This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Feminism!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by snozzle
Nothing to do with the economy not being able to accommodate everyone as a CEO or top lawyer then?
Have you asked why most men are not CEO's and instead do rubbish dead end jobs? Men cannot blame sexist discrimination?
It doesn't matter if you are a man or a women, most people going into the work place are NOT going to be professionals even, the economy is not structured like that.
Have you asked why most men are not CEO's and instead do rubbish dead end jobs? Men cannot blame sexist discrimination?
It doesn't matter if you are a man or a women, most people going into the work place are NOT going to be professionals even, the economy is not structured like that.
that is NOT what i meant. Most people not being in professional jobs is not a suitable explanation for the fact that the majority of those who are, are men. it looks like you're just contradicting me for the sake of it.
Original post by MrHappy_J that is NOT what i meant. Most people not being in professional jobs is not a suitable explanation for the fact that the majority of those who are, are men. it looks like you're just contradicting me for the sake of it.
that is NOT what i meant. Most people not being in professional jobs is not a suitable explanation for the fact that the majority of those who are, are men. it looks like you're just contradicting me for the sake of it.I didn't mean it to provide that explanation. I have lost track of the thread a bit now, but I was trying to make a point that the workplace will never provide anything but a small percentage of women with what might be deemed 'very good' type jobs/careers, most will scrape by on minimum wage and dead end type jobs as that is the way the economy works. Feminism sells this as liberation and freedom but most working men have always known that the Capitalist workplace is a form of subjugation in itself.
Sorry if that sounds negative and also it is not a reason it itself to not have equality, just wanted to throw a realistic light on the ideology in question.
Original post by Kretsche
all for feminism, but not a single person shouts out for masculism. So sexist...
They do just read some of the pages, but this is a Feminism! thread. Why not start that society? Although you will get more agreement with Egalitarian, as that should not be 1-sided. I am quickening my written arguments, balancing things out (The Equaliser
'80s reference) for the education field I am entering. Most of what gets said, is on forums, question sites & blogs because men don't have a platform to voice their concerns (political, jobs, etc agendas) & sometimes stopped.Women's roles are undergoing change so the "Patriarchy hurts men too" and "Feminism helps men too" are references indicating that men also, need to break out of traditional gender roles. Inequality comes with any attempt by men to involve themselves in gender discussion = a "patriarchal" attempt to dominate the discussion so men’s voices are silenced; obligations remain & men sometimes get defined by women.
Original post by snozzle
I didn't mean it to provide that explanation. I have lost track of the thread a bit now, but I was trying to make a point that the workplace will never provide anything but a small percentage of women with what might be deemed 'very good' type jobs/careers, most will scrape by on minimum wage and dead end type jobs as that is the way the economy works. Feminism sells this as liberation and freedom but most working men have always known that the Capitalist workplace is a form of subjugation in itself.
Sorry if that sounds negative and also it is not a reason it itself to not have equality, just wanted to throw a realistic light on the ideology in question.
Sorry if that sounds negative and also it is not a reason it itself to not have equality, just wanted to throw a realistic light on the ideology in question.
Likewise the workplace will never provide anything but a small percentage of men with what might be deemed very good type jobs/careers. What the feminist movement was trying to emphasise was that women were equally good at doing these jobs, of course most men and women won't have them but the point is that in every social class women are confined to suboordinate positions compared to men. Their goals were realistic and not just confined to some utopian view of the world, providing both men and women were willing to change their perceptions of what their respective roles should be and realise that these were not simply the product of "nature" or biology, unfortunately sexist ideologies about women's place still exist in the 21st century, something which is clearly evident in some of the posts in this thread.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by I Persia I
I hope you support the motion that female soldiers should be required to fight on the front line.
I don't think any feminist wouldn't support that. Although they only pick certain soldiers for the frontline according to ability and most of the time, men are more physically capable than women. However, when a woman who is as physically capable as a man comes up, she shouldn't be denied serving in the front line simply because of her gender.
Original post by Dragonfly07
I don't think any feminist wouldn't support that. Although they only pick certain soldiers for the frontline according to ability and most of the time, men are more physically capable than women. However, when a woman who is as physically capable as a man comes up, she shouldn't be denied serving in the front line simply because of her gender.
The other side of that argument is what sort of society sends its women to fight and die in war when men can do the fighting and dieing instead?
I think there is definitely some essential quality in us which sees women as more valuable to keep alive and men more suitable to fight and die, and I mean that at some core emotional or sub-conscious level.
Original post by snozzle
The other side of that argument is what sort of society sends its women to fight and die in war when men can do the fighting and dieing instead?
I think there is definitely some essential quality in us which sees women as more valuable to keep alive and men more suitable to fight and die, and I mean that at some core emotional or sub-conscious level.
I think there is definitely some essential quality in us which sees women as more valuable to keep alive and men more suitable to fight and die, and I mean that at some core emotional or sub-conscious level.
I don't like the context in which you use the word "quality".
