[RD] Feminism

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are not only wrong but horribly offensive. For someone to have their life taken away from them, and brutally at that, and then 'he deserved it and it wouldn't happen unless _____ " is very inappropriate.

Where did I say anyone deserved to be murdered? WHERE THE F DID I SAY THAT? Learn to comprehend reading.

You can't talk your way out of this, and no more excuses or justifications. Men are much more likely to be homicide victims. Period. Not only is it like this now, but I'm willing to bet it's been like that throughout human history. This is not a recent phenomenon, or to just one culture. When we've played the game a billion times a billion different ways with the same result (only this regard, of course) at some point it's not a coincidence.

I mean, if you don't care to actually look at why this is, then I don't know why you're even participating in the discussion. All crime has a context. If you want to analyze it, you need to put it into its context. People who get murdered generally get murdered for a reason. Pointing out that fact isn't the same thing as saying they deserved it. That's just a really stupid conclusion.

The oil rig 'danger' jobs are more efficient as capitalism deems it, so it's going to reward those who risk more.

Firefighters are something you definitely couldn't say we don't need. Firefighters saved countless lives on September 11th, (while risking their own lives and in many cases outright dying) and this is just one example.

And if firefighters are dying more than nurses, I don't want to hear "that's their fault for choosing to be a firefighter'. Do you even realize how ignorant that sounds?

I'm not saying that, for christ's sake. PLEASE stop attributing terrible things to me that I DIDN'T SAY. What's wrong with you?


:rolleyes:

Instead of linking to some BS summary that doesn't even link to the source material, go to the actual source next time.

Results: In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

An estimated 15.2% of women and 5.7% of men have been a victim of stalking during their lifetimes. An estimated 4.2% of women and 2.1% of men were stalked in the 12 months preceding the survey.

With respect to sexual violence and stalking, female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators, whereas for male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the specific form of violence examined. Male rape victims predominantly had male perpetrators, but other forms of sexual violence experienced by men were either perpetrated predominantly by women (i.e., being made to penetrate and sexual coercion) or split more evenly among male and female perpetrators (i.e., unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences). In addition, male stalking victims also reported a more even mix of males and females who had perpetrated stalking against them.

The lifetime and 12-month prevalences of rape by an intimate partner for women were an estimated 8.8% and 0.8%, respectively; an estimated 0.5% of men experienced rape by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, although the case count for men reporting rape by an intimate partner in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 15.8% of women and 9.5% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, whereas an estimated 2.1% of both men and women experienced these forms of sexual violence by a partner in the 12 months before taking the survey. Severe physical violence by an intimate partner (including acts such as being hit with something hard, being kicked or beaten, or being burned on purpose) was experienced by an estimated 22.3% of women and 14.0% of men during their lifetimes and by an estimated 2.3% of women and 2.1% of men in the 12 months before taking the survey. Finally, the lifetime and 12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for women was an estimated 9.2% and 2.4%, respectively, while the lifetime and 12-month prevalence for men was an estimated 2.5% and 0.8%, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results provided in this report indicate that the burden of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence is not distributed evenly in the U.S. population. Consistent with previous studies, the results suggest that women, in particular, are impacted heavily during their lifetimes (11,12). However, the results indicate that many men also experience sexual violence, stalking and, in particular, physical violence by an intimate partner. Although there are relatively smaller differences in the overall prevalence of physical violence by an intimate partner when comparing women and men, there is greater differentiation between women and men in terms of the prevalence of negative intimate partner violence–related impact. This suggests the need to look beyond the overall prevalence estimates when comparing the total burden of men's and women's intimate partner violence victimization. Previous research indicates that characteristics (e.g., frequency, severity, and impact) of men's and women's intimate partner violence victimization differ in ways that might not be reflected in overall prevalence estimates (12). However, any focus on differences between men and women should not obscure the fact that nearly 16 million men have experienced some form of severe physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes and >13 million men have experienced intimate partner violence during their lifetimes that resulted in a negative impact.

Women experience serious intimate partner violence and sexual assault more frequently than men, and while the prevalence of other types of violence are more equal, women experience far more severe consequences, and experience intimate partner violence far more repeatedly than men, according to the actual report and not some bogus summary. A woman is more than ten times as likely as a man to be raped, and almost twice as likely to experience some kind of sexual violence in her lifetime. Check the real numbers next time.
 
