|
On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online.
...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - and this is done so through many ways. The mere act of defining equal rights, of "defending" - in any sphere, through media, through discourse, whatever - seems to be part of this. You're assuming that empowerment is strictly political, when the definition clearly states that it's not just political, but social as well.
As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that.
So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about.
|
On May 03 2013 12:09 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up...
Did i say that? All i m saying is that men and women have different bahaviors and preferences that are not JUST influenced by society. Nor can all differences between men and women be reduced to biology.
I didnt say that all women should forced into a certain role, but i m saying that a lot of women choose a certain career nobody forced them into.
Look at the scandinavian countries, they are leading in gender equality but yet they have the BIGGEST differences in careerchoices of men and women. Women choosing careers where they are socializing with other people and men choosing to be engineers.
|
On May 03 2013 12:18 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:09 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up... Did i say that? All i m saying is that men and women have different bahaviors and preferences that nur not JUST influnced by society. Nor can all difference between men and women be reduced to biology. I didnt say that all women should forced into a certain role, but i m saying that a lot of women choose to chose a certain career nobody forced them into. Look at the scandinavian countries, they are leading in gender equality but yet they have the BIGGEST differences in careerchoices of men and women. Women choosing careers where they are socializing with other people and men choosing to be engineers.
I'm noticing a trend where you and your compatriots keep mentioning this two-fold idea that:
1) no one in this thread is saying, over and over again, that there is any interplay between biology and gender (there is, mostly in terms of physicality)
2) these biological differences actually play a role in different rates of certain societal roles by gender, to the extent where it's actually worth mentioning.
it's to the point where I don't know what your overall point is, because, again, we understand that biology is still relevant, but you keep undermining it with just unfathomably poor argumentation without actually expounding on where these important differences between men and women actually lie that would explain the ridiculous lack of women in STEM professions, corporate professions, et al. since I don't understand your point, I'm just going to focus on this one post.
women "choosing to choose" does not remove them from the construct of the patriarchy, instead it is in fact more relevant because it begs the question of what these latent, implied societal messages are that cause the disparities I'm mentioning. if you have actual, non-bullshit biological proof that women just are that much worse at mathematics and computer engineering, feel free to link to the appropriate medical journal. until then, it's the patriarchy.
I guess I'd also ask you to define exactly what gender equality even means to you, because an awful lot of people would take issue with the idea that the genders are equal over in scandinavia when there's an imbalance in positions of actual power that you're explicitly mentioning. I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well.
|
On May 03 2013 12:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online. ...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior. As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that. So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about.
While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted.
1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this.
2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem.
|
On May 03 2013 12:31 NEOtheONE wrote:
I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem.
this is a dichotomy that only exists in your mind. it's not objectionable, really, but I just wanted to mention that it's perfectly possible to consider the concept of a "ADHD person" without attributing false notions of control and malice associated with exhibited symptoms to the sufferer themselves.
also, you're basically talking about men's rights activism, and the real problem with that entire movement is that it's an utterly reactionary one that has existed about as long as it's taken incensed men on the internet to take offense to women claiming the existence of the patriarchy and flip it right back around. you might be able to see why a group of predominantly white males actively combating the proliferance of feminist ideals and claiming discrimination, sort of like a full-bodied person with an itchy foot moaning next to someone with a broken leg, might be viewed as obnoxious bullshit.
|
Northern Ireland23732 Posts
Not a big MRA guy by any stretch of the imagination, my initial delving into websites featured too many 'my ex-wife cleaned me out- sob-stories, but what were the grievances you encountered that you thought were, and weren't bullshit out of interest?