How is it a "quality" to send some people die for other people? If anything it's atrocious. If anyone wants to fight and die for others (assuming it's allowed, which I don't think it should be, but IF it is) then anyone should be allowed to fight AND die for their loved ones, regardless of their genders.
Don't be so egocentric. I know you might feel very strongly about protecting certain people. Just because you're a guy doesn't mean that girls don't feel the same way.
Don't put a value on someone's life. Each one of us is just as valuable as the other. Also don't just assume that your feelings aren't shared by other people, that's an autistic "quality" (no offence if you are autistic).
Original post by snozzle
The other side of that argument is what sort of society sends its women to fight and die in war when men can do the fighting and dieing instead?
I think there is definitely some essential quality in us which sees women as more valuable to keep alive and men more suitable to fight and die, and I mean that at some core emotional or sub-conscious level.
I think there is definitely some essential quality in us which sees women as more valuable to keep alive and men more suitable to fight and die, and I mean that at some core emotional or sub-conscious level.
Lol no.
Original post by Dragonfly07
I don't think any feminist wouldn't support that. Although they only pick certain soldiers for the frontline according to ability and most of the time, men are more physically capable than women. However, when a woman who is as physically capable as a man comes up, she shouldn't be denied serving in the front line simply because of her gender.
Well yes there will be some who agree with you but yet are the same people who deny males' physical superiority (sorry I know that sounds sexist I couldn't think of a better word
).Original post by I Persia I
Lol no.
Well yes there will be some who agree with you but yet are the same people who deny males' physical superiority (sorry I know that sounds sexist I couldn't think of a better word).
Well yes there will be some who agree with you but yet are the same people who deny males' physical superiority (sorry I know that sounds sexist I couldn't think of a better word
).If anyone denies that men have superior physical abilities, it has to stem from ridiculous self delusion. I don't believe anyone can delue themselves that much. Maybe you misunderstood? They could have meant that not ALL men are stronger than women (maybe one woman in 200 would be as strong as an average man? Possibly because of overproduction of testosterone, but not necessarily)
Original post by Dragonfly07
I don't like the context in which you use the word "quality".
How is it a "quality" to send some people die for other people? If anything it's atrocious. If anyone wants to fight and die for others (assuming it's allowed, which I don't think it should be, but IF it is) then anyone should be allowed to fight AND die for their loved ones, regardless of their genders.
Don't be so egocentric. I know you might feel very strongly about protecting certain people. Just because you're a guy doesn't mean that girls don't feel the same way.
Don't put a value on someone's life. Each one of us is just as valuable as the other. Also don't just assume that your feelings aren't shared by other people, that's an autistic "quality" (no offence if you are autistic).
How is it a "quality" to send some people die for other people? If anything it's atrocious. If anyone wants to fight and die for others (assuming it's allowed, which I don't think it should be, but IF it is) then anyone should be allowed to fight AND die for their loved ones, regardless of their genders.
Don't be so egocentric. I know you might feel very strongly about protecting certain people. Just because you're a guy doesn't mean that girls don't feel the same way.
Don't put a value on someone's life. Each one of us is just as valuable as the other. Also don't just assume that your feelings aren't shared by other people, that's an autistic "quality" (no offence if you are autistic).
No I was talking about traditional chivalry etc which say sees women and children as needing to be protected or to 'come first' etc.
You may ask why no successful society hitherto has had all the men raise and nurture children while the women performed warrior/soldier roles?
I am really not sure if there is some 'innate' quality in us psychologically which leads to a simple division of labour like this or 'chivalry' etc , or if it is nothing to do with human nature and is some 'social phenomenon' or 'construct'.
I know the idea that men and women have essential characteristics is very unfashionable, and I even accept that the idea of men and women is something of a construct, as some individuals do not really fit into either sex and that is before we get on to the gender question.
I am highly suspicious of any ideology though which tries to present men and women as having no essential characteristic which differ or absolute equals in terms of nature and says any differences are 'constructs' etc. I just does not ring true with my experience in life.
Not that I am saying this lead to some imperative for society to ban women from combat. I am just looking for some position which is neither old school chauvinist (which contrary to what many feminists believe was never typical), nor the modern kool-aid of equality and choice and freedom rubbish.
Original post by snozzle
No I was talking about traditional chivalry etc which say sees women and children as needing to be protected or to 'come first' etc.
You may ask why no successful society hitherto has had all the men raise and nurture children while the women performed warrior/soldier roles?
I am really not sure if there is some 'innate' quality in us psychologically which leads to a simple division of labour like this or 'chivalry' etc , or if it is nothing to do with human nature and is some 'social phenomenon' or 'construct'.
I know the idea that men and women have essential characteristics is very unfashionable, and I even accept that the idea of men and women is something of a construct, as some individuals do not really fit into either sex and that is before we get on to the gender question.
I am highly suspicious of any ideology though which tries to present men and women as having no essential characteristic which differ or absolute equals in terms of nature and says any differences are 'constructs' etc. I just does not ring true with my experience in life.