Feminism. Females. It's a movement intended to bring about equality for both sexes. Since women were not equal throughout most of human history (and still aren't in many parts of the world), that's reason enough to call it "feminism."
If women are not equal then men are not either, so why focus on one half of the story?

What part of my post are you accusing me of lying about? :huh: Don't be pedantic about the adjectives I used. They are apt, and you should be honest enough to acknowledge that. And don't forget: The word "evil" is in the thread title. You can't wiggle out of that, or accuse me of lying when I say you used it.
The part I quoted..? I'll quote it again for you:

Valka said:
You've posted a lot of drivel in this thread and others about how nasty, evil, bad, wrong, etc. feminists are.

Ah, the classic "shut up, this thread is about women, so you should have no reason to post in it" comeback. Been there, done that, heard it before in numerous threads on this forum that dealt with women-related issues. That is sooo several years ago. :huh:
What on earth...? You're the one who said you didn't want to have this discussion again, I was just pointing out that's no one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

Cutlass is making an excellent point, and his political affiliation should have nothing to do with it. He's a decent person who respects women.
What's his point? Where are these "misogynstic" or "hateful" things that I have supposedly said?

Yep, there is a lot of mansplaining going on in this thread. I would have thought the OP might have understood this from the other thread, as to why mansplaining is a problem.
Why is it mansplaining? Because I'm a man and I have a different opinion than you? For someone who just went on a mini-rant about me trying to shut you up because of your gender, you sure seem to be doing exactly that.
 
I think a certain degree of sexism is desirable. I don't want to have sex with a girl who plays football.

Yeah I know that, and I'm all for females getting educated, voting, being treated intellectually equal to men, etc. It's just that I don't want the standard to be set that women should no longer care about being pretty. They can do what they want without threat of force, of course, but they shouldn't be respected as awesome rebels or anything.

I don't really think a society recognizing that the two sexes should have certain differences, despite no logical basis for them, is oppressive to women. It makes society more interesting. Like you said, that may or may not be sexist, but if it is I think it is desirable. "Seperate but equal" kind of thing.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Clearly there are deep and troubling reasons that, over time, cause a man to turn to anti-feminism. Like all the football playing girls who don't make themselves pretty.

Moderator Action: Try to avoid triple-posting, please. Posts merged. - Vincour

Oh vincour, you spoiled my attempt to explore within the format!
 
Last edited:
Why is it so typical for people on the left to throw out crazy accusations like this? What have I said in this thread that is misogynistic or hateful?
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
For example -- Feminism teaches that a "patriarchy" runs the world. It teaches that men benefit from this, and women are disadvantaged by this. This creates an atmosphere of disdain towards males. Males are taught that they need to correct themselves and their sons ("teach boys not to rape"), that they have a "toxic masculinity", and that even appreciating the beauty of a woman is akin to abuse.

If we look at the world through a more objective lens, we see that there is no "patriarchy", or at least that it does not benefit men at the expense of women. Gender roles have pros and cons for both genders, and while I support moving beyond these roles, claiming that men had it "easier" is just dishonest.

2. Feminism is anti-sex
For example -- If women are portrayed in a way that is sexually appealing to men, that is the "male gaze" and it harms women, according to feminism. I think this is totally perverted, one of the greatest aspects of women is their beauty. Men are designed to appreciate this, and in fact it gives women a certain power over men who find them attractive. That's part of the biological force that keeps our species going.

3. Feminism is whiny
For example -- Despite having laws in place since the 1960's which ban pay discrimination based on gender, feminists still like to complain about the "gender pay gap". On International Women's Day, women skipped work and protested in the street, to show people a "day without women". This is just childish, and certainly not a good way to advance in your career. What exactly are they trying to accomplish anyways? Do they want a law that mandates all employees receive the same pay? Nothing comes out of protests like that besides the feminist victim complex becoming more solidified.

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.
 
If women are not equal then men are not either, so why focus on one half of the story?
Are you familiar with the novel Animal Farm? Particularly the part about all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?

