On April 10 2013 20:12 Quotidian wrote: and I'd say I completely disagree with you, and see plenty of evidence that male humans, and males of many other species are more outwardly competitive than women, generally with males of their same species. "Patriarchy" doesn't even enter into it.
Reposting this because apparently you missed it...
This study uses a controlled experiment to explore whether there are gender differences in selecting into competitive environments across two distinct societies: the Maasai in Tanzania and the Khasi in India. One unique aspect of these societies is that the Maasai represent a textbook example of a patriarchal society whereas the Khasi are matrilineal. Similar to the extant evidence drawn from experiments executed in Western cultures, Maasai men opt to compete at roughly twice the rate as Maasai women. Interestingly, this result is reversed amongst the Khasi, where women choose the competitive environment more often than Khasi men, and even choose to compete weakly more often than Maasai men.
I think it's safe to say patriarchy does, in fact, enter into it at least as a factor
not necessarily... I mean, it doesn't even address the type of competition I'm talking about - competition for dominance hierarchy status. The payment scheme they're using doesn't provide any enhancement of social position. The whole notion of the type of competition I reference is that male excellence and self-worth is in large degree derived from competition with other males and the resultant hierarchical dominance (this is talked about in the video in my first post in this thread)
This experiment doesn't address that at all, because the participants don't even know who they're competing against ("As promised, participants were never given the opportunity to learn with whom they were paired"), so the notion of direct competition is completely absent from what I understand.The competition is based around tossing a ball into a bucket, and there were only 155 participants from both cultures combined. It doesn't really prove much, except to suggest that there might exists interesting cultural outliers around the world.
On April 09 2013 13:11 Xayvier wrote: My problem is that trying to abolish gender roles is to try to end a fact of nature; it is natural that men are generally dominant and that women are care takers (note I am speaking in general). Gender roles are not a societal construct.
Physically men are, I don't buy the rest of it as 'natural' and we live in a society where physical brawn is not as advantageous or important as it once was.
I could not agree more, and this is where I think gender issues in society rob women the most. No Darwinian selection society is A GOOD THING. You wouldn't want someone to come to your house, club you over the head, and take all your stuff just because he's bigger and stronger than you. We have police and a legal system to make sure everyone gets a fair shot.
That said, I think having a professional life is part of what it means to be human, like up there with listening to music and having preferences. It pisses me off to know end that women are just expected to drop that part of their life when they have kids. Sometimes marketing people still ask for a "head of the household" as if one person in a marriage is supposed to be subordinate to another. I wish we had some first world labor laws where men got time off as well as women to take care of newborns.
I agree that professional life is part of a human life, but caring parenthood is also important, not only for the ones excersizing it, but for the ones receiving it (the kids). I feel that the roles need/should exist (bringing money, taking care of kids, maintaining the household as an enjoyable and functional place, managing the family economy). Even further, forming a family is/should always be a decision based on personal goals/preferences, and every time you want to achieve something (like family) some other thing in your life will have to be partially or totally sacrificed. I personally (and willingly) sacrificed a good shot I had at continuing my studies because we (my GF and me) got pregnant.
The way I see it, it's not about aiming for everyone to have ALL things into their lives, but to aim for each one of us having the right to choose what we want and to choose what we can sacrifice to achieve it. The roles are ok, assumming there's only one way (men=providers women=housekeepers) to do it is what's wrong.
tl:dr: Roles that may require sacrifice is ok, associating them with a specific gener is not.
Jon Coumes wrote After contending with decades of scorn, geeks are finally at the cool kids' table.
The new geeks may be at the cool kids' table, but the old geeks never were and probably never will be.
Jon Coumes wrote We had gotten to the point where we could be openly geeky without being stereotyped as neckbearded, sweaty basement-dwellers, but those anime-pillow-loving guys are holding us back.
I guess they should just stop existing because they're impinging on your cool factor?
Jon Coumes wrote one in four Japanese men in their 30s are virgins
Is this the part where we all point and laugh at how pathetic it is for a male to be a virgin in his thirties?
On April 11 2013 05:46 Denzil wrote: Can't remember who said it but
Feminism is good feminists are bad
I hate this. It's a catchy phrase but lacks any nuance or analysis. You could say it about almost anything. It's annoying people try to water debate down to catchy rhetorical phrases, especially when those phrases become replacements for actual arguments or thought.
On April 09 2013 21:08 r.Evo wrote: If those fantasy books play in a universe where men and women live in medieval times and are equal, those storylines are fine. If they play in a parallel universe of ours and try to be historical accurate, they'd be bullshit.
200 or more year old "save the princess"-stories inherently can't be sexist or discriminating because they're historically accurate. In general stereotyping isn't as evil as you might belief. Our world is defined by binary oppositions, it is not wrong to like a woman because she is more feminine or because she's more masculine. Just like it's not wrong to love men or to love women. What is wrong however is to tell people that they should feel bad for preferring one over the other or that it's not normal to prefer one. Stereotyping != discriminating.