|
On May 03 2013 12:29 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:18 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 12:09 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up... Did i say that? All i m saying is that men and women have different bahaviors and preferences that nur not JUST influnced by society. Nor can all difference between men and women be reduced to biology. I didnt say that all women should forced into a certain role, but i m saying that a lot of women choose to chose a certain career nobody forced them into. Look at the scandinavian countries, they are leading in gender equality but yet they have the BIGGEST differences in careerchoices of men and women. Women choosing careers where they are socializing with other people and men choosing to be engineers. I'm noticing a trend where you and your compatriots keep mentioning this two-fold idea that: 1) no one in this thread is saying, over and over again, that there is any interplay between biology and gender (there is, mostly in terms of physicality) 2) these biological differences actually play a role in different rates of certain societal roles by gender, to the extent where it's actually worth mentioning. it's to the point where I don't know what your overall point is, because, again, we understand that biology is still relevant, but you keep undermining it with just unfathomably poor argumentation without actually expounding on where these important differences between men and women actually lie that would explain the ridiculous lack of women in STEM professions, corporate professions, et al. since I don't understand your point, I'm just going to focus on this one post. women "choosing to choose" does not remove them from the construct of the patriarchy, instead it is in fact more relevant because it begs the question of what these latent, implied societal messages are that cause the disparities I'm mentioning. if you have actual, non-bullshit biological proof that women just are that much worse at mathematics and computer engineering, feel free to link to the appropriate medical journal. until then, it's the patriarchy. I guess I'd also ask you to define exactly what gender equality even means to you, because an awful lot of people would take issue with the idea that the genders are equal over in scandinavia when there's an imbalance in positions of actual power that you're explicitly mentioning. I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well.
To 1. Well you were implying that boys only play with "boytoys" because society encourages them to, not that the MIGHT geniuenly like them and nobody "forced them" to like these toys.
2.All IQ-tests show that men are a lot more numerous at the ends of the gaussbell. There are a lot more men with very high iqs than there are women. Also there are more men with a very low iq than there are women. That acutally would explain why there are lot less women in mathematics and computerengineering.
But even then you think in a logical circle. Even if i cant make up a "nonbullshit biological/sociological proof" (lets view both sides), it NEVER implies that the sole reason HAS TO BE either one of them. Reminds me of christians "sun goes up and down, cant explain that." Therefore has to be "god".
Gender equality for me is that everyone has the right to choose whatever he/she likes to and nobody is actively prohibiting it.
If one tells a female "you cant be a physicist" or "women are bad at physics" and she will not study physics because some people said she cant do it or girls are bad at it. Then she never had the passion at all.
|
On May 03 2013 12:06 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:03 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 07:47 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 07:41 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that.
Newsflash genius:
this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?"
is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral"
because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification.
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. It is utterly detestable to assign an arbitrary price to one's sexuality or self-worth. I am against such behaviour for the same reason that I'd be against selling oneself into slavery. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. You do not understand Kant. Kant's categorical imperative is that one ought to never treat any person merely as a means. This means using them as a means without their consent. When you purchase something at the grocery store and have the clerk check it out for you, you are using his labor as a means to facilitate your purchase, but in no way is this immoral. Your argument is flawed if it is based on this fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of Kantian ethics. Thank you for the clarification; it doesn't really affect my argument though because Kant states that one must always treat another person as an end. Interestingly, there are some socialist interpretations which actually turn your labor example into a condemnation of capitalism  Yes, and if a person consents, you are treating them as an end because there is the recognition of their autonomy. That is what it means to be an end as a human, to be a rational, autonomous person. As for your latter statement, you would be incorrect because socialism avoids questions of morality and consent. Marx, specifically, would see debates over proper morality and proper consent as red herrings, since those very frameworks of evaluation presume a particular system of values constructed by the bourgeoisie. Rather, Marx is concerned with the natural progression of humanity through history, and how dialectical materialism will manifest itself in human society. And yet Kant himself forbade prostitution because he thought it was like offering oneself up as a steak/object and because it demeans/does not respect one's humanity. You are only somewhat correct here - Kant was somewhat puritanical in his views towards sexuality, and indeed viewed all sexual intercourse as degrading. However, liberals argue that his ethics justify prostitution and the like, when, of course, there is consent. This interpretive dispute is a simple matter to resolve, as it seems hard to justify the claim that all sexual intercourse or all sexuality is immoral - hell, you're going to have problems when even groups like the Catholic Church justify sexuality in certain forms. I simply think Kant is wrong in how he applies his categorical imperative to Christianity, and there are certainly feminists that would fight back against the claim that prostitution is degrading, as an imposition of victorian male/classist standards.