You're claiming women are "more" equal than men, which has not been true for the vast majority of human history, in most of the world. The fact is that men have had more rights than women for most of human history, in most of the world.

Feminists want the two to be equal. Men already occupy a point (let's call it "par"). Women want to be at par as well. You're the one saying feminists - the ones who also want to be at par - are evil.

How many more times does this need to be explained?

The part I quoted..? I'll quote it again for you:



What on earth...? You're the one who said you didn't want to have this discussion again, I was just pointing out that's no one is forcing you to participate in this thread.
That's correct: I don't want to have this discussion again. But I feel a duty to have it anyway, to counter the ridiculous claims and notions you're posting.

What's his point? Where are these "misogynstic" or "hateful" things that I have supposedly said?
Cutlass is quite capable of defending his points. You cast aspersions on what you imagine his political affiliation to be, as though that is what determines the content of his posts. I don't know how Cutlass votes; we don't even live in the same country. I'm wondering why you're bringing politics into this.

As for the misogynistic and hateful things... one of them is in the thread title itself. The rest are scattered thoughout your posts.

Why is it mansplaining? Because I'm a man and I have a different opinion than you? For someone who just went on a mini-rant about me trying to shut you up because of your gender, you sure seem to be doing exactly that.
Did you not notice the discussion of mansplaining that occurred in the other thread? You're a man, explaining women to a woman, and getting it ridiculously wrong. And after you've been corrected over a half-dozen times by me, and by other people (all men, as far as I know), you're still digging in and not acknowledging you could be wrong.

Senethro said:
I think a certain degree of sexism is desirable. I don't want to have sex with a girl who plays football.
Why?

Senethro said:
Yeah I know that, and I'm all for females getting educated, voting, being treated intellectually equal to men, etc. It's just that I don't want the standard to be set that women should no longer care about being pretty. They can do what they want without threat of force, of course, but they shouldn't be respected as awesome rebels or anything.
Whut? :huh:

WHAT?! :huh:

Well, thank you very much for being all for females getting an education, being allowed to vote, and being treated intellectually equal to men. I'm saying that in a very sarcastic mental voice, by the way. Thank you sooo much for being all for rights that I already have. It's reminding me of the time in the SCA when I was introduced to a new person and the first words out of her mouth (not even "hi") were "what church do you go to?". When I said I don't go to church, she looked confused and then said, "Well, that's okay... I guess..." Only the fact that we were both guests in another person's house prevented me from saying what I really felt like saying to such a condescending thing.

As for women caring about being pretty, here's a newsflash: We don't owe men "pretty." I am not obligated to put laboratory-created chemical goop on my face to please a man (or other women, for that matter). Actually, there are women who look much prettier without all that gunk on their faces.

So my advice is to enjoy the ones who do, and respect the ones who don't. Either way, you are not entitled to expect it.
 
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
For example -- Feminism teaches that a "patriarchy" runs the world. It teaches that men benefit from this, and women are disadvantaged by this. This creates an atmosphere of disdain towards males. Males are taught that they need to correct themselves and their sons ("teach boys not to rape"), that they have a "toxic masculinity", and that even appreciating the beauty of a woman is akin to abuse.

If we look at the world through a more objective lens, we see that there is no "patriarchy", or at least that it does not benefit men at the expense of women. Gender roles have pros and cons for both genders, and while I support moving beyond these roles, claiming that men had it "easier" is just dishonest.
No, most feminists teach that "patriarchy" disadvantages both men and women, or at least most men as well as women.

Patriarchy does not mean rule my males. Literally it means rule by fathers, or less literally a rule by an elite group of men who think of themselves as filling the role as sorts of authoritarian father figures responsible for protecting and controlling their family or society at large.

(I like to refer to John Locke's great Classical Liberal tome as "Against the Patriarchy" instead of "Two Treatises on Civil Government," as they were literally written as a refutation of Filmer's "Patriarcha," which had argued for the divine right of kings on the grounds that the role of king and father were literally the same.)

An overprotective father figure is if anything the biggest threat to young men he thinks are interested in his daughters. A stereotypical father is often much harder on his own sons than his daughters, in order to toughen them up and make them conform to their gender roles. In polygamous patriarchal societies, it is impossible for most males to ever find a mate and boys who disappoint their fathers are regularly disowned and kicked out of the family with no way to support themselves.

