|
Accidental double post. please delete.
|
You girls want respect in e-sports? Earn it. If you want equal treatment you better have equal performance, and frankly as far as BW and SC2 goes, that hasn't happened. Also, it's not like guys don't want girls to play games with us. Hell most guys try to get girls to play games with them but most girls' interests just aren't there.Those that do like to play games are just not as good as guys are... I'm not trying to be sexist but as far as gaming goes the girls I have played various games with were good solid and fun players, but were always worse than most of my guyfriends. Girls and better at some things than guys, and vice versa. Why can't gaming be one of those things. In fact, it's rare for guys and girls to be exactly as good as each other in ANYTHING.
|
On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.  So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning  I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
|
Very interesting post, vetinari.
You really have to wonder what happened in the period from 1960-2000 that changed the family unit and the makeup of society so much. For one thing you can blame the free love, pacifist, and third wave feminism movements. Not that any of these movements where wholly bad, but their effects on male/female relationships and family were highly damaging.
Huh, I guess I'm tired of writing these large impassioned posts for today. I agree with everything you said though. Just like a man has a responsibility in a marriage or relationship to satisfy a woman, so does that woman have a responsibility to satisfy a man.
|
On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Hmm, basically. I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice. One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default. Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community. Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies. Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands. A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole. *Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression). **as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man". ***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability. ****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song. All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway. NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
What the hell was that... Ramblings of a man from the 1800's?
|
On July 16 2011 04:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Hmm, basically. I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice. One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default. Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community. Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies. Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands. A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole. *Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression). **as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man". ***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability. ****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song. All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway. NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell. What the hell was that... Ramblings of a man from the 1800's?
it was well organized, but we should still try feminism
i think feminism is still very natural as mothers are the ones who carry society by giving birth and guiding the next generation
however, yes, i do think some women should be banned from motherhood. some of them are just yikes! mothers need to find the joys of unconditionally loving her children. they were once part of her for chrissakes!
|
On July 16 2011 04:39 IzieBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 04:36 Djzapz wrote:On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Hmm, basically. I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice. One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default. Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community. Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies. Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands. A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole. *Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression). **as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man". ***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability. ****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song. All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway. NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell. What the hell was that... Ramblings of a man from the 1800's? it was well organized, but we should still try feminism i think feminism is still very natural as mothers are the ones who carry society by giving birth and guiding the next generation however, yes, i do think some women should be banned from motherhood. some of them are just yikes! mothers need to find the joys of unconditionally loving her children. they were once part of her for chrissakes!
And how exactly to you ban a woman from motherhood? Tell her she can't have children? What if she gets pregnant?
Tie her tubes? That's just not a very nice thing to do to someone - unless you're in a totalitarian government.
|
On July 16 2011 04:08 IzieBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 03:53 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 03:49 IzieBoy wrote:On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote:
As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club. truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low. Why are the excrement low if they call a girl a fag online? Are they also excrement low if they call a guy a fag online? I don't see why you made the distinction. Well it's cuz a guy can usually come back with some snarky comment about the other's female relatives probably with some actual heart-felt intent involved as well. A girl would be like "i'm a girl? i like guys?" which leads to availability for more verbal attacks. basically with guys, it's just slander; with girls, it becomes verbal abuse to be twisting things to make her feel bad.
It's neither slander nor verbal abuse for men or women. It's nothing more than an uncovering of the speaker's ignorance or immaturity. And that's leaving aside the entirely fun (for me) conversations that ensue when my opponents tell me to 'go suck c---'...
|
On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Hmm, basically. I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice. One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default. Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community. Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies. Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands. A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole. *Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression). **as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man". ***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability. ****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song. All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway. NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
Thankyou
|
On July 16 2011 04:44 Djzapz wrote:
And how exactly to you ban a woman from motherhood? Tell her she can't have children? What if she gets pregnant?
A license should be required to have a child. You should be able to prove that you can financially support that child and also devote time or a caretaker's time towards raising that child. If you have a child without first acquiring a license, you should be subject to a fine. If you cannot pay that fine, then the child's custody should be given to someone you designate to take care of that child. If you can't delegate the custody of that child to someone else, the government will find a home for that child.
Why does this work? It ensures that children are provided for by people who actually can take care of them, and it also punishes people for having children that they cannot support. Accidental pregnancy? You have the option to abort said pregnancy or give the child up for adoption like normal, but if you want to keep the kid you better apply for a damn license.