Not that I am saying this lead to some imperative for society to ban women from combat. I am just looking for some position which is neither old school chauvinist (which contrary to what many feminists believe was never typical), nor the modern kool-aid of equality and choice and freedom rubbish.
You may ask why no successful society hitherto has had all the men raise and nurture children while the women performed warrior/soldier roles?
I am really not sure if there is some 'innate' quality in us psychologically which leads to a simple division of labour like this or 'chivalry' etc , or if it is nothing to do with human nature and is some 'social phenomenon' or 'construct'.
I know the idea that men and women have essential characteristics is very unfashionable, and I even accept that the idea of men and women is something of a construct, as some individuals do not really fit into either sex and that is before we get on to the gender question.
I am highly suspicious of any ideology though which tries to present men and women as having no essential characteristic which differ or absolute equals in terms of nature and says any differences are 'constructs' etc. I just does not ring true with my experience in life.
Not that I am saying this lead to some imperative for society to ban women from combat. I am just looking for some position which is neither old school chauvinist (which contrary to what many feminists believe was never typical), nor the modern kool-aid of equality and choice and freedom rubbish.
You've completely strayed from my point. Now you're talking about "essential characteristics", which are of course undisputable. I don't think anyone will tell you you're wrong on that. However, assigning roles according to those characteristics is wrong, and I've explained to you why. You ignored it and went on to ramble about child rearing, chavinism and feminism.
Do you want to start a completely different debate? If so, define a topic, because I'm confused.
Original post by Dragonfly07
However, assigning roles according to those characteristics is wrong,
Not very well. Just some vague deontological notion that we should provide equality as an ethical imperative.
Original post by snozzle
Not very well. Just some vague deontological notion that we should provide equality as an ethical imperative.
Not sure what you mean, can you explain?
Original post by I Persia I
I hope you support the motion that female soldiers should be required to fight on the front line.
Many women would probably like to fight on the front line and join the infantry, but they aren't actually allowed to.
Original post by funsongfactory
Many women would probably like to fight on the front line and join the infantry, but they aren't actually allowed to.
A bit OT but how much is that decision down to the individual and how much is down to society?
It's an interesting question, one I have been thinking more and more about recently. We assume the primacy if the individual in our society but possibly it is part nonsense...it is pretty obvious that our circumstances, and other 'social forces' guide and conditions 'choices' to some extent.
I think why I was about 18 the idea of joining the military might have seemed quite cool. Now I am bit older I would consider it no cool at all and would tell my 18 y/o self that if I could.
Original post by james22
"Yet women are, on average, paid less despite being, on average, more intelligent"
Source for the inteligence bit? (exam results don't count as that is easily refuted).
Source for the inteligence bit? (exam results don't count as that is easily refuted).
Yeah this is a pretty redundant statement unless the OP can back it up.
I'm a woman and I support a lot of feminist ideas, but where d'you get this from??
Feminists tend to imply they are hard done by, yet they have more rights than the gender whose genitals dangle. You want to know what true discrimination is? Try being a minority race in Britain.
Original post by t0ffee
Everyone got conned. But the influx of females into the workforce seems to be seen as a positive thing outside the con of capital - which it is not.
Precisely. They managed to get the other half of the population into work, and the result hasn't been families being twice as well of as before. Call something a 'right' and for some reason people will fight to have it. Instead of 1 parent bringing up children and the other bringing in the money why don't you increase your workload so that both of you are now working and attempting to bring up your children. And remember. It's your right as a woman to be able to do this...
To clarify. I'm not saying women should unable to go to work far from it. They should have the exact same working rights as men. I'm just saying that perhaps women being encouraged to be a high powered career woman and a mother isn't exactly a good thing.
Original post by SevenWonders
Highly doubtful! Society tells women they should be thin and beautiful, that they should use their looks to get ahead, that they have a natural journey to family and motherhood. This imperative to be a 'traditional' woman isn't as strong as it used to be, but it's still there. All the major religions advocated traditional motherhood and family life as the ultimate rightful destination for a woman. Women remain judged on their looks more than men in job interviews and often are passed over for promotion on the basis that they may have children.
Your assertion itself that women have a biological drive to settle down and have a family is itself a socio-cultural construction about what being a woman means and itself contradicts your above point. In saying that it is natural to be a mother, that women should have children, stay at home with those children and be nurturing.. that in itself is a social imperative.
Your assertion itself that women have a biological drive to settle down and have a family is itself a socio-cultural construction about what being a woman means and itself contradicts your above point. In saying that it is natural to be a mother, that women should have children, stay at home with those children and be nurturing.. that in itself is a social imperative.
Perhaps. Although just because it's a social imperative it doesn't mean it's by any means a bad thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with women desiring to be stay at home mothers, although at the same time I don't think there should be anything wrong with men wanting to be stay at home fathers. (Obviously so long as it is financially doable). To clarify I'm by no means suggesting that the only way to be a good parent is by staying at home, and not working to bring up your child.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
