Feminism

[Fatherted 129]

Like I said, just because maybe X society in X country has not moved on doesn't mean MY society in MY country has not. Feminism, in it's most basic form, even has a NAME that glorifies women over men. That's not right. Neither gender should have any kind of hold over the other, even if it is purely literary.

Now I'm sorry if it troubles you, but in MY opinion (which applies to MY society, and MY view on MY society), feminism is literally useless in its current form. The only thing to do is to provide both genders with the same right advancements (read: gender equality). It takes time for things to fade from eras before and we should let that happen instead of forcing things and breaking the flow. We've made the advances, but there are only 26% women in Parliament. Don't worry, as the educational reforms we have seen have entered the generation usually in parliament (2nd or 3rd), then that number will go up. Currently, less women are in politics, and the voting population is less inclined to vote for a woman. In 25-30 years, however, this will not be the case.

Let me reiterate it: Neither gender owes the other anything.

Let me reiterate this too: In MY society, women can hold any job without being frowned upon, even a mechanic (which is, admittedly, rare). In contrast, men cannot play a "girly" music instrument, nor hold a job as a nurse or a secretary without being laughed at. We have advanced sufficiently, all we need to do is eliminate stereotypes, which will take another generation or two after mine, I'm guessing.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Instincts hormones etc. Vestigial. Attraction is a ruin of a gory yore of wild battlegard. We aint near Odins house yet but.

[LexusInfernus 908]

One of the latest crazes is complaining about the glass ceiling.  I don't hear this from the CEO of General Motors, for example.  I also don't hear it from the Premier of something like four Canadian provinces.  How many female governors are there in the U.S.?

Just because some women have managed to break through the glass ceiling does not mean the glass ceiling is gone. Overall, women still have less career advancement opportunities than men and they have to work much harder for it. That glass ceiling is still a real thing for the majority.

 

 

Like I said, just because maybe X society in X country has not moved on doesn't mean MY society in MY country has not. Feminism, in it's most basic form, even has a NAME that glorifies women over men. That's not right. Neither gender should have any kind of hold over the other, even if it is purely literary.

First, what is your society. And second, perhaps you should ask women how they feel about their position in society before just assuming that because you personally have not seen any reason to complain they therefor have the same experience. 

[Fatherted 129]

I have possibly the most feminist girl I have ever known in my French classes. She will crack down on any kind of sexism towards women (especially jokes, bizarrely), although is not above generalising against men. Also, apart from the "verbal" struggle, she, who would pick out literally anything, seems fairly satisfied.

 

It's obvious that someone here has more vested in this topic than me, perhaps it is worse where they are living. However, I don't feel much of an obligation to debate when I am being disparaged against.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Why is it that whenever anyone brings up feminism we have to act like there is some kind of war going on between men and women?  I love women, and there are plenty of women who have loved me.  My wife, for one.  We even have babies together!  One of whom is female!  I love her, too, and, just like the rest of my family, I treat her with love and respect.  Isn't that was feminism should have ideally been about?  Treating women, indeed, each other as well, with love and respect?  Instead we are fed #yesallwomen, which tends to demonize men and masculinity, or we get the wage gap lie where we are told women make less money than men, something like $0.77 for every dollar a man makes.  But check out the links here, these are not whiny "manosphere" blogs complaining about the privilege women hold over them (sigh, another thing that is not true, the whiners).  I see Slate, Breitbart, HuffPo, and The Economist, all citing similar studies and putting the myth to bed.  I have never worked any job anywhere in my life where a woman was paid less simply because she was a woman, and I have met no women in the USA who have been paid less than their male counterparts simply for being female.  Is that anecdotal?  I suppose, but it jives with what the actual research says, not what a bunch of aggrieved women who hate men for whatever reason think.

 

I think that much of feminism goes wrong when it starts conflating men and women as interchangeable and completely equal, or worse, hateful and/or spiteful towards men and masculinity.  I suspect that our biology has a LOT more to do with masculinity and femininity than some would like to consider, and I also suspect that our biology existed before society did, that society was something that came out of our biology.  I do think that women and men should have basic equality under the law and we should all hold ourselves up to higher standards concerning the way we interact with each other.  Recognizing that men tend to be masculine and women tend to be feminine and that these things are okay.  I do not think that feminine men and masculine women are bad or that they should be shunned/fixed/maimed/etc because they don't hold up to some kind of perfect vision of a stereotypical man or woman.  Differences between us all make humanity stronger and better.  Why force ourselves to all be the same when we are clearly not?  Why force women to adopt masculinity to compete with men, or tell men that being masculine is dangerous or wrong when more often we use our masculine traits to build, to protect, or to create?

 

Despite my assertion and firmly held belief that men and women are different and gender is not societally constructed, I also do not see the point in putting a glass ceiling over women who can clearly do something, who are clearly capable of rising far in whatever field they are pursuing.  If they are interested, why stop them?  I'd be against anyone who felt that way, what a horribly limited view of humanity such a person must have. 

 

I think that men and women have always wanted what the other offers, and all throughout history we have leveraged ourselves in ways that will get us what we want, nay, what we crave: a loving, respectful relationship with each other.  We're in this together, it makes no sense to create a war between us.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well the last couple of paragraphs there can be summarized in two words: marital union.

 

Having been successfully married and now widowed I can truly say that while I was married we acted as one.  Maybe it is chemistry, but that's the way biology is supposed to work.  Where there is any hunting in the pairing, it is probably not the right fit.

 

My wife was several things I was not and vice versa.  She was a scholar, musician, and a very fine computer programmer and analyst.  She had some skills in homemaking as well including being a well-trained seamstress.  She wasn't much of a cook other than in a sustenance way, but had a few specialities that were quite delicious.  However, I think that I did more of the cooking as I had become a bit of an amateur chef and enjoyed doing it. 

 

One of the things you have to accept in a marriage is that your wife may be smarter than you.  There is no question that my wife was smarter than me, but we sort of ignored it as a status thing and just enjoyed our synergy.  She was heavily into computer graphics while I have no talent at all in that direction.  On the other hand, I am a very good originating application programmer while she was more into program maintenance and quality assurance.  We made an excellent working pair in that regard.  She took over some of my deep interests and I hers.

 

The feminism monster simply didn't rear its ugly head in our union.  We considered our strengths and weaknesses and found the proper synergy.  After I lost my right eye, she became the family chauffeur.  We both liked dogs (almost always had two), and she was a cat fancier (at one point we had five).  The clue here is simply tolerance and enjoyment.  You might find this interesting.  I call it 'the happy time'.

 

[Fatherted 129]

Nonny and Spidey have caught on to what I was talking about glorifying a gender war. Thanks guys.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Why is it that whenever anyone brings up feminism we have to act like there is some kind of war going on between men and women?  I love women, and there are plenty of women who have loved me.  My wife, for one.  We even have babies together!  One of whom is female!  I love her, too, and, just like the rest of my family, I treat her with love and respect.  Isn't that was feminism should have ideally been about?  Treating women, indeed, each other as well, with love and respect?  Instead we are fed #yesallwomen, which tends to demonize men and masculinity, or we get the wage gap lie where we are told women make less money than men, something like $0.77 for every dollar a man makes.  But check out the links here, these are not whiny "manosphere" blogs complaining about the privilege women hold over them (sigh, another thing that is not true, the whiners).  I see Slate, Breitbart, HuffPo, and The Economist, all citing similar studies and putting the myth to bed.  I have never worked any job anywhere in my life where a woman was paid less simply because she was a woman, and I have met no women in the USA who have been paid less than their male counterparts simply for being female.  Is that anecdotal?  I suppose, but it jives with what the actual research says, not what a bunch of aggrieved women who hate men for whatever reason think.