I'm sick and tired of seeing these loser trash young couples pushing strollers around. I feel nothing but pity for these infants because they are doomed to having a crap childhood with bad parents, and in the end they will grow up to become the problem once again. I feel a little bad for the parents too, they've stricken themselves with a burden that will prevent them from realizing their potential as contributing members of society, and that burden will be with them for life.
Children are supposed to be a joy, and to raise a child in a situation that is anything but is an injustice to everyone including the child. We need controls in place to prevent this from happening, otherwise we'll be stuck with more and more trash to take care of in the future. People who irresponsibly or stupidly bring a child into this world for attention or entertainment or to keep a man are bad people too. A child is important; a child is for life, and most importantly:
CHILDREN ARE NOT PETS
Oh, and to say that a woman's mothering instinct would make her a natural leader in society is hilarious btw; the result of the infuriating logical paradoxes that this would put in a feminist's head would be fun to watch.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 16 2011 05:08 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Hmm, basically. I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice. One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default. Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community. Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies. Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands. A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole. *Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression). **as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man". ***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability. ****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song. All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway. NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell. Thankyou
I am a bit ahamed that I have discussed with you. Enormous sexist bullshit, I don't even know what to say.
On July 16 2011 05:08 TheGiz wrote:
[b]A license should be required to have a child.
Looks like you were outdone while I was posting. Where am I?
|
I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue that black people are allowed to vote.
|
On July 16 2011 05:13 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 05:08 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Hmm, basically. I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice. One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default. Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community. Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies. Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands. A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole. *Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression). **as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man". ***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability. ****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song. All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway. NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell. Thankyou I am a bit ahamed that I have discussed with you. Enormous sexist bullshit, I don't even know what to say. Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 05:08 TheGiz wrote:
[b]A license should be required to have a child. Looks like you were outdone while I was posting. Where am I?
I was thanking him for offering his opinion which i asked for.
The only bullshit here is your lack of tolerance and courtesy.
Don't worry bro, nothing is going to change
|
On July 16 2011 05:31 omnic wrote:
I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue of letting black people vote.
Might as well -_-
On July 16 2011 05:08 TheGiz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 04:44 Djzapz wrote:
And how exactly to you ban a woman from motherhood? Tell her she can't have children? What if she gets pregnant?
A license should be required to have a child.
Lots of disgusting stuff has been getting posted over the last page or so. While vetinari did a decent job trying to sound smart despite the obvious sexism, TheGiz certainly takes the cake, as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's pretty sad when people get these ridiculous ideas that they find to be eloquent. "People can't take care of their children, clearly the government knows better." Seriously? Yes, some things could be done to make sure children have better lives, but needing a license to procreate? TheGiz, come on, think things through. How about a license to get raped too?
I'll laugh my ass off when the Government opens up a new backlog for license-less children who can't find homes because there are already too many babies up for adoption and not enough people to take care of them. Throw all that garbage at orphanages because the mother wasn't liquid enough, according to the government.
What a ridiculous idea. Did you just wing it and figured people wouldn't notice how terrible of an idea it is?
|
So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
|
On July 16 2011 05:55 Punscho wrote:
So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
According to pretty much any study done (please correct me if new evidence counters this point) but since being given all this choice, happiness levels have dropped overwhelmingly amongst women. (and men) Even feminists agree that what has been done long term is overall bad for women in general (usually the older 'original' feminists, i'll find citations etc when i have time, unless ofc this post just gets "lol derrr sexist" replies)
|
This thread has been so derailed. Lol.
|
On July 16 2011 04:25 vetinari wrote:
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
That's a pretty loaded post about patriarchy and feminism without any real historical or geographical context. There is no evidence to suggest women are natural "mothers" because a "mother" is also highly contextual; The "mother ideal" you are referring to is the cookie-cutter 1950s, Leave it To Beaver, model that plagues our concept of the history of the family.
When you say an "egalitarian society makes no bloody sense", what u really seem to be saying is men are naturally smarter and women should submit. There is no logic in favoring patriarchy, only a false sense of superiority.
*Also, feminism is not singular as you suggest. It has a history of 2nd waves, bra burners, communists, 3rd wave entreprenuers, foucoult-philosophers, etc.
|
This is one of those threads where you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Some of you sound like you came directly from the dark ages. Maybe black people should stick to corporal labour too?
I do sincerely believe that most of this is too stupid to resond to, since responding to these idiotic arguments would mean that you would have to adopt the same invalid presupositions about men, women and society.
|
Vetinari you're the worst kind of oppressor, the one who believes that you're doing a favor for those you're oppressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
