[RD] Feminism

[Ryika]

Your post was a ridiculous statement read on its own or in context. "Mainly psychologically actually". Wow. Yeah.

Well, I guess I did not phrase that one very well, I admit that.

My thought process is that while most tasks are relatively easy in terms of "physical requirements", the hard part is that a baby needs attention 24/7, so these tasks add up, and that you don't really get the rest you need if you have to care for a baby on your own. That can cause a permanent state of stress, and that state is what I was referring to as the psychological component.

But it is true that that stress of course comes from constant, physical demand, and the lack of rest you need to recover from the stress of the day before, so it's indeed not "mainly psychological" as I claimed, but psychology is a large factor in it.

Most people would regard a strenuous activity that kills you pretty often as "physically demanding". And yet you accuse me of dishonesty.

Well yeah, obviously you are. First of all you're talking about childbirth here, not about caring for a child, which was the context of the conversation. You're again bringing in new elements because you somehow think that you need to explain to me how being a mother is not an easy task, but I never claimed it was an easy task to begin with.

Secondly... it's nonsensical for the context, because women don't die because of childbirth because it's "hard work" in the sense that you need a lot of muscles to do it.

To quote the World Health Organization:
The majority of maternal deaths are due to haemorrhage, infection, unsafe abortion, and eclampsia (very high blood pressure leading to seizures), or from health complications worsened in pregnancy. In all these cases, unavailable, inaccessible, unaffordable, or poor quality care is fundamentally responsible. Maternal deaths are detrimental to social development and wellbeing, as some 1 million children are left motherless each year. These children are more likely to die within 1-2 years of their mothers' death.

And that's terrible, I agree. But also not relevant to the topic I was talking about.

I mean, just see it that way:
A mother or a woodcutter, who needs more muscles (assuming no modern machines are involved)?
It would be pretty ridiculous to answer "the mother".

Your reading of "hard work" is very odd. I assume you're a non-native English speaker?

No, I am not a native speaker, but I'm not sure why it matters in this case. I clearly explained why I understood the first post I was referring to the way I did, and clearly defined what I meant by the words I used. I mean, hell, if your response had been: "I don't think using these words makes too much sense, maybe better phrase it like <this>.", or "I don't think your interpretation of his words is correct, because of <this>.", then we wouldn't have any problem, I would be open to that.

But instead you're looking at my posts, ignore the part where I stated the context of what I'm saying and keep accusing me of actually talking about a much broader context in which the things I said do indeed look quite ignorant. But that's just dishonesty on your part, because I directly stated what I was talking about, and that was not the broader context, that was the context of how much muscle is required, and how much the body must focus on developing and maintaining muscle mass.

 

[Senethro]

Secondly... it's nonsensical for the context, because women don't die because of childbirth because it's "hard work" in the sense that you need a lot of muscles to do it.

Stop. Please just stop.

How about we go with your words not making too much sense right now, because watching you getting overly defensive of this post

Well like I said, having a baby is hard in its own way (mainly psychologically actually), in comparison to really physically demanding activities however, having a baby is nothing. That it's "the hardest thing they've ever done" just speaks of how easy most of us have it these days, not that it's actually a task that measures up with most of the work during early Civilization.

is getting cringey.

 

[civver_764]

Well, you keep attacking him and trying to paint him as a bad person, so of course he's going to be defensive.

 

[Ryika]

How about we go with your words not making too much sense right now, because watching you getting overly defensive of this post

How about instead you just stop misrepresenting what I say, and painting my words as something that they are not, so then there's nothing I have to defend myself from?

 

[Senethro]

Well, you keep attacking him and trying to paint him as a bad person, so of course he's going to be defensive.

More as an ignorant person making unsupported claims about primates, human behavioural ecology, the definition of hard work and childbirth.

 

[Akka]

I admit Ryika isn't really using words adequately and that he's been pretty clumsy about the physical aspect of childbirth, but he's been repeating his point enough that it's possible to get what he means.
You're working pretty hard to prove my previous point that you only see what you want to see.

 

[Senethro]

Aight, sure, but what has the raw newtons of force the beefiest lumberjack can summon in his biceps got to do with the price of fish?

Moderator Action: Your past several replies to this thread have been unbecoming of an RD thread. Specifically, the one-liners insulting another member and adding nothing to the discussion are unacceptable especially in light of this thread being more closely moderated than usual. Two point infraction. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, I've been babysitter for my cousin quite a lot in the past.


Yes, I totally agree with that. Doesn't have anything to do with the muscles required though, you are still not staying within the context of what I said.

Again, the context is: "I think he meant in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"how much muscle mass is required to do them" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<"

Everything else I'm saying builds on that, and nothing else. Caring for a baby simply does not measure up to most of the jobs of the far-away past in that context.

