Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are "traditional" women oppressed?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:26:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's an interesting article on the subject: http://www.aish.com...

What feminists grandly declare is that traditional women are kept barefoot and pregnant and illiterate and have to ask their husbands' permission before doing anything. Men and women are exactly alike, and both sexes have exactly the same natural aptitude at all things, and to suggest otherwise means that you are a sexist pig. This is the dogma of political correctness, and if your actual experience with real people differs, you had best keep your mouth shut about it.

When I first came to Israel I stayed by my aunt for six months. She is very religious (she wears a dress and cooks) and yet somehow she is the dominant person in the household. She works, drives, and seems to win the majority of all of her arguments with her husband. I've also known quite a few other religious (and accomplished, authoritative, dignified) women and it angers me to no end that liberals seem stunned that they are actually talking to one of those "happy homemaker" supporters who hold those fanatical, outmoded views. Is it not a strawman to declare that I think all women should do all cooking and chores when I clearly say that I actually do not? Indoctrination from birth is the likely explanation for this incessant insanity.

Guess what, feminists? The truth is sexist.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:30:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 1:26:54 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Here's an interesting article on the subject: http://www.aish.com...

What feminists grandly declare is that traditional women are kept barefoot and pregnant and illiterate and have to ask their husbands' permission before doing anything.

I've met plenty of men who do prefer their women subservient in this fashion. I've also met women who don't think other women deserve positions of authority, for example my ex's sister didn't believe Hillary Clinton qualified for President because of her gender.

Men and women are exactly alike, and both sexes have exactly the same natural aptitude at all things, and to suggest otherwise means that you are a sexist pig. This is the dogma of political correctness, and if your actual experience with real people differs, you had best keep your mouth shut about it.

"Exactly?" That's a rhetorical device if I've ever heard one. Women have a vagina and men have a penis so obviously nobody can win that wording with you. To extend that out to where you want to take it is another thing entirely.

When I first came to Israel I stayed by my aunt for six months. She is very religious (she wears a dress and cooks)

Wow that's pretty religious.

and yet somehow she is the dominant person in the household. She works, drives,

I didn't know women could do that...

and seems to win the majority of all of her arguments with her husband.

"Seems"=doesn't win, but is led to believe she does by her superior male counterparts.

I've also known quite a few other religious (and accomplished, authoritative, dignified) women and it angers me to no end that liberals seem stunned that they are actually talking to one of those "happy homemaker" supporters who hold those fanatical, outmoded views.

"Outmoded Views"=women are inferior

Is it not a strawman to declare that I think all women should do all cooking and chores when I clearly say that I actually do not?

That's a bold statement.

Indoctrination from birth is the likely explanation for this incessant insanity.

!

Guess what, feminists? The truth is sexist.

"Truth"=superior male counterparts.
Rob
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:41:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think they're just both opposite extremes and that the reality lies somewhere precariously in the middle.

Men and women are generally different in some areas, but are basically the same overall. The gender-norming folk are too extreme, and there's nothing inherently wrong with women who, of their own volition, choose to take on more traditional roles. The uber-feminists sometimes slight those women as being subservient lap dogs, kind of like some blacks calling educated blacks "Uncle Tom's." It's character assassination.

But to think that women are so demure, fragile, and helpless is pure sexist idiocy. Women are more than capable of taking care of themselves and don't need to be oppressed by male the fragile male ego.

Again, the reality lies in between the two extremes.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:43:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:41:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think they're just both opposite extremes and that the reality lies somewhere precariously in the middle.

Men and women are generally different in some areas, but are basically the same overall. The gender-norming folk are too extreme, and there's nothing inherently wrong with women who, of their own volition, choose to take on more traditional roles. The uber-feminists sometimes slight those women as being subservient lap dogs, kind of like some blacks calling educated blacks "Uncle Tom's." It's character assassination.

But to think that women are so demure, fragile, and helpless is pure sexist idiocy. Women are more than capable of taking care of themselves and don't need to be oppressed by male the fragile male ego.

Again, the reality lies in between the two extremes.

Truth.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 1:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So.....you may want to dig a bit deeper before you declare Orthodox Jewish women in Israel to be the epitomy of the oppressed traditional woman.

