|
On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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.
he didnt say that they are the ONLY ones that can do it, just that they might be more inclined to do it due to some biological means
|
she should read what aisha tyler wrote and learn from it 
|
On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:05 plogamer wrote: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.
Human biology tends to be flexible - you can see that in the biology of female athletes for instance. Clearly, behaviour affects biology as well, and not just the other way around.
|
On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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.
You may want to do yourself a favor and admit that there are significant social differences (among many others) between men and women that result from their respective biological makeups.
|
On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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.
Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that.
|
On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
Shhhhhh.... the feminists don't want to hear about that, even though it is true. Nothing changes a woman like having a child. It is hilarious how quickly a woman's priorities change once the baby is in her arms.
|
On May 03 2013 13:19 FrankWalls wrote:
he didnt say that they are the ONLY ones that can do it, just that they might be more inclined to do it due to some biological means
that is in fact not his argument, it was someone else's.
On May 03 2013 13:17 superstartran wrote:
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.
yeah, evolutionary psychology is a really illustrious field
it's almost like this concept of having a family is pushed on women by society. weird, right? I guess women just can't overcome their biological drive, though, even though male CEO's have no problem overcoming that same primitive drive in terms of fucking everything that moves and ruining any upward professional progress with children, or I guess it's just easier for males to not care about human interaction or building a family. goddamned ovaries ruining everything.
On May 03 2013 13:24 xDaunt wrote:
Shhhhhh.... the feminists don't want to hear about that, even though it is true. Nothing changes a woman like having a child. It is hilarious how quickly a woman's priorities change once the baby is in her arms.
holy fuck this is disgusting. congrats.
|
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
|
On May 03 2013 13:04 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
1.I dont get your point here? So what is your "solution" to this? That we now all have to except that playing with dolls isnt particular female but most females like to play with them. If girls geniuenly like dolls more than trains, the dolls will always be labled as a girl toy because more girls play with it. I dont see the problem here. It is just quantification. Ofc some people will label it as "bad" if a girl plays with boy toys and vice versa, but that is how the world rolls. You are just oversensitive to that.
2. Well you might consider that IT MAY BE THEIR CHOICE not to like mathematics. How do you know it is "patriarchy"?
3. "Sun goes up and down, cant explain that." Just because you cannot explain something doesnt mean it has to be the other option. It is never just a)biology or b) society. And just because i cannot explain it with just a) or just b) it doesnt mean it then has to be the other option. If i say women like jobs with more human interaction (and mathematics isnt known to be a super interative thing) then please proof to me that they geniuenly like mathematics as much as males do. Or proof me that women and men have the SAME interests in a perfect society without sexism or "patriarchy". So if you cant explain that it has to biology right (of i apply your logic here)?
4. Srsly, people were killed for their belives and ideas a few hundert years ago and now our only problem is that a female might fall into the "fat balding nerd" category. What you said MIGHT be a factor, well i wont denie that. But it is a bit narrow minded to think it is the ONLY DECIDING factor in the universe that might have lead her to that choice.
Well the point in advertising is to be very effective and appeal to your viewership. Sex sells, and that is especially true for men. But you will never ever change that, since men will always react to visiual stimiulation of a female body.
|
On May 03 2013 13:27 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:19 FrankWalls wrote:
he didnt say that they are the ONLY ones that can do it, just that they might be more inclined to do it due to some biological means that is in fact not his argument, it was someone else's. Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:17 superstartran wrote:
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. yeah, evolutionary psychology is a really illustrious field it's almost like this concept of having a family is pushed on women by society. weird, right? I guess women just can't overcome their biological drive, though, even though male CEO's have no problem overcoming that same primitive drive in terms of fucking everything that moves and ruining any upward professional progress with children, or I guess it's just easier for males to not care about human interaction or building a family. goddamned ovaries ruining everything. Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:24 xDaunt wrote:
Shhhhhh.... the feminists don't want to hear about that, even though it is true. Nothing changes a woman like having a child. It is hilarious how quickly a woman's priorities change once the baby is in her arms. holy fuck this is disgusting. congrats.
What? Men have been oppressing women for all these years? They've been breeding this patriarchy?
Ok. Here. Let me fucking explain something to you from a historical standpoint. Every single fucking society/civilization on the planet developed as the woman typically being the nurturer/caretaker and the man being the hunter/soldier. This is across every single culture/society/civilization that has ever existed. This is true even in Matriarchal societies. So please don't say anymore of your bullshit. Seriously. Society did not just magically come up with these roles for men and women.
Men and women CHOOSE those roles, because those roles make sense from a fucking biological standpoint. Women bear children, tend to be good at communicating, are more empathetic, etc. so they are better at raising children/teaching them early on, etc. Men are biologically stronger, faster, more likely to take risks, etc. so they make better hunters/soldiers. That same concept STILL applies TODAY.
|
On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history.