Patriarchy tends to refer not to the ruling males themselves but to the mindset their embody.

Patriarchy teaches boys that they should not have or at least express their emotions (except anger, jealousy, or pride), but must be tough, aggressive, dominant figures on whom others may depend but who must not show shameful weakness by asking for help or depending on others. Patriarchy teaches as natural a rather unnatural norm demanding one gender be dominant and the other submissive, rather than letting either enjoy the benefits of egalitarian relationships.

"Toxic masculinity" does not refer to anything inherent about being male, but rather to oppressive social norms around maleness that cause psychological distress in those males who fear they cannot live up (or down) to the stereotypes.

Teaching boys not to rape is just instilling the basic human decency to respect other person's bodily autonomy and not try to coerce any sex acts without consent.
2. Feminism is anti-sex
For example -- If women are portrayed in a way that is sexually appealing to men, that is the "male gaze" and it harms women, according to feminism. I think this is totally perverted, one of the greatest aspects of women is their beauty. Men are designed to appreciate this, and in fact it gives women a certain power over men who find them attractive. That's part of the biological force that keeps our species going.
Some feminists are anti-sex, but many are very sex-positive.

Most feminists have nothing against men (or women) appreciating female beauty, only with viewing physical beauty as the "greatest aspect" of women. Such objectification is dehumanizing and may prevent women from being appreciated for their many other virtues, or even rejected for their vices. Praising a woman's beauty on occasion is fine, but not if it is the only thing that merits praise. Intelligence, compassion, determination, creativity, humor, etc., all deserve at least equal appreciation.

There is a major difference between looking at a woman and leering at them in ways that make them uncomfortable.

Sex-positive feminists are very much in favor of everyone enjoying sex, so long as there is true, informed, enthusiastic consent. The problem is not sex, but having anyone feel pressured to conform to a sexual role with which one is not comfortable.

3. Feminism is whiny
For example -- Despite having laws in place since the 1960's which ban pay discrimination based on gender, feminists still like to complain about the "gender pay gap". On International Women's Day, women skipped work and protested in the street, to show people a "day without women". This is just childish, and certainly not a good way to advance in your career. What exactly are they trying to accomplish anyways? Do they want a law that mandates all employees receive the same pay? Nothing comes out of protests like that besides the feminist victim complex becoming more solidified.

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.
Yeah, some of them are whiny, but no more whiny than you were in your opening post.
 
It's not a ridiculous claim. It is overwhelmingly men who send other men to die at war. It is overwhelmingly men who are responsible for the dangerous workplaces that get male workers killed. And judges in the US hanging out harsher sentences to men are disproportionately men.
It of course does matter who's doing it because the whole 'privilege' issue is about what oppressor groups to do oppressed groups. It's not about what oppressor groups are subject to as a result of the systems of oppression they construct.

Okay, so substantiate that claim.

OK this I find pretty strange. It's as if men sent off to war are on par with men who send them off to war. Men can't suffer from sexism imposed by other men? Would that hold true for women as well? And suicide, men do all these things to themselves? So do women who have eating disorders.

And this idea, oh men choose the dangerous jobs they work in. Like men in eastern Kentucky who work in the coal mines because there's hardly any other work available. Sounds very elitist.
 
That's a pretty weak argument though, or is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea actually Democratic just because it self-defines that way?
One does not have to identify as a feminist to believe in equality between the genders, and identifying as a feminist doesn't actually automatically mean that you indeed are for gender equality.

Feminism's low popularity in a population that claims to be for equality more than ever before is a testament to how far away the movement as an "entity" is from actually standing for equality in the eyes of the people.
That's sad of course, because the goals that feminism claims to be working towards are laudable (not tragic though, because feminism is not needed to work towards those goals), unfortunately, it is infested with people who are doing many things but certainly not fight for equality, and the people who are fighting for equality, tend to spend their time telling people that feminism is totally a movement for equality, instead of directly countering the false narratives spread by the "bad" feminists.

That strategy simply does not work. What feminism needs, is a civil war followed with reformation.