Me? I think more about cultures where women are killed by their families when they are raped (for the sake of honor). Or women who must be "protected" by fathers or brothers in case they tempt men to rape them. I think of cultures where women have to cover their entire body just in case men get horny by looking at them. I think of cultures where women are expected to throw themselves on a funeral pyre because their husband dies.

I think of cultures with women who, if they have sex once before marriage in a society, are doomed to eternal spinsterhood while the man who had sex with her happily marries.

And hell, if you want to get more liberal, we can go find to a county where these days they go as far as to LET WOMEN DRIVE! Or even GO TO SCHOOL! In some of these amazing places, it's actually considered beneficial for women, as opposed to men, to be educated.

Can women be as strong as men? Sure. Has "oppression" been lifted from women?

Read a f*cking book.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:58:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is that it? I knew it was a bad idea to make this thread without royal to flame it.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 1:13:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 12:58:48 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Is that it? I knew it was a bad idea to make this thread without royal to flame it.

She still hasn't come back with my sandwich.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 12:58:48 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Is that it? I knew it was a bad idea to make this thread without royal to flame it.

You mean other than the fact that you completely misrepresent what "oppressed woman" means in the 21st century through the strawman of westernized orthodox judeo-christianity?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 9:11:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 4:00:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/30/2012 12:58:48 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Is that it? I knew it was a bad idea to make this thread without royal to flame it.

You mean other than the fact that you completely misrepresent what "oppressed woman" means in the 21st century through the strawman of westernized orthodox judeo-christianity?

I was directing this at the feminist-type people. Most intelligent people don't have a problem with tradition family settings.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 9:13:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 1:37:30 PM, Wnope wrote:
So.....you may want to dig a bit deeper before you declare Orthodox Jewish women in Israel to be the epitomy of the oppressed traditional woman.

Me? I think more about cultures where women are killed by their families when they are raped (for the sake of honor). Or women who must be "protected" by fathers or brothers in case they tempt men to rape them. I think of cultures where women have to cover their entire body just in case men get horny by looking at them. I think of cultures where women are expected to throw themselves on a funeral pyre because their husband dies.

I think of cultures with women who, if they have sex once before marriage in a society, are doomed to eternal spinsterhood while the man who had sex with her happily marries.

And hell, if you want to get more liberal, we can go find to a county where these days they go as far as to LET WOMEN DRIVE! Or even GO TO SCHOOL! In some of these amazing places, it's actually considered beneficial for women, as opposed to men, to be educated.

Can women be as strong as men? Sure. Has "oppression" been lifted from women?

Read a f*cking book.

Those cultures are not what I was referring to. I don't think it's me that made any strawman here.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.

Look at it this way. I little kid is stuck in a well for a few days without food or water and when they fish him out he's on the verge of starvation. In his absence the kid's brother has gotten to eat twice as much as usual, his food and his missing brother's food. So when the brother gets back from his ordeal, they decide to start giving the double portions to him instead. After a single day of fasting the second brother starts getting pissy and demanding that his recovering brother be given only his own portion, even though he is still slightly malnourished.

The second brother may have a point (in that he should still be given SOME food) but he's also being a spoiled brat who is belittling the enormity of his brother's suffering.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:43:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree with the above post that women have had less and now deserve more, if that's what he is implying. For minorities that has some sense, because black families, for instance, are discrete from white families. But with women that doesn't make any sense because women are part of all families - it doesn't make any sense to give them an abundance of rights. In fact, giving them more rights is the main thing keeping them oppressed.

If women are to be equals, which I believe they should, then we shouldn't separate them in ANY way, other than ways which directly relate to their gender, like having separate restrooms. People have this idea that they are honoring women by separating them, like saying they would never hit a woman. Well you shouldn't hit a man either, if you want to be totally honorable. The type of guy that would hit a guy but not a girl is probably the same type of guy that thinks the woman's place is in the kitchen. I am an "equal rights, equal fights" type of person, because I believe pacifism extends to both genders. After all, there are men who are particularly frail and even less able to defend themselves than women, like a guy I saw last night who needs crutches to get around. Many people think women shouldn't work, shouldn't drive, shouldn't hold positions of power... it's either a) equal across the board or b) not equal across the board. If you're the kind of guy that holds a door open for a lady and then closes it on a guy, I don't see that as honorable at all.
Rob
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:43:18 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I disagree with the above post that women have had less and now deserve more, if that's what he is implying. For minorities that has some sense, because black families, for instance, are discrete from white families. But with women that doesn't make any sense because women are part of all families - it doesn't make any sense to give them an abundance of rights. In fact, giving them more rights is the main thing keeping them oppressed.

If women are to be equals, which I believe they should, then we shouldn't separate them in ANY way, other than ways which directly relate to their gender, like having separate restrooms. People have this idea that they are honoring women by separating them, like saying they would never hit a woman. Well you shouldn't hit a man either, if you want to be totally honorable. The type of guy that would hit a guy but not a girl is probably the same type of guy that thinks the woman's place is in the kitchen. I am an "equal rights, equal fights" type of person, because I believe pacifism extends to both genders. After all, there are men who are particularly frail and even less able to defend themselves than women, like a guy I saw last night who needs crutches to get around. Many people think women shouldn't work, shouldn't drive, shouldn't hold positions of power... it's either a) equal across the board or b) not equal across the board. If you're the kind of guy that holds a door open for a lady and then closes it on a guy, I don't see that as honorable at all.

That's not what I'm saying, I agree completely that inequality in the opposite direction does not lead to equality. However the point that I was making was that the extent to which people b!tch and complain about even the slightest notion of feminism is sickening (in my opinion). It is just unnecessary, and it's hard not to think that the looming threat of the 'feminazis' is not just an excuse to vent some angry feelings towards women who choose to not fall into line and be easy to acquire and settle down with. I get why people might feel that way, but if conservative traditionalists were really so concerned with individual liberties, then THEY would be the ones out there crying for women to be free to live in any way that they want (same goes for gays). But of course, that crowd only employs individual liberties as an argument when it applies owning as many guns as you want and not paying taxes.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:10:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.


White men wailing about anything is a problem.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:27:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:10:52 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.


White men wailing about anything is a problem.

Unless they are wailing for good reason. I'm a white man, and many of the things that I complain about are legitimate concerns. However I don't consider feminism to be a threat to anybody, least of all to me since economically and socially I'm more powerful than most women, especially minority women.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 12:52:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.

Look at it this way. I little kid is stuck in a well for a few days without food or water and when they fish him out he's on the verge of starvation. In his absence the kid's brother has gotten to eat twice as much as usual, his food and his missing brother's food. So when the brother gets back from his ordeal, they decide to start giving the double portions to him instead. After a single day of fasting the second brother starts getting pissy and demanding that his recovering brother be given only his own portion, even though he is still slightly malnourished.

The second brother may have a point (in that he should still be given SOME food) but he's also being a spoiled brat who is belittling the enormity of his brother's suffering.

State socialists: Analogizing you to children since 428 BC.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 12:55:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's not what I'm saying, I agree completely that inequality in the opposite direction does not lead to equality. However the point that I was making was that the extent to which people b!tch and complain about even the slightest notion of feminism is sickening (in my opinion).
Even if something is wrong, don't complain about it. Hmm?

get why people might feel that way, but if conservative traditionalists were really so concerned with individual liberties, then THEY would be the ones out there crying for women to be free to live in any way that they want
There's more to the world than left wingers and traditionalists.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 12:57:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, which laws in the United States presently forbid women from living in any way that men can?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 8:34:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's not what I'm saying, I agree completely that inequality in the opposite direction does not lead to equality. However the point that I was making was that the extent to which people b!tch and complain about even the slightest notion of feminism is sickening (in my opinion).:

I think the underlying point is, who's actually doing the bitching? Are there many people in the West that actually believe that women are "oppressed?"

It is just unnecessary, and it's hard not to think that the looming threat of the 'feminazis' is not just an excuse to vent some angry feelings towards women who choose to not fall into line and be easy to acquire and settle down with.:

I think that's utter bullsh*t and a convenient slander. There's no man in Western civilization (slight hyperbole) that wants to oppress their mothers and sisters. People have a problem with feminazi's (note the distinction from feminists) because of their extremism and their penchant for inequality. It's kind of like the New Black Panther Party. Most people in the West want want equality for blacks, but this organization takes it to a level where they want invert the abuse, not rectify it. So it is with feminazi's, and if you don't believe it, read Royal's posts some time. She makes it clear that in her mind, life is a competition between men and women. Instead of seeking true equality, she subconciously desires domination.

There's no doubt that in the dusty recesses of the collective mind, there's some semblance of sexism. That goes for both males and females, but instead of rejoicing in the collective stamping it out, some just want to persist in infernal bitching.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 8:48:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 8:34:17 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
That's not what I'm saying, I agree completely that inequality in the opposite direction does not lead to equality. However the point that I was making was that the extent to which people b!tch and complain about even the slightest notion of feminism is sickening (in my opinion).:

I think the underlying point is, who's actually doing the bitching? Are there many people in the West that actually believe that women are "oppressed?"

It is just unnecessary, and it's hard not to think that the looming threat of the 'feminazis' is not just an excuse to vent some angry feelings towards women who choose to not fall into line and be easy to acquire and settle down with.:

I think that's utter bullsh*t and a convenient slander. There's no man in Western civilization (slight hyperbole) that wants to oppress their mothers and sisters. People have a problem with feminazi's (note the distinction from feminists) because of their extremism and their penchant for inequality. It's kind of like the New Black Panther Party. Most people in the West want want equality for blacks, but this organization takes it to a level where they want invert the abuse, not rectify it. So it is with feminazi's, and if you don't believe it, read Royal's posts some time. She makes it clear that in her mind, life is a competition between men and women. Instead of seeking true equality, she subconciously desires domination.

There's no doubt that in the dusty recesses of the collective mind, there's some semblance of sexism. That goes for both males and females, but instead of rejoicing in the collective stamping it out, some just want to persist in infernal bitching.

OHHhhhh, I don't agree with this at all.

I do agree that there is a difference between the norm and given extremes, which include mysogynists and feminazis. However, this society remains markedly patriarchal. It's not necessarily that women are considered inferior, per se, in any distinct way, but more that women aren't expected to be a important or relevant as men.

This is why there still exists a glass ceiling. Men have problems being ordered around by women; they also have problems making less than they. It is rather frequent that women in powerful positions have personal problems stemming from inferiority complexes developed by their spouses who aren't in such powerful positions. You can find this most poignantly among celebrities; relationships between two peopl in the same field usually won't last if the woman is more successful than the man.

Moreover, there are given realities about women that are usually held against them -- for example, a married woman without children may not receive a promotion she's earned, because of the likelihood that she may end up on maternity leave. This could incentivize leaving a career altogether to "start a family," which is unfair to the woman, and unfair to the family in general if the woman were making more money than the man.

It also places undue expectations on a man to perform better than his wife, given they intend to eventually have children. This is just the tip of the iceberg, though. So many other biological realities of women, from mestruation to menopause, are often considered against them in a professional setting. Due to these realities, they're construed as moody and irrational, even if this isn't the case. A woman could simply be having a bad day, but people automatically assume it has something to do with her cycle. Men, however, are not subject to such judgments, despite how moody they tend to be.

Last, there's the fact that women are essentially considered sex objects. I don't mean that one shouldn't appreciate women, nor do I believe that men should be admonished for looking or flirting. What I mean is, many women are treated as sexual objects even by their families, and are subject to frequent molestation (and even rape) throughout their lives. Worse, it's often construed as their fault, or ignored as trivial. Moreover, men often desire male children as opposed to female children, given females are simply "childbearers as sex objects," while males supposedly have the potential to promote or improve the family legacy. Accordingly, many men just about emtionally discard their daughters, ensuring that there are always well-populated street corners and strip clubs.

Let's be real. People are very fvcked up to women.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:15:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do agree that there is a difference between the norm and given extremes, which include mysogynists and feminazis. However, this society remains markedly patriarchal. It's not necessarily that women are considered inferior, per se, in any distinct way, but more that women aren't expected to be a important or relevant as men.:

But this could be said of anything. Women have more parental rights than men, generally speaking. 97 out of 100 times, parents would rather a female babysit their kids than a male. Men are expected to pick up the tab. Men are expected to defend a women in violent encounters, not the other way around. Men, for thousands and thousands of years, are expected to fight for their country or their tribe, and die on account of that.

These are obvious disparities between the gender, but do we as a society consider that inherent sexism? No, most don't. Most don't even bat an eyelash.

Let's be real. People are very fvcked up to women.:

I see it going both ways for different things. Some things are hardwired by DNA, some things exist because of thousands of years of social conditioning.

But perhaps we could try a pet experiment where we suggest, in the interest of "equality," that men and women use the same restrooms, and stop partitioning them off by sex. How many women do you think would go for that? I'm betting, virtually none. And why? Well, some would not do it for reasons of embarassment, others wouldn't do it because women view men as sexually rapacious. Is that a sexist comment? Is it sexist to note that the overwhelming majority of rapists are men, or is that simply a statistical fact? That could be construed as "sexist," or that's simply the reality.

My contention is that women who choose to take more traditional roles are often castigated, not by men, but by other women who disapprove of their demure behavior. Why?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:32:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:15:30 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But this could be said of anything. Women have more parental rights than men, generally speaking. 97 out of 100 times, parents would rather a female babysit their kids than a male.

This is most likely because women have a greater proclivity for a maternal instinct.

Men are expected to pick up the tab.

This is due to two reasons: 1. men are expected to make all the money (or, at the very least, more money), and 2. because men are usually the "puruers." If a woman invites you out, I'm pretty sure it's assumed that you're going dutch -- or, she may even offer to pay. I've been taken out by women several times, literally. She paid for everything, and didn't give it a second thought. It was quite nice, actually.

Men are expected to defend a women in violent encounters,

Because, generally speaking, men are better equipped to defend themselves.

not the other way around. Men, for thousands and thousands of years, are expected to fight for their country or their tribe, and die on account of that.

Pretty much the same story, although there are quite a number of women currently in the military, and quite a few historical military leaders that were female.

These are obvious disparities between the gender, but do we as a society consider that inherent sexism? No, most don't. Most don't even bat an eyelash.

Not really... there are innate differences and social differences. Whereas its understandible that women are expected to go on maternal leave, for example, it should not be expected that someone swear themselves into a position with the assupmtion that they will never take a vacataion until retirement.

Let's be real. People are very fvcked up to women.:

I see it going both ways for different things. Some things are hardwired by DNA, some things exist because of thousands of years of social conditioning.

And, of course, other still exist due to sexism.

But perhaps we could try a pet experiment where we suggest, in the interest of "equality," that men and women use the same restrooms, and stop partitioning them off by sex. How many women do you think would go for that? I'm betting, virtually none.

I disagree, if only because I've seen women jump into male restrooms before, either because they needed to, or because they wanted to. It's more than people don't want men in women's restrooms, because...

And why? Well, some would not do it for reasons of embarassment, others wouldn't do it because women view men as sexually rapacious.

Exactly. But, why is this relevant? Because, on average, men are better equipped to physically overcome a woman. That is a biological reality. Whether or not women are equually (or more or less) inclined to take advantage of another sexually (and, especially within the last few years, it seems that female child molestation has become relatively popular) is ultimately irrelevant, given that probably something like 7 or 8 times out of ten, a woman may try to rape a male, but would fail, either because he welcomes it, or because she cannot physically overcome him.

Is that a sexist comment? Is it sexist to note that the overwhelming majority of rapists are men, or is that simply a statistical fact? That could be construed as "sexist," or that's simply the reality.

Well... actually, it is somewhat sexist, as it's not entirely true. Particularly regarding children. But, it is fact that men are more inclined to successfully rape women. Therein lay the difference between science and bigotry.

My contention is that women who choose to take more traditional roles are often castigated, not by men, but by other women who disapprove of their demure behavior. Why?

Well, I would figure because they're counteracting centuries of progress. Women who leave themselves, for all intents and purposes, at the mercy of men, are simply proliferating a mindset that has limited women's potential. So, in other words, those asssholes at work that sexually harrass the women in their office and refuse to give promotions to women who deserve it, or who pay their male employees better than their female empoyees, likely have "traditional" women at home that reinforce their bigotry.

Housewives are anachronistic, after all. Moreover, children need fathers just as much as they need mothers. But, it really all just depends. For women who do this out of choice, and still refuse to live under their husband or lovers' thumb, I don't see why there's any need for hostility.

But, then again, how would you react to a househusband?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 12:08:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is most likely because women have a greater proclivity for a maternal instinct.:

And men have a greater proclivity for paternal instinct.

Men are expected to pick up the tab.

This is due to two reasons: 1. men are expected to make all the money (or, at the very least, more money), and 2. because men are usually the "puruers." If a woman invites you out, I'm pretty sure it's assumed that you're going dutch -- or, she may even offer to pay. I've been taken out by women several times, literally. She paid for everything, and didn't give it a second thought. It was quite nice, actually.:

The point of the exercise is to show that it goes both ways. You could anecdotally find an exception to every rule.

Men are expected to defend a women in violent encounters,

Because, generally speaking, men are better equipped to defend themselves.:

You sexist pig!!!! ;)

Not really... there are innate differences and social differences. Whereas its understandible that women are expected to go on maternal leave, for example, it should not be expected that someone swear themselves into a position with the assupmtion that they will never take a vacataion until retirement.:

That's pretty inconsequential to the greater theme.

And, of course, other still exist due to sexism.:

Agreed. I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist at all, only pointing out the charge seems to generally flow in one direction.

I disagree, if only because I've seen women jump into male restrooms before, either because they needed to, or because they wanted to. It's more than people don't want men in women's restrooms, because...:

Because it's an old custom that hasn't really been thought about conscientiously. The same could be said of alot of social mores that pass as sexism. Case in point, picking up the tab. The obligatory male response is to be "gentlemanly" and pick up the tab. Most women haven't complained about that or "ladies night." Of those that do, I think it's important to note that there is no malicious intent when a man offers to pay for a woman's food/drinks. It's customary. Unfortunately, a lot of things that seem like normative behavior can be viewed as sexist.

Exactly. But, why is this relevant? Because, on average, men are better equipped to physically overcome a woman. That is a biological reality. Whether or not women are equually (or more or less) inclined to take advantage of another sexually (and, especially within the last few years, it seems that female child molestation has become relatively popular) is ultimately irrelevant, given that probably something like 7 or 8 times out of ten, a woman may try to rape a male, but would fail, either because he welcomes it, or because she cannot physically overcome him.:

Again, I'm simply pointing out the disparity. Just because a man may have the physical capacity to rape doesn't (obviously) de facto make him a rapist.

Well, I would figure because they're counteracting centuries of progress. Women who leave themselves, for all intents and purposes, at the mercy of men, are simply proliferating a mindset that has limited women's potential. So, in other words, those asssholes at work that sexually harrass the women in their office and refuse to give promotions to women who deserve it, or who pay their male employees better than their female empoyees, likely have "traditional" women at home that reinforce their bigotry.:

But who is being bigoted? Is there anything inherently wrong with a woman, of her own volition, choosing a traditional role? Working women who snub their noses at non-working women seems like the bigotry is coming from them, not the other way around.

But, then again, how would you react to a househusband?:

That he's a lazy sack of sh*t who refuses to support his family ;)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 1:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 12:52:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.

Look at it this way. I little kid is stuck in a well for a few days without food or water and when they fish him out he's on the verge of starvation. In his absence the kid's brother has gotten to eat twice as much as usual, his food and his missing brother's food. So when the brother gets back from his ordeal, they decide to start giving the double portions to him instead. After a single day of fasting the second brother starts getting pissy and demanding that his recovering brother be given only his own portion, even though he is still slightly malnourished.

The second brother may have a point (in that he should still be given SOME food) but he's also being a spoiled brat who is belittling the enormity of his brother's suffering.

State socialists: Analogizing you to children since 428 BC.

Oh, we're playing the assumption game now?

Neo-Nazi Islamists: making up bvllshit since 101
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 1:44:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 12:55:13 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not what I'm saying, I agree completely that inequality in the opposite direction does not lead to equality. However the point that I was making was that the extent to which people b!tch and complain about even the slightest notion of feminism is sickening (in my opinion).
Even if something is wrong, don't complain about it. Hmm?


Your response is self defeating, if I understand it correctly, because you're saying that people are justified to complain about feminism but feminists are not justified to complain about sexism.

get why people might feel that way, but if conservative traditionalists were really so concerned with individual liberties, then THEY would be the ones out there crying for women to be free to live in any way that they want
There's more to the world than left wingers and traditionalists.

That doesn't defeat my point. The mantra of most conservatives to today is 'individual liberties'. So why is it that when feminists adopt the same mantra for themselves it suddenly becomes unreasonable?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 1:45:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 1:34:44 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/31/2012 12:52:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.

Look at it this way. I little kid is stuck in a well for a few days without food or water and when they fish him out he's on the verge of starvation. In his absence the kid's brother has gotten to eat twice as much as usual, his food and his missing brother's food. So when the brother gets back from his ordeal, they decide to start giving the double portions to him instead. After a single day of fasting the second brother starts getting pissy and demanding that his recovering brother be given only his own portion, even though he is still slightly malnourished.

The second brother may have a point (in that he should still be given SOME food) but he's also being a spoiled brat who is belittling the enormity of his brother's suffering.

State socialists: Analogizing you to children since 428 BC.

Oh, we're playing the assumption game now?

Neo-Nazi Islamists: making up bvllshit since 101

Really though, if you actually think I'm a statist I invite you to take a look at my issues and political compass.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 4:50:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:32:28 AM, Ren wrote:
Well, I would figure because they're counteracting centuries of progress. Women who leave themselves, for all intents and purposes, at the mercy of men, are simply proliferating a mindset that has limited women's potential. So, in other words, those asssholes at work that sexually harrass the women in their office and refuse to give promotions to women who deserve it, or who pay their male employees better than their female empoyees, likely have "traditional" women at home that reinforce their bigotry.

Maybe try reading the OP? If it isn't too hard?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:34:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 1:34:44 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/31/2012 12:52:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.

Look at it this way. I little kid is stuck in a well for a few days without food or water and when they fish him out he's on the verge of starvation. In his absence the kid's brother has gotten to eat twice as much as usual, his food and his missing brother's food. So when the brother gets back from his ordeal, they decide to start giving the double portions to him instead. After a single day of fasting the second brother starts getting pissy and demanding that his recovering brother be given only his own portion, even though he is still slightly malnourished.

The second brother may have a point (in that he should still be given SOME food) but he's also being a spoiled brat who is belittling the enormity of his brother's suffering.

State socialists: Analogizing you to children since 428 BC.

Oh, we're playing the assumption game now?

Neo-Nazi Islamists: making up bvllshit since 101
The admission of your status as a socialist and a supporter of many state interventions indeed is on your profile dude.

Really though, if you actually think I'm a statist I invite you to take a look at my issues and political compass.
I actually kind of did that before making that accusation.

"Democratic Socialists Party"
You're a socialist. And democracy, which is an absolutist form of statism.
"Progressive"
You're a socialist.

". From the looks of my political compass I should be an anarcho communist, but I'm really just a democratic socialist"
Translation: But not the anarchist part. Therefore you're a state socialist, there's no in-between (minarchy) to be found on the socialist end of the spectrum because it wouldn't make sense (socialism means that the state, or for anarcho-socialists I dunno what but something, controls the 'means of production'. Which means ALL the means of production. Which means basically everything involved in human action, since every such thing is a factor of producing something or other.) At least that's how its advocates usually define it, if you wanted to be looked at differently than that you should have clarified. No min- compromise about it, if you're a socialist and support the state, then since a socialist state cannot conceivably be strictly limited to retaliation, you deserve the label "statist."
Sure you claim "you believe strongly in personal freedom." But that' can't be squared with the rest of what you say. The freedom to have gay sex is a lot less substantial without the freedom to mass-produce condoms and lube without government intervention, and neither harms any nonconsenters.

"Progressive tax: Pro."
You support the initiation of force to fund a state.

"National Health CarePro"
You support a state so broad in purpose that it sticks its nose in health care.

"There should be SOME degree of regulation." (under free trade0
You didn't specify. Giving a blank check to government is a very statist thing to do.

What happened in 101? Which 101? (And why wouldn't I label years from before the hijra if I were a "neo-nazi islamist?" 428, or maybe 427, is when Plato was born, in case you respond with a similar question.)

Your response is self defeating, if I understand it correctly, because you're saying that people are justified to complain about feminism but feminists are not justified to complain about sexism.
I don't believe I said the latter anywhere. Care to find it?

That doesn't defeat my point. The mantra of most conservatives to today is 'individual liberties'. So why is it that when feminists adopt the same mantra for themselves it suddenly becomes unreasonable?
First off people self-labelling themselves as "conservative" are not likely to be genuine about their desire for individual liberties.

Second, self-labelled feminists are not likely to be genuine about it either, and too frequently don't even pay it lip service.

Thirdly which complaint about feminism here was about its alleged defense of individual libertie (excluding any claims that that allegation is false)?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:34:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2012 1:34:44 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/31/2012 12:52:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/30/2012 10:24:34 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There's nothing more fvcking nauseating than a white man wailing about feminists.