What, you mean that masculinity equals disrespecting when women say no? I seriously hope that is not what you equate masculinity with. 

 

And read those studies. Breitbart is from the whiny manosphere on the count that it follows an extremely right wing conservative ideology. The other articles do not actually claim there is no wage gap, they only state that the wage gap is not the often quoted 77 cents on the dollar. The wage gap is less, but it is still there. 

 

 

I think that much of feminism goes wrong when it starts conflating men and women as interchangeable and completely equal, or worse, hateful and/or spiteful towards men and masculinity.  I suspect that our biology has a LOT more to do with masculinity and femininity than some would like to consider, and I also suspect that our biology existed before society did, that society was something that came out of our biology.  I do think that women and men should have basic equality under the law and we should all hold ourselves up to higher standards concerning the way we interact with each other.  Recognizing that men tend to be masculine and women tend to be feminine and that these things are okay.  I do not think that feminine men and masculine women are bad or that they should be shunned/fixed/maimed/etc because they don't hold up to some kind of perfect vision of a stereotypical man or woman.  Differences between us all make humanity stronger and better.  Why force ourselves to all be the same when we are clearly not?  Why force women to adopt masculinity to compete with men, or tell men that being masculine is dangerous or wrong when more often we use our masculine traits to build, to protect, or to create?

 

The vast majority of feminist are not hateful or spiteful towards men. It are generally only guys yelling that feminists are anti male or hate men. It are generally men who generalize the whole feminist movement based on the expressions of a few of the extremists within that movement. Essentially you are arguing that all Christians are homophobic hate mongers because you saw the Westboro Baptist Church picket a funeral. Or that Muslims are all terrorists. 

 

Actually, when you say masculine and feminine, do explain what you mean by that and why do you think that is biological rather than social?

 

Also, explain to me why you think feminist want to feminize men and masculate women? What on earth gave you that idea? Feminism wants to give people a choice. It wants to make it okay for everyone to be whatever they want to be. Wear skirts and stay at home to take care of the household? Cool, your choice. Want to have a career, not shave your legs and and have lots of one night stands with random guys? Cool, we want you to be able to do that without being called an ugly dirty slut. And you want to be a dad that stays at home and looks after the kids? Great, go for it we want you to be able to make that choice without being considered a weakling by society. Or go for your career and work 40 hours a week. Perfect, thats is again your choice and that is fine. 

 

 

I think that men and women have always wanted what the other offers, and all throughout history we have leveraged ourselves in ways that will get us what we want, nay, what we crave: a loving, respectful relationship with each other.  We're in this together, it makes no sense to create a war between us.

 

Indeed, so why do you try to make this into a war? No Feminist (well perhaps some of the more radical ones) ever talks about waging war on masculinity or men. That is you and a lot of guys in general who somehow think thats what Feminist are trying to do. 

 

And feminists rightly point out that no, on a societal level there is no respectful relationship between men and women and there hasn't been one for  a long time. That respectful relationship only exists in individual relations. I mean face it, there is a rape culture, there is a gender wage gap (perhaps not as big, but there still is one), there are a lot of dudes that do not even recognize the privilege they have over women and a lot of those dudes get pretty angry/defensive whenever someone points that out. Just look at your own reaction in this thread. We talk about feminism and you come in talking about how feminists are trying to turn this into a war against masculinity, how they demonize males etc. Sorry, but as a society we are still a long way from treating each other with respect. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

And feminists rightly point out that no, on a societal level there is no respectful relationship between men and women and there hasn't been one for  a long time. That respectful relationship only exists in individual relations. I mean face it, there is a rape culture, there is a gender wage gap (perhaps not as big, but there still is one), there are a lot of dudes that do not even recognize the privilege they have over women and a lot of those dudes get pretty angry/defensive whenever someone points that out. Just look at your own reaction in this thread. We talk about feminism and you come in talking about how feminists are trying to turn this into a war against masculinity, how they demonize males etc. Sorry, but as a society we are still a long way from treating each other with respect. 

 

 

Right now feminism is disempowering women. It preaches rights and privilege, but with rights comes accountability and responsibility, and with privilege implies women are more important then men. You can't have both rights and privilege together.

 

Now. Women have the vote, can get any job they like, equal pay, have an equal -- if not greater say -- over custody of children, can divorce, can join the army and of course society grants the same legal rights to both men and women. Women are fully emancipated. In that regard feminism should be over.

 

But instead it bleats on about:

 

1. Objectivity and men treating women as sex objects.

2. Rape culture in first world countries.

3. Insinuates men are either consciously or subconsciously misogynists.

4. Wants a crackdown on intolerance and insults.

5. Talks about workforce quotas to ensure more women are in high-powered jobs.

 

For 1 I say it works both ways in ads and media: scantily clad men and women, both sexes are objectified. It's also hard to say you're not a 'sex object' when you're wearing clothes which are form-fitting and expose large amounts of cleavage. You are what you wear, if you want to dress like that fine but keep in mind you are saying to the outside world: 'look at my booty!'.

 

For 2; the way media in the UK talks about it, it's like this country is India when it comes to rape. The UK is more safe than at any time in recorded history; the streets are safer than ever.

 

For 3 this is laughable. Some of the biggest 'male' action films like Aliens and Terminator 2 have great female characters, men love them for how bad-ass they are and their resilience and their straight-forwardness. There's no whining, or gossip and they don't act like spoilt self-entitled brats. Characters like Ripley, Sarah Conner, Captain Janeway are great role-models for men and women. They have balls, balls of steel! In general guys respect women and in 1st world countries misogyny is dying out. Misandry on the other hand is running rife...

 

 Edit: I would also like to add about all the popular acts in music, who had famous women, which men like to listen to: Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin, Eurythmics and there are many more. By definition a misogynist would not listen to female acts because he despises women.

 

Point 4 does concern me a lot though. This attitude of intolerance-will-not-be-tolerated and the idea that restricting free speech is the panacea is very dangerous. If you can't take an insult or a bit of a bloody nose then you should crawl into a hole and hide in it. There are douches out there, both guys and gals, and that is just life. As always hard-core feminists rely on big government to sort out these 'problems'. Say what? You want governments to impose restrictions on free speech? Isn't that how totalitarianism begins?

 

Point 5 smacks to me of thinly-disguised communism and centrally planned economics. It implies employers should hire people based on sex and not on merit and capabilities. That's not how capitalism functions. Russia and China tried the 'everyone is equal approach' to catastrophic effect.

 

 

I firmly believe that feminism's only reason for existence is to blow up inequality problems out of proportion, make up problems and offer solutions which go against common sense and infringe upon people's liberties and rights. Feminism is morphing towards some kind of communism as it seeks the false idiom of equal opportunities implies equal outcomes.

 

No matter, I want to know what the feminists are smoking to generate this amazingly distorted world view. You know life isn't handed to you on a platter because you have boobs and a vag, it doesn't work like that. To get anywhere in life you need to put in the effort. This whole patriarchy thing smacks to me of one humongous conspiracy theory which some feminists believe in. I resent the accusation that throughout history men have despised women and considered them cattle. It overlooks economic and technological circumstances and the fact that men had to do nearly all of the hard work. And that is because before electricity and manufacturing, the resource-gathering and production processes were very labour intensive. Productivity was the measure of the energy and the effort a man physically expended. Now if women were physically stronger then men, it would be the women working in all of the jobs.

