Feminism and Sexual Equality page 3

353 posts

Flag Post

Or women have gained while men stayed stagnant. I’m serious, just read the book if this if a difficult stance to understand.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Read some Warren Farrell – you’ll find that this requires a significant amount of work, and men, socially, are where women were in the ‘60s. If you think my claim is outlandish, Farrell is a feminist as well. (Yes, males can be feminists.) The Myth of Male Power. I’m dead serious, go read it.

K, you know one book that backs up what you say. And you incessantly repeat it because it legitimizes all your biases. It’s pretty clear you don’t have much knowledge on the subject, despite all your claims otherwise. Read some more, read a wide breadth of the literature, then get back to me. Warren Farrell is not the last word on the subject, nor the most authoritative.

 
Flag Post

I guess you forgot when I cited Strauss a while back too. But don’t take my word for it.

Jant jant jant. I cite that book to back up what I say because that is where I GOT what I am saying. Hear it from the Feminist mouth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

I guess you forgot when I cited Strauss a while back too. But don’t take my word for it.

My mistake, two books, only one of which actually confirms your biases. My point stands, as you often tell me when I criticize science, you aren’t well-read on the subject. But what gets me is how you clearly don’t give a shit about women being discriminated in the workplace, in the education system, and in any number of other areas, because your entire attention is focused on this frankly idiotic assertion that society ‘allows’ women to take advantage of men. Yeah men have it so rough. /sarcasm.

Open your fucking eyes, buddy. It’s one thing for a feminist writer to critique areas of feminism that he finds troubling, which I presume is Farrell’s point, it’s quite another thing to turn the entire movement on its head and suggest that it’s all worthless unless men get blah blah. I’m not pigeon-holing you, that is your argument and has been since you started opening your yap on the subject.

 
Flag Post

The second one wasn’t a book. Did you ever read any of my sources, ever? You didn’t even read Farrell. See, I can do that too. I was referring to Lucas. Why do you think every post I ever make is in response to you? And why do you always bring up science vs religion in every post you make to reply to me? Butthurt much?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

The second one wasn’t a book. Did you ever read any of my sources, ever? You didn’t even read Farrell. See, I can do that too. I was referring to Lucas. Why do you think every post I ever make is in response to you? And why do you always bring up science vs religion in every post you make to reply to me? Butthurt much?

The difference is that whereas I actually plan to read Farrell and have already read scholarly views of his work, you seem content to read nothing else except the sources that agree with you. I’ve given you a few to look at already and you’ve very plainly ignored them.

Learn2quote, jackass. Should I read your mind and assume I know you’re talking to Lucas?

Because it creeps into much of your arguments. I wouldn’t mind that so much; I only pointed it out by way of comparison, but it’s your smug ’I’m a scientist so fuck the rest of you’ demeanour that I can’t stand.

 
Flag Post

Because, Jant, lucas and I had replied to each other for… I don’t know, about five posts? It’s safe stance to take that I was replying to him, since I posted directly after him. Duh.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

I believe that certainly a lot of gender inequality exists often due to strong gender roles that are established in our society.
We are certainly familiar with these roles, but I’m going to list some of the ideals that each gender is supposed to live up to:

Men are supposed to be:
Strong
Unemotional
Supporting the family
Aggressive

Women:
Nurturing
Emotional
Physically Weak
Empathetic
Passive

These can be harmful because individuals who do not live up to their gender roles are often treated quite badly by society. Not all men are strong and unemotional and not all women are empathetic and nurturing. A woman can be tough and a man can be empathetic, but of course, that doesn’t bode well for either of them. An empathetic man is a pussy and a tough or assertive woman is a bitch.

You do realize this swings both ways right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

I believe that certainly a lot of gender inequality exists often due to strong gender roles that are established in our society.
We are certainly familiar with these roles, but I’m going to list some of the ideals that each gender is supposed to live up to:

Men are supposed to be:
Strong
Unemotional
Supporting the family
Aggressive

Women:
Nurturing
Emotional
Physically Weak
Empathetic
Passive

These can be harmful because individuals who do not live up to their gender roles are often treated quite badly by society. Not all men are strong and unemotional and not all women are empathetic and nurturing. A woman can be tough and a man can be empathetic, but of course, that doesn’t bode well for either of them. An empathetic man is a pussy and a tough or assertive woman is a bitch.

You do realize this swings both ways right?