Without stereotypes we couldn't call women women, books books or children children.
That's usually a scary trap I believe people who like to say "it's all equal stereotypes are bad" tend to fall into.
So yeah, the biggest issue is, that there's lack of choice, mostly when it comes to women who want to see strong hero characters, in not so "feminine" (goodness, I hate that definition) way, they are simply at loss. Maybe that is partially why people are upset at characters like Sansa in Game of Thrones, because they are always there, while the other one is not, and therefore, the Salsa-type character is preferred, which of course people like me will not like, because we like having the choice & don't want these characters to depict who we are in general..
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you don't read or watch much fantasy or fiction. I can't even begin to count the amount of female characters who are masculine (in the sense that they fight physically, are adventurous, bold, etc.) Probably more than the other side: female characters who are very feminine (would never fight physically, don't want adventure, passive). And universally, the feminine characters are shown as weak (except for their masculine traits) and the masculine characters are shown as strong (because of their masculine traits). The "tough chick" is so overused nowadays that it's one of the biggest cliches in the arts of storytelling. Can you name one character that you've seen in fantasy who is a strong feminine character? Strong in her femininity? I can name hundreds that are strong in their masculinity. Shit, the only real female character in LotR is Eowyn; and what is her storyline? That she wants to be (and succeeds in being) a warrior.
I see nothing wrong with preferring masculine female characters, but don't pretend like they don't exist.
I think it's extremely self defeating and harmful towards women when you explicitly define passivity and "not wanting adventure" as feminine. I don't think the conversation will move any further if you can't see why. I think it's ridiculous to dictate that an audience must like completely passive characters. I think we should be able to expect more from our fictional heroes.
You missed the point pretty bad. Especially when I said: "I'm fine with preferring masculine characters over feminine ones." Obviously I am not saying that audiences should prefer one or the other, I'm just saying that we should definitely not pretend like there is some lack of female characters in fantasy/fiction that like to adventure, are bold, and fight just as well as the boys. They are literally littered everywhere in fantasy and fiction, so much so that you'll be hard-pressed to find some stories without them, especially in modern fantasy.
I'm sorry but passivity has always been defined as a more feminine trait. And there is good reason for that. The majority of women will react more passively to a threat than a man will. Not being as adventurous is another common trait in women and girls: in the sense that more men than women will choose to go travel across mountains and oceans for the sense of adventure. Some women will break the mold, sure, but they are breaking the mold, not remaking it.
My only problem is with the idea that feminine traits, such as passivity, automatically equal weakness. And feminism seems to be all about that: instead of celebrating femininity as equally desirable and strong, they ironically celebrate masculinity as the ideal.
I have no problem with Feminists, but I do have a problem with your assessment of Diamonds. While I will grant that there is nothing rare about diamonds they are still quite valuable. First off they have an unparalleled hardness which makes them essential to many manufacturing processes. Secondly, diamonds have not just been revered since the 1930's and in fact many of the greatest mystics in history have used the diamond to represent everything from god, to paradise, to the perfect human. This is because of the diamonds perfect crystalline structure and the purity of its translucence are natural wonders that can be used to represent ideas of perfection. Diamonds are wonderful and amazing things, and the fact that they are common should not take away from that at all (in fact it is a blessing)!
On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote: Don't let some teenage kid who spouts "girl power" on her tumblr affect how you view a very real and very important lens you can use to view various issues.
This is becoming a harder and harder thing to do recently.
On April 11 2013 14:08 theaxis12 wrote: I have no problem with Feminists, but I do have a problem with your assessment of Diamonds. While I will grant that there is nothing rare about diamonds they are still quite valuable. First off they have an unparalleled hardness which makes them essential to many manufacturing processes. Secondly, diamonds have not just been revered since the 1930's and in fact many of the greatest mystics in history have used the diamond to represent everything from god, to paradise, to the perfect human. This is because of the diamonds perfect crystalline structure and the purity of its translucence are natural wonders that can be used to represent ideas of perfection. Diamonds are wonderful and amazing things, and the fact that they are common should not take away from that at all (in fact it is a blessing)!
OP doesn't say diamonds have no value at all (mystical or industrial). He basically criticize a corporate group that is advertising something as being mystical/necessary to a group of person that has no use of such mysticism therefore creating a fake need for the western woman (and man by association).
If you are into pre-1930 mysticism so that you absolutely need genuine diamonds from that group... sure go ahead (or if you need it for industrial purposes). But diamonds as being a necessary part of marriage or advertising genuine ones being much better than artificial is pure marketing that has true consequences to our traditions, our economy and to the safety of some (blood-diamonds).