 

And don't forget that in the old days it was a man's responsibility to provide for his wife and children, so if you're telling me he did that all out of spite you are your rocker. Personally I think the vast majority of men put themselves through all of that danger, and discomfort, out of love for their wives and children.

 

And at this moment in history, western women have never ever had it this good before. They have the luxury of being both emancipated and being entitled, and many men still go out of there way for women- particularly manginas. But the feminists want even more! And it is at this point where a growing number of men, myself included, think it is now purely greedy and self-serving. And very off-putting to. I would not want to marry a woman who was that self-centred.

 

I also find it amazing that there is talk of 'women being superior to men and always have been' and let certain feminists still claim that women are 'oppressed.' You can't have it both ways! And that's why you can't reason with a hard core feminist because reason and logic just bounce right off them. And this entitlement attitude is downright childish, the fact is that if a woman cries hard enough someone will always come along to rescue her or give her what she wants. Men can never do this and nor would they- that's what spoilt toddlers do.

 

And that's why I feel feminism is retarding the advancement of women.

[Motina 77]

LexusInfernus makes some good points.  The present situation is leading to more shared and part-time careers.  Why not allow parents with young children to work alternate months so that both parents are involved in rearing their children?  This would require some serious adjustments in the wage/slave model.  Also, work from home (cottage industry) can become more common.

 

When my wife left her full-time job in order to raise the kids, she continued to work for her old employer on a contract basis and mostly from home.  After the kids were in high-school, she returned to work full-time.  Both our kids are now married with kids of their own.

 

Several things are already in place in many employers:  flexible hours, cottage industry, paternal leave as well as maternal leave, job sharing, etc.  It is only a matter of time before the drive for more leisure time makes this sort of thing much more commonplace.

 

 

 

One of the latest crazes is complaining about the glass ceiling.  I don't hear this from the CEO of General Motors, for example.  I also don't hear it from the Premier of something like four Canadian provinces.  How many female governors are there in the U.S.?

 

Another good one is the wage gap. Just think, if there was a wage gap companies would prefer to hire women because it would be less expensive than hiring men. Cut-throat capitalistic companies, you are missing a trick here! <sarc>

 

 

Just think? No, this idea came from the mouth of Milton Friedman. With Yahoo COO getting fired back in January, he got a severance package made up of $20 million in restricted stock, and 1.2 million payout. Why would companies make such contracts if they are such misers. Secondly, when it comes to positions that do not have an unlimited unskilled labour stock, capitalists companies will spend the money they think is required to do the job.

 

Now, keeping on the company Yahoo, and their female CEO, and Nonny's comments at the top about flexibilty, unfortunately,  Marissa Mayer removed the option for workers to work from their homes, and interestingly enough when I read this tidbit, it was from Sheryl Sandberg. Interestingly enough, Sandberg has stated that fathers make up 3.4% of stay at home parents. Well a good way to improve these numbers is not doing what Marissa Mayers did. What makes it worse is that she built a nursery for her kid at work and then has not facilities for her works. More things Google is better at I guess because they can make working at home work, and have had daycare facilities back in 2004.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Right now feminism is disempowering women. It preaches rights and privilege, but with rights comes accountability and responsibility, and with privilege implies women are more important then men. You can't have both rights and privilege together.

 

Now. Women have the vote, can get any job they like, equal pay, have an equal -- if not greater say -- over custody of children, can divorce, can join the army and of course society grants the same legal rights to both men and women. Women are fully emancipated. In that regard feminism should be over.

 

But instead it bleats on about:

 

1. Objectivity and men treating women as sex objects.

2. Rape culture in first world countries.

3. Insinuates men are either consciously or subconsciously misogynists.

4. Wants a crackdown on intolerance and insults.

5. Talks about workforce quotas to ensure more women are in high-powered jobs.

 

For 1 I say it works both ways in ads and media: scantily clad men and women, both sexes are objectified. It's also hard to say you're not a 'sex object' when you're wearing clothes which are form-fitting and expose large amounts of cleavage. You are what you wear, if you want to dress like that fine but keep in mind you are saying to the outside world: 'look at my booty!'.

 

For 2; the way media in the UK talks about it, it's like this country is India when it comes to rape. The UK is more safe than at any time in recorded history; the streets are safer than ever.

 

For 3 this is laughable. Some of the biggest 'male' action films like Aliens and Terminator 2 have great female characters, men love them for how bad-ass they are and their resilience and their straight-forwardness. There's no whining, or gossip and they don't act like spoilt self-entitled brats. Characters like Ripley, Sarah Conner, Captain Janeway are great role-models for men and women. They have balls, balls of steel! In general guys respect women and in 1st world countries misogyny is dying out. Misandry on the other hand is running rife...

 

 Edit: I would also like to add about all the popular acts in music, who had famous women, which men like to listen to: Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin, Eurythmics and there are many more. By definition a misogynist would not listen to female acts because he despises women.

 

Point 4 does concern me a lot though. This attitude of intolerance-will-not-be-tolerated and the idea that restricting free speech is the panacea is very dangerous. If you can't take an insult or a bit of a bloody nose then you should crawl into a hole and hide in it. There are douches out there, both guys and gals, and that is just life. As always hard-core feminists rely on big government to sort out these 'problems'. Say what? You want governments to impose restrictions on free speech? Isn't that how totalitarianism begins?

 

Point 5 smacks to me of thinly-disguised communism and centrally planned economics. It implies employers should hire people based on sex and not on merit and capabilities. That's not how capitalism functions. Russia and China tried the 'everyone is equal approach' to catastrophic effect.

Lets go over this point by point. 

 

1. For one, both sexes are not objectified in the same way. Men are far less objectified, and whenever you see them in ads wearing just shorts or whatever, the symbolism is different. For males, looking 'sexy' it implies manliness, power, individualism, masculinity, etc. The man in those objects is not an objected to be lusted after, but is used as an example of ultimate maleness. Women on the other hand, are treated as objects in those adds because generally all those adds are geared towards selling something to guys. By looking sexy and desirable for men, they are turned into an object for men to lust after and not as some ultimate example of female empowerment. And no, its not hard to say someone is not an object just because she dresses in whatever way she wants. Just because she dresses in  a way that catches your eye does not mean that she is therefor an object ready to be used by some guy. 

 

2. The murder rate in the UK is also a lot lower than in India, is therefor murder no longer a problem? Of course not. Just because an issue is less bad than somewhere else does not mean the issue is no longer an issue. Furthermore, rape culture goes way beyond the rape itself. Its about how we deal with rape and the people who were raped. And in our culture, we very often blame the victim. 'She dressed provocatively so she must have wanted it' 'she had sex with lots of other guys so she must have wanted it'. The prosecution and conviction rates of rapists are pretty low. And the victim gets bullied afterwards. That is rape culture. Now I recognize that the extend of rape culture is different in each country. Some countries have a worse rape culture than others, but it is always an issue. 

 

3. Great, you managed to name a few examples out of the hundreds of movies and series Hollywood produces each year. But it is  a simple fact that the vast majority of movies do not pass the Bechdel test, which should give you a pretty good indication of how women are treated in the media. But hey, how dare women even suggest that their position in society isn't perfect yet, MISANDRY! HELP HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED BY FEMINAZIS. 

 

4. Oh please. How many laws have feminists pushed that actually restrict free speech? Feminists love free speech as much as the next person. 

 

5. For one, quota's aren't something feminists all agree on. Some think its necessary, others think its not. I think its necessary because it may force the issue to resolve a little sooner than waiting for it to die out naturally. The thing is that a lot of those boards are made out of the same people, who all know each other. The Old Boys network. I believe quotas can break open that network so women can move to those positions I can imagine that a lot of women today have no interest in waiting for so long that only their daughters will reap the benefits from it. Besides, women are more than capable enough. Why should a board consist only of guys. If you look around for a capable women I'm sure you will find plenty of them. 

 

 

I firmly believe that feminism's only reason for existence is to blow up inequality problems out of proportion, make up problems and offer solutions which go against common sense and infringe upon people's liberties and rights. Feminism is morphing towards some kind of communism as it seeks the false idiom of equal opportunities implies equal outcomes.

 

No matter, I want to know what the feminists are smoking to generate this amazingly distorted world view. You know life isn't handed to you on a platter because you have boobs and a vag, it doesn't work like that. To get anywhere in life you need to put in the effort. This whole patriarchy thing smacks to me of one humongous conspiracy theory which some feminists believe in. I resent the accusation that throughout history men have despised women and considered them cattle. It overlooks economic and technological circumstances and the fact that men had to do nearly all of the hard work. And that is because before electricity and manufacturing, the resource-gathering and production processes were very labour intensive. Productivity was the measure of the energy and the effort a man physically expended. Now if women were physically stronger then men, it would be the women working in all of the jobs.

 

And don't forget that in the old days it was a man's responsibility to provide for his wife and children, so if you're telling me he did that all out of spite you are your rocker. Personally I think the vast majority of men put themselves through all of that danger, and discomfort, out of love for their wives and children.

 

Right, they must be communists because such an accusation is not totally blown out of proportion. 

 

The reason you don't see the patriarchy is because it is so standard, so common, so normal and so ingrained in you that you don't notice it. 

 

Also, check your history books. Men did all the hard work? The idea that males were the sole providers of the house hold is this 50's myth. Before the 50's both men and women worked. Unless of course you were upper class and had enough money in which case only the guy worked. But in the lower classes, women have ALWAYS worked, along with their husbands, either in the factories or on the land. And you resent the accusation that throughout history males treated women like cattle. Well sorry to step on your feelings, but if women were always treated like equals, then why did they not have equal political rights from the start? Why were they kept at home whenever someone was rich enough to provide for the household by himself? The fact is that history does not care about your little feelings and resent history all you want but facts are facts. 

 

 

And at this moment in history, western women have never ever had it this good before. They have the luxury of being both emancipated and being entitled, and many men still go out of there way for women- particularly manginas. But the feminists want even more! And it is at this point where a growing number of men, myself included, think it is now purely greedy and self-serving. And very off-putting to. I would not want to marry a woman who was that self-centred.

 

I also find it amazing that there is talk of 'women being superior to men and always have been' and let certain feminists still claim that women are 'oppressed.' You can't have it both ways! And that's why you can't reason with a hard core feminist because reason and logic just bounce right off them. And this entitlement attitude is downright childish, the fact is that if a woman cries hard enough someone will always come along to rescue her or give her what she wants. Men can never do this and nor would they- that's what spoilt toddlers do.

 

And that's why I feel feminism is retarding the advancement of women.

 

Sure, the position of women has gotten a lot better. But it is not perfect yet. Equality has not yet been reached, gender roles and gender stereotypes are still very much alive, the patriarchy still stands, therefor the feminist movement is still relevant and still has a job to do. 

 

Oh right, men don't cry. Well, apart from all their crying about how those evil feminazis are ruining their privilege. Or those really nice guys who didn't get laid because they got friendzoned. But other than that they never cry. And those silly feminists, feeling entitled to the same kind of respect guys automatically get and expect (and who start crying oppression and misandry the moment they don't automatically get it). 

[Fatherted 129]

To a certain extent we cannot abolish gender roles and stereotypes solely because a woman raises a baby. If men were equally capable of squeezing out and feeding the little bugger then we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

Quotas are ridiculous because:

-If I see a white man who is 95% capable to do a job, and a black man who is 85% capable, should I choose he who is less capable for fear of the law?

The same goes for the other way around, as well as for genders. If the white man is less capable, or the woman/man is less capable than their counterpart, say goodbye to your job spot, you just lost it.

Read my above post about Parliament. I firmly believe that time will heal this wound.

Also, the mere fact you see a patriarchy in society maybe says something about your predisposition. When Thatcher was ironing everything out across 15 years, should I have screamed about the matriarchy? Nope. Politics is a relic from an older time which will catch up, leave the unconvincing whines out of it.

Finally, a film like Gravity 60 years ago would have been disparaged for promoting women. Now it's one of the biggest grossing films of 2013. What does that say about society other than acceptance?

[AkemiAzula 280]

Hmm the issue of gender roles is a right doozy. Ive thought long and hard over the years and all i can say is the force directeth me in my manner and influence. I open doors for girls but would never permit myself to expect vice versa. I suppose my ideal concept is a world of perfect girls and in the meantime i as a boy serve those in whom i spy asgardic qualities. I see my kind as soldiers defending and servants serving the worthy ladies until our world is civilised enough we can be put out to pasture. Does this make me backwards forwards or what. I dont care. The force guideth me. And most girls seem not bothered by my nature. However if a lady wears shorts doesnt shave and goes to the local for a pint of broen ale ill deal with her as though she were a gentleman. I believe in freedom to be what the force guideth of ye but those virtuous ladies i see valhalla in i shall serve as warrior of asgard. I dont approve of any rape. The culture is broader than sex. Modern culture is wanting in many ways.

[Fatherted 129]

Shorts are awesome. Don't be hatin' on shorts.

[APSMS 1,892]

^^^LOL. The only pair of shorts I own are my swim trunks.

 

I see a very heated discussion here. Interestingly, no one has raised the fundamental question of why a patriarchy is wrong. Of course, I'm coming from a Christian perspective, which is something that most people posting here will disagree with (though no doubt be familiar with in a rather skewed sense of familiarity), so that colors it a little, but I fail to see why the idea of dissolving gender roles (like mother, father, and complete disregard of birth gender) is such a favorable idea. These roles have existed for millennia, and while a good deal of them have perhaps been skewed or of a less than ideal arrangement, that is no basis for throwing the whole thing out entirely. Certainly even the patriarchy isn't a worldwide phenomenon; some tribal cultures had well-established and highly developed matriarchies before destructive contact with various colonial powers.

 

In fact, it seems to me that ignoring gender distinctions is a disservice like ignoring racial qualities. There are some basic facts of life, and to me what it seems the goal of feminism is is to disregard the substance of human beings in exchange for some intellectual ideal of modern humanity, absent of God and Religion as though such things could hold no serious value on their own. Science, many people fail to realize, cannot answer the fundamental questions of life. If it could, philosophy would not be such a popular topic. However, there is always the question is philosophy as to the correct opinion/view of the world. Arguments can be made all the time, and fact can be misquoted. I believe in treating people equally, but I do not believe in the notion that gender roles are something to be avoided or destroyed, particularly as men != women.

