|
On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote:On May 03 2013 13:50 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 13:47 Djzapz wrote: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. And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior. Strangely enough, part of the feminist movement is actually about having women taking the "gender roles" of men which even they internally view as being superior. It's a sad thing that being the nurturing parent, the "mother", was viewed as inferior to being the person who puts food on the table. So many feminists outright "admit" that it's less important, and chuck it aside - instead, women should behave like men. Well... what do you expect? When you live in a society that values "being the person who puts food on the table" more than "being the nurturing parent", what is the alternative? You either stay in the de-valued roles that society boxes you into, or you break out of them into "men's work".
Citation needed. The fact that men have throughout history and to this day been considered disposable compared to women, expected to give their lives for women, is pretty strong evidence that mean are "valued" less.
On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
Furthermore, you assume that everyone wants to be in that role. Has it occurred to you that maybe some of those women just really want to do these things? Who are you or the rest of society to say that they're wrong to do so?
It's not wrong for people to do what they want. However, basing your understanding of the world on the exceptions, rather than the rule, is foolish.
On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice.
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize.
|
On May 03 2013 14:11 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 13:40 ComaDose 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. stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/ In theory, it really doesn't and shouldn't. However, in practice, feminism in its more militant form is a rebellion against female gender identity -- a very curious form of gender-based self-loathing. Exile19 seems to fit into this more militant feminist box. Hostility towards childbearing is very common among these people. They don't want the role of motherhood "forced" upon them. They see it as a trap and a prison, which is quite sad. 1) i'm a dude who is not diametrically opposed to fatherhood 2) self-loathing? try self-actualization, like most worthwhile movements/philosophies, except without maslow and with the assumption that you're working against a patriarchal society. 3) do you really not understand that many women have no desire for children or even conscious enjoyment of children? why is that sad to you? help me understand why you feel the need to paint an entire gender with presupposed ideals, and this is very much a (platonic?) ideal.
Sure, I know better than most that there are plenty of women who have no desire to have children. I'm in a profession that is full of aggressive, career-driven women. That's their business. I really couldn't care less. Also, I'm not painting the entire "gender" with a broad brush. I'm only painting the more radical elements of the feminist movement with a broad brush.
You definitely fooled me on being a dude. You could have been the second coming of Margaret Sanger given your posts.
|
On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:
Citation needed. The fact that men have throughout history and to this day been considered disposable compared to women, expected to give their lives for women, is pretty strong evidence that mean are "valued" less.
It's not wrong for people to do what they want. However, basing your understanding of the world on the exceptions, rather than the rule, is foolish.
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize.
1) is this assumption not from ages where literal breeding and increasing the population of a nation or state was not only a goal but an assumed duty to increase military might, sphere of influence, etc?
do you think we exist in such an age now?
2) guess not? I deleted the context for this in the quote tree
3) of course, which is why so many men oppose it automatically. this is where notions like the patriarchy in conscious and unconscious forms come from, this odd-on-its-face rejection of many problems women face for no other reason than to rationalize a sort of utopian state, ruled by biological imperatives, that we have now that doesn't exist. I take it as a good sign, if not a sign of anything changing anytime in the near future, that the MRA movement just gets bigger and more obnoxious, because it means that the movement it's reacting to might actually be gaining more relevance. /naivete
|
On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize.
Care to explain or give examples?
|
On May 03 2013 14:20 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:
Citation needed. The fact that men have throughout history and to this day been considered disposable compared to women, expected to give their lives for women, is pretty strong evidence that mean are "valued" less.
It's not wrong for people to do what they want. However, basing your understanding of the world on the exceptions, rather than the rule, is foolish.
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. 1) is this assumption not from ages where literal breeding and increasing the population of a nation or state was not only a goal but an assumed duty to increase military might, sphere of influence, etc? do you think we exist in such an age now?
This assumption is true today as well. There is a reason that anytime a tragedy or military conflict with multiple deaths are reported, they'll add (X dead, including women and children).
Women are considered valuable the way children are. This is also the root of much sexism against women, because children are not capable individuals with agency.
