote other women than are men to promote women. Read it in newspaper while ago, and I'm not going to search for sources. :cool:

Personally, I love how you spout a bunch of sexist nonsense and then claim that feminism is outdated. Your own attitude shows that feminism is needed.

Seriously, is there a class you people take on how to contradict yourselves? It seems to be a theme in this thread.

Wouldn't it be the lioness waiting in the tall grass for the gazelle? From what I remember, it's the females who do most of the hunting work in the pride.

very true.

but while i wasnt looking we gave up the feminine form of things. so there are no more actresses or waitresses or whatever. it seems that the male form has more prestige or something.

not that im bitter. not at all.

but while i wasnt looking we gave up the feminine form of things. so there are no more actresses or waitresses or whatever. it seems that the male form has more prestige or something.

I've not seen it in acting - I have friends who call themselves actresses. In the service industry, most people seem to have moved to the completely gender-neutral "server" instead of using waiter or waitress. Same with "flight attendants" instead of stewardesses.

I'm sure the manly-man tough guys will be more than able to take it, seeing as how they're stronger than us frail little girls. :D

Oh snap... lol

You win the thread again, Bottle

EDIT: Oh, and btw, what's up with all this assuming that all feminists are women? I'm a man and I'm a feminist. Soheran is too, as is HotRodia, and a number of others on this board.

More proof that sexism is alive and well:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/276697

And if you look at comparative rates of child custody, or the relative spending on prostate and breast cancer then you can also see it still goes both ways.

And if you look at comparative rates of child custody,

The last numbers I saw put actual court-decided cases in which child custody went to a single parent (joint custody was overwhelmingly in the majority), the mother got custody only 60% of the time. Given the fact that women in our society are expected to be a child's caretakers, while men quite often or not, that doesn't seem like a huge difference. Because of the social expectations in this country, a mother is already likely to be closer to her children.

Now, if you look at cases which were completely decided by the couple, without court intervention except to sign off on the papers, women get custody much more often. One has to wonder, then, why men are so often willing to give up custody of the children? It is probably sexism yet again - in the sense of what they think their role should be.

However, I have seen very little evidence of institutionalized discrimination against men in that arena.

And if you look at comparative rates of child custody, or the relative spending on prostate and breast cancer then you can also see it still goes both ways.

Eh?

I kind of a agree children are usually better off with their mothers. Obviously, there are times they are better off with the fathers.

As to the two cancers? I don't think you will find any men that will think too much money is being spent on finding a cure for both! :D

Oh snap... lol

You win the thread again, Bottle

EDIT: Oh, and btw, what's up with all this assuming that all feminists are women? I'm a man and I'm a feminist. Soheran is too, as is HotRodia, and a number of others on this board.

It's because of the root femin-

As to the two cancers? I don't think you will find any men that will think too much money is being spent on finding a cure for both! :D

Maybe he doesn't realize that men can get breast cancer as well.

Maybe he doesn't realize that men can get breast cancer as well.

what about women getting prostate cancer?

cancer is sexist imho

Also to add to the credibility of this post: :sniper:

what about women getting prostate cancer?

cancer is sexist imho

Also to add to the credibility of this post: :sniper:

What about men getting cervical cancer?

very true.

but while i wasnt looking we gave up the feminine form of things. so there are no more actresses or waitresses or whatever. it seems that the male form has more prestige or something.

not that im bitter. not at all.

As a woman, I actually prefer "actor," "waiter," etc., since the only sensible definitions of those words would be "one who acts" and "one who waits," while "actress" and "waitress" are "one who acts/waits and is female." I just don't understand why gender needs to be involved in the job description at all, so I go with the gender-neutral terms.

As a woman, I actually prefer "actor," "waiter," etc., since the only sensible definitions of those words would be "one who acts" and "one who waits," while "actress" and "waitress" are "one who acts/waits and is female." I just don't understand why gender needs to be involved in the job description at all, so I go with the gender-neutral terms.

There was once a time when male waiters worked in fancy, shmansy resturants while female waitresses worked in smaller food places. Nowadays, it's different. I think we should just get rid of the "female" titles. If you wait on people, you're a waiter. Not a server. Servers are for computers.

I find it funny that man was once gender-nuetral. A male man was a wer. A female man was a wif. Good old Old English (or Anglo-Saxon for you fancy school people).

Specifically referring to the bolded parts:

It's possible that I an not understanding you right, but I can only respond to what you've written, so if I'm wrong, I hope you'll be able to use my comments to help clarify what you are trying to say.

I want to respond to the negative attitude towards the word "feminism."