OK this I find pretty strange. It's as if men sent off to war are on par with men who send them off to war. Men can't suffer from sexism imposed by other men? Would that hold true for women as well? And suicide, men do all these things to themselves?
What he says makes total sense though, if you see the people of the world as groups, not individuals. The mindset of people who think like that is usually that the "oppressor group" has a form of "original sin", and even if you don't benefit from being part of the "oppressor group" (which is a ridiculous overstatement in itself btw) in any way, you still don't deserve the same sympathy as individuals in the victim group, simply because of who you are, because <something something you're not a member the oppressed group> or <something something it's your own people doing it to you>.
 
Are you familiar with the novel Animal Farm? Particularly the part about all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?

You're claiming women are "more" equal than men, which has not been true for the vast majority of human history, in most of the world. The fact is that men have had more rights than women for most of human history, in most of the world.

Feminists want the two to be equal. Men already occupy a point (let's call it "par"). Women want to be at par as well. You're the one saying feminists - the ones who also want to be at par - are evil.

How many more times does this need to be explained?
Let me break this down. The way I see it is that for a large part of our history we had gender roles. Women stayed home and raised children, men went out and did all the fighting and hard work. Feminism looks at this situation, and somehow concludes that women are being oppressed and men are privileged. I disagree with that conclusion.

As for the misogynistic and hateful things... one of them is in the thread title itself.
Then you are falsely conflating with "women" with "feminism".

Did you not notice the discussion of mansplaining that occurred in the other thread? You're a man, explaining women to a woman, and getting it ridiculously wrong. And after you've been corrected over a half-dozen times by me, and by other people (all men, as far as I know), you're still digging in and not acknowledging you could be wrong.
I'm giving my opinion on feminism. Do you think that shouldn't be allowed for men?

No, most feminists teach that "patriarchy" disadvantages both men and women, or at least most men as well as women.

Patriarchy does not mean rule my males. Literally it means rule by fathers, or less literally a rule by an elite group of men who think of themselves as filling the role as sorts of authoritarian father figures responsible for protecting and controlling their family or society at large.

(I like to refer to John Locke's great Classical Liberal tome as "Against the Patriarchy" instead of "Two Treatises on Civil Government," as they were literally written as a refutation of Filmer's "Patriarcha," which had argued for the divine right of kings on the grounds that the role of king and father were literally the same.)

An overprotective father figure is if anything the biggest threat to young men he thinks are interested in his daughters. A stereotypical father is often much harder on his own sons than his daughters, in order to toughen them up and make them conform to their gender roles. In polygamous patriarchal societies, it is impossible for most males to ever find a mate and boys who disappoint their fathers are regularly disowned and kicked out of the family with no way to support themselves.

Patriarchy tends to refer not to the ruling males themselves but to the mindset their embody.

Patriarchy teaches boys that they should not have or at least express their emotions (except anger, jealousy, or pride), but must be tough, aggressive, dominant figures on whom others may depend but who must not show shameful weakness by asking for help or depending on others. Patriarchy teaches as natural a rather unnatural norm demanding one gender be dominant and the other submissive, rather than letting either enjoy the benefits of egalitarian relationships.

"Toxic masculinity" does not refer to anything inherent about being male, but rather to oppressive social norms around maleness that cause psychological distress in those males who fear they cannot live up (or down) to the stereotypes.

Teaching boys not to rape is just instilling the basic human decency to respect other person's bodily autonomy and not try to coerce any sex acts without consent.
OK, so you don't hold that "male privilege" is a thing then? It seems like we pretty much agree with each other. Do you agree then that feminism focuses too heavily on the female side of things, and that it tends to exclude the problems of men?

Most feminists have nothing against men (or women) appreciating female beauty, only with viewing physical beauty as the "greatest aspect" of women. Such objectification is dehumanizing and may prevent women from being appreciated for their many other virtues, or even rejected for their vices. Praising a woman's beauty on occasion is fine, but not if it is the only thing that merits praise. Intelligence, compassion, determination, creativity, humor, etc., all deserve at least equal appreciation.
I mean that's up to the person doing the appreciating, but I certainly didn't say that beauty is the only thing I appreciate about women, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that praising or enjoying a woman's beauty diminishes her in anyway.
 