On May 03 2013 14:20 TheExile19 wrote:3) of course, which is why so many men oppose it automatically. this is where notions like the patriarchy in conscious and unconscious forms come from, this odd-on-its-face rejection of many problems women face for no other reason than to rationalize a sort of utopian state, ruled by biological imperatives, that we have now that doesn't exist. I take it as a good sign, if not a sign of anything changing anytime in the near future, that the MRA movement just gets bigger and more obnoxious, because it means that the movement it's reacting to might actually be gaining more relevance. /naivete
"Patriarchy" is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Any argument based on "patriarchy", rather than an understanding of biology, sociology, and psychology is ideological nonsense.
|
On May 03 2013 14:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:11 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 13:40 ComaDose 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. stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/ In theory, it really doesn't and shouldn't. However, in practice, feminism in its more militant form is a rebellion against female gender identity -- a very curious form of gender-based self-loathing. Exile19 seems to fit into this more militant feminist box. Hostility towards childbearing is very common among these people. They don't want the role of motherhood "forced" upon them. They see it as a trap and a prison, which is quite sad. 1) i'm a dude who is not diametrically opposed to fatherhood 2) self-loathing? try self-actualization, like most worthwhile movements/philosophies, except without maslow and with the assumption that you're working against a patriarchal society. 3) do you really not understand that many women have no desire for children or even conscious enjoyment of children? why is that sad to you? help me understand why you feel the need to paint an entire gender with presupposed ideals, and this is very much a (platonic?) ideal. Sure, I know better than most that there are plenty of women who have no desire to have children. I'm in a profession that is full of aggressive, career-driven women. That's their business. I really couldn't care less. Also, I'm not painting the entire "gender" with a broad brush. I'm only painting the more radical elements of the feminist movement with a broad brush. You definitely fooled me on being a dude. You could have been the second coming of Margaret Sanger given your posts.
a statement like "motherhood is a wonderful thing" could have fooled me. by definition, all feminists could be mothers but also all women, barring the biologically infertile and strict opponents of adoption, could be mothers as well, so I'm not sure where you expect me to draw the line when you aren't doing it for me.
I don't really think you believe it's their business alone judging by your aggressive posts here. you might not be self-interested enough to get involved in their lives, but claiming neutrality seems a bit disingenuous when you claim that escaping societal constraints is reflective of self-loathing.
I also feel like there's a veiled insult in your final statement that isn't...really...connecting.
"Patriarchy" is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Any argument based on "patriarchy", rather than an understanding of biology, sociology, and psychology is ideological nonsense.
see, this is the rare criticism of feminism I actually share: the almost-inescapable truth claim of the patriarchy. however, I find feminism not only to be generally based in sociology (or the other way around), but a generally effective grab bag of societal conditions that are harmful to women and have compelling arguments from feminist-sociologist-marxist-et al critics. I don't have to accept the utter truth of the inescapable patriarchy in all cases to find it useful as a diagnostic tool or as a discipline, but that I don't is why earlier in the thread I expressed some trepidation in being labeled as a feminist when I don't believe their divine writ is relevant 100% of the time.
|
On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples?
Here is an easy one: mandatory insurance coverage for birth control.
|
On May 03 2013 14:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples? Here is an easy one: mandatory insurance coverage for birth control.
When do I subsidize a women's birth control? They work and pay for their stuff themselves. And shit, when you think about it, I'm Canadian so some of the women's taxes go toward my prostate exams...
The better part that people don't seem to understand is that in many cases the birth control plans are cheaper than non-birth control plans because people who take the pills are less "expensive" in the long run anyway (being pregnant is expensive!!).
Good day.
|
On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote:On May 03 2013 13:50 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 13:47 Djzapz wrote: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. And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior. Strangely enough, part of the feminist movement is actually about having women taking the "gender roles" of men which even they internally view as being superior. It's a sad thing that being the nurturing parent, the "mother", was viewed as inferior to being the person who puts food on the table. So many feminists outright "admit" that it's less important, and chuck it aside - instead, women should behave like men. Well... what do you expect? When you live in a society that values "being the person who puts food on the table" more than "being the nurturing parent", what is the alternative? You either stay in the de-valued roles that society boxes you into, or you break out of them into "men's work". Citation needed. The fact that men have throughout history and to this day been considered disposable compared to women, expected to give their lives for women, is pretty strong evidence that mean are "valued" less.
Look at a history book. Make a list of the prominent names in that book. What is the ratio of men to women in that list?
Yes, men get killed a lot. But they are revered by society when that happens. They're written into history and are considered memorable. They get medals and accolades. So that's far stronger evidence that men are valued more, even when they're getting themselves killed.