I more or less agree that Kant's view of sexuality is too puritanical (though I'd argue that certain radical sex-positive stances are similarly confused) but I certainly don't think prostitution in general is liberation rather than degradation.
I don't really think my point of view has anything to do with Victorian male/classist standards, mostly because it's equally applicable to men.
Broadly, though, I essentially agree with your interpretation of Kant.
|
On May 03 2013 12:29 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:18 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 12:09 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up... Did i say that? All i m saying is that men and women have different bahaviors and preferences that nur not JUST influnced by society. Nor can all difference between men and women be reduced to biology. I didnt say that all women should forced into a certain role, but i m saying that a lot of women choose to chose a certain career nobody forced them into. Look at the scandinavian countries, they are leading in gender equality but yet they have the BIGGEST differences in careerchoices of men and women. Women choosing careers where they are socializing with other people and men choosing to be engineers. I'm noticing a trend where you and your compatriots keep mentioning this two-fold idea that: 1) no one in this thread is saying, over and over again, that there is any interplay between biology and gender (there is, mostly in terms of physicality) 2) these biological differences actually play a role in different rates of certain societal roles by gender, to the extent where it's actually worth mentioning. it's to the point where I don't know what your overall point is, because, again, we understand that biology is still relevant, but you keep undermining it with just unfathomably poor argumentation without actually expounding on where these important differences between men and women actually lie that would explain the ridiculous lack of women in STEM professions, corporate professions, et al. since I don't understand your point, I'm just going to focus on this one post. women "choosing to choose" does not remove them from the construct of the patriarchy, instead it is in fact more relevant because it begs the question of what these latent, implied societal messages are that cause the disparities I'm mentioning. if you have actual, non-bullshit biological proof that women just are that much worse at mathematics and computer engineering, feel free to link to the appropriate medical journal. until then, it's the patriarchy. I guess I'd also ask you to define exactly what gender equality even means to you, because an awful lot of people would take issue with the idea that the genders are equal over in scandinavia when there's an imbalance in positions of actual power that you're explicitly mentioning. I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well.
rofl "from the construct of the patriarchy"
the more gender "free" a country is the more gendered choices becomes, there's plenty of data for this, it's not a matter of women being worst at mathematics, its a matter of want, women just don't want to become engineers mathematicians and computer scientist's at the same rate of men, stop trying to force them. is that really so hard?
|
On May 03 2013 12:31 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online. ...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior. As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that. So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about. While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted. 1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this. 2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem.
The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men.
As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing.
|
On May 03 2013 09:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:53 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:28 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
That's actually historically untrue. Women were going to be given suffrage in the United States for example well before the 1900s, but they absolutely refused to even contemplate the possibility of having to participate in things such as the military draft and other historically 'male' obligations. Not only that, the feminists of the early 1900s didn't give a flying fuck that men below the age of 21 were dying in World War I in the hundreds of thousands, they just wanted their own right to vote and didn't care. Any notion that feminism ever was about equality is just an illusion that most feminists like to utilize in their arguments, when in reality it isn't at all. Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. The vast majority of 'feminists' today do not care about equality. Those who do/did aren't even involved in the current 'feminist' movement because they are busy living their lives in a relatively equal society (and yes, society today is relatively equal, in fact, it's almost favoring women at this point in quite a few areas). Those who claim themselves to be feminists today are busy proclaiming dumb shit like rape culture, the privileged male (mostly due to higher income), etc. etc. and yet totally ignore things like alimony, child custody, divorce, sexual and domestic violence against men, etc. etc. They proclaim that men have historically have had all the power, and continue to have all the power in society. It's a load of bullshit, and it gets annoying listening to it over and over again (especially in humanities classes, dear fucking god). In short, I don't have a problem