On April 11 2013 14:08 theaxis12 wrote: I have no problem with Feminists, but I do have a problem with your assessment of Diamonds. While I will grant that there is nothing rare about diamonds they are still quite valuable. First off they have an unparalleled hardness which makes them essential to many manufacturing processes. Secondly, diamonds have not just been revered since the 1930's and in fact many of the greatest mystics in history have used the diamond to represent everything from god, to paradise, to the perfect human. This is because of the diamonds perfect crystalline structure and the purity of its translucence are natural wonders that can be used to represent ideas of perfection. Diamonds are wonderful and amazing things, and the fact that they are common should not take away from that at all (in fact it is a blessing)!
OP doesn't say diamonds have no value at all (mystical or industrial). He basically criticize a corporate group that is advertising something as being mystical/necessary to a group of person that has no use of such mysticism therefore creating a fake need for the western woman (and man by association).
If you are into pre-1930 mysticism so that you absolutely need genuine diamonds from that group... sure go ahead (or if you need it for industrial purposes). But diamonds as being a necessary part of marriage or advertising genuine ones being much better than artificial is pure marketing that has true consequences to our traditions, our economy and to the safety of some (blood-diamonds).
I love precious stones, I wish the world was awash with cheap artificial ones so that I would have a chance of acquiring one. It's fun to browse for hyper expensive gemstones on ebay.
Feminism is also about assessing current gender roles, power relations and how we interact with society. I would certainly argue that people adopting a more feminist approach is certainly a positive, empowering thing. People often think feminism is only about women, but think about how society erects certain standards towards men and women and impose certain norms upon them. Feminism is about deconstructing these norms and opening up options for all sexes.
Once you start living your life thinking that prescriptive gender norms are actually a car full of crap, be you a man or a woman, you certainly feel like you're more in control of your life and your future than before.
I personally liked this web site and use it for teaching to help students better understand these complex issues : http://www.feministfrequency.com . The best videos are the ones on Lego advertisement. Brilliant.
Of course, if you're into the status quo, feminism is your arch nemesis.
On April 12 2013 22:33 Iberville wrote: Once you start living your life thinking that prescriptive gender norms are actually a car full of crap, be you a man or a woman, you certainly feel like you're more in control of your life and your future than before.
I personally liked this web site and use it for teaching to help students better understand these complex issues : http://www.feministfrequency.com . The best videos are the ones on Lego advertisement. Brilliant.
Of course, if you're into the status quo, feminism is your arch nemesis.
The experiments this man has used to explore some of those "Boys play with Lego and girls with Barbie because of society, not because of their genders"-believes would like to have a word with you.
I actually highly recommend those videos linked above for everyone here, it's very rare that someone approaches issues like gender equality or ethnic equality (Among other things one of the episodes e.g. showed an incredibly strong correlation between high IQ and orthodox Jews) from a neutral position and just lets both sides of the fence talk.
tl;dr from the other OP:
What Eia had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community. Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments. To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement.
I think the word Feminism is pretty useless, because there are so many different forms which range for progressive to genuinely patriarchal and negative. By it's namesake, it also tends to suggest rising women up to men's level, rather than exploring negative stereotypes and images men are faced with as well.
So I just call myself egalitarian, or something like that.
I think looking for an audience or some participants to an intellectual discussion on the internet is a difficult thing. There's a lot of strangers you'll talk to plenty on the internet that you wouldn't even bother trying to argue with if you met them in person. Sometimes even just having cues like body language and facial expression and tone can very clearly tell you when someone is set in their beliefs. That look of sincere interest and listening to your argument is critical to intellectual discussion, and you just don't know if it's there or not on the internet. Sometimes just discussing something in person lends itself to being more polite and willing to listen to the person you are talking to, then responding in a real way that involves asking questions about parts which don't make sense.
It would be lovely if the internet were just a place where discrimination based on age, gender and nationality were more difficult, but I think more often the internet is conducive to intellectual incest, where people don't have to come to any kind of common ground if they don't want, and they can always find people who agree unconditionally with them. Forums are the worst for this, 1:1 IMs are a little better. All this, of course, to respond to your point about making an argument about diamonds or feminism or any topic, since I don't think your intention is to really discuss feminism here.
ROFL, I usually don't enter these types of arguments, but that has got to be one of the most disingenuous and blatantly stupid videos that I have ever seen. Not even one of those points makes any sense (except perhaps wimbledon prize money) if you even choose to use an iota of critical thinking.
On April 13 2013 11:05 rezoacken wrote: Today I received an email from the university for a poll regarding gender equality at the university. To answer the poll I must be a woman...
How come they are getting a real study about gender!!S!! equality if they interrogate only half of the studied population ?
PS: and last time I checked there is more women in the university than men... and they are performing better.
LOL. At my school it does seem that there are far more women than men. There is a special women's center on campus. We've had numerous events like "walk a mile in her shoes", "the vagina monologues", and the group "men of strength", where men can show they oppose rape and domestic violence toward women.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XLhbZ7P.png)