The contribution of women to society is not as valued, since their contribution has, historically, been limited to a basic biological function: procreation. Not thinking, not acting, not doing, only being a receptacle for semen and a producer of human beings.
On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
Furthermore, you assume that everyone wants to be in that role. Has it occurred to you that maybe some of those women just really want to do these things? Who are you or the rest of society to say that they're wrong to do so? It's not wrong for people to do what they want. However, basing your understanding of the world on the exceptions, rather than the rule, is foolish.
First, women going out and achieving things hasn't been "the exception" in decades
Second, why is it "the exception" (by which I mean "not as common")? Is it because of natural choice? Or because societal pressures exist that "encourage" women to adopt those roles and make it more difficult for them to adopt others?
On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize.
If by "subsidize" you mean that men must stop being sexist pricks and allow women to contribute, then yes. When society is built to give one side all the choices and give the other side none, a movement towards equality will involve primarily giving the other side choices.
It sounds to me like you're agreeing with me.
|
On May 03 2013 14:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples? Here is an easy one: mandatory insurance coverage for birth control.
Only women benefit from it, and only men pay for it?
|
On May 03 2013 13:52 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:42 Sokrates wrote:
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 please point to where I said that anybody said women can't be CEOs. the discussion is far, far more oriented around whether any woman should want to in a society apparently perfectly balanced around the biological imperatives of mankind. please point to where I claimed empirically that it can only be the patriarchy and no biological imperative or brain chemistry or complex social ritual could ever count in the discussion. let me help you, with my own response to you previously: Show nested quote +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. why are you unable to argue from the premises I offer you? why do you call me speculative when the bolded statement exists? I don't want to ignore anyone's contribution, but jesus.
Well here you go:
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. 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.
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.
3) so is there another factor besides biology and society that I'm not accounting for? this is pretty much a non-sequitur.
So you are basically saying that the lack of women in whatever field has to be "patriarchy" if i cant bring you a medical research proofing you wrong?
On May 03 2013 14:25 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 14:11 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 13:40 ComaDose 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. stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/ In theory, it really doesn't and shouldn't. However, in practice, feminism in its more militant form is a rebellion against female gender identity -- a very curious form of gender-based self-loathing. Exile19 seems to fit into this more militant feminist box. Hostility towards childbearing is very common among these people. They don't want the role of motherhood "forced" upon them. They see it as a trap and a prison, which is quite sad. 1) i'm a dude who is not diametrically opposed to fatherhood 2) self-loathing? try self-actualization, like most worthwhile movements/philosophies, except without maslow and with the assumption that you're working against a patriarchal society. 3) do you really not understand that many women have no desire for children or even conscious enjoyment of children? why is that sad to you? help me understand why you feel the need to paint an entire gender with presupposed ideals, and this is very much a (platonic?) ideal. Sure, I know better than most that there are plenty of women who have no desire to have children. I'm in a profession that is full of aggressive, career-driven women. That's their business. I really couldn't care less. Also, I'm not painting the entire "gender" with a broad brush. I'm only painting the more radical elements of the feminist movement with a broad brush. You definitely fooled me on being a dude. You could have been the second coming of Margaret Sanger given your posts. Show nested quote +"Patriarchy" is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Any argument based on "patriarchy", rather than an understanding of biology, sociology, and psychology is ideological nonsense. see, this is the rare criticism of feminism I actually share: the almost-inescapable truth claim of the patriarchy. however, I find feminism not only to be generally based in sociology (or the other way around), but a generally effective grab bag of societal conditions that are harmful to women and have compelling arguments from feminist-sociologist-marxist-et al critics. I don't have to accept the utter truth of the inescapable patriarchy in all cases to find it useful as a diagnostic tool or as a discipline, but that I don't is why earlier in the thread I expressed some trepidation in being labeled as a feminist when I don't believe their divine writ is relevant 100% of the time.
Now here we are on the same page, the only difference is that for me this is a huge point. They think they have rewritten the bible therefore they are always right and because they are right they can use all the dirty tricks because it is in the name of go... aerm feminism/equality. Now if you look into those gender studies they acutally have a political impact (aka force) based on bullshit.
|
On May 03 2013 14:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples? Here is an easy one: mandatory insurance coverage for birth control.
Which benefits society as a whole by decreasing the number of unwanted births. Also, female birth control tends to cost more than 3 dollars for a dozen.
|
On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples?