with the origins of the feminism movement. They were really never about true equality (look at their historical records; they wanted privileges without obligations), but they didn't overextend their reach like modern feminism does. I wouldn't say "the vast majority" don't care about equality, but a good number of them don't, really. When you mentioned "rape culture" I really had this terrible feeling in my gut because I'm so tired of hearing about it. It's a terrible buzzword which serves no purpose other than getting women riled up over living in a society which, as we know, is full of bad people, and rape is one of the things that unfortunately happens. I don't know how many pictures (which probably originated on Tumblr) tried to justify the usage of the buzzword "rape culture" by citing examples of rape in society and statistics. Shit, a bunch of the concepts they bring up are true, so why do they insist on tying it to this buzzword which is just meant to make it even more scary and and widespread. How are sexy pictures of women in magazines part of rape culture anyway, why do they make that point at all? There are pictures of men with their super cut 6packs on other magazines and that's got nothing to do with rape though. Sigh. Anywho, I would call myself a feminist, sometimes I do, despite the fact that I'm a sucker for semantics and I would like for them to make some attempt to use neutral terms instead of buzzwords. Sadly, many women apparently think that men cannot be feminists, and the idea is that we've been meddling in their affairs forever, and now they want to lead their own movements, or whatever. Regardless, I think that we still have some work to do, and if we're gonna do it, hopefully we'll be able to ignore their crazies. It's a shame that so many people choose to have a fully black or white view of the issues that women face.
No, a vast majority of MODERN and I do mean modern feminists don't give a flying fuck about equality. At all. They only want to empower the woman, and will degrade and insult the man at any given moment's notice. And when they are in deep shit in an argument, they utilize the cover of 'feminism' in order to cover their asses and say that we're all chauvinistic pigs or some bullshit like that.
As various posters have stated, the whole concept of feminism right now is so warped from its original intent that it is stupid. Anyone that argues about rape culture, the privileged / patriarchal male, blah blah blah, is who I would consider one of those 'modern' feminists. And that's the form that most feminists fall under now adays, because they talk all this nonsense about how women work in hostile male dominated environments (false for the most part), how males make more money (true but not for the reasons the modern feminists say), how women still need all these 'empowering' privileges, etc.
See, I wouldn't even call Kwark a 'feminist.' I'd call him a equal rights supporter that is gender neutral. Completely different from feminism (both modern and historical versions).
On May 03 2013 12:56 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:31 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 12:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online. ...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior. As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that. So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about. While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted. 1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this. 2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem. The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men. As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing.
Feminists were abolitionists/supported abolitionists because it was convenient to them at the time, not because they truly believed in it. They kicked them to the curb when they didn't need them, just like how the feminist movement during the 1900s kicked everyone else to the curb when they didn't need them later on down the road.
|
On May 03 2013 12:43 Wombat_NI wrote:
Not a big MRA guy by any stretch of the imagination, my initial delving into websites featured too many 'my ex-wife cleaned me out- sob-stories, but what were the grievances you encountered that you thought were, and weren't bullshit out of interest?
I feel the entire concept of men as victims, when it comes to occasional anecdotal issues of child support, domestic abuse and child custody - basically the sphere of the family, the same societal predilections but in reverse - is insanely overblown. this is not at all to say I dismiss all male complaints, there's plenty of injustice and maladjusted societal expectations to go around, but the specific concept of MRA is very clearly meant as a mirror of feminism, and I can't accept that basic premise at all.
On May 03 2013 12:43 Sokrates wrote:
To 1. Well you were implying that boys only play with "boytoys" because society encourages them to, not that the MIGHT geniuenly like them and nobody "forced them" to like these toys.
2.All IQ-tests show that men are a lot more numerous at the ends of the gaussbell. There are a lot more men with very high iqs than there are women. Also there are more men with a very low iq than there are women. That acutally would explain why there are lot less women in mathematics and computerengineering.
3.But even then you think in a logical circle. Even if i cant make up a "nonbullshit biological/sociological proof" (lets view both sides), it NEVER implies that the sole reason HAS TO BE either one of them. Reminds me of christians "sun goes up and down, cant explain that." Therefore has to be "god".
