|
On October 25 2009 02:42 micronesia wrote:
Many feminists want it 'both ways' and are not fighting for equality at all. As I admitted, some are fighting for their cause correctly and seek equality and I salute them... they just aren't loud and obnoxious enough to get my attention usually.
Agreed with this. An example would be equal parenting rights, basically some feminists (one could argue not true feminists) would say "We want equal such and such here" but when parenting rights come up it's "No the woman should always be given the top status".
It's these people that can put others off the idea of feminism even if they truly arn't part of it. The idea of feminism itself is a just cause and I believe there should be complete equality, but it has to swing both ways.
|
Political feminism and gender as social construct aside, there will always be biological differences between man and woman which will affect our behavioural patterns, which overall affect our position to those around us, and as thus, there will never be "true equality" in the form of gender-neutrality. That being said, equal freedoms and economic possibilities are easilly doable, and should be presented to everyone equally, irrelevant of gender.
Anyhow, all that bullshit aside;
I'll start calling a slut for a girl-stud the day she initiates the pickup, pays for the drinks, seduces me, takes me home and does most the work in bed.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 25 2009 03:22 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 02:53 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:49 Foucault wrote:On October 25 2009 01:41 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know. It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you"  It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying) The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yep, it's very hard to define what equality is and if you want to do it, you will have to think where you stand regarding biological and sociological explanations for gender. Some people believe that there is almost no biological gender to how men and women behave, but it's rather gender-roles that have been used and refined through thousands of years. Of course our bodies are different and what not but the actual difference in how men and women "are" has alot to do with how we are being raised. We are molded into men and women through socialization, where society tells us what we can do and say in line with our designated gender roles. I think men and women are different in many biological aspects, some which also carry over to behavior but the majority of characteristics for behavior stem from gender roles, and personal differences not having anything to do with biological gender. Oh and wages and employment is just the tip of the iceberg, the concrete symptoms of a patriarchy that is still very much in effect. Sweden has come quite far in terms of equality, but gender roles still dictate to a large degree how men and women interact with eachother and within in the same gender. Agree on every point. Our instincts might be in the way of trying to raise children into equality. I mean, in the early years of school, boys and girls automatically separate into two groups, and later in puberty you have a ton of hormones, estrogen and whatnot kicking in, so it's going to be impossibly hard to stop ALL the social differences with these unstoppable biological things happening. (Also, it is my belief that the brains between genders function in different ways too. I can't prove it, so I'll just put it in parenthesis. Anyway, I believe males have a higher capability of logical thinking, while females have a higher capability for empathy. Might affect behavior as well to various degrees.)However breaking the ancient "tradition" of males being the workers and females nursing the children is going to be a bit easier. It's well on the way at least, and pretty impressive seeing that it has been that way ever since we started walking on two legs. Easier, because the need for it disappeared with the arrival of civilization, and we're pretty much just going on with it out of old habit so to say. Yeah basically it's very hard to say what's what. What's biology and what's defined gender roles? About brains being different I think this is huge fallacy and I don't believe it for one bit. I mean, brains function differently between individuals too, someone can't metabolize certain vitamines as well as someone else and one person might have higher levels of catecholamines in the brain, while another person is naturally "calm" (as in less stress-hormones). This is kind of a trap too, because we know brains function differently between individuals and the entire reason that we even consider thinking that womens brains are better at emotions than ours is to reinvent the notion that women aren't logical. Logic = better alot of the times according to the male norm, thus this idea just states over again that women are inferior. Do you follow? I think the "difference" you are talking about is almost 100% about gender roles. Women aren't encouraged to be logical and intelligent in the same way that men are. And men are supposed to be "badass" "tough" and whatever adjectives there are to describe the male persona. This is imo a huge social construct; gender roles. They were practical centuries ago(which doesn't make them more moral or better) but aren't really needed today. Yeah, I think it's ridiculous how the human species still hold on to alot of old prejudice. We are truly blind and awkward in many areas, especially with women's role in society today and historically. We need to step into the 21:th century. Women make up 50% of the earths population, word.
It not a matter of belief, it a solid fact. There is a great amount of respectable sources all over the internet if you don't like this one.
http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/
I consider ultra-liberalism by far the most dangerous direction, that ends up restricting people, instead of actually liberating. Disposing of so called prejudice and inherent values equals disposing of happiness, because going along with inherent desires and going along with instinctive prejudices are the ultimate purpose of life, which is living the way you truly want deep inside you. Every prejudice and desire is explained from the standpoint of biology and evolution, belief in that the modern times rendered all that useless can't be correct, nothing really has changed other than influental uprise of mass media, structures of the brain, body and the way psyche works didn't change.
Nobody can be happy guiding his life from the standpoint of lies betraying his own nature, taking on inappropriate tasks, because equality implies that if somebody can do it, then everybody can do it. The natural instincts and desires are getting substituted by completely artificial and made up policies and morals. The organism won't reward you with satisfaction and sense of happiness and achievement when you go this path. Speaking by simple example, by far the least happy, the most suffering women are the women of business and labor. And the most healthy, proud and happy are those who put own children on pedestal and not pursue ultra-stressful careers, while with men it's different when the sense of happiness can often be achieved with acquiring power or physical activity in a team. Personalities vary, so i don't claim this applies to every single person. Speaking of women, do you really consider women to be oppressed and suffering during the entire history of humanity barring the last couple of decades?