Yes, in fact, I think she directly said that in this post.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:
Originally posted by scoopolard:
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

I believe that certainly a lot of gender inequality exists often due to strong gender roles that are established in our society.
We are certainly familiar with these roles, but I’m going to list some of the ideals that each gender is supposed to live up to:

Men are supposed to be:
Strong
Unemotional
Supporting the family
Aggressive

Women:
Nurturing
Emotional
Physically Weak
Empathetic
Passive

These can be harmful because individuals who do not live up to their gender roles are often treated quite badly by society. Not all men are strong and unemotional and not all women are empathetic and nurturing. A woman can be tough and a man can be empathetic, but of course, that doesn’t bode well for either of them. An empathetic man is a pussy and a tough or assertive woman is a bitch.

You do realize this swings both ways right?

Yes, in fact, I think she directly said that in this post.

Whoops…my bad…sorry I got two and a half hours of sleep last night and I kind of just skimmed.

 
Flag Post

men, socially, are where women were in the ‘60s

Perhaps you should read statistics previously posted in the thread.

For instance, I highly doubt that women were CEOs of 487 out of the 500 largest corporations in the 60s. You contend that there is more job discrimination towards men than towards women (I am inferring this from your 60s claim), so how could such an astounding majority be possible if men are discriminated against?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyYay:

men, socially, are where women were in the ‘60s

Perhaps you should read statistics previously posted in the thread.

For instance, I highly doubt that women were CEOs of 487 out of the 500 largest corporations in the 60s. You contend that there is more job discrimination towards men than towards women (I am inferring this from your 60s claim), so how could such an astounding majority be possible if men are discriminated against?

Honestly, there is a good deal of job discrimination against men these days because corporations feel an obligation to fill a certain percentage quota of women in their total workforce.

 
Flag Post

So? There’s been a good deal of job discrimination for decades because corporations were (and still are) hiring men over women under virtually any circumstances, especially for higher positions. We’re just starting to experience what women have faced for virtually ever.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyYay:

men, socially, are where women were in the ‘60s

Perhaps you should read statistics previously posted in the thread.

For instance, I highly doubt that women were CEOs of 487 out of the 500 largest corporations in the 60s. You contend that there is more job discrimination towards men than towards women (I am inferring this from your 60s claim), so how could such an astounding majority be possible if men are discriminated against?

As I’ve said numerous times, I got the quote from Warren Farrell’s book (he’s a notable Feminist). Now, if you really want to say this Feminist has no idea what he’s talking about – check it from the horse’s mouth. This is about social equality. I do not get what is so difficult to understand here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:
Originally posted by HappyYay:

men, socially, are where women were in the ‘60s

Perhaps you should read statistics previously posted in the thread.

For instance, I highly doubt that women were CEOs of 487 out of the 500 largest corporations in the 60s. You contend that there is more job discrimination towards men than towards women (I am inferring this from your 60s claim), so how could such an astounding majority be possible if men are discriminated against?

As I’ve said numerous times, I got the quote from Warren Farrell’s book (he’s a notable Feminist). Now, if you really want to say this Feminist has no idea what he’s talking about – check it from the horse’s mouth. This is about social equality. I do not get what is so difficult to understand here.

I don’t care who said it, I care about whether it’s true or not.

So far I’ve seen absolutely nothing to back up your argument except “read this book” and frankly, I don’t want to read a book just for the sake of an argument on the internet. But since you’ve read the book, what’s stopping you from simply telling me about all this convincing evidence he has?

 
Flag Post

Apathy. I really couldn’t care less if you’re too ignorant to check sources yourself. If you really prefer to have people tell you things rather than verify claims yourself, then there is nothing to discuss here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Apathy. I really couldn’t care less if you’re too ignorant to check sources yourself.

If I told you that the labour theory of value is factual, and told you to read the entire Das Kapital (it is a brick) to see for yourself, would you accept that as a convincing argument? I would at least not accuse you of being ignorant for not wanting to read through thousand pages of economic theory just to find out whether my argument is correct or not.

If you really prefer to have people tell you things rather than verify claims yourself, then there is nothing to discuss here.

He is simply asking you to present the arguments done in the book to back up your claims so that he doesn’t have to read through the whole thing. It has nothing to do with ignorance, but everything to do with rationality and saving time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by norumaru:

So? There’s been a good deal of job discrimination for decades because corporations were (and still are) hiring men over women under virtually any circumstances, especially for higher positions. We’re just starting to experience what women have faced for virtually ever.