It is true that there have been a few feminists who I just want to tell to shut the fuck up (and in fact, I usually do). For the most part, I consider them just as sexist in their views as anti-feminists and just as invested in telling women how they should behave. However, that said, even more feminists have had their reputations unfairly tarnished by anti-feminism critics taking their remarks out of context. I will say that it is my sense that it is the media, not the feminists, who are responsible for any negative connotations of the word "feminist" by focusing more on inflammatory and sensational stunts and feuds than on actual issues. But you do not help the issue by just buying into the media's shallow and stupid ideas. I will also point out that derogatory terms such as "feminazi" were coined by anti-feminists, and it is not used narrowly to describe bigots who attach themselves to the feminist movement. Instead, it is used indiscriminately to insult all feminists.

If we are going to be persnickety about the use of labels, I will say that I am not ready to give up on the word "feminist." I believe that feminism is a worthy movement with an inspiring history, and it is still very much needed in the world. I believe that reclaiming the word "feminist" is vital to maintaining the link to the movement's history for the next generation of women who will have to fight for their and their sisters' rights. Therefore, I take that word as a label for myself. I am proud of it, because I am proud of its history. I am also proud of its enemies, because they are exactly the kind of people I stand against in life, and if they hate what I am, then I am confident I am doing something right. If the price I have to pay for that word is that I have to cleanse it of the stain of female bigots, then I am happy to take on that battle as well.

On the other hand, I will not stand by and allow words like "feminazi" to be tossed about without a response. IF that word were actually used only to describe certain female bigots, I MIGHT be less concerned with it, but we all know it is not used that way. Claims otherwise are disingenuous, and just because I believe you that you do not intend to insult feminists by it, that does not mean I will let your use of it slide. (This applies to anyone who uses the word, not just you in particular.)

By the way, I also agree 100% with everything Soheran said in response to your post as well.

I should correct myself. I suppose I was referring moreso to radical & extreme 'feminists'. I agree that the term 'feminist' has shifted from its original meaning, and I agree that it should be reclaimed as being 'for equal rights for both woman and men'. That is should it really should mean, am I right?

so outside of extreme weightlifting, producing babies and breast feeding, are you OK with men and women behaving as they please?

because really i suppose some people would love to have men be able to have babies but its not going to happen any time soon. the rest needs to be up to the individual to decide, not society.

Of course I'm okay with men and women behaving as they please.

This is one case where I am very confident simply saying that you are wrong.

Feminism, BY DEFINITION, cannot mean "putting women above men."

Anybody who advocates that is not a feminist. By definition.


Name a difference that is unique to men, or unique to women.


Name one feminist who believes that men and women are no different.


It appears you do not, in fact, believe that there are traits that are unique to men or unique to women, then. You agree that the traits you are talking about can exist in individuals of either sex. So why, then, would you want to "celebrate unique differences" which actually are not unique to either sex?


1) Define "strength." Females tend to have higher pain thresholds and tend to be better able to endure serious discomforts (like extreme heat or cold). Females also tend to have hardier immune systems. These are both strengths which are at least as useful, if not more so, than the tendency to lots of upper body muscle mass.
2) Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that males tend to be "stronger" than females, this STILL does not lead to the conclusion that only men should be on the front row. After all, plenty of males aren't strong enough to be on the front row. We can't just put them up there and say, "But males tend to be stronger than females!" And plenty of females will be strong enough to be on the front row, so it would be stupid to tell them, "But females tend to be weaker than males!"

QUALIFIED people should fill whatever positions are required. Maleness is not a qualification for combat.



Yes, because only one person can be caring for a baby at a time, and bottles don't exist, and breastfeeding is the only way that a baby needs to be cared for.

Seriously, do you even think these things through a tiny little bit?


I hope not, because it's coming out as yet another person trying to find polite ways to justify the same old status quo, while insisting that he's not a sexist.


You shouldn't consider yourself a feminist because you clearly aren't one. You can call yourself an "equalist" all you want, but you should be warned that "equalist" is basically just known as the title anti-feminists give themselves when they want to seem warm and fuzzy.

Firstly, I am a female.

I am not trying to politely justify the same old status quo.

I am not sexist.

I believe that women and men should have EQUAL rights.

I also believe that there are TYPICALLY unique differences between women and men, but I agree that everyone is in fact unique, and that some individuals differ from the stereotypical gender role, and this, too, should be celebrated. I am not trying to suggest that men are the strong bread-winners and women are the house-wives. I simply couldn't suggest that because I don't believe in it myself. I want to be a strong, independent women and I want to have the same rights as anyone else.

I suppose I should clarify myself, because I was more so referring to feminist extremists.

However, you certainly come across a little..uhh..forward by saying "equalist" is a term "basically just known as the title anti-feminists give themselves when they want to seem warm and fuzzy". That simply isn't true. I am not anti-feminist, but I am anti anyone that believes men are better than women & I am anti those who believe women are better than men. I believe we should all have equal rights.