Just a two-three years ago i was writing the exact same stuff as you. I know how it is to be ultra-liberal
I'd like to add, that many of us live in social structures, that restrict people, not in physical, but in a social way, when a lot of individuals go on to follow the set of rules while not feeling true passion and inner desire to pursue the goals in front of them. Ultra-liberalism only adds to that. It all renders the mass of people who have no reason to consider themselves unique or different, who took the wrong path confused, not having the way of life that suits them and questioning the life's purpose. Passion and culture die and the mass of simply working and eating people become thicker. It's a way of modern slavery, fueled and created by the work of mass media and political powers.
|
On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman.
I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh?
|
On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period.
Guys want sex most of all in their life, girls have it much easier getting sex than girls and thus guys thinks that girls have it easier. A slut is roughly as forward as a shy guy.
About life in general, just look at animals. They usually have very different behaviour patterns between males and females, it would be very strange if humans did not follow the same rule. Different patterns leads to continuously different choices throughout life, and while this might not be that noticeable in a single person this will strongly impact statistics.
|
On October 25 2009 06:09 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman. I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh?
LOL
As for the "slut vs stud" debate - I don't look down on either. In fact, I think it can be a good thing.
|
On October 24 2009 22:47 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah some things seem obvious even tho you never thought of them in a way that now seems obvious. I just explained why 'slut' has a negative conotation. Were you aware of that?
It's connotation. And yes, I already realised why "slut" has a negative connotation, because girls who have sex with many different guys are less likely to carry your baby. that's the evolutionary reason behind it.
On October 24 2009 22:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:47 niteReloaded wrote:On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah some things seem obvious even tho you never thought of them in a way that now seems obvious. I just explained why 'slut' has a negative conotation. Were you aware of that? Just ignore lazz, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I enjoyed reading about your little realization.
Ahahahahaha
|
I don't see the point of this thread. If this is something related to school, then yes, your answer bears some truth, as historically speaking a male who got around was spreading his seed while a female who got around was probably giving birth to children other than her lover's. It's only very recently in human history that birth control has existed and even so it's not 100% effective.
Realistically speaking though, I despise the femi-Nazi idea that it's okay to promote free sex for girls just because guys do it. It's the whole "if he jumped off a bridge would you do it to?" kind of deal. It's fine if people want to get around a lot, but statistically speaking, odds are that such people have picked up an STD at some point.
Edit: at least if they live in the USA, anyway. An estimated 25% of American college students have picked up an STD at some point. GG
|
On October 25 2009 02:56 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 23:49 VorcePA wrote:On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah It's a little harder than being a girl? = Girls: - Have a period - Have to worry about pregnancy - Are more susceptible to STDs - Are still archaically viewed as a "slut" if they're promiscuous like a man - Are paid, on average, 40% less than a man is for doing the same job worldwide What? I don't consider promiscuous women sluts; I'd consider them insightful. Speak for yourself.
Usually when people use the word "archaically," it's because they consider it a negative concept and consider themselves "progressive". I am no different.
The majority's consensus, especially in America and other sexually repressed nations, is that if a woman is promiscuous in the same way men attempt to be, she's slutty and undesirable.
|
people in this thread are pretty drastically under-read re feminism
|
|
|
On October 24 2009 22:28 DamageControL wrote:
edit: that being said we should try to surpass our lower, base instincts, and attempt to equalize social norms. "It's the way evolution made us" is a poor excuse for social injustices.
except in bed. then you can call them a slut and it will just turn them on
|
United States24753 Posts
A 'friend' of mine in high school used to say slut constantly. Whenever he was saying hi to someone he'd say 'what up slut' or something like that. It was mildly annoying but I didn't really care. MLIA.
fusionsdf's comment made me think of that.
On October 25 2009 10:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:28 DamageControL wrote:
edit: that being said we should try to surpass our lower, base instincts, and attempt to equalize social norms. "It's the way evolution made us" is a poor excuse for social injustices.
except in bed. then you can call them a slut and it will just turn them on
Yeah but you have to draw the line at 'fowl-mouthed venereal disease infested street walking whore.'
|
I actually find sluts attractive. It makes for bad relationships.
edit : Not because it's a bad thing in and of itself, just that the ones I've met have all done so for weird self-confidence issues or because they were uber repressed southern christians. In effect, the way society is structured is to encourage people with certain negative traits to act in this way as a method to feel emotionally connected/attached to someone.
|
|
|
On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
But how does he know he's the best if he doesn't look over his shoulder? That just implies he wants to live in a dream world where he won't compare himself to others and will believe what he wants, which is a likely path to downfall - evolutionary success favors those who take into account their surroundings.
|
On October 25 2009 04:00 NeVeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 03:29 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
I always thought that the reason was the guy was receiving sex were in most cases the girl is giving sex, pretty much the guy is fucking the girl. The girl is not fucking the guy. Therefore the girl is the slut. I agree with this. Human nature has a tendency to admire male attributes (dominance, aggressiveness, etc). In intercourse, it is generally that the man is the aggressor of the action and the woman is the receiver. While the male is seen as dominant, bold, aggressive in intercourse, the woman is submissive, and easily taken by her lust. Edit: I actually just realized that you said the guy is receiving sex and the girl is giving sex.. I think it's the other way around.
And the attributes you are talking about are largely social constructs and have much less to do with biology.
|
On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman.
why? Sex rocks! I really don't see the problem with having lots of sex... I mean as long as you're not constantly breaking up what are supposed to be committed relationships there is really no problem with having sex with different people.
|
The word slut was invented by a man paying alimony, true story.
|
yea whats wrong with sluts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