 

The facts remain, most men are interested in mechanical things, things you can build, and scientific subjects like physics or astronomy; most women are interested in more traditionally feminine things, like flowers/gardening, decorating, cute animals, etc. To be sure, this is not implying that only men can do scientific stuff, that women lack the brain capacity for such stuff. How many guys here remember feeling dumb next to the girls in the class, who always seemed to be smarter, more mature, and more focused in class than you were? Clearly they have the brain power, and obviously what defines feminine qualities varies from culture to culture, as does masculinity. This point need not be made again. However, what I notice is that no one seems willing to address the fundamental differences between the sexes. If we are all truly equal, then why can't men have babies? Why do women need men to procreate? Or perhaps a better question is why do men need women to procreate? If the gender distinction is truly sociological, and not biological, then can these questions even exist at all?

 

There are some basic truths that ignoring gender or race distinctions obscure. Black people are typically more athletic and better at sports than men. Jews have a way with money, Asians have a ridiculous work ethic and all seem to be mild super geniuses, each in their own right, White Europeans seem to have a certain knack for influencing the entire world with their Western ideology, often to the objection of the poorer or less influential people groups that are being affected (be it economic, imperial, or other). Oh, and Europeans (Americans are included here) also seem to have this other knack of controlling the world, despite being the least populous, least educated, and least understanding of other peoples. The suggestion is of course that feminist thought of equality and removal of gender roles is right. Why? Just because you say it does not make it so. Prejudice against women is morally wrong, and my basis for this is the Bible. I would also suggest that women performing roles that are explicitly male is wrong, and on the same basis. You do not have to agree with me, but as you are aware of my reasoning, I would like to be aware of yours. The fact of the matter remains that assumptions are being made here that are not being substantiated, and suggestions of biological equality are also being made that are absurd. We cannot continue this discussion on the assumption that the only fundamental difference between a man and a women is a uterus and ovaries, and a slightly annoying monthly cycle. The other fact remains that, often, men are better at leadership, more equipped for war situations, physically stronger, and screw up a lot throughout history, causing war, famine, and political coups. It is not fair to suggest that women would have done differently given the same circumstances, nor is it appropriate to ignore that most women are better at dealing with young children than men, they are better at organizing (from my experience), they mature quicker, they often know what they want in life long before guys do, they can multitask better than men, and can (sometimes) perform all the same tasks as a male (with one obvious exception) given appropriate preparation or motivation.

 

To reiterate, the world is a troubled place, with lots of injustices against women. Why should the solution be ignoring the very qualities that define gender (scientific/biological & sociological) and not addressing the areas at hand. It seems like we're taking a sledgehammer to a problem that can be solved with a screwdriver, and that never has good results.

 

Also, quotas are wrong because of the reason Fatherted mentioned. If you are capable, then you qualify. Anything else builds resentment and complicates the problem rather than expediting its solution.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

Also, check your history books. Men did all the hard work? The idea that males were the sole providers of the house hold is this 50's myth. Before the 50's both men and women worked. Unless of course you were upper class and had enough money in which case only the guy worked. But in the lower classes, women have ALWAYS worked, along with their husbands, either in the factories or on the land. And you resent the accusation that throughout history males treated women like cattle. Well sorry to step on your feelings, but if women were always treated like equals, then why did they not have equal political rights from the start? Why were they kept at home whenever someone was rich enough to provide for the household by himself? The fact is that history does not care about your little feelings and resent history all you want but facts are facts.

 

It's easy to say that with hindsight and being in the 21st century, back then that was the system in Britain- both sexes were very constrained and oppressed. The women weren't given pay or political rights because society expected men to lead in the household, in government and in everywhere else. Over the 19th and 20th century it changed and it evolved.

 

But before then those were societal values, archaic by today's standards but that was how society functioned. Both the ordinary man and woman had no say in political matters and there were no safety nets. Both sexes have been emancipated.

 

The fact is technology, the industrial revolution and urbanization are the three main precursors to the emancipation of men and women. Without electricity, without advances in farming which produced ever higher crop yields with less manpower and without the move away from a subsistence economy. I think gender roles would not have evolved and emancipation might never have occurred.

 

If you look at your history you will find conditions were far more harsher for both men and women. Let's see: no social security, no pension, no healthcare, no education if you could not afford it, no electricity, no plumbing, no voting, no antibiotics, no tap water and a million other things which we take for granted. Despite all of this the family unit endured.

 

It's easy to say that men had all the power before the 20th century. No. Only very rich men had all the power, plus the monarchy and the super wealthy had all of the power and say in society. In those days only the very wealthy could afford to vote for MPs. But every other man had about as much say in government as the women- zilch. Yeah all of those men were 'privileged' and were 'free'. That is the problem with patriarchy, it is so one-sided and completely overlooks the fact that nearly all men were oppressed to.

 

The main form of discrimination which is still standing in the first world is the old one of economic discrimination; inequality. The fact that corporations and TBTF banks have more say (and sway over) in government than the people do is the biggest problem we face in society. We need to move on from this us and them mentality, which is the basis for all of those 'isms' out there. You know- 'us' feminists against 'them' the patriarchy, that mythical entity almost akin to the imaginary Illuminati.

 

This patriarchy is nothing more than very wealthy families, mobsters and bankers who have always been ruling behind the scenes. Especially the powers which control the money supply, for to control that is to control society and the government.

 

///

 

What else do I have to say? Oh yeah, sexual objectification. No one is forcing women to put on make-up or be very self-conscious of image and fashion. To say that's its the men and patriarchy is so idiotic. Women, those who go out of their way to pretty themselves and show off their body, objectify themselves. And given all the gossip I think women are more harsher to each other then men are. It is truly hilarious to see feminists in Youtube talk about objectification and you see their make-up and their attire. Hmm... Looks like self-objectification to me...

 

You are doing it to yourselves my dears! And to say the media, adverts and retailers are causing is a really lame excuse. Given all this preening and obsession with image, I think women are perhaps more obsessed with sex then men are! Why do you think these stereotypes exist in films and in the media? Because the people making films and TV programs look at real-life behaviour and evaluate social patterns, they tailor films and TV to reflect contemporary attitudes so as to entice their intended audience. Honestly it is the chicken and the egg problem. What came first? The 'objectification' from the media or the obsession with image from women?

 

Kudos to all those women who don't care about image and fashion, and whose life isn't dependent on shopping and back-biting friends.

 

Again this is one reason why feminism in its current form is so silly. Apparently objectification is oppression caused by the media and patriarchy, and naturally by the men who are always to blame, and yet feminism completely overlooks the responsibility bit- women are choosing to objectify themselves. Feminism, with regards to objectification, is making women out to be complete and utter dunderheads who can't think for themselves. Now that is a real insult to women. It's probably why some women are distancing themselves from feminism.

 

 

p.s. Whoever is hating on the shorts, then tess hating of the shorts, they are essential for vert skateboarding.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

After thinking some length about this, I've decided I'm checking out of this debate.  I'll be watching what you guys say.  Imagine that there was once a slightly defensive, well-worded response here.  Power to the people, peace out.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Keep talking folks.  This seems to be a topic that can fill up disk drives.

 

{aside}Someone denigrated shorts.  Silly, I wear them as often as possible.  I hate pants.{/aside}

 

We seem to now be slipping into specific (bad) examples and other sophistry.  Has this topic shot its bolt?

 

Corporate day-cares are not an issue for this topic.  They are an issue of good corporate citizenship and the gender of the executive is irrelevant.  The nanny corporation seems to have gone by the board along with the idea of long-term planning.  Most executives think that long-term is the same day next week.