Let me break this down. The way I see it is that for a large part of our history we had gender roles. Women stayed home and raised children, men went out and did all the fighting and hard work. Feminism looks at this situation, and somehow concludes that women are being oppressed and men are privileged. I disagree with that conclusion.
Mansplaining #1.

Then you are falsely conflating with "women" with "feminism".
Mansplaining #2.

I'm giving my opinion on feminism. Do you think that shouldn't be allowed for men?
You're the one who made it plain that if I don't want to discuss this yet again, after the extremely contentious thread we already had some time ago, I don't need to.

Your attitudes say otherwise. It's obvious that somebody has to explain this stuff to you.

I can't stop you from posting. I do aim to call you out on the offensive, obtuse stuff you've been posting.

I mean that's up to the person doing the appreciating, but I certainly didn't say that beauty is the only thing I appreciate about women, if that's what you're implying. I just don't think that praising or enjoying a woman's beauty diminishes her in anyway.
It depends on the circumstances and reason. I was at the fair one time, heading from the gate to the creative arts exhibit. I had to pass through the midway, past the games. A young kid (to me he was a kid... late teens, maybe early 20s) called out, "Hey, Beautiful!" (since I was the only person in sight, I knew I was the one being addressed)

Idiot. Like that was going to induce me to part with $$ to play his stupid game that I knew was rigged anyway?

If the praise is sincere (ie. the one giving the praise doesn't want or expect anything in return) and what is said is reasonable, that's great. It can really make a person's day, and I say this from both sides of the conversation. I'm sure guys appreciate an honest compliment now and then, too.

But empty praise just to get a reaction or to get something? Nope, not impressed by that.


Civver_764, you appear to have a really difficult time comprehending why feminists (the reasonable ones) keep at this. Here in Canada, we've only had the right to vote for the last 100 years or so.

Here are some historical facts for you (I haven't delved into the entire list, just those that would have/do apply to me at the time when they were law): Canadian History of Women's Rights

The page is 35 years out of date; there are women's issues as applicable to various treaty rights for aboriginal women making the news now, and the RCMP sat on information and evidence that could have led to solving a horrific string of serial murders. Since the victims were aboriginal women, drug addicts, and prostitutes, they didn't really stir themselves to perform due diligence in the case. Eventually the killer was caught, tried, and convicted, but if they'd done something sooner, some of those victims might still be alive.

If you bother reading the page I linked above, you'll notice that women in my province (Alberta) have only had the right to vote in provincial elections for ~100 years. We've had the right to vote in federal elections for less time than that. Ditto on the issue of whether or not women are legal persons.

There's a whole host of issues related to voting, ownership of property, the right to sell property without the consent of a man, minimum wage laws as applied to women, divorce rights, rights over children, and so forth.

Some of these rights took many years to be achieved.


You mentioned your personal issues and something about wives and girlfriends living a "cushy" life while their husbands and boyfriends went out and earned the money. You don't seem to think that looking after a home and raising children are hard work.
 
Last edited:
Infracted for quote rewriting and trolling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me break this down. The way I see it is that for a large part of our history we had gender roles. Women stayed home and raised children, men went out and did all the fighting and hard work.
I am quite suspicious of your notion that women did not do hard work for the bulk of history. I would invite you to demonstrate otherwise.
 
Let me break this down. The way I see it is that for a large part of our history we had gender roles. Women stayed home and raised children, men went out and did all the fighting and hard work. Feminism looks at this situation, and somehow concludes that women are being oppressed and men are privileged. I disagree with that conclusion.

In addition to the problems with this paragraph already highlighted, I'm going to say that you're incredibly shortsighted. I'm going to suggest that it was the lack of or partial inheritance rights, property rights, religious roles in society, legal rights, economic roles in society, access to education, voting rights where applicable and the idea of the male-led family unit that were oppressing women.

And instead of being able to think of that yourself, you suggest that women were lazy. Hmmmmm.

Also query: What would happen if an unpretty football player touched your junk?
 
Also query: What would happen if an unpretty football player touched your junk?
Okay, I just did a Google image search for female football players. No matter whether you mean football or soccer, at least some of the women in these images should meet your criteria of being pretty.

You're welcome.
 