4.Gender equality for me is that everyone has the right to choose whatever he/she likes to and nobody is actively prohibiting it.
If one tells a female "you cant be a physicist" or "women are bad at physics" and she will not study physics because some people said she cant do it or girls are bad at it. Then she never had the passion at all.
1) um, the point was that females are perfectly able to like whatever toys they'd want, and specifically that dolls are not definably feminine and that girls are not defined as automatically liking dolls. feel free to apply that to boys, I find this perfectly fair. instead of this veritable utopia, you walk into walmart's toy aisles and they have specific pink-festooned aisles that presuppose to parents that herein lie the specific toys for their child. this isn't even a particularly subtle example.
2) are you seriously correllating tendency of geniuses to be male and the percentage of male engineers? it's not that hard to go to a trade school or a state school, let's just chill that concept out.
3) so is there another factor besides biology and society that I'm not accounting for? this is pretty much a non-sequitur.
4) it's not about active prohibition and it's not about people sitting their daughters down and telling them that they flat-out cannot be the president one day. it's about a society where girls and women look around and notice that their entire existence is comprised of being sex fantasies and foils to and for men. these influences are in tv shows, ads, movies, everything that still exhibits these tired patriarchal tropes that only serve men and almost all of those mediums are still writhing with examples. it is beyond fucked up that you're willing to say to some college freshman who decided to major in psychology because she might have been interested in computer engineering but looked around her and saw that, for the most part, every instance of a computer engineer or something in the tech field that her society depicted was a fat, balding nerd sitting in the dark, so she'd better go with the sure thing. both genders have deleterious stereotypes, but it's a little more complicated than saying that women just don't have the fucking passion.
|
On May 03 2013 12:43 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:29 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 12:18 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 12:09 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up... Did i say that? All i m saying is that men and women have different bahaviors and preferences that nur not JUST influnced by society. Nor can all difference between men and women be reduced to biology. I didnt say that all women should forced into a certain role, but i m saying that a lot of women choose to chose a certain career nobody forced them into. Look at the scandinavian countries, they are leading in gender equality but yet they have the BIGGEST differences in careerchoices of men and women. Women choosing careers where they are socializing with other people and men choosing to be engineers. I'm noticing a trend where you and your compatriots keep mentioning this two-fold idea that: 1) no one in this thread is saying, over and over again, that there is any interplay between biology and gender (there is, mostly in terms of physicality) 2) these biological differences actually play a role in different rates of certain societal roles by gender, to the extent where it's actually worth mentioning. it's to the point where I don't know what your overall point is, because, again, we understand that biology is still relevant, but you keep undermining it with just unfathomably poor argumentation without actually expounding on where these important differences between men and women actually lie that would explain the ridiculous lack of women in STEM professions, corporate professions, et al. since I don't understand your point, I'm just going to focus on this one post. women "choosing to choose" does not remove them from the construct of the patriarchy, instead it is in fact more relevant because it begs the question of what these latent, implied societal messages are that cause the disparities I'm mentioning. if you have actual, non-bullshit biological proof that women just are that much worse at mathematics and computer engineering, feel free to link to the appropriate medical journal. until then, it's the patriarchy. I guess I'd also ask you to define exactly what gender equality even means to you, because an awful lot of people would take issue with the idea that the genders are equal over in scandinavia when there's an imbalance in positions of actual power that you're explicitly mentioning. I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well. To 1. Well you were implying that boys only play with "boytoys" because society encourages them to, not that the MIGHT geniuenly like them and nobody "forced them" to like these toys. 2.All IQ-tests show that men are a lot more numerous at the ends of the gaussbell. There are a lot more men with very high iqs than there are women. Also there are more men with a very low iq than there are women. That acutally would explain why there are lot less women in mathematics and computerengineering. But even then you think in a logical circle. Even if i cant make up a "nonbullshit biological/sociological proof" (lets view both sides), it NEVER implies that the sole reason HAS TO BE either one of them. Reminds me of christians "sun goes up and down, cant explain that." Therefore has to be "god". Gender equality for me is that everyone has the right to choose whatever he/she likes to and nobody is actively prohibiting it. If one tells a female "you cant be a physicist" or "women are bad at physics" and she will not study physics because some people said she cant do it or girls are bad at it. Then she never had the passion at all.