So, being physically stronger and better suited for hunting is now argument for being a better physicist. Being with children would make you more vulnerable to predators - something that's not really an issue in this day and age.
But hey, you're welcome to keep your caveman mentality.
|
On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
why would you come into a thread about feminism with no understanding of the topic whatsoever? you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to?
because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms.
|
On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. why would you come into a thread about feminism with no understanding of the topic whatsoever? you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to? because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms.
when a man is career-oriented and doesnt marry, he's a lonely womanizing pig, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's a strong independant woman!
let's face it, the gender role propagating as far as that stuff goes can go either way nowadays
|
On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous.
stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/
|
On May 03 2013 13:40 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. why would you come into a thread about feminism with no understanding of the topic whatsoever? you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to? because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms. when a man is career-oriented and doesnt marry, he's a lonely womanizing pig, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's a strong independant woman! let's face it, the gender role propagating as far as that stuff goes can go either way nowadays
let's face it, the world where that hypothetical reversal actually does anything to male dominance of society isn't going anywhere anydays
|
On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. why would you come into a thread about feminism with no understanding of the topic whatsoever? you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to? because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a brood mare.
You are just making up these things nobody ever said. If you cant keep up a serious discussion without making up things one never said then just leave the thread and watch game of thrones.
Nobody ever said women cant be CEOs or whatever, there are just less of them and that MAYBE due to the fact that they are less interested in this or whatever other reason. It could also be because of the "patriarchy" or just a mixture of all variables. But you cannot sit there and say "has to be the patriarchy" because you dont fucking know it. Lets say we have a perfect society with no sexism etc. there might be still a gap in the career choices. I
|
On May 03 2013 13:41 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:40 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. why would you come into a thread about feminism with no understanding of the topic whatsoever? you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to? because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms. when a man is career-oriented and doesnt marry, he's a lonely womanizing pig, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's a strong independant woman! let's face it, the gender role propagating as far as that stuff goes can go either way nowadays let's face it, the world where that hypothetical reversal actually does anything to male dominance of society isn't going anywhere anydays
well for one i think it's a bit early to see any changes that it may or may not bring, but what if all the gender roles portrayed in media are equal and things still dont change? what then?
|
On May 03 2013 13:34 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history. So, being physically stronger and better suited for hunting is now argument for being a better physicist. Being with children would make you more vulnerable to predators - something that's not really an issue in this day and age. But hey, you're welcome to keep your caveman mentality.
No, men are biologically driven to bring the food home, as such will do what it takes to bring that food home. Women biologically tend to be more empathetic, better communicators, blah blah blah, as such tend to be caretakers/nurturers. There's a fucking reason why men have for the past 10,000 years tended to take jobs that require risk (hunting, being a king/leader, being a soldier, blah blah blah), and it isn't because the evil patriarchal society has always told women they suck at everything but staying at home.
|
On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote:
you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to?
Holy run-on sentence batman.
because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms.
That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
On May 03 2013 13:47 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:34 plogamer wrote:On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote: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. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history. So, being physically stronger and better suited for hunting is now argument for being a better physicist. Being with children would make you more vulnerable to predators - something that's not really an issue in this day and age. But hey, you're welcome to keep your caveman mentality. No, men are biologically driven to bring the food home, as such will do what it takes to bring that food home. Women biologically tend to be more empathetic, better communicators, blah blah blah, as such tend to be caretakers/nurturers. There's a fucking reason why men have for the past 10,000 years tended to take jobs that require risk (hunting, being a king/leader, being a soldier, blah blah blah), and it isn't because the evil patriarchal society has always told women they suck at everything but staying at home.
A great deal of tradition went into it. This thread is full of people saying it's not 100% biology and it's not 100% sociology, I think you should stop painting everything in black and white.
|
On May 03 2013 13:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:34 TheExile19 wrote:
you could just go watch game of thrones, it's much more fun and male gaze-oriented than proving that you have no conception of why a movement, based around eliminating practices that keep women who want to achieve positions of equality and power in society at a disadvantage, would hate a biological and social practice/stereotype that is not only patronizing and obnoxious but represents that same sort of disadvantage that people just think they should subject themselves to? Holy run-on sentence batman. Show nested quote +because when a man is career-oriented, it's noble and self-sacrificing, and when a woman is career-oriented, she's wasting all that time to be a mommy and nurture the next generation of men, and moms. That's a strange topic because there are many types of views, many of which are offensive to women. Some feminists adopt the point of view that all women should now be career-oriented and being a mother is somehow viewed as inferior.
And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