[Fatherted 129]

Not to invalidate your views APSMS ("I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") but the Bible treats women as property equivalent to a few dozen cattle. An Iron Age book is not a good way to judge much in the 2000s.

However, I do agree to a certain extent gender roles cannot be abolished while we are still born with different bits. It's a certain identity that should not be killed off.

I also agree about self-objectification. Yes, a woman can wear what she likes, but they shouldn't be surprised if some guys catch their eye (or...other place). Likewise, if some dude were to come in with the bulge, he shouldn't be surprised if some of the ladies were to notice.

Girls and women are equally capable of thought than boys and men. Feminism makes out that they need to force men to not pay attention instead of being a little more subtle. It's like going to school in a clown suit and then getting aggressive when people look at you.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Vive le difference.  Without little girls what would little boys do?  to paraphrase Maurice Chevalier (in Gigi).

 

Psychologically, a fully functioning woman operates differently from a fully functioning man.  This is simply a matter of chemistry, mostly hormones.  To pretend otherwise is folly.

 

Because of centuries of male stupidity, driven mostly by testosterone, women have currently a bit of an uphill climb, but this is lessening towards a level if a little lumpy playing field.  As an example, at one point I worked for a guy whose wife had a doctorate in engineering and was running her own company.  The guy was a computer analyst with a couple of fewer degrees and much less income than his wife.  Didn't seem to bother him, but he always wore red socks.

 

In subtle situations, men often bull forward towards a solution, often without examining the consequences or the casualties.  Women usually take a subtle approach as is usually needed, and arrive at a solution that is probably more fitting in the long run.  This is the nature of the two sexual beings.  For a feminist to say there is no difference in the business world is ignoring the facts.

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Wm. Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act II [i think, might have been Act I]).

[Fatherted 129]

Amen Nonny.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I didnt hate on shorts... I was saying how if a biological lady acts like a chav ill call her bruv although i will still defend the ideal asgardic race of girls i envision inhabiting a perfect world... If ladies wish to be men then so be it. However if i was a lord of some province or town theyd have the right to live as ladies whereas i could not envision myself granting such privilege to my own kind unless they became ladies. Ive always felt that way and daresay shant be shifted on this issue as the force guideth me.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Bah!  A woman who wants to live as a man is either a transvestite, a trans-sexual wannabe, or a Lesbian.  Horrible stereotypes, all of them, but that's the way the world in general would view them.

 

Men's fashions these days are leaning toward dull.  How would you feel if men could wear more suitable clothing for the climate they lived in?  For people in the warm zones, how about a pair of sandals and a Greek-style chiton with or without undergarments?  For more rigorous climates perhaps something on the order of the styles of the 18th century with hose and brocaded waist coats and colourfully lined tunics?

 

For years and years I wore business suits of either banker's grey or consultant's pin stripes.  When in Rome and all that.  Maybe it is time for a paradigm shift in men's fashion.

 

The ladies seem to be able to get along wearing just about anything from two band-aids and a postage stamp to something out of a New Orleans cotillion.

 

Talk about gender inequality?  Why are most of the media advertisements aimed at women?  Walk through a mall and if you can find a men's tailor you will be lucky to find one or two among all the women's wear shoppes.

 

Men of the world unite.  You have nothing to lose but those damned neckties.

[Fatherted 129]

Hey, just because a girl wears shorts, a t shirt and a hoodie doesn't really make her a male-wannabe in my book.

Also Nonny you are right, most TV ads are chastised for targeting men. Go in the mall and all the babes will be offering to sell you lipstick and mascara.

[LexusInfernus 908]

To a certain extent we cannot abolish gender roles and stereotypes solely because a woman raises a baby. If men were equally capable of squeezing out and feeding the little bugger then we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

Quotas are ridiculous because:

-If I see a white man who is 95% capable to do a job, and a black man who is 85% capable, should I choose he who is less capable for fear of the law?

The same goes for the other way around, as well as for genders. If the white man is less capable, or the woman/man is less capable than their counterpart, say goodbye to your job spot, you just lost it.

Read my above post about Parliament. I firmly believe that time will heal this wound.

Also, the mere fact you see a patriarchy in society maybe says something about your predisposition. When Thatcher was ironing everything out across 15 years, should I have screamed about the matriarchy? Nope. Politics is a relic from an older time which will catch up, leave the unconvincing whines out of it.

Finally, a film like Gravity 60 years ago would have been disparaged for promoting women. Now it's one of the biggest grossing films of 2013. What does that say about society other than acceptance?

No, in that case you should look further until you find a black guy that is for 95%+ qualified to do the job. But how wonderfully enlightened of you to automatically assume that the black guy is less qualified to do the job than the white guy. And its necessary because experience has shown that without quotas, employers are more likely to hire white males than anyone else, even if women or black people were equally qualified. Actually, in the case of black guys, employers are even more likely to hire under qualified white people while ignoring the qualified black guy. There have been a number of studies that have proven this. The thing is, if we trust on the goodness of people to change their racist or sexist views by themselves, we can wait until the sun stops burning. It will not happen and that is why we must have quotas. 

 

And indeed, you shouldn't have complained about a Matriarchy during Thatcher because that women was firmly an anti Feminist. She did not support the movement at all, and under no moment of her administration was she ever close or about to increase female privilege while getting rid of male privilege. Know your history. 

 

And wow, you have managed to name one movie that has a strong female character. Incidentally, it was not the only movie released in 2013 and for every movie with strong female characters there are more movies that do not have that at all. 

 

^^^LOL. The only pair of shorts I own are my swim trunks.

 

I see a very heated discussion here. Interestingly, no one has raised the fundamental question of why a patriarchy is wrong. Of course, I'm coming from a Christian perspective, which is something that most people posting here will disagree with (though no doubt be familiar with in a rather skewed sense of familiarity), so that colors it a little, but I fail to see why the idea of dissolving gender roles (like mother, father, and complete disregard of birth gender) is such a favorable idea. These roles have existed for millennia, and while a good deal of them have perhaps been skewed or of a less than ideal arrangement, that is no basis for throwing the whole thing out entirely. Certainly even the patriarchy isn't a worldwide phenomenon; some tribal cultures had well-established and highly developed matriarchies before destructive contact with various colonial powers.

 

In fact, it seems to me that ignoring gender distinctions is a disservice like ignoring racial qualities. There are some basic facts of life, and to me what it seems the goal of feminism is is to disregard the substance of human beings in exchange for some intellectual ideal of modern humanity, absent of God and Religion as though such things could hold no serious value on their own. Science, many people fail to realize, cannot answer the fundamental questions of life. If it could, philosophy would not be such a popular topic. However, there is always the question is philosophy as to the correct opinion/view of the world. Arguments can be made all the time, and fact can be misquoted. I believe in treating people equally, but I do not believe in the notion that gender roles are something to be avoided or destroyed, particularly as men != women.

 

The facts remain, most men are interested in mechanical things, things you can build, and scientific subjects like physics or astronomy; most women are interested in more traditionally feminine things, like flowers/gardening, decorating, cute animals, etc. To be sure, this is not implying that only men can do scientific stuff, that women lack the brain capacity for such stuff. How many guys here remember feeling dumb next to the girls in the class, who always seemed to be smarter, more mature, and more focused in class than you were? Clearly they have the brain power, and obviously what defines feminine qualities varies from culture to culture, as does masculinity. This point need not be made again. However, what I notice is that no one seems willing to address the fundamental differences between the sexes. If we are all truly equal, then why can't men have babies? Why do women need men to procreate? Or perhaps a better question is why do men need women to procreate? If the gender distinction is truly sociological, and not biological, then can these questions even exist at all?