You are seriously ignoring environmental factors here. IQ tests don't necessarily explain why there are less women in engineering - IQ tests are probably influenced by the same factors that influence women's success in engineering.
And it's not as simple as verbal expression and a woman not studying physics. That's just simplistic and idiotic. For example, there are peer group influences. And those tend to be somewhat subtle in nature and yet shape our behaviour.
So no, women don't avoid certain academic pursuits because they were just told, "you cant be a physicist".
I do appreciate your individualistic stance that we must overcome our hurdles. But I can't stand by and read your post that simplifies what is essentially generations of conditioning.
|
On May 03 2013 12:48 sibs wrote:
rofl "from the construct of the patriarchy"
the more gender "free" a country is the more gendered choices becomes, there's plenty of data for this, it's not a matter of women being worst at mathematics, its a matter of want, women just don't want to become engineers mathematicians and computer scientist's at the same rate of men, stop trying to force them. is that really so hard?
man, there's all this data and nobody seems to be willing to go and find it. funny how that works, rofl
what exactly is your definition of "force"? this isn't an affirmative action situation, in fact the OP is nothing but a woman who dared to write an article. I guess we'd better check ourselves though, this shit is gettin' cray.
|
On May 03 2013 13:05 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:43 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 12:29 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 12:18 Sokrates wrote:On May 03 2013 12:09 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 Sokrates wrote:
There was a study showing that male apes prefer different toys (like cars and trains) than female apes (perfering dolls). Also there are studies where you baby boys suffer a lot more injuries by moving more than female babys.
I respect your passion, but come on with those examples, sir. do ape societies (lol) have interlocking systems of imprinting and branding upon the female gender (honestly both genders suffer from this, to an extent) as to what she should look like, how she should dress, what her life goals should be, etc, from cradle to grave? if not, I'm not sure this analogy holds up... Did i say that? All i m saying is that men and women have different bahaviors and preferences that nur not JUST influnced by society. Nor can all difference between men and women be reduced to biology. I didnt say that all women should forced into a certain role, but i m saying that a lot of women choose to chose a certain career nobody forced them into. Look at the scandinavian countries, they are leading in gender equality but yet they have the BIGGEST differences in careerchoices of men and women. Women choosing careers where they are socializing with other people and men choosing to be engineers. I'm noticing a trend where you and your compatriots keep mentioning this two-fold idea that: 1) no one in this thread is saying, over and over again, that there is any interplay between biology and gender (there is, mostly in terms of physicality) 2) these biological differences actually play a role in different rates of certain societal roles by gender, to the extent where it's actually worth mentioning. it's to the point where I don't know what your overall point is, because, again, we understand that biology is still relevant, but you keep undermining it with just unfathomably poor argumentation without actually expounding on where these important differences between men and women actually lie that would explain the ridiculous lack of women in STEM professions, corporate professions, et al. since I don't understand your point, I'm just going to focus on this one post. women "choosing to choose" does not remove them from the construct of the patriarchy, instead it is in fact more relevant because it begs the question of what these latent, implied societal messages are that cause the disparities I'm mentioning. if you have actual, non-bullshit biological proof that women just are that much worse at mathematics and computer engineering, feel free to link to the appropriate medical journal. until then, it's the patriarchy. I guess I'd also ask you to define exactly what gender equality even means to you, because an awful lot of people would take issue with the idea that the genders are equal over in scandinavia when there's an imbalance in positions of actual power that you're explicitly mentioning. I'm not averse to well-presented generalizations that women might be somewhat biased towards professions built around person-to-person interaction, because I know that sort of research exists, but...you're not presenting it well. To 1. Well you were implying that boys only play with "boytoys" because society encourages them to, not that the MIGHT geniuenly like them and nobody "forced them" to like these toys. 2.All IQ-tests show that men are a lot more numerous at the ends of the gaussbell. There are a lot more men with very high iqs than there are women. Also there are more men with a very low iq than there are women. That acutally would explain why there are lot less women in mathematics and computerengineering. But even then you think in a logical circle. Even if i cant make up a "nonbullshit biological/sociological proof" (lets view both sides), it NEVER implies that the sole reason HAS TO BE either one of them. Reminds me of christians "sun goes up and down, cant