That does not mean I'm saying that caring for a baby is not a demanding task overall.


Ironic of course, given that you are the one who literally does not understand what I'm talking about and instead thinks that I'm saying ignorant things about a topic that I'm not actually talking about.

I don't even understand why it's so hard for people to understand that I'm not making generalized statements, but statements that are only meant for the context that I have defined before.

It's like I'm saying: "Well, in the context of lions, men lie around a lot while women go hunting."
And then your response is: "Whhhhaaat, are you accusing me and my male friends of being lazy?!"


True. Still not sure how it's relevant.

You babysat? Yeah, that's the same

So what is the purpose of this line of thought? Are you aware of how a woman's body changes in fundamental ways post-childbirth? It's not like a baby or 2 or 3 comes out, and they go back to normal. Not even close.

I mean sure, men can do more raw physical stuff because they have more muscle mass. What is the purpose of that observation, exactly? A year of chopping wood has no long-term effect on a body the way giving birth does.

Still not an important point though, because outside of gangs and similar environments, the men who are doing the violence are not the same men who are receiving the violence.

That's again the concept of original sin. "Because you are a man, you as a victim don't count as much as a female victim."

Straw manning. Why is it that you and cake and civver are incapable of discussion on this topic without doing that?

It's infantile to try to argue that one's behavior can't contribute to their likelihood of being a victim of a crime. That is not the same thing as blaming them for being victims. It'd be absurd to not think that the circumstances of being a man don't contribute to their likelihood of being a victim of a crime, and that similar reasons aren't in play for why they commit most of the violent crimes.

Men being willing to take more risks, whether that is a social conditioning thing or biologically gender-specific (or both) is directly relevant. So is man's increased propensity for violence as compared to women. Are we supposed to ignore that to be PC or something?

 

[civver_764]

Why is it that you and cake and civver are incapable of discussion on this topic without doing that?

I try pretty damn hard not to misrepresent anybody, and to ask questions where things are unclear. Where do you see me strawmanning?

 

[Traitorfish]

I try pretty damn hard not to misrepresent anybody, and to ask questions where things are unclear. Where do you see me strawmanning?

1. Feminism is anti-male
2. Feminism is anti-sex
3. Feminism encourages victim mentality

So, yeah.

 

[civver_764]

But those are the topic of discussion itself.

 

[Traitorfish]

But those are the topic of discussion itself.

In the OP, they're presented as statements of fact:

Hello everybody. In this thread I will be arguing that feminism is evil, and that we need a better, more equitable gender movement. The basic reasons for this are:

1. Feminism is anti-male
[...]
2. Feminism is anti-sex
[...]
3. Feminism encourages victim mentality
[...]

We need a better gender movement, one that recognizes the sacrifices and merits of both genders. One that does not shame one gender, and makes the other a victim. One that recognizes that men and women are merely two parts of the whole, and stresses unity rather than division.

 

[civver_764]

Mmm...the part in [...] is where the "facts" are, the bolded parts are my conclusions based on the support in the [...] parts.

 

[Senethro]

Mmm...the part in [...] is where the "facts" are, the bolded parts are my conclusions based on the support in the [...] parts.

You've already said your OP is more provocative than precisely true. You maybe want to restate your OP in your actual words because otherwise you're at risk of getting strawmanned.

 

[JollyRoger]

Wait, was the OP lifted from someone else? Was it a man or a woman who toiled to put together the words that the OP felt privileged to use?

 

[civver_764]

You've already said your OP is more provocative than precisely true. You maybe want to restate your OP in your actual words because otherwise you're at risk of getting strawmanned.

Now hold on, that's not what I said. I stated things in a provocative manner, but the basic message is the same. Whether I said "feminism is bad for society" or "feminism is evil", the idea is the same.

 

[Senethro]

Cool. Thats clear at least. Or, like, as clear as equating two things that are not the same can be.

Are you also saying that feminism is bad in every society and always was?

 

[civver_764]

I don't know what you mean by that.

My conclusions from the thread thus far are:

1. Feminism is not evil itself, but it can and often is used for evil.
2. A more inclusive gender movement should replace it.
3. Many feminists (not all) are very attached to feminism and don't seem to tolerate any criticism of it. I've been strawmanned and insulted many times in this thread.
4. The way that I worded the OP originally was untactful and unhelpful and it's best to avoid such charged language, even if it's fun.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I think many of the "problems" with feminism isn't with feminism but the people using it as an excuse to be jerks.

 

[Senethro]

Are you sure thats what you want? Its beginning to sound a little "All Lives Matter". Do you ask LGBT groups to advocate for straight rights, whatever they may be?