Alright, fair question, why is patriarchy wrong. For one, it casts humans into roles and therefor it limits peoples freedom. Under patriarchy women are less capable of getting a career like a guy because Patriarchy has decided that women should be at home taking care of the house hold. But what if women don't want to sit at home and take care of the baby? What if women want to have an exciting career in science or business. What if she wants to be a lawyer or a CEO of her own business. The same is true for guys. Patriarchy creates a certain idea of masculinity and gender roles for guys. Guys who like to take good care of their looks are sissies, unless taking care of their looks involves pumping a lot of iron. Guys who are skinny and physically weak are wimps and losers because intelligence is not masculine enough. And what if a guy does not want to have an exciting career and work 40 hours a week at some dead end job being the sole provider for his family? What if he wants to be there for his children and watch them grow up, pick them up from school, drop them off at sports and not only see them for a few hours in the evening? To bad, Patriarchy has decided that males cannot do that. 

 

Patriarchy also encourages some very unhealthy attitudes towards females. Essentially it considers females as less human than guys. Females play the less important role. Sure they take care of the house hold, but its the guy that does all the hard work. And when there is a conflict between the husband and wife, Patriarchy has decided that the husband has the final say, by default. And by dehumanizing women to some extend, you also get the idea that guys are entitled to having sex with women. The guy has the final say, and if the guy wants sex, the women must provide it. Which leads of course to rape, because in a Patriarchy, a women saying no means whatever the guy wants it to mean. 

 

And no, the idea that guys are more interested in technical stuff while girls are all into dolls is nonsense. Girls can like technical stuff just as much as guys. But how do we raise girls and how do we raise guys? According to gender stereo types. So, when our son has his birthday, we buy them Legos. When its our daughters birthday, we buy them a Barbie. As a society we stimulate our sons to like technical things while we raise our girls to like dolls and other traditionally girly stuff. Then when they are older and they have been brainwashed for 18 years to like and dislike specific things it will reflect in what they want to do in college. 

 

Finally, just because girls make babies and guys don't is in no way an argument to say that therefor girls cannot own their own bodies, or do stuff they want to do. 

 

 

 

There are some basic truths that ignoring gender or race distinctions obscure. Black people are typically more athletic and better at sports than men. Jews have a way with money, Asians have a ridiculous work ethic and all seem to be mild super geniuses, each in their own right, White Europeans seem to have a certain knack for influencing the entire world with their Western ideology, often to the objection of the poorer or less influential people groups that are being affected (be it economic, imperial, or other). Oh, and Europeans (Americans are included here) also seem to have this other knack of controlling the world, despite being the least populous, least educated, and least understanding of other peoples. The suggestion is of course that feminist thought of equality and removal of gender roles is right. Why? Just because you say it does not make it so. Prejudice against women is morally wrong, and my basis for this is the Bible. I would also suggest that women performing roles that are explicitly male is wrong, and on the same basis. You do not have to agree with me, but as you are aware of my reasoning, I would like to be aware of yours. The fact of the matter remains that assumptions are being made here that are not being substantiated, and suggestions of biological equality are also being made that are absurd. We cannot continue this discussion on the assumption that the only fundamental difference between a man and a women is a uterus and ovaries, and a slightly annoying monthly cycle. The other fact remains that, often, men are better at leadership, more equipped for war situations, physically stronger, and screw up a lot throughout history, causing war, famine, and political coups. It is not fair to suggest that women would have done differently given the same circumstances, nor is it appropriate to ignore that most women are better at dealing with young children than men, they are better at organizing (from my experience), they mature quicker, they often know what they want in life long before guys do, they can multitask better than men, and can (sometimes) perform all the same tasks as a male (with one obvious exception) given appropriate preparation or motivation.

 

To reiterate, the world is a troubled place, with lots of injustices against women. Why should the solution be ignoring the very qualities that define gender (scientific/biological & sociological) and not addressing the areas at hand. It seems like we're taking a sledgehammer to a problem that can be solved with a screwdriver, and that never has good results.

 

Why are white Europeans better at influencing the world? Well, mostly because we got more weapons than the rest of the world. Also, we got more organized states and we had big empires that spanned most of the world. Because of that, we still have a disproportionate influence over the world. But that has nothing to do with race. We did not do all those things because our skin color somehow made us better at those things. Its the result of centuries of history, of conflict and circumstances that happened in Europe and not somewhere else. Its the product of cause and effect. 

 

And why should gender roles be removed. Well as I stated, they inhibit individual freedom and I value individual freedom. 

 

Now that bit in bold is interesting, but I think you got the causal effect wrong. It is not that males are better at being leaders or better equipped to wage war and that therefor we have those gender roles. We first invented the gender roles and because of those gender roles, we consistently put males in leadership positions and made them soldiers and generals. Had the gender roles been reversed, you would be saying that history supposedly shows that women are better at being leaders and waging war. Had there been no gender roles, we would have seen that both males and females are about equally good at being leaders or waging war. And we have actual historical evidence to support this, because there have been plenty of examples throughout history of women finally making it to the top and doing a damn fine job at being a leader (and also plenty of examples of those women being utterly incompetent, much like their male counter parts). And while the US is lagging behind in getting females into front line troops, more liberal countries elsewhere have already done this and those women do not perform any better or worse than males. Those armies are not fundamentally weakened by the inclusion of females into frontline combat units. Hell, the Soviet Union even raised entire regiments of females during the Second World War who did just fine killing Nazis. And they made for excellent snipers. 

 

 

 

It's easy to say that with hindsight and being in the 21st century, back then that was the system in Britain- both sexes were very constrained and oppressed. The women weren't given pay or political rights because society expected men to lead in the household, in government and in everywhere else. Over the 19th and 20th century it changed and it evolved.

 

But before then those were societal values, archaic by today's standards but that was how society functioned. Both the ordinary man and woman had no say in political matters and there were no safety nets. Both sexes have been emancipated.

 

The fact is technology, the industrial revolution and urbanization are the three main precursors to the emancipation of men and women. Without electricity, without advances in farming which produced ever higher crop yields with less manpower and without the move away from a subsistence economy. I think gender roles would not have evolved and emancipation might never have occurred.

 

If you look at your history you will find conditions were far more harsher for both men and women. Let's see: no social security, no pension, no healthcare, no education if you could not afford it, no electricity, no plumbing, no voting, no antibiotics, no tap water and a million other things which we take for granted. Despite all of this the family unit endured.

 

It's easy to say that men had all the power before the 20th century. No. Only very rich men had all the power, plus the monarchy and the super wealthy had all of the power and say in society. In those days only the very wealthy could afford to vote for MPs. But every other man had about as much say in government as the women- zilch. Yeah all of those men were 'privileged' and were 'free'. That is the problem with patriarchy, it is so one-sided and completely overlooks the fact that nearly all men were oppressed to.

 

The main form of discrimination which is still standing in the first world is the old one of economic discrimination; inequality. The fact that corporations and TBTF banks have more say (and sway over) in government than the people do is the biggest problem we face in society. We need to move on from this us and them mentality, which is the basis for all of those 'isms' out there. You know- 'us' feminists against 'them' the patriarchy, that mythical entity almost akin to the imaginary Illuminati.

 

This patriarchy is nothing more than very wealthy families, mobsters and bankers who have always been ruling behind the scenes. Especially the powers which control the money supply, for to control that is to control society and the government.

No one said that all the men had all the power. Sure, political power was centered around the wealthy elite. But that doesn't change the fact that while the lower class males had indeed far less power than the wealthy upper class male, the lower class male still had more power than women. And you can clearly see this when voting rights are expanded. First the rich can vote, after that males in general can vote (in some countries even that part takes several stages) and only after a womens movement is set up, do women get the right to vote. Had they not spoken up, they would have never been considered, rich or poor. 

 

And no, the patriarchy is much more than just a few wealthy families. Its a social system, a way that regulates gender roles in society and that balance between those genders in society. Its a culture, its a set of beliefs, a set of ideas. Patriarchy is in all of those who support, consciously or unconsciously those ideas and beliefs. 

 

 

What else do I have to say? Oh yeah, sexual objectification. No one is forcing women to put on make-up or be very self-conscious of image and fashion. To say that's its the men and patriarchy is so idiotic. Women, those who go out of their way to pretty themselves and show off their body, objectify themselves. And given all the gossip I think women are more harsher to each other then men are. It is truly hilarious to see feminists in Youtube talk about objectification and you see their make-up and their attire. Hmm... Looks like self-objectification to me...

 

You are doing it to yourselves my dears! And to say the media, adverts and retailers are causing is a really lame excuse. Given all this preening and obsession with image, I think women are perhaps more obsessed with sex then men are! Why do you think these stereotypes exist in films and in the media? Because the people making films and TV programs look at real-life behaviour and evaluate social patterns, they tailor films and TV to reflect contemporary attitudes so as to entice their intended audience. Honestly it is the chicken and the egg problem. What came first? The 'objectification' from the media or the obsession with image from women?

 

Kudos to all those women who don't care about image and fashion, and whose life isn't dependent on shopping and back-biting friends.

 

Again this is one reason why feminism in its current form is so silly. Apparently objectification is oppression caused by the media and patriarchy, and naturally by the men who are always to blame, and yet feminism completely overlooks the responsibility bit- women are choosing to objectify themselves. Feminism, with regards to objectification, is making women out to be complete and utter dunderheads who can't think for themselves. Now that is a real insult to women. It's probably why some women are distancing themselves from feminism.

 

And again, you didn't get it. Objectification does not happen just because you wear make up or dress sexy. It may result in it, but the intention of make up or dressing in a certain is not to be objectified by default. Objectification happens when someone else sees you not as a person, but a thing, something that can be possessed, owned. And no, they are not saying that women wear make up and dress in a certain way because of the media. What they say is that the media objectifies them, portrays them as objects and not people, and as a result males objectify these women as well. 

 

And no, women are not choosing to objectify themselves because they wear nice dresses and make up. That is exactly what feminists are trying to get people to understand. That women want to wear whatever they want to wear, that they want to look however they want to look, without people looking at them like they are pieces of meat instead of human beings. And feminists quite rightly believe that women are not responsible for dressing themselves in such a way that they no longer appeal to anyone to be objectified. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

And again, you didn't get it. Objectification does not happen just because you wear make up or dress sexy. It may result in it, but the intention of make up or dressing in a certain is not to be objectified by default. Objectification happens when someone else sees you not as a person, but a thing, something that can be possessed, owned. And no, they are not saying that women wear make up and dress in a certain way because of the media. What they say is that the media objectifies them, portrays them as objects and not people, and as a result males objectify these women as well. 

 

And no, women are not choosing to objectify themselves because they wear nice dresses and make up. That is exactly what feminists are trying to get people to understand. That women want to wear whatever they want to wear, that they want to look however they want to look, without people looking at them like they are pieces of meat instead of human beings. And feminists quite rightly believe that women are not responsible for dressing themselves in such a way that they no longer appeal to anyone to be objectified. 

 

 

Can feminists understand that you are what you wear? And if anybody wears something which shows off their form, man or woman, they are going to get some looks. You know that brief glance, kind of like- yeah he/she's hot! We all do it. It's the good old- he/she's got their bits in the right places. If that is objectification well good luck squashing it out of humanity.

 

Again feminists can't seem to equate freedom with responsibility and consequences. If I walked around town topless, I can guarantee you that women would be staring at my torso and arms. I can keep in good shape and work out a little bit, plus I'm reasonably handsome. The point I can choose to flaunt it or not. And I choose not to flaunt and sometimes I get mildly annoyed at the glances or the occasional stare, but other times I kind of like it.

 

Ultimately the choice resides in the individual whether or not he/she wants to show off their physique or not, but the more show you off, then the more looks and 'objectification' you are going to get. Really objectification is just sexual tension, it is a desire you cannot in good conscience act upon and personally I think a few women dress to provoke. Sort of like "you can look, but if you so much as act in the wrong way I will have the long arm of the law crush you". They flaunt it and they know damn well the men can't do a thing about it in the public space, or at work for instance.

 

I also feel that showing off ones booty, in the case of women, is a just of means of diverting men's gaze away from their face -- which I think is the most important physical feature -- and down below. A face says a million things, while a tight ass and a good rack much less so! But from what I'm getting from the viewpoint of feminism is that men are to blame if they stare in an objectifying way, and of course the woman is not to blame and it is her right to provoke. The last point about the very right I agree with, dress how you like but don't expect people not to notice.

[Meg 368]

Speaking as an individual, not as an admin of the site:  

 

One issue that we haven’t discussed directly is control.   Different societies have different approaches to controlling the interactions between men and women, especially those who do not know each other.

 

Most male bodies react to seeing female bodies.  It is how they are wired.   (Most female bodies react more to touch but that’s a different topic.)

 

In western societies, the men are expected to control their actions.  Even if a woman is walking down the street naked, men are expected to control themselves enough to avoid attacking and raping her.

 

In other societies, the men have chosen to control the women, not themselves. The women are required to wear clothing that covers almost every inch of their bodies.   They are expected to remain indoors so other men can’t see them.   In short, the women are expected to not do anything that might provoke a physical reaction in a man because he is not expected to control himself.

 

This is a major philosophical difference between various parts of the world.

 

When women say that women should be able to wear whatever they want, they are basically saying:   Men, control yourselves, not us.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

I was going to post this in a new topic but I think it is related to feminism in the UK and the growing PC culture. Get a load of this gem-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638404/Now-BBC-bans-G-word-Sports-reporter-joked-hed-beaten-judo-bout-19-year-old-GIRL-sexist-word-cut-broadcast.html

 

The BBC has decided to ban the word- girl, which is now deemed to be sexist. Honestly if you become so afraid of offending people's sensibilities you're gonna have nothing left to say! I guess we add 'girl' to the list of things which offend women (and objectify them?).

 

Feminism and PC: 1   ,  Common sense and tolerance: 0

 

 

p.s. So if people interviewed on the BBC news say girl, will they be beeped?

[Fatherted 129]

"Girl" is sexist now? What do we say about women under 16? Young woman? Under 14? Very young woman? This is a really stupid move especially as boy is completely tolerated and not considered sexist.

[Roman_Samudra 213]

They should really define feminism, for me

Though what you ladies and gentleman said quite confuse me, I do agree for some argument

 

P.S : They should really allow woman to make nice racing career