explain that." Therefore has to be "god". Gender equality for me is that everyone has the right to choose whatever he/she likes to and nobody is actively prohibiting it. If one tells a female "you cant be a physicist" or "women are bad at physics" and she will not study physics because some people said she cant do it or girls are bad at it. Then she never had the passion at all. You are seriously ignoring environmental factors here. IQ tests don't necessarily explain why there are less women in engineering - IQ tests are probably influenced by the same factors that influence women's success in engineering. And it's not as simple as verbal expression and a woman not studying physics. That's just simplistic and idiotic. For example, there are peer group influences. And those tend to be somewhat subtle in nature and yet shape our behaviour. So no, women don't avoid certain academic pursuits because they were just told, "you cant be a physicist". I do appreciate your individualistic stance that we must overcome our hurdles. But I can't stand by and read your post that simplifies what is essentially generations of conditioning.
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
That's not to say what you're saying is completely untrue, but biological factors are a huge factor in determining whether or not a female wants to do X Y or Z.
|
On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl
i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
edit: okay just one moment of seriousness, do you honestly believe that in 2013 we still can't allow a woman CEO because, holy shit, the stress will render her unable to live her life and achieve her apparently inherent goals of having children? are you just trying to explain the tendency (that is utterly archaic and fairly male-centric) and you don't actually support that? goddamn.
|
On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means
|
On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for
Yeah, that's why women who don't have kids, who have the same education, have same experience, etc. in fact out earn their male counter parts in fields like the medical field, engineering, computer science, etc.
Because there's totally generations of environmental conditioning telling women they fucking suck. Even though that when all factors are equal, they actually outperform males in various high stress fields.
On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for edit: okay just one moment of seriousness, do you honestly believe that in 2013 we still can't allow a woman CEO because, holy shit, the stress will render her unable to live her life and achieve her apparently inherent goals of having children? are you just trying to explain the tendency (that is utterly archaic and fairly male-centric) and you don't actually support that? goddamn.
No because biologically women and men are attracted to two very different things. Women are attracted to men based on their status, their ability to keep the woman and her children safe, can he provide for her, etc.
Men are attracted to women based on their looks, whether or not they will provide good looking children for him, how empathetic they are, etc. etc.
It's a fucking proven fact that's how it works. That's why women tend not to be CEOs. Not because people are saying 'no fuck you inferior women you can't be a CEO.' It's because being a CEO is virtually incompatible with having a family and taking care of said family, providing for children, etc.
|
On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means
probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to.
|
On May 03 2013 12:56 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:31 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 12:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online. ...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior. As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that. So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about. While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted. 1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this. 2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem. The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men. As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing.
I never said at the exclusion of men. I would also agree that the definition entails that men be involved. Where I draw issue is how the involvement works out and how sometimes responsibilities that go with the rights are ignored, which is why I do not consider myself a feminist. In my opinion, feminism falls short of seeking equality in some areas.
Equality to me means that you take the responsibilities that come with the privileges. This means if both genders want to serve equally in the armed forces then both are eligible for the draft. If a woman has custody and gets child support then a man that has custody gets child support. Women should not be favored in custody battles based on the gender role notion that women are "caregivers and nurturers." Men should not be favored in a custody battle based on the gender role notion that they can "provide better." Racial quotas, gender quotas, et cetera are still discrimination. If we want to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity in education (and later in employment), then we can't have schools funded based on standardized test scores and property taxes. Adoption and visitation rights should not be based on sexual orientation. I could go on and on, but I hope my point is obvious now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