That doesn’t justify discrimination now. That doesn’t justify anything. Like, seriously? I love how everyone these days is so willing to give up their freedoms and social latitude due to the mistakes of their ancestors or to appease any group who claims to be “offended” by even the smallest indiscretions. Seriously, think before you talk. So what if our ancestors did something bad to someone? That doesn’t mean that YOU TODAY should have to suffer for what they did. Jesus Christ. Discrimination fighting discrimination…what the hell…

 
Flag Post

Yes, it is unthinkable that we should have to pay for the mistakes of our ancestors, and by ‘ancestors’ I mean people who can remember the 60s, and by ‘pay for the mistakes’ I mean actually take responsibility for the damage done to our society. Isn’t that what conservatives are all about, ‘taking responsibility’? Or is that just another pesky tenet of real conservatism that’s been thrown out by the sanctimonious bigots who call themselves conservatives these days?

 
Flag Post

There wouldn’t be feminism if every one was considered to be equals, now would there? And equality varies a lot from country to country and I can only say that in Sweden this is a question that is raised a lot even though we are considered the most equal country since 2005. Personally I see nothing wrong with our current equality, but the feminist party wishes to give women higher sallery than men, which to me is a bit odd.

 
Flag Post

That’s not mainstream feminism Grymsko. I’d be happy if I received the same salary as a man in my position would do. I’m well aware I don’t, and hence the drive to become much more qualified than the male, so as to equal out our salaries.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by iMachine:
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Apathy. I really couldn’t care less if you’re too ignorant to check sources yourself.

If I told you that the labour theory of value is factual, and told you to read the entire Das Kapital (it is a brick) to see for yourself, would you accept that as a convincing argument? I would at least not accuse you of being ignorant for not wanting to read through thousand pages of economic theory just to find out whether my argument is correct or not.

If you really prefer to have people tell you things rather than verify claims yourself, then there is nothing to discuss here.

He is simply asking you to present the arguments done in the book to back up your claims so that he doesn’t have to read through the whole thing. It has nothing to do with ignorance, but everything to do with rationality and saving time.

The difference is, this book is merely a couple hundred pages, and you kids, arguing in this thread, appear to be passionate about the subject. It’s like someone being passionate about economics and never reading anything written by Karl Marx. Yes, that is, indeed, ignorant. Or, say pursuing a degree in economics, and just taking everyone’s word for what Karl marx says. Yes, that is ignorant. If you’re too lazy to pick up a book about a subject which you are passionate about, which is only a couple hundred pages – then you’re nothing short of a moronic sheep especially if you’re going to try to argue about the topic. I mean, really. What the hell has to be wrong with you to argue about a topic, appear passionate in it, then refuse to read a staple source in that field? From where I come, we define that as “stupid,” “ignorant,” and “lazy.”

But if you really must know, I read it in a Barnes & Noble without ever buying it. That’s how brief it is. So I do not have it on me to recite word for word, nor to cite his statistics nor his sources. And I am not the kind of fucking moron who posts arguments here straight from memory. “Oh, THIS guy said this and that and this and blah blah blah.” I either cite my sources, or say what I do know was in it, and defer you to the source. Pick up the damn book and read it. You’re as bad as religious zealots preaching the word of God without having ever read the Bible – and only having select passages read and told to you. If you want to be that guy, then by all means, be that guy – but I will call you stupid, and ignorant, and you would either believe what I say because it supports your preconceived notions of equality, or you’d reject it since it disagrees with your preconceived notion of equality.

tl;dr version: You’re not worth the time.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

It’s funny how you use the bible analogy when you’re acting like this book is your feminist bible. But, it’s not like being a close-minded zealot is out of character for you.

You’re close-minded because you’re not willing to read anything that may contradict your views, or even just the breadth of feminist literature available, some of which, like Professing Feminism, actually agrees with some of your arguments. You’re a zealot because you demand that everyone else read your bible and if they don’t they are obviously ignorant (ie. sinners). If I read one book (by skimming it in a bookstore) that criticized science, would that make me an expert on the subject? Would that give me any credibility to talk about the subject in depth? Of course not. If I were to write an essay on feminism and make claims like ‘men are where women were in the 60s’, without even bothering to show the context of the quote, based on one book, I’d be laughed out of university.

Also, it doesn’t matter if the guy calls himself a feminist. Phyllis Schlafly thinks she’s standing up for women’s rights, even while she’s actively trying to turn back the clock. This guy does not represent the entire movement, and the more you preach about him, the more I’m inclined to think you’ve either dumbed down his arguments to the point of absurdity, or he’s just full of shit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Yes, it is unthinkable that we should have to pay for the mistakes of our ancestors, and by ‘ancestors’ I mean people who can remember the 60s, and by ‘pay for the mistakes’ I mean actually take responsibility for the damage done to our society. Isn’t that what conservatives are all about, ‘taking responsibility’? Or is that just another pesky tenet of real conservatism that’s been thrown out by the sanctimonious bigots who call themselves conservatives these days?

Lol, where’s the damage again? Employers prefer women over men now.