Sure. Knowledge and link bomb incoming:
Feminists fight against shared custody. You can read the National Organization of Women's own statement here. Also note their false accusations against men, such as "fathers are abusive, don't give them custody.
Feminists fight against protection from false rape accusations.
Feminists fight against attempts to have male and female convicts treated equally. They argue that no woman should be sent to jail, including female serial killers.
Feminists fight against equal treatment for male victims of domestic violence by suppressing evidence showing that women commit half of domestic violence, and sent bomb threats and death threats to researchers who tried to reveal this. This continues to modern day. The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.
Feminists fight against punishing female rapists in India and Israel.
Feminists fought against stimulus spending for male-dominated fields (which had lost jobs during the recession) and successfully lobbied the government to redirect money to female-dominated fields (which had gained jobs during the recession).
I could keep going, but that should be sufficient.
|
On May 03 2013 14:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples? Sure. Knowledge and link bomb incoming: Feminists fight against shared custody. You can read the National Organization of Women's own statement here. Also note their false accusations against men, such as " fathers are abusive, don't give them custody. Feminists fight against protection from false rape accusations. Feminists fight against attempts to have male and female convicts treated equally. They argue that no woman should be sent to jail, including female serial killers. Feminists fight against equal treatment for male victims of domestic violence by suppressing evidence showing that women commit half of domestic violence, and sent bomb threats and death threats to researchers who tried to reveal this. This continues to modern day. The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.Feminists fight against punishing female rapists in India and Israel. Feminists fought against stimulus spending for male-dominated fields (which had lost jobs during the recession) and successfully lobbied the government to redirect money to female-dominated fields (which had gained jobs during the recession). I could keep going, but that should be sufficient.
None of those things represent views shared by all feminists. Edit: Thank God because some of that stuff is madness.
Unless you want me to pull links explaining that "Men like to commit genocide". We've been naughty.
|
On May 03 2013 14:25 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 14:11 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 13:40 ComaDose 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. stop generalizing people man. feminism has nothing to do with hostility toward childbearing :/ In theory, it really doesn't and shouldn't. However, in practice, feminism in its more militant form is a rebellion against female gender identity -- a very curious form of gender-based self-loathing. Exile19 seems to fit into this more militant feminist box. Hostility towards childbearing is very common among these people. They don't want the role of motherhood "forced" upon them. They see it as a trap and a prison, which is quite sad. 1) i'm a dude who is not diametrically opposed to fatherhood 2) self-loathing? try self-actualization, like most worthwhile movements/philosophies, except without maslow and with the assumption that you're working against a patriarchal society. 3) do you really not understand that many women have no desire for children or even conscious enjoyment of children? why is that sad to you? help me understand why you feel the need to paint an entire gender with presupposed ideals, and this is very much a (platonic?) ideal. Sure, I know better than most that there are plenty of women who have no desire to have children. I'm in a profession that is full of aggressive, career-driven women. That's their business. I really couldn't care less. Also, I'm not painting the entire "gender" with a broad brush. I'm only painting the more radical elements of the feminist movement with a broad brush. You definitely fooled me on being a dude. You could have been the second coming of Margaret Sanger given your posts. a statement like "motherhood is a wonderful thing" could have fooled me. by definition, all feminists could be mothers but also all women, barring the biologically infertile and strict opponents of adoption, could be mothers as well, so I'm not sure where you expect me to draw the line when you aren't doing it for me. I don't really think you believe it's their business alone judging by your aggressive posts here. you might not be self-interested enough to get involved in their lives, but claiming neutrality seems a bit disingenuous when you claim that escaping societal constraints is reflective of self-loathing.
I have a fairly a libertarian bent when it comes to letting people do what they want to do. Still, don't get me wrong. I'm not pretending to be neutral at all. I really am not a fan of feminism -- particularly its radical variants. I simply acknowledge certain unchangeable realities about the genders and the differences between the genders, and I admonish feminism for looking to change these.
I also feel like there's a veiled insult in your final statement that isn't...really...connecting.
No insult intended, though take it as you will.
|
On May 03 2013 14:31 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote:On May 03 2013 13:50 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 13:47 Djzapz wrote: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. And there's the crux of the matter, being x makes you inferior. Strangely enough, part of the feminist movement is actually about having women taking the "gender roles" of men which even they internally view as being superior. It's a sad thing that being the nurturing parent, the "mother", was viewed as inferior to being the person who puts food on the table. So many feminists outright "admit" that it's less important, and chuck it aside - instead, women should behave like men. Well... what do you expect? When you live in a society that values "being the person who puts food on the table" more than "being the nurturing parent", what is the alternative? You either stay in the de-valued roles that society boxes you into, or you break out of them into "men's work". Citation needed. The fact that men have throughout history and to this day been considered disposable compared to women, expected to give their lives for women, is pretty strong evidence that mean are "valued" less. Look at a history book. Make a list of the prominent names in that book. What is the ratio of men to women in that list? Yes, men get killed a lot. But they are revered by society when that happens. They're written into history and are considered memorable. They get medals and accolades. So that's far stronger evidence that men are valued more, even when they're getting themselves killed. The contribution of women to society is not as valued, since their contribution has, historically, been limited to a basic biological function: procreation. Not thinking, not acting, not doing, only being a receptacle for semen and a producer of human beings.
It's true, men who succeed at their roles are greatly rewarded. However, most of them end up dead taking risks to get there. There is a reason we are descended from twice as many females than males.
However, this doesn't change the fact that we protect that which we value. Women have always been protected and treated as precious. This is also the root of sexism against women: women are protected like children, but are also viewed as incapable as children.
On May 03 2013 14:31 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
Furthermore, you assume that everyone wants to be in that role. Has it occurred to you that maybe some of those women just really want to do these things? Who are you or the rest of society to say that they're wrong to do so? It's not wrong for people to do what they want. However, basing your understanding of the world on the exceptions, rather than the rule, is foolish. First, women going out and achieving things hasn't been "the exception" in decadesSecond, why is it "the exception" (by which I mean "not as common")? Is it because of natural choice? Or because societal pressures exist that "encourage" women to adopt those roles and make it more difficult for them to adopt others?
It's the exception because most women don't want it. The countries with the greatest gender equality (Scandinavian nations) are also the ones with the greatest stratification of male and female occupations, whereas the opposite types of nations (China and India) provide the most female engineers.
On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. If by "subsidize" you mean that men must stop being sexist pricks and allow women to contribute, then yes. When society is built to give one side all the choices and give the other side none, a movement towards equality will involve primarily giving the other side choices. It sounds to me like you're agreeing with me.
By "subsidize" I mean that men must pay for women's choices.
|
Canada11382 Posts
How the heck did this topic morph from ills received by a woman from men on the internet to ills received by men from women (feminists)?
|
On May 03 2013 14:33 Sokrates wrote:
So you are basically saying that the lack of women in whatever field has to be "patriarchy" if i cant bring you a medical research proofing you wrong?
no, I legitimately believe in slight (VERY SLIGHT) differences in mathematical reasoning and empathy that only bear any relevance or actual causation in the statistical sample sizes and numbers that they've only been proven to exist in. what that basically means is that when I hear that there are statistically no women CEOs, I'm not going to run to the incredibly minute idea that this woman might somehow be chemically disadvantaged when there are so many delicious things in the society that bore her to criticize. aside from some other points I could bring up, unless we see some major chemical breakthroughs in my lifetime, if that's somehow a relevant point, how do we reasonably affect an issue like biology? it's so much easier to turn on my TV and watch some primetime to discover what we really think about what women can be and go from there than it is to labor under the premise that women are just statistically dumber.
if you're going to respond after reading that that these women just don't want to be CEOs by nature, could you not and maybe think about it some more?
|
On May 03 2013 14:33 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2013 14:24 ControlMonkey wrote:On May 03 2013 14:12 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:07 NicolBolas wrote:
The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices. Staying boxed into one role is not a choice. The feminist movement, at it's core, is about choices for women, that men must subsidize. Care to explain or give examples? Here is an easy one: mandatory insurance coverage for birth control. Only women benefit from it, and only men pay for it?
Only women benefit from it, but men disproportionately pay for it.
For a similar phenomenon, see the fact that women have fought against gendered health insurance rates (women cost more to insure, so they should have higher rates), while supporting higher auto insurance rates for men (men cost more to insure for driving).
|
Oh how quickly people forget Ms. Sandra Fluke showing up on Capitol Hill to weave a tale of woe about how unfair it was for Georgetown to refuse to pay for her birth control!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