I am quite suspicious of your notion that women did not do hard work for the bulk of history. I would invite you to demonstrate otherwise.
Note that he didn't say women didn't "work hard", he said "hard work". I think he meant in terms of "how much muscle mass is required to do them".

And in that context, he's correct, because that's entirely true for most of history, that's what sexual dimorphism is there for. The group that has to do the hunting can focus on developing muscles, and the group that has to give birth, take care of children and gather berries can focus their bodily development on those parts, that's how you maximize the profit you get from the calories that are available to your people, so obviously we evolved into these roles.

Of course, taking care of the babies, and doing housework and doing the less demanding tasks that whatever your living situation required are "hard" in their own way, but both simply aren't as demanding for the body as most of the "hard work" was during most of history. That's not an insult, that's simple reality. And that's not a bad thing either, women's role during early society was not to do "the hard work", women did the easier tasks, because that's what their bodies were capable of doing.

I do still disagree with the statement about feminism though, and I think Senethro very much summarized why:

I'm going to suggest that it was the lack of or partial inheritance rights, property rights, religious roles in society, legal rights, economic roles in society, access to education, voting rights where applicable and the idea of the male-led family unit that were oppressing women.

If the word "oppression" means anything, then that's it right there. The thing is though, feminist theory has a tendency to point at these things and ascribe malice to men for creating societies like that, but in reality, it's probably just the natural result of a society that formed in times where it was generally necessary to divide the world like that. During most of history, resources were still sparse for most people, so of course gender roles were kept, and when there are gender roles on the personal level, then of course society as an "entity" will keep those roles intact, even when by today's understanding it doesn't make sense.

That's just the natural progression of societies that don't live in decadence and without having to worry for our survival as we are. We thankfully now have the privilege to dismantle all of these things, and lots of layers have already been peeled away but looking back at history with that lens and concluding that men must have oppressed women for their own gain instead of understanding that there's a natural chain of effects that requires no ill-will, and instead is just a result of the very fixed gender roles during human history, is a serious mischaracterization of what happened.
 
Let me break this down. The way I see it is that for a large part of our history we had gender roles. Women stayed home and raised children, men went out and did all the fighting and hard work. Feminism looks at this situation, and somehow concludes that women are being oppressed and men are privileged. I disagree with that conclusion.


The question is, is that what they choose to do, or is that what they were forced to do, or only thing they were allowed to do? If they choose it, that's fine. If they were forced into those roles, or not allowed other roles, than that is misogyny and discrimination. And that is not tolerable.


What I see here is that as long as everyone else in the world is buttonholed into the roles in life that you think they ought to be in, that's OK with you. But once someone wants to make a choice other than what you want them to choose, you think there's something wrong with them. Typical conservatism. But the real trick is that people have the right to be free. And what really gets your panties in a bunch is that anyone who wants to be free, as in live differently from the roles you assign to them, you just can't tolerate.

The problem isn't them, the problem is you.
 
And in that context, he's correct, because that's entirely true for most of history, that's what sexual dimorphism is there for. The group that has to do the hunting can focus on developing muscles, and the group that has to give birth, take care of children and gather berries can focus their bodily development on those parts, that's how you maximize the profit you get from the calories that are available to your people, so obviously we evolved into these roles.

Of course, taking care of the babies, and doing housework and doing the less demanding tasks that whatever your living situation required are "hard" in their own way, but both simply aren't as demanding for the body as most of the "hard work" was during most of history. That's not an insult, that's simple reality. And that's not a bad thing either, women's role during early society was not to do "the hard work", women did the easier tasks, because that's what their bodies were capable of doing.

I do still disagree with the statement about feminism though, and I think Senethro very much summarized why:



If the word "oppression" means anything, then that's it right there. The thing is though, feminist theory has a tendency to point at these things and ascribe malice to men for creating societies like that, but in reality, it's probably just the natural result of a society that formed in times where it was generally necessary to divide the world like that. During most of history, resources were still sparse for most people, so of course gender roles were kept, and when there are gender roles on the personal level, then of course society as an "entity" will keep those roles intact, even when by today's understanding it doesn't make sense.

How do you know this? It kind of looks like 1950s gender roles projected without evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom