Feminism and the Men's Right's Movements

[krukstyle]

equally capable is somewhat.. i dunno.. generalized? in any given field of endeavor woman and men have capabilities that can make them equally useful. equally capable of success. but the skill sets probably are different. as an example: men in general have brains that have enhanced centers for spatial reasoning... or mentally manipulating dimensions in 3 dimensions. women score lower on average, and the highest percentile is lower than men's when testing that specific trait. so in a field where spatial reasoning is key like masonry for an instance then men will indeed perform better overall.

similarly, multi tasking is a skill that women out test men on to a similar percentile, so in tasks where that is key they will out perform. data processing is the job that comes to mind on that basis. being able to mentally balance several streams of data and merge them is essential for that job and therefore women will dominate in that field.

If the assumption of equal capability is a generalization, then so is the idea that men—as a group—are inherently more capable at performing certain tasks than women and vice-versa, regardless of what scientific/anatomical studies are used to justify such an assumption. The key here is that each individual is able to have an equal opportunity to demonstrate/prove their capability without being hindered or assisted by assumptions/generalizations associated with said individual’s given sex. Even if it were a fact that most men are better at task A and that most women are better at task B, it is unfair and even dangerous to then blanket individuals under these generalizations, as the abilities of these individuals may be in complete contradiction with the skill sets of most men or most women.

i believe that is the distinction luna was talking about, that there are differences between the genders that may give an inherent advantage in one thing or another. and in the case of a physical running race it would probably be males who finish first (depending on the individuals in the heat). i don't think it an insulting premise, nor do i feel that it should be construed that way

For me, the insulting aspect of the 4’ versus 5’ runners is that the example has a built-in bias against the 4’ runners. Assuming we aren’t actually talking about a running race here—and I’m pretty sure we’re not—this example would lead one to believe that the 4’ runners are at an inherent disadvantage regardless of the task at hand, and that both the 4’ and 5’ runners are given an equal opportunity to win the race. Even if we were to say that in some of the “races” that men are the 4’ runners and women are the 5’ runners, the example is still clumping sexes and their abilities together in a way that suggests something far from a level playing ground. Really, you nailed it by saying “depending on the individuals in the heat”—because this is what the “race” should actually be measuring: the abilities of each individual runner regardless of their sex.

When we stick women (or men) with the 4’ runner label, we are implying that the race is completely fair, even-steven—all runners are being given an equal opportunity to win the race, the 4’ runners simply are not as able. The problem is—as described in Steph’s altered scenario—is that women are not being given a fair shot to compete in the race. While I agree opportunities for women are certainly “on the rise,” to assume that the playing field is completely level and not tilted against the female sex is complacent and dangerous. There is still an inherent gender bias festering deep within the core of our society—and there is a hell of a long way to go before it is vanquished.

 

[SexySteph]

Women-only spaces? Such as...??

here in the south (where men still have hold out places that are male only) the women only places i've run into is a pretty short list. gyms, spas, hair/aesthetics salons, tanning salons, exotic dancing revues with all male dancers, a few non-exotic dancing bars, one diet center, one reading/book meeting, one crafting class, and one cooking class (though that also had a male only class at a different time). ok maybe the list isnt as short after all.

imo nothing wrong with having space where either gender can mingle with others in a place free of the other. it can be very refreshing.

Wait. Are you telling me there's an actual "no men allowed" rule in these places? :shock:
I have never come across anything like this where I live.

yes maam. in the case of one of the gyms men cant even enter past the lobby, and no memberships are allowed. there is a spa up in the mountains of NC that will not accept bookings for men, and several others where you get put at the end of a looong waiting list that never seems to get to any males. i as far as the male dancers, the two in charlotte that have them wont even let a guy in the door at all (i tried one of them when my sis needed a pick up after too much drinking, and the other to drop off some money i owed to a friend who was one of the dancers). the others i have only been told about, but by people who were actual members or participants, so i tend to believe them

That's weird... I've never even HEARD of that! That's just bad business sense, you're losing out on a whole set of clientele there. (Though like lesbian bars I would kind of understand because some guys might use it as a hang out for "FREE pr0nz!!") But, as to what Luna was saying, I bet most feminists would decry that all as equally sexist. (What, men don't want a facial ever? False.)

 

[zippypinhead]

The feminist movement works! Hooray for vaginas!

http://www.wlfi.com/dpp/news/crime/mom-who-deals-heroin-avoids-prison
http://www.wlfi.com/dpp/news/crime/meth-charges-bring-32-year-sentence

False comparison. Both are self-contained cases, and can't be held up against each other as standard outcomes for the given situation. Just because one woman got off and one man got convicted on drug charges (not even the same drug charges, by the way) doesn't mean that all women will get off and all men will be convicted.

Everyone equates the feminist movement to the radical feminist who are the "man haters" and give all the women a bad name. Liberal feminist do good work towards equal rights such as voting and equal pay. I am all for common sense women's rights.

Are you really? Because your arguments seem to say differently.

Since this is a cam girl forum why are there no cam men? You should petition MFC for equal employment rights for men on the website and not work in protest till they let men cam!

That's a bad example to use. When it comes to men on cam, MFC's disallowance is the exception to the industry standard, and not the rule. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another major camsite that doesn't have men's and couple's camming categories.

While were making things equal and all you hard working ladies should be equal too. Lets pay all the cam girls the same rate since you all work so hard. All the tokens at the end of the month get divided equally and you ladies should be happy being equals right?

They do. On MFC, all models get paid $0.05 per token, no matter what.

The biggest problem is men and women are inherently different and will never be the same, yet everyone is hell bent on making everything equal for some reason. There will always be winners and always be losers. Everyone wants to better themselves and someone will have to pay so you can get ahead. The Yin and the Yang.

I can't even wrap my head around the logic that implies "people are different" means also "people don't deserve equal rights." Please do elaborate, if you will.

All you lovely cam girls help this happen everyday. The men lose and the women win. Yes this is a little simplistic but it is the nature of the business. The men are more than happy to lose though since we love the women here.

Oh, yeah, camming is a racket that's really weighted to benefit only women. It's not as if the people who typically own these sites -- which all have earned some reliable reputation for screwing people over via predatory contracts, mishandling payment, mishandling customer service, arbitrarily enforcing rules, not protecting their performers, and so on, and so on -- are men.

Instead of settling for equality, we should strive to be better and make a better life for our self.

Yeah, that's what equal rights' movements are doing. And earning equality is not "settling".

 

[krukstyle]

The biggest problem is men and women are inherently different and will never be the same, yet everyone is hell bent on making everything equal for some reason. There will always be winners and always be losers. Everyone wants to better themselves and someone will have to pay so you can get ahead. The Yin and the Yang.

I can't even wrap my head around the logic that implies "people are different" means also "people don't deserve equal rights." Please do elaborate, if you will.

^^^^

This! Exactly this. :dance: :thumbleft:

Edit:

Instead of settling for equality, we should strive to be better and make a better life for our self.

Yeah, that's what equal rights' movements are doing. And earning equality is not "settling".

Whoops--this too! Totally this!

 

[zippypinhead]

I'm also fairly sure that women currently have the same opportunities that men do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the outcomes will be the same. For example, just because a 4' tall person can run a race with the 5' tall people, doesn't mean that as many 4' tall people will win races as 5' tall people.

Also, your metaphor is insulting, because it implies that women are the 4' tall persons and men are the 5', meaning that yes, women have the same opportunities as men but they don't get the same outcomes because they're not as capable as men.
I disagree. A better metaphor would be a race run with 5' tall people in t-shirts and 5' tall people in tanks but the people with tanks on get held back at the beginning while the t-shirt runners are allowed a lead. Or the tank runners have to run farther in the same amount of time to be considered a winner.
Men and women are EQUALLY capable of the same things.
And women don't have the same opportunities. Just look at how the break down of professors is at college. More women graduate from college, we also more women assistant professors than men but for some reason the ranks of full professors is PACKED with males. Even though for every 4 female APs there's one male. But the male's get the promotions. But, I guess the women have the same opportunities, they just wouldn't make as good full professors as the guys would, right?

equally capable is somewhat.. i dunno.. generalized? in any given field of endeavor woman and men have capabilities that can make them equally useful. equally capable of success. but the skill sets probably are different. as an example: men in general have brains that have enhanced centers for spatial reasoning... or mentally manipulating dimensions in 3 dimensions. women score lower on average, and the highest percentile is lower than men's when testing that specific trait. so in a field where spatial reasoning is key like masonry for an instance then men will indeed perform better overall.
similarly, multi tasking is a skill that women out test men on to a similar percentile, so in tasks where that is key they will out perform. data processing is the job that comes to mind on that basis. being able to mentally balance several streams of data and merge them is essential for that job and therefore women will dominate in that field.

i believe that is the distinction luna was talking about, that there are differences between the genders that may give an inherent advantage in one thing or another. and in the case of a physical running race it would probably be males who finish first (depending on the individuals in the heat). i don't think it an insulting premise, nor do i feel that it should be construed that way

i dont mean to belittle or ignore the real intent of your post here miss steph. you are quite accurate that in a lot of fields there is still a huge disparity in promotion, pay, benefits and respect. professors being just one of many, business management is another biggie. the percentage difference for male vs female CEOs is still huge. lawyers given partnerships is another.
but, and this is a key but here, the time is long past when females are refused to even get the shot to achieve. the bias isnt nation wide, nor even industry wide in most cases. (the law enforcement old boy's club is a big exception to that) the bias seems to be slowly phasing out as younger men and women take over the reins of businesses, education etc... it will be another generation or two before t becomes a rare and unusual occurrence, but the trend is shifting towards equity at the top. i think that the root of the existing bias is that the previous generation always holds dominance at the top of a field until they are supplanted in some fashion, so old ways of thinking hold sway. given enough time and effort the smart folks will win out and the ignorance of thought that is the glass ceiling will go the way of the dinosaur.

The problem with relying upon the physiological differences between men and women as evidence of a rational explanation for inequality is that humans develop technology to overcome their physical limitations. Your examples, for instance, can be overcome through use of common appliances these days. Does it matter if men can run faster than women if we're all in cars? Even in the the earlier illustrations featuring hunter-gatherers, once tools were developed and refined to complete the jobs at hand with increasing efficiency, physical limitations were lessened, and the roles imposed on one group or another became more a matter of culture.

 

[SexySteph]

I'm also fairly sure that women currently have the same opportunities that men do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the outcomes will be the same. For example, just because a 4' tall person can run a race with the 5' tall people, doesn't mean that as many 4' tall people will win races as 5' tall people.

Also, your metaphor is insulting, because it implies that women are the 4' tall persons and men are the 5', meaning that yes, women have the same opportunities as men but they don't get the same outcomes because they're not as capable as men.
I disagree. A better metaphor would be a race run with 5' tall people in t-shirts and 5' tall people in tanks but the people with tanks on get held back at the beginning while the t-shirt runners are allowed a lead. Or the tank runners have to run farther in the same amount of time to be considered a winner.
Men and women are EQUALLY capable of the same things.
And women don't have the same opportunities. Just look at how the break down of professors is at college. More women graduate from college, we also more women assistant professors than men but for some reason the ranks of full professors is PACKED with males. Even though for every 4 female APs there's one male. But the male's get the promotions. But, I guess the women have the same opportunities, they just wouldn't make as good full professors as the guys would, right?

equally capable is somewhat.. i dunno.. generalized? in any given field of endeavor woman and men have capabilities that can make them equally useful. equally capable of success. but the skill sets probably are different. as an example: men in general have brains that have enhanced centers for spatial reasoning... or mentally manipulating dimensions in 3 dimensions. women score lower on average, and the highest percentile is lower than men's when testing that specific trait. so in a field where spatial reasoning is key like masonry for an instance then men will indeed perform better overall.
similarly, multi tasking is a skill that women out test men on to a similar percentile, so in tasks where that is key they will out perform. data processing is the job that comes to mind on that basis. being able to mentally balance several streams of data and merge them is essential for that job and therefore women will dominate in that field.

i believe that is the distinction luna was talking about, that there are differences between the genders that may give an inherent advantage in one thing or another. and in the case of a physical running race it would probably be males who finish first (depending on the individuals in the heat). i don't think it an insulting premise, nor do i feel that it should be construed that way

i dont mean to belittle or ignore the real intent of your post here miss steph. you are quite accurate that in a lot of fields there is still a huge disparity in promotion, pay, benefits and respect. professors being just one of many, business management is another biggie. the percentage difference for male vs female CEOs is still huge. lawyers given partnerships is another.
but, and this is a key but here, the time is long past when females are refused to even get the shot to achieve. the bias isnt nation wide, nor even industry wide in most cases. (the law enforcement old boy's club is a big exception to that) the bias seems to be slowly phasing out as younger men and women take over the reins of businesses, education etc... it will be another generation or two before t becomes a rare and unusual occurrence, but the trend is shifting towards equity at the top. i think that the root of the existing bias is that the previous generation always holds dominance at the top of a field until they are supplanted in some fashion, so old ways of thinking hold sway. given enough time and effort the smart folks will win out and the ignorance of thought that is the glass ceiling will go the way of the dinosaur.

The problem with relying upon the physiological differences between men and women as evidence of a rational explanation for inequality is that humans develop technology to overcome their physical limitations. Your examples, for instance, can be overcome through use of common appliances these days. Does it matter if men can run faster than women if we're all in cars? Even in the the earlier illustrations featuring hunter-gatherers, once tools were developed and refined to complete the jobs at hand with increasing efficiency, physical limitations were lessened, and the roles imposed on one group or another became more a matter of culture.

Agreed.
Also, a lot of psychological differences are created. Up until a certain age boys and girls both excel at the same subjects. But then around 10-12 the boys start pulling ahead in math and girls in reading. But, in the years leading up to that, teachers push boys into math and girls into reading because they're each 'gender appropriate'. So who's to say that men actually have greater spatial reasoning or, perhaps that is just a result of the talent they have in math due to social conditioning and the extra attention they were told to give to it in their formative years. And likewise, women with nurturing "Suzie, go play with your baby dolls." "Aww, Jessica, you have such a cute little family!" (said to a little girl playing house) and of course "No son of mine will be playing with dolls!" We push children into the roles that society has prescribed, so really, we CREATE gender differences probably more than they're "inate".

 

[southsamurai]

If the assumption of equal capability is a generalization, then so is the idea that men—as a group—are inherently more capable at performing certain tasks than women and vice-versa, regardless of what scientific/anatomical studies are used to justify such an assumption. The key here is that each individual is able to have an equal opportunity to demonstrate/prove their capability without being hindered or assisted by assumptions/generalizations associated with said individual’s given sex. Even if it were a fact that most men are better at task A and that most women are better at task B, it is unfair and even dangerous to then blanket individuals under these generalizations, as the abilities of these individuals may be in complete contradiction with the skill sets of most men or most women.





For me, the insulting aspect of the 4’ versus 5’ runners is that the example has a built-in bias against the 4’ runners. Assuming we aren’t actually talking about a running race here—and I’m pretty sure we’re not—this example would lead one to believe that the 4’ runners are at an inherent disadvantage regardless of the task at hand, and that both the 4’ and 5’ runners are given an equal opportunity to win the race. Even if we were to say that in some of the “races” that men are the 4’ runners and women are the 5’ runners, the example is still clumping sexes and their abilities together in a way that suggests something far from a level playing ground. Really, you nailed it by saying “depending on the individuals in the heat”—because this is what the “race” should actually be measuring: the abilities of each individual runner regardless of their sex.

When we stick women (or men) with the 4’ runner label, we are implying that the race is completely fair, even-steven—all runners are being given an equal opportunity to win the race, the 4’ runners simply are not as able. The problem is—as described in Steph’s altered scenario—is that women are not being given a fair shot to compete in the race. While I agree opportunities for women are certainly “on the rise,” to assume that the playing field is completely level and not tilted against the female sex is complacent and dangerous. There is still an inherent gender bias festering deep within the core of our society—and there is a hell of a long way to go before it is vanquished.

hmmmm. valid points across the board, and i thank you for your viewpoint.
to clarify my points, i was speaking of bell curves, averages and the peaks or outliers rather than saying that because one group has a higher average and higher outliers that it validates poor behavior. it was to illustrate that there are differences between any artificial sub groupings you might choose (in this case men and women). thus if you compare groups with each other there can be (and usually is) one group that is better than another at that task. if you are going to generalize, you have to be specific about it lol. the broader you paint, the bigger the brush you need. therefore, while we should always classify and judge individuals as individuals rather than by a grouping label, we sometimes have to in order to discuss groups at all. so if that is taken into account my previous post should be still valid within that scope ( i.e. that we are talking about feminism, and related ideas of gender disparity).

i'm not going to pick apart why or why not the 4' vs 5' runners analogy may or may not be insulting because of its content, as any such analogy or metaphor is there for the purposes of framing a discussion, and cant be an insult in my eyes. it makes more sense to either refer to that frame of reference as a discussion point or to posit a new one. i chose, and choose to accept it as nothing more than that.

again, let me state that i see the unfairness of how things currently work. it should change. i point out the changes that are happening not to say that it is all over and done with, but to show where i think the effort of change should be directed as it continues. early on new laws were needed and were emplaced. then enforcement of those laws had to take place to effect change. since those first steps have worked and the results of them have proven that women can indeed do any job, and do it well (as a group, because some women may suck at a job as individuals) the cultural mindset has begun to change. men in general ( though some specific men may still be backwards dolts) see now that having women in our society with an equal footing is a good thing, and so do women. we are still in the phase of social shifting of principle. most people tend to agree with the idea of equality. even the ones who dont practice it themselves bow to social pressures on the surface.

the goal of creating real equality is not to browbeat neanderthals into agreeing with change. it is to shift the thought and mindset of the society as a whole. and, as my previous post mentioned, this means that sometimes patience and time is required to filter out the old ways of thought from power. legislating thought is a bad thought, so we sort of get stuck for 4 or 5 generations sometimes letting the new ways trickle through.

this is not complacency, nor is it dangerous. it is simply realistic. by stating this viewpoint my intent was no more than to give a way of adjusting the force of progress in equality towards what would be more useful. (of course, useful as i define it lol) that method being the use of power in the hands of forward thinkers who already have it to edge out those who who would hold things back.

and whew, that was a handful!

 

[BetsyBooty]

Thank you to all who posted above for a very interesting thread. I especially appreciated the debunking of myths about feminists Steph posted.

This bit below touches an area of feminism I have trouble with. (And pardon the out-of-context quote; I just want to use it as a reference point for further discussion.)

Men and women are EQUALLY capable of the same things.

Feminist philosophies vary widely, of course, but many of them seem to share an ideal of gender equality that minimizes or erases the differences between men and woman. As Aella and South and others pointed out already, gender distinction is real and inherent, and there is nothing wrong with that. Gender roles also exist. Their origins may be cultural or evolutionary; they may be useful or harmful. But at any rate, they do exist. Biology, tradition, socialization and training make men and women different and, I believe, unequally capable of different things.

Needless to say, differences that arise from denial of opportunity to one gender are no good. But these are murky waters, and many feminist philosophies tend to simplify matters such that all gender roles and distinctions get condemned as patriarchal.

I find certain gender roles lovely. If a man wants to buy me dinner or lift something heavy for me, because such things give him a satisfying sense of providing and protecting, I'll gladly accept. If I then want to give him head and cook him breakfast, because such things make me feel nurturing, I bet he'll gladly accept too. These are enactions of traditional gender roles, and my life would be less rich (and, notably, way less sexually satisfying) if I chose to feel demeaned by them.

By no means do I think gender roles should be enforced, and I love when people turn them upside-down. I do think, though, that they can be harmlessly enjoyed, exploited or appreciated.

What I found particularly fascinating about the "Feminism and the Disposable Male" vid that Luna posted (and thank you for posting that, super interesting) was that GirlWritesWhat sort of agreed with feminists that gender roles are generally retrograde and should be diminished. She views 'old-school chivalry' as devaluation of men. I suspect many soldiers and firefighters, for examples, take pride in the chivalrous aspects of their work, and the self-sacrificial risks they take, rather than feeling diminished and 'disposable.' Should men be forced to sink with the ship while women and children get lifeboat seats? Of course not. But I think the chivalrous male is a gender role we can still respect, just as we can respect the nurturing female. Likewise can we respect chivalrous women and nurturing men.

 

[Red7227]

That's weird... I've never even HEARD of that! That's just bad business sense, you're losing out on a whole set of clientele there. (Though like lesbian bars I would kind of understand because some guys might use it as a hang out for "FREE pr0nz!!") But, as to what Luna was saying, I bet most feminists would decry that all as equally sexist. (What, men don't want a facial ever? False.)

We have women only gyms in in Australia and even gyms advertised as lycra-free. So not only can you go to gyms were there are no men, you can go to gyms where the other women don't get to advertise their success by wearing lycra.

At the moment we also have women only nights at the local public baths for all the muslim women about at the moment. That is being challenged as the grounds are religious and that sort of distinction is not appropriate for a public venue.

Japan has women only cars on their trains because of the practice of some Japanese men to grope women when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[SexySteph]

That's weird... I've never even HEARD of that! That's just bad business sense, you're losing out on a whole set of clientele there. (Though like lesbian bars I would kind of understand because some guys might use it as a hang out for "FREE pr0nz!!") But, as to what Luna was saying, I bet most feminists would decry that all as equally sexist. (What, men don't want a facial ever? False.)

We have women only gyms in in Australia and even gyms advertised as lycra-free. So not only can you go to gyms were there are no men, you can go to gyms where the other women don't get to advertise their success by wearing lycra.

At the moment we also have women only nights at the local public baths for all the muslim women about at the moment. That is being challenged as the grounds are religious and that sort of distinction is not appropriate for a public venue.

Japan has women only cars on their trains because of the practice of some Japanese men to grope women when the opportunity presents itself.

Huh, that's really interesting. The Japan thing though, I believe is PROBABLY a safety issue rather than sexist. Since typically the only people who have a frottage (I believe that's what doctors call that) fetish is men, so that's more of a "Hey, here's a safe place for you if you don't want to get groped by men.

 

[SexySteph]

I find certain gender roles lovely. If a man wants to buy me dinner or lift something heavy for me, because such things give him a satisfying sense of providing and protecting, I'll gladly accept. If I then want to give him head and cook him breakfast, because such things make me feel nurturing, I bet he'll gladly accept too. These are enactions of traditional gender roles, and my life would be less rich (and, notably, way less sexually satisfying) if I chose to feel demeaned by them.

I don't feel like we should see those things as a result of gender roles, though. My roommate doesn't open the door for me because I'm a woman, he opens the door for me because I'm a person. He doesn't buy me dinner because I'm a woman, he buys it because we're partners (in a very non traditional sense). On the occasions I cook, it's because I'm a damn good cook, not because I'm a woman.

BUT, if he were to stop me from opening doors "because you're a woman" or buy my meals "because I'm the man", that IS sexist and stupid. We should do things for each other because it's nice, it's fun to do or whatever reason. Not because "I have a vagina and you have a penis."

 

[southsamurai]

The problem with relying upon the physiological differences between men and women as evidence of a rational explanation for inequality is that humans develop technology to overcome their physical limitations. Your examples, for instance, can be overcome through use of common appliances these days. Does it matter if men can run faster than women if we're all in cars? Even in the the earlier illustrations featuring hunter-gatherers, once tools were developed and refined to complete the jobs at hand with increasing efficiency, physical limitations were lessened, and the roles imposed on one group or another became more a matter of culture.

Agreed.
Also, a lot of psychological differences are created. Up until a certain age boys and girls both excel at the same subjects. But then around 10-12 the boys start pulling ahead in math and girls in reading. But, in the years leading up to that, teachers push boys into math and girls into reading because they're each 'gender appropriate'. So who's to say that men actually have greater spatial reasoning or, perhaps that is just a result of the talent they have in math due to social conditioning and the extra attention they were told to give to it in their formative years. And likewise, women with nurturing "Suzie, go play with your baby dolls." "Aww, Jessica, you have such a cute little family!" (said to a little girl playing house) and of course "No son of mine will be playing with dolls!" We push children into the roles that society has prescribed, so really, we CREATE gender differences probably more than they're "inate".

please realize that i am not rationalizing inequality. i am not excusing it. i agree with the things zippy and steph say here. heck i agreed with almost all of what has been said on this specific tangent. i was writing on one subset of the total subject, not ignoring the other subsets mentioned above. i
chose to ignore the technology aspect of things because they cant really be used in a comparison between two sets of humans. of course a woman with bionic arms and legs can out powerlift a man, no matter how dedicated he trains (i know, that technology doesnt exist yet). but without technology, at any given weight class, males lift more than females. (and im tempted to insert a female drivers joke here, but i know better )

more importantly to respond to the new ideas rather than cover and reexplain the old ones: technology is part of what made modern equality efforts possible at all. without the smoky, ugly industrial revolution some kind of division of effort would still be in place due to child rearing needs. ( by that i mean 9 months of pregnancy, 6-18 months of feeding and weaning before a mother can be away from a child for extended periods of time) does that mean that women 200 years ago were less capable of doing any given task? hell no. it just means that they would have had to choose between a career or child rearing. back in the day even royalty and the merchant class had to hire wet nurses if the women wanted to do anything other than being a mother 24/7. formula and bottle feedings, breast pumps etc... give a freedom that just wasnt available all that long ago. well, not if producing spawn for the continuation of the species was important to an individual.

as to the nature/nurture debate there is a lot of it even among experts. we do know that testosterone levels influence brain development. it does enhance some sections of the brain more than others (as do the "female" hormones). testosterone levels are linked to spatial reasoning, as well as aggression, libido and a whole panopoly of other things. estrogen, progesterone and other hormones do similar. but women produce testosterone, if at lower levels, and men estrogen (not sure about the others, been too long since my school days) so how much of the changes that occur as children mature is hormonal and how much is the push into socially accepted roles?....myself, i was pushed into traditional male roles early on, and still sucked at most of them til i was much much older. it was the traditionally female gifts of empathy and language that i excelled at. my own experience leaves me with the impression that nurture and nature work together.

but i am certain that physical differences exist (for which i am eternally grateful... yay boobs and vag!, yay penis!). neither form of the human species is better than the other. better suited to some specific task or another? i believe so. but being more suited to something specific doesnt mean superior in every way.
and i think that ignoring the differences completely wastes some of the wonder that humans are capable of. if a woman wants to be a lumberjack, go to it i say. apply everything that the person has to the job and have fun. but it is still a job that takes a lot of physical effort and strength, so expect a longer period of adjustment for your body to catch up with the demands.
if a man wants to be a home maker, go to it, have fun, but expect to need lists and schedules to keep yourself on track until you get into a rhythm and you hone your multi tasking skills.

when either one of those examples gets adjusted they might well be better at the job than their traditionally gendered counterparts. they are probably going to bring something new and innovative to it since they have to find their own way to deal with their own biological and societal programming at some point.

btw it is so damn difficult to find any example other than home maker for men. like i said, the playing ground is not even and that is one of the few traditionally female roles that men dont already have a foot in all over the place. in place of lumberjack you could make a list hundreds long of male roles that women have to struggle just to get into, much less achieve placement and respect in. what other options of jobs would there be for men? teaching? plenty of male teachers. nursing? maybe so, but i can promise you that male nurses are valued highly. (im going to pretend that most of that isnt because of physical strength) child care? well that has been covered as to why men cant do well in that field, and it has nothing to do with questioning the ability, more the intent.

 

[zippypinhead]

One thing I'd like to point out, since it's been brought up as a talking point again and again, is that gender and sex are not interchangeable terms. Sex -- male and female -- is physical, and defined by biology. Gender -- masculine and feminine -- is cultural, and defined by behavior. I haven't read any arguments in this thread that has stated that males and females are physically the same. At greater issue regarding gender is whether those physical differences should define our behavior, categorize us into certain roles, and assign us certain rights. Because of the fluidity of gender (females can be masculine, males can be feminine) it's risky to try to try to assign gender traits to people based solely upon their sex.

So, yeah,

 

[BetsyBooty]

I find certain gender roles lovely. If a man wants to buy me dinner or lift something heavy for me, because such things give him a satisfying sense of providing and protecting, I'll gladly accept. If I then want to give him head and cook him breakfast, because such things make me feel nurturing, I bet he'll gladly accept too. These are enactions of traditional gender roles, and my life would be less rich (and, notably, way less sexually satisfying) if I chose to feel demeaned by them.

I don't feel like we should see those things as a result of gender roles, though. My roommate doesn't open the door for me because I'm a woman, he opens the door for me because I'm a person. He doesn't buy me dinner because I'm a woman, he buys it because we're partners (in a very non traditional sense). On the occasions I cook, it's because I'm a damn good cook, not because I'm a woman.

BUT, if he were to stop me from opening doors "because you're a woman" or buy my meals "because I'm the man", that IS sexist and stupid. We should do things for each other because it's nice, it's fun to do or whatever reason. Not because "I have a vagina and you have a penis."

I think this is where we have divergent feelings (yours no less valid than mine, naturally!): I enjoy it when men do certain things for me because of my vagina-having. Your assertion that we should not do things for these reasons, but only for gender-neutral reasons, is the feminist premise with which I disagree.

 

[Red7227]

I think this is where we have divergent feelings (yours no less valid than mine, naturally!): I enjoy it when men do certain things for me because of my vagina-having. Your assertion that we should not do things for these reasons, but only for gender-neutral reasons, is the feminist premise with which I disagree.

That is cultural, but the root of the practice can be misogynistic. Opening doors and paying for dinner are are innocuous, and stem from old courtship rites and the practicality of a 18th century woman getting though a door in the dresses they wore. Others are less benign. Societies where women walk 10 paces behind the man so show her status are also cultural. The very practical Bedouin men reversed this after WW2 due to the risk of land mines, so instead women walked 10 paces in front to detonate any landmines.

I remember an interview with a black south lass who is a writer. She spoke about her treatment as a women in the south and compared it to her treatment in New York. Her conclusion was that she prefered to be around polite southern bigots who held the door for her rather than New Yorkers. There is a practical issue to this as well. My boss at work is about 4'9" totters about in 5" heals and is shaped like a grape with boobs. She will just wave at people to open security doors for her because it is just so much work for her to do it.

 

[SexySteph]

I find certain gender roles lovely. If a man wants to buy me dinner or lift something heavy for me, because such things give him a satisfying sense of providing and protecting, I'll gladly accept. If I then want to give him head and cook him breakfast, because such things make me feel nurturing, I bet he'll gladly accept too. These are enactions of traditional gender roles, and my life would be less rich (and, notably, way less sexually satisfying) if I chose to feel demeaned by them.

I don't feel like we should see those things as a result of gender roles, though. My roommate doesn't open the door for me because I'm a woman, he opens the door for me because I'm a person. He doesn't buy me dinner because I'm a woman, he buys it because we're partners (in a very non traditional sense). On the occasions I cook, it's because I'm a damn good cook, not because I'm a woman.

BUT, if he were to stop me from opening doors "because you're a woman" or buy my meals "because I'm the man", that IS sexist and stupid. We should do things for each other because it's nice, it's fun to do or whatever reason. Not because "I have a vagina and you have a penis."

I think this is where we have divergent feelings (yours no less valid than mine, naturally!): I enjoy it when men do certain things for me because of my vagina-having. Your assertion that we should not do things for these reasons, but only for gender-neutral reasons, is the feminist premise with which I disagree.

Not to negate your mindset or say it's wrong, just to explain what I think. I just don't understand that mind set, I guess. My mindset is be a good person, period. And the mindset of do this because he has a penis (or identifies as a man) and do this because I have a vagina (or identify as a woman) makes all those actions become reward based rather than altruistic. I'd rather have someone buy me dinner because they have a little extra money that week rather than buy me dinner because he is a man and I am a woman and therefore dinner may result in a reward.

If the basis of an action stems from the sex/gender/genitalia of the recipient of the action, you are doing it for reward or also sexistly.

 

[southsamurai]

i might be able to translate the allure of chivalry somewhat. i follow a pretty strict code of behavior. it is more based in samurai and eastern ideals, but i took a good chunk of it from traditional chivalry. when one is chivalrous things are not done because "i have a penis, she a vag, and thus these are our roles". a truly chivalrous man (or lady, though that fits a different word entirely) does them because it is the right thing to do. we do not open doors for ladies because they are unable. quite the contrary. we do it because we honor the strength and beauty of womanhood. it is deference to another being of honor and grace. in the original code similar actions would be done for a liege lord.
it is not a state of being lesser than another, nor a state of being owned. chivalry is about serving a higher purpose than one's own whims and will. that is why a knight, or samurai swore to the service of a lord, not because the warrior was somehow lesser. it is a path of becoming exhalted and purified by action and service.

now somewhere along the line the idea got watered down. probably all of the victorian era mess coupled with stories of lancelot and gwynevere. by the time it reached the 20th century a gentleman opened a door for a lady because it was expected behavior. this expectation was falsely attributed to the "weaker" sex needing special treatment because they were frail, or unable. but that was a twisting of small minds ignorant of history and locked into the patriarchy of christendom.

dont forget that the chivalric code was a complex thing that dictated behaviour towards other warriors, peasants, lords, the church, even to animals in some places. it was meant to be a path to spiritual and secular strength and purity, not just what the modern mind thinks of it: being polite to get laid. it was certainly based in the times it sprang from so women were not accorded the assumption of physical strength so one did not challenge a female to battle, and there were rules in place for the treatment of noble women in times of war (though peasants apparently got the short end of that, you could pretty much rape and kill a peasant woman of an opposing nation. never said the code was perfect lol).

i for one have reclaimed the good parts of those old codes. i try to be polite to all comers. i give respect to my elders. even if i feel the need to insult someone i do it without rancor assuming that i dont fail in my code and let my emotions sweep me up. i see no reason that the good things of traditional gender roles can not be maintained. opening a door for a lady is not an insult. it is polite, and a gesture of respect. i open doors (or hold them) for all who are coming since there are no more lords and nobles and that idea is more than out of date. in my mind everyone is a noble til they prove themselves unworthy of the title.

doing the other little things for a lady? serving them first at table, waiting for them to begin eating or drinking before you start even paying for dinner out. speaking to them with respect (miss, ms. or ma'am in my case... depending on how much attention im paying to their marital status and the setting) is a sign through speech that they are honored as the fleshly incarnation of goddess.(i tend to use sir a lot as well until i know someone well. and after i know them well i use it a good bit anyway.)
pulling out a chair and helping someone sit? nothing more than good manners for your table mates. though that is much more annoying since it requires coordination between both parties.

now, i'm not trying to convince anyone to adopt this viewpoint at all. i am only trying to show a viewpoint that might be new to most modern citizens. if you dont like these things done, just let your knight errrant know and he should be chivalrous and nod his acceptance and let you do these things yourself. that too is respect. i do hope that perhaps it would not be taken as sexist and an insult to a lady however. certainly becoming angry or indignant over good manners is overboard.

as to the ladies that enjoy chivalrous behavior? who does not like to feel respected and cherished? it takes nothing away from their strength, or their standing as a modern thinking woman to accept politeness, even if the politeness is a bit archaic. all those little things do not have to be seen as bad because they dated from a time when patriarchy was shoving women into corners. instead maybe look at them as one of the few good thing to come of that way of society.

in any case, i hope this glimpse inside another viewpoint helps to understand each other somewhat.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

I think this is where we have divergent feelings (yours no less valid than mine, naturally!): I enjoy it when men do certain things for me because of my vagina-having. Your assertion that we should not do things for these reasons, but only for gender-neutral reasons, is the feminist premise with which I disagree.

That is cultural, but the root of the practice can be misogynistic. Opening doors and paying for dinner are are innocuous, and stem from old courtship rites and the practicality of a 18th century woman getting though a door in the dresses they wore. Others are less benign. Societies where women walk 10 paces behind the man so show her status are also cultural. The very practical Bedouin men reversed this after WW2 due to the risk of land mines, so instead women walked 10 paces in front to detonate any landmines.

That's true, and some argue that a practice with questionable origins should be left in the past, because if it isn't, we risk backsliding into the same mentality. The question, to my mind, is whether that risk is still real. If someone opens the door for me, is there a real risk that he'll start believing the women are the weaker sex? Or have we reached a point where the consensus is that women are not inherently inferior? If we have, then I can trust that a man can open a door for me without losing respect for women. Or using me for landmine detonation.

I guess I ask that question because the freedom of choice is fundamental to autonomy, and that's a pretty strong, recurring thread in feminist thought, but it's also what triggers some of the more heated debates. But if we say that there are things women can and can't do, because it's potentially anti-feminist, we're just replacing one set of restrictions with another.

 

[LadyLuna]

Before I start this reply to general trains of thought throughout the thread, I would like to say: thank you all, for keeping the discussion from getting hateful.

I have heard of women being better than some men at spatial reasoning. I have also heard of a 4' tall person who could beat 5' tall people at races. So my racing analogy was actually incredibly accurate.

The women have the same chance to perform to the standards required. Some of those women will make it, most won't, because most don't have the option. So we look at the field and see it's dominated by men and cry that it is "biased against women". No, it's not. Men are just naturally better at it than women are. If any woman is in the field because she beat the standards necessary, then it's definitely open to women. It's just that not all women can meet those standards.

southsamurai has already shown a lot of the all-women's examples. Another one is schools- there are plenty of schools that are all-women, yet all the all-men's schools are being slowly turned into co-ed.

What is so wrong about men wanting to socialize without women around? Sometimes women want to socialize without men around, right?

Give male children who are young enough to not have been exposed to the gender roles a chance to play with dolls, and they turn them into missiles or armies. (that is a generalization, plenty of men will play house, but most of them will play war instead). Male babies spend more time looking at mechanical things than female babies, female babies spend more time looking at faces than male babies.

There are some things men are inherently better at. There are some things women are inherently better at. This is not a bad thing. Men and women complement each other beautifully, and it's a wonderful thing.

On chivalry, my first partner didn't have a car to drive (and hence no license), so I would be the driver. Still, he would open the car door for me unless his knees were really acting up. It made me feel special, and when his knees were acting, I'd open the doors for him. It wasn't because either of us were weak, he could get out of the car. I was returning the favor of a small gesture of saying "I care about you."

In some cultures, the woman walked behind the man not because she is subordinate or less respected, but so that the man would approach danger first, so that the man could put his coat down over puddles for her, so that the man was at the door first, or so that the woman could keep an eye on him .

 

[Red7227]

I guess I ask that question because the freedom of choice is fundamental to autonomy, and that's a pretty strong, recurring thread in feminist thought, but it's also what triggers some of the more heated debates. But if we say that there are things women can and can't do, because it's potentially anti-feminist, we're just replacing one set of restrictions with another.

The only people that think women are weak were taught that by their parents. No one is going to acquire that opinion from women expecting them to open doors for them, they are just being expected to be old fashioned and polite - there are limits though. I remember a time when I was getting off a tram. This older lady elbowed me out of the way because she assumed I would not let her off first. I'm usually indifferent to this sort of thing and would have let her and her husband off first so they could stay together. In this case I elbowed her in the forehead and got off in front of her. Her husband watched this whole thing and nearly had a seizure from laughing so hard. All she had to say was "excuse me" or start to move in front of me, she didn't need to elbow me in the ribs and she got the response I think she deserved. Expecting sex because you bought someone dinner is a different thing. That is a very modern take on the practice and not always the case. I will pay for dinner because my friends are poorer than I am, and I would also do so for a girl I was interested in because that is part of the courting ritual. That doesn't mean I think she is a hooker that only charges the cost of the meal, it means I like her and would like to make it clear I see bonking in our future relationship.

Simple courtesy works both ways. I will open doors for people who are old or infirm or have their hands full - and for women who are going to find a large heavy door more challenging than I will - but these days I have people hold the door for me because I'm old and slow and crippled.

 

[Aella]

Not to negate your mindset or say it's wrong, just to explain what I think. I just don't understand that mind set, I guess. My mindset is be a good person, period. And the mindset of do this because he has a penis (or identifies as a man) and do this because I have a vagina (or identify as a woman) makes all those actions become reward based rather than altruistic. I'd rather have someone buy me dinner because they have a little extra money that week rather than buy me dinner because he is a man and I am a woman and therefore dinner may result in a reward.

If the basis of an action stems from the sex/gender/genitalia of the recipient of the action, you are doing it for reward or also sexistly.

Why is doing reward-based things bad?

 

[krukstyle]

I truly appreciate the whole of this discussion. Clearly this is a topic that is anything but black & white--and everyone is entitled to their opinion--whatever it may be.

The women have the same chance to perform to the standards required. Some of those women will make it, most won't, because most don't have the option. So we look at the field and see it's dominated by men and cry that it is "biased against women". No, it's not. Men are just naturally better at it than women are.

While reading this and seeing "the field," I'm going to assume that this could be applied to any field--and that's what bothers me. Essentially what I'm taking from this is that any field that is dominated by men is dominated by men because men are inherently more talented/qualified for that given field. Therefore, the number of men within this given field will far outnumber the number of women simply because men have proven their superior talents and qualifications--but can we really believe this is the case? Can we safely just assume that our society and those in power within it are completely free from bias? Is it safe to assume that all male-dominated "fields" are completely level playing grounds where men consistently display their superiority? Personally, I just don't buy it--not even a little bit.

If any woman is in the field because she beat the standards necessary, then it's definitely open to women. It's just that not all women can meet those standards.

Does the existence of a single woman's success within a field really prove that all women have been given a fair shake or could it be that this individual woman was allowed an opportunity to succeed merely to alleviate the potential suspicion of bias? How do we know/ensure that individual's of both genders are being given equal rights?

If we had a way to ensure completely equal/unbiased treatment of each individual, then I agree that in a given field that a mostly men or mostly woman might prove to be the most successful/prominent. The problem--however--is that the framework for such an equal and level playing field is not yet necessarily in place, while our society's built-in gender-bias most certainly is.

 

[LadyLuna]

Definitely don't mean all of the fields, but there are many where physical strength is a requirement, and women cry bias because they can't meet the strength requirements.

 

[zippypinhead]

Speaking of our standard prejudices regarding the capabilities of women and the fields that they enter, here's a wrinkle.

 

[Nordling]

My favorite feminist to listen to and read is Camille Paglia, not because I agree with everything she says, but because she has this giant brain that I find to be wonderful to see. Her neurons seem to fire ten times for every one time the rest of us mortals attempt to think.

Here she is on Joy Behar talking about Taylor Swift and Rihanna. I agree with her on Rihanna's personal life but totally disagree with her on Rihanna's talent.

http://current.com/shows/joy-behar/...-swift-is-the-third-rail-of-american-culture/