Look at it this way. I little kid is stuck in a well for a few days without food or water and when they fish him out he's on the verge of starvation. In his absence the kid's brother has gotten to eat twice as much as usual, his food and his missing brother's food. So when the brother gets back from his ordeal, they decide to start giving the double portions to him instead. After a single day of fasting the second brother starts getting pissy and demanding that his recovering brother be given only his own portion, even though he is still slightly malnourished.

The second brother may have a point (in that he should still be given SOME food) but he's also being a spoiled brat who is belittling the enormity of his brother's suffering.

State socialists: Analogizing you to children since 428 BC.

Oh, we're playing the assumption game now?

Neo-Nazi Islamists: making up bvllshit since 101
The admission of your status as a socialist and a supporter of many state interventions indeed is on your profile dude.

Really though, if you actually think I'm a statist I invite you to take a look at my issues and political compass.
I actually kind of did that before making that accusation.

"Democratic Socialists Party"
You're a socialist. And democracy, which is an absolutist form of statism.
"Progressive"
You're a socialist.

". From the looks of my political compass I should be an anarcho communist, but I'm really just a democratic socialist"
Translation: But not the anarchist part. Therefore you're a state socialist, there's no in-between (minarchy) to be found on the socialist end of the spectrum because it wouldn't make sense (socialism means that the state, or for anarcho-socialists I dunno what but something, controls the 'means of production'. Which means ALL the means of production. Which means basically everything involved in human action, since every such thing is a factor of producing something or other.) At least that's how its advocates usually define it, if you wanted to be looked at differently than that you should have clarified. No min- compromise about it, if you're a socialist and support the state, then since a socialist state cannot conceivably be strictly limited to retaliation, you deserve the label "statist."
Sure you claim "you believe strongly in personal freedom." But that' can't be squared with the rest of what you say. The freedom to have gay sex is a lot less substantial without the freedom to mass-produce condoms and lube without government intervention, and neither harms any nonconsenters.

"Progressive tax: Pro."
You support the initiation of force to fund a state.


"National Health CarePro"
You support a state so broad in purpose that it sticks its nose in health care.


"There should be SOME degree of regulation." (under free trade0
You didn't specify. Giving a blank check to government is a very statist thing to do.


Your entire argument is based on the narrow minded assumption that there is no middle ground between state socialists and anarcho-socialists. As long as you keep thinking like that, we won't be able to make much headway in this part of the discussion.

I think that what I wrote under Socialism sums up my feelings: I don't want the state to control the people, I want the state to help the people. I also believe in a regulated free market, but I'm sure you saw that.

That means that I want the state to be kept well under the control of voters and under mandatory transparency, but I also think that the state should provide services to the people. This paranoid idea that the moment that the state lifts a finger that that finger is going to pull the trigger on a gun against the populace's head seems to prevent you from seeing this middle ground.


What happened in 101? Which 101? (And why wouldn't I label years from before the hijra if I were a "neo-nazi islamist?" 428, or maybe 427, is when Plato was born, in case you respond with a similar question.)


Nothing happened that I'm aware of, I made it up because I assumed that you made up the idea that something of significance to your point happened in 428 BC.

Your response is self defeating, if I understand it correctly, because you're saying that people are justified to complain about feminism but feminists are not justified to complain about sexism.
I don't believe I said the latter anywhere. Care to find it?


You said something to the effect of, "If there's something wrong don't complain, eh?" It's possible that I misunderstood you.

That doesn't defeat my point. The mantra of most conservatives to today is 'individual liberties'. So why is it that when feminists adopt the same mantra for themselves it suddenly becomes unreasonable?
First off people self-labelling themselves as "conservative" are not likely to be genuine about their desire for individual liberties.

Second, self-labelled feminists are not likely to be genuine about it either, and too frequently don't even pay it lip service.

Thirdly which complaint about feminism here was about its alleged defense of individual libertie (excluding any claims that that allegation is false)?

The point I was making was that feminism and rightist libertarianism (yes I know that I said conservatism before, but this is what I meant) both claim that they value individual liberties. Even if one or both of them is going overboard in their pursuit of said liberties, why are the claims of feminists not treated the same way as the claims of libertarians?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK