Author Topic: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?  (Read 18492 times)

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
use2betrix, I'm not going to have this conversation with you. It would not be productive. Please refrain from continuing to engage me on this topic.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • Location: Metro Detroit
I have been watching YouTube documentaries on ultramarathon runners during my treadmill sessions recently.

I have no issue watching male or females train, run, etc. I do find it interesting that the women are far more emotional. During a documentary that was focused on women, the women cried, a lot. I donít recall any of the men crying in the documentaries Iíve watched.

Is this more nature or nurture? Is it because women are raised more to believe that crying is ok? Or - is it due to the hormonal difference between genders?

Of course, this is just a general observation and not a scientific study, and Iím sure there will be members here that state that men cry more than women.

Oh, men are just as emotional as women. The difference is that many men are socialized from an early age to believe that anger is the only acceptable negative emotion for them to express, whereas itís deemed acceptable for women to cry. Honestly, I think that the cultural stifling of emotional expression does men a major disservice.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
use2betrix, I'm not going to have this conversation with you. It would not be productive. Please refrain from continuing to engage me on this topic.

Youíre right, it would not be productive for you to engage. I made the post hoping for a discussion with someone that didnít think sexism was something only women can experience, understand, define, or discuss.

If you continue to make comments as such Iím going to discuss them. Youíre more than welcome to ignore them, however.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
I'm a retired biologist, so not an academic feminist.  I did go through the 60's and 70's, so I lived through that wave of feminism.

The feminism I am familiar with thinks that since we live in a patriarchy, we are to sexism as a fish is to water.  We basically don't notice it until it hits us in the face.  The feminism I am familiar with theorizes that the patriarchal social system hurts both sexes, just in different ways.  Giving up on nuance, it expects men to be manly and women to be womanly, whatever that means.  And deviation from that is discouraged.  So men showing most emotions (except anger) were so discouraged as little boys that those emotions are hidden.  Women are trained as little girls to show almost any emotion except anger (and maybe pride, there is a lot of modesty and humbleness pushed at little girls).  Little girls have a bit more leeway, they can be tomboys more than boys can be sissies (see how loaded those words sound?), but when puberty hits, toe the line.  So the feminism I am familiar with thinks that most men and most women would be a lot happier and have the potential to be more fulfilled in their lives if those restriction and expectations could be loosened and then lost, so that a person (any person, irregardless of gender identity or sexual preference or presentation) can do what interests them and they do well at, as jobs and as hobbies and as life styles.

What I saw in the 80's was the backswing.  There are social interests that benefit from people knowing their place, and social media were used to distort the public idea of feminism, and turn feminism into a bad word.  I am still seeing it here in some of these postings.  What individuals do under the name of feminism does not have to be representative of actual feminism, it is a shield and something to use as justification.

I could write a few pages on this, but that is the basics.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
Sexism = evaluating people differently based on their sex.

Making a choice to read books based on the sex of the protagonist, by this definition, is sexist.

I hope this answers your question.

It definitely doesn't answer my question but it does show the flaws in your line of reasoning. Sexism is not anything at all like what you state. If boys like reading books about boys or men that doesn't make them sexist or the world sexist or anything at all like that. It just means they prefer stories about boys/men which is fine.

The point that you have made shows exactly why modern day feminism is warped. Modern day feminists don't want equal rights for people and people have the right to choose what they do with their lives. Modern day feminism is all about trying to engineer the world to make it so that people don't have individual choices in how they act and what they do.

Sexism is not allowing women to vote and not allowing women into positions of power and not allowing women to read books by women. Sexism is about restricting females opportunities based on their sex. It isn't about restricting peoples desires or forcing men to read books with a female protagonist.

I'm not going to waste time defending modern feminism. Most of it is focused on the wrong things, rather than focusing where it should, which is the liberation of women from patriarchy.

As for sexism: as a woman, I request that you not try to tell me what sexism is or isn't. I think this is a reasonable request.

A couple of points:-

1. You (and all feminists) need to stop stating what other people have to do and that includes telling me that my opinion doesn't matter. I'm sorry but my opinion is as relevant as your opinion.
2. You've made up the patriarchy. It doesn't exist. Can you prove it exists ? If not this topic should be dropped from rational logical conversations going forward. This is not like your request never to mention feminism. It is a request based on logic and rationality. The burden of proof for all made up theories should be on the person asserting that theory.
3. I am not (and neither is society) holding you or anyone back. You can go out and live the life that you want and you can achieve anything that you have the ability to achieve, you put the work in to achieve and you receive some support from society to achieve. Society doesn't hold back women. It tries and hold back people from doing things that are unsocial such as murder or displaying racism or sexism towards other people. You live in a great time in that a large number of people can really create great lives for themselves especially in the context of human history.
4. Women now do great in society. Some women choose to lead their country. Some choose to be stay at home mums. Some choose to go into the corporate world and have great careers. I suppose all women should be able to choose what they want to do with their life and than God (I'm an atheist) that society within most first world countries enables this.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 08:23:20 PM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
What individuals do under the name of feminism does not have to be representative of actual feminism, it is a shield and something to use as justification.

It's clear that you need to define what feminism is to try and critique it. You can't just state it's an action against the patriarchy because the patriarchy only exists in people's heads. It's an illogical argument.

So then you have to actually state what is feminism and give details. When you state equal rights and women get to choose how they live their lives I am 100% supportive. When you start seeing the patriarchy in my decision to like watching MMA or football (I like rugby league) or basketball or the books I read then you are getting into an area where it's clearly crazy territory. Who knows why we choose to like certain activities. Maybe it's natural. Maybe it's where you were born ? Maybe that is okay. My niece is Muslim. She has married a young Muslim man. She is 20 and just had a kid. The last time I saw her she had her face covered. I'm pretty confident that she made that decision. Why did she make that decision ? Who knows but it's her choice. I don't like it but it's not my life or my call. Maybe if she grew up in a non-Muslim household this wouldn't have happened but she grew up Muslim.

Then we come up to the next absurd idea and that is that society should be homogenised. So gender doesn't matter at all and women and men should be equally represented everywhere. This disables people to make their own choices and it's the territory of the far right or the far left. It's the domain of the real crazies like Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
So the feminism I am familiar with thinks that most men and most women would be a lot happier and have the potential to be more fulfilled in their lives if those restriction and expectations could be loosened and then lost, so that a person (any person, irregardless of gender identity or sexual preference or presentation) can do what interests them and they do well at, as jobs and as hobbies and as life styles.

I think that this is true but I think society is moving more and more this way right now. When I was at high school I remember there was a gay guy there. He had it rough. My kids now tend to not even think about gay kids unless they are over the top. At my gym (jiu-jitsu) women come along and train. There is a lovely young couple who are both doctors. I work with a woman who I really like. We are good friends. She was bought up Muslim, married a man, had a kid, got divorced, moved countries, married a woman and her partner is thinking of having a kid via artificial insemination. She does jiu-jitsu just like me and has fought MMA.

Maybe the world isn't perfect but making out that gender is some massive issue that holds women back is absurd.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
It's clear that you need to define what feminism is to try and critique it. You can't just state it's an action against the patriarchy because the patriarchy only exists in people's heads. It's an illogical argument.

I'm going to save this, so I can link to it whenever I see anyone using the phrase "beg the question" incorrectly.

mjr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
As for sexism: as a woman, I request that you not try to tell me what sexism is or isn't. I think this is a reasonable request.

That's a ripper!!  So, as a woman, you own the definition of sexism and request that a man not define sexism for you ?

Said by someone who tags their profile with "Gender is a hierarchy".

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
mjr, I'm not sure what your objection is. As an analogy: if a person of color says that something is racist, it would be insensitive and bad form for a white person to tell them that they're wrong and it's not racist. I'm saying something similar about sexism.

mjr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
mjr, I'm not sure what your objection is. As an analogy: if a person of color says that something is racist, it would be insensitive and bad form for a white person to tell them that they're wrong and it's not racist. I'm saying something similar about sexism.

So sexism "belongs" to women only ?  Or are you saying that one human can't offer the definition of a word from the English language to another human ?

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
mjr, I'm not sure what your objection is. As an analogy: if a person of color says that something is racist, it would be insensitive and bad form for a white person to tell them that they're wrong and it's not racist. I'm saying something similar about sexism.

So sexism "belongs" to women only ?  Or are you saying that one human can't offer the definition of a word from the English language to another human ?

I think I explained myself sufficiently.

mjr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
You did.  It's very clear how much of an argument you had.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
I think we have gotten off track. Please connect all comments to the "fanboy" topic, instead of debating generally about feminism or sexism.

And also, be polite to one another.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
So the feminism I am familiar with thinks that most men and most women would be a lot happier and have the potential to be more fulfilled in their lives if those restriction and expectations could be loosened and then lost, so that a person (any person, irregardless of gender identity or sexual preference or presentation) can do what interests them and they do well at, as jobs and as hobbies and as life styles.

I think that this is true but I think society is moving more and more this way right now. When I was at high school I remember there was a gay guy there. He had it rough. My kids now tend to not even think about gay kids unless they are over the top. At my gym (jiu-jitsu) women come along and train. There is a lovely young couple who are both doctors. I work with a woman who I really like. We are good friends. She was bought up Muslim, married a man, had a kid, got divorced, moved countries, married a woman and her partner is thinking of having a kid via artificial insemination. She does jiu-jitsu just like me and has fought MMA.

Maybe the world isn't perfect but making out that gender is some massive issue that holds women back is absurd.

Things are a lot better than they were (I am a lot older than you are, so I have seen more changes).  But there is still lots of sexism (and racism, and discrimination for other reasons) out there.  People are just less blunt about it (or were, until the US got Trump and Ontario got the Fords).   Lots still don't like women in politics, they just don't say they don't like so and so because she is a woman, they try to say all sorts of other reasons why they don't like her.  You still find lots of people (mostly men but not all) who are surprised when someone likes their female boss (because women make bad bosses?).

One take I like (it floats around, no idea of origin) is that when a second-rate woman can do as well as a second-rate man, we will be a lot closer to equality.  And when no-one bothers to comment on a political candidate's gender, or race, or sexual orientation because it is just not relevant, we will truly have come a long way.  We are not there yet.  And when a couple seriously discusses who should stay home with the baby (if anyone, since daycare should be a viable option, and is in large parts of Canada, but not the US, which does not say much for the US), based on all factors, we will be a lot closer to equality.  I see too many financial discussions on the forums where the assumption is that the wife will stay home for a few years, they can live without her salary.  Her career development, her chances of going back to a decent job, her loss of seniority and future pension vesting rarely seem to come up.  And it matters, the most valuable part of my pension is from my first 5 years at work, because it had so long to grow.  And then if there is a divorce, her contribution to the family and her loss of that job advancement is not seen to be equal to his financial contribution, and we get the moaning about alimony.

So things have improved, but there is still lots of room for more improvement.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
I think we have gotten off track. Please connect all comments to the "fanboy" topic, instead of debating generally about feminism or sexism.

And also, be polite to one another.

Sorry, I got into the "someone on the internets is wrong must fix now" mindset.

I guess since I am a woman and tend to have my own areas where I fangirl, but am not in the social sciences, I can't really comment on why this happens.  Have fun everyone.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3194
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
And when no-one bothers to comment on a political candidate's gender, or race, or sexual orientation because it is just not relevant, we will truly have come a long way.

No one commented on Hillary's gender more than Hillary did.  Her campaign slogan was "I'm with Her" for crissakes.   

On one hand, I'm supposed to ignore a candidate's gender, but on the other

Quote
Lots still don't like women in politics, they just don't say they don't like so and so because she is a woman, they try to say all sorts of other reasons why they don't like her.

If I don't like her it's because she's a her.  Nevermind I might actually disagree with her on a lot of issues (I would have happily voted for Condi Rice or Carla Fiorina). 

WTF?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Quote
Lots still don't like women in politics, they just don't say they don't like so and so because she is a woman, they try to say all sorts of other reasons why they don't like her.

If I don't like her it's because she's a her.  Nevermind I might actually disagree with her on a lot of issues (I would have happily voted for Condi Rice or Carla Fiorina). 

WTF?

This is a very safe claim to make . . . knowing that a woman would never receive nomination for president in the party that you support.  This is the party that has assembled the most male cabinet since Ronald Reagan (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-very-male-trump-administration/556568/).  Even for the lesser position of congresswoman, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 3-1 (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018).  In the house of representatives, democratic women make up nearly 40% of the members, where Republican women clock in at around 8% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Percentage_of_women_by_party_and_year).

You might personally not discount women because they're women . . . but that's certainly not the rule for other people in the party you support.  (https://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-major-gaps-views-women-politics-gender-party-affiliation-n911211)

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada

No one commented on Hillary's gender more than Hillary did.  Her campaign slogan was "I'm with Her" for crissakes.   


Um, OP asked us to stop discussing feminism, but is this a feminism or fanboy comment?

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.  And when conservatives have the same record of more liberal parties of nominating women/minorities/etc. I will believe they are equal in their appreciation of everyone.  For example (forget the US, this is an international group ) the Ontario Conservatives had some great candidates (Christine Elliott came second, Caroline Mulroney was third) for their last leadership convention and they picked Doug Ford.  Yes the Doug Ford who's brother Rob made news in the US as the druggie mayor of Toronto. (OT, um, not a Doug Ford fanboygirl here, since he just trashed a bunch of Ontario Francophone initiatives that the Conservatives had never mentioned trashing while the election was on).

I would happily have fangirled Christine Elliott, and it's been a while since I liked a Conservative candidate (I got to vote for Flora MacDonald, but that was long ago and far away).

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1346
I like watching Paige VanZant bust other fighters' faces open at UFC events. Does that count as support? She's badass as Hell.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
I like watching Paige VanZant bust other fighters' faces open at UFC events. Does that count as support? She's badass as Hell.

Yup

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6074
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3194
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that. 

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 02:13:37 PM by Nick_Miller »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3194
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3194
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours. 

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3194
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Because those two ideas are opposite of each other.  Am I to ignore gender, or am I to elect more female politicians? 

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Because those two ideas are opposite of each other.  Am I to ignore gender, or am I to elect more female politicians?

I don't think they are.  I think one is a desired end state and the other is a method of achieving/moving closer to said end state.  Two different things entirely and not at all opposite of one another.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy


No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Indeed. Without the latter, the former will never happen.

edit: Cross post! What shenlong said.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours.

I may have misread in all the cross-posting. My apologies. I actually agree with you that Hillary stressed her gender in the election, and I also think it was a good thing. Hell, we really need to have about 45 female presidents in a row before it's even.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours.

I may have misread in all the cross-posting. My apologies. I actually agree with you that Hillary stressed her gender in the election, and I also think it was a good thing. Hell, we really need to have about 45 female presidents in a row before it's even.

Also 45 non-white presidents.  45 presidents who don't believe in the Christian god.  45 gay/transgender presidents.  :P

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours.

I may have misread in all the cross-posting. My apologies. I actually agree with you that Hillary stressed her gender in the election, and I also think it was a good thing. Hell, we really need to have about 45 female presidents in a row before it's even.

Also 45 non-white presidents.  45 presidents who don't believe in the Christian god.  45 gay/transgender presidents.  :P

Yes to all! And I am 100% serious about this. I'll settle for about 15 openly atheist presidents, 10 Satanist presidents, 15 gay presidents, 10 bisexual presidents, 5 nonbinary presidents, 10 each of Latino, African American, Asian American, and all of them female. There would obviously be a lot of overlap in these categories, so no one say that I am mathematically challenged. I am 100% serious when I say this would be awesome for the country.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 02:47:38 PM by Nick_Miller »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
And when no-one bothers to comment on a political candidate's gender, or race, or sexual orientation because it is just not relevant, we will truly have come a long way.  We are not there yet. 

We aren't there yet but I think most of this is to do with people who make these issues into issues. I for instance don't care one little bit.

And when a couple seriously discusses who should stay home with the baby (if anyone, since daycare should be a viable option, and is in large parts of Canada, but not the US, which does not say much for the US), based on all factors, we will be a lot closer to equality.  I see too many financial discussions on the forums where the assumption is that the wife will stay home for a few years, they can live without her salary.  Her career development, her chances of going back to a decent job, her loss of seniority and future pension vesting rarely seem to come up.  And it matters, the most valuable part of my pension is from my first 5 years at work, because it had so long to grow.  And then if there is a divorce, her contribution to the family and her loss of that job advancement is not seen to be equal to his financial contribution, and we get the moaning about alimony.

This is a complex issue. Women often want to stay at home or work less. My wife does this. She wants to work even less. It's not a gender based decision. When it comes to divorce and alimony I think that there is becoming more and more preferential treatment for women. I think that needs to change. Men shouldn't be screwed over especially today. We need to get to the stage where financial splits are equitable. I'm definitely not stating that women don't deserve half. I think in the vast majority of cases half will be fair. Guys complaining about this are typically morons. The issue is at the extremes where some women will use men for a payout. These are bad women who use the social/legal system to their advantage.

Alimony is a much more complex issue. Women can now work and they shouldn't expect a life long pay off after a divorce. So maybe alimony deserves some moaning about.

So things have improved, but there is still lots of room for more improvement.

Agreed but I think the days of women being disadvantaged are coming to an end and maybe the rules need to change to make women more accountable. We can't continue to view women as somehow less capable than men. They aren't.

In relation to social changes they will happen naturally. This is where I think people banging on about stuff like this thread have it wrong. There are issues such as this thread that aren't about societal gender differences. They just happen in the social environment that we exist in. They may happen naturally. When I grew up there was one kid in the class who was Chinese. Now my kids are part Fillipino (and from that culture part Chinese) and the local school and area is full of different nationalities. You need to allow some time for changes to occur.

So to sum up maybe there is room for improvement but maybe the system now is pretty good. When we are talking about thread topics like this it makes me think that some people just complain over nothing.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
Because those two ideas are opposite of each other.  Am I to ignore gender, or am I to elect more female politicians?

It's complex. To be fair I think it would be better if there were more female leaders in world politics. At the same time Hillary was probably a really bad candidate. Then again Trump is a disaster. This shows how poor the current system really is.

When it comes to pushing gender equality well it's complex because equality of outcome is something that can be considered unnatural and requiring some really bad stuff to occur. Equality or outcome/homogenising society is the domain of really bad people like Pol Pot. I'm inclined to think women are just as capable as men and women don't need positive discrimination to get ahead. I am completely against society forcing me to watch women's netball because for some reason I should watch male and female sporting events equally. People deserve freedom within their personal choices within reason. I shouldn't be able to kill someone or hurt them etc. I should though be able to read whatever I want to read.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Hey people, I was into the feminism discussion as much as anyone, but OP asked a while ago that we get back to the original topic.  I fangirled a few female politicians who were massively better than the man who won,  just to fangirl some cool women in politics, as opposed to sports and entertainment, and you've gone all discuss feminism again.

Not cool.

How about that Lynn Margulis (RIP), eh?  Can I fangirl her brain and insightful ideas?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER.

Clinton had more than one slogan. One of them was "Stronger Together," which is more in line with what you seem to think is appropriate.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Hey people, I was into the feminism discussion as much as anyone, but OP asked a while ago that we get back to the original topic.  I fangirled a few female politicians who were massively better than the man who won,  just to fangirl some cool women in politics, as opposed to sports and entertainment, and you've gone all discuss feminism again.

Not cool.

How about that Lynn Margulis (RIP), eh?  Can I fangirl her brain and insightful ideas?

I think what OP is learning is that it is, literally, impossible to have a conversation related to gender without it devolving into a shitshow.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 03:59:14 PM by steveo »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I don't think you understand what the word patriarchy means.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
I don't think you understand what the word patriarchy means.

I've found that a surprising number of educated people don't know what patriarchy means. Not speculating on steveo's education.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1346

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

Proof of what though?  What is it that you think the word patriarchy means?  Because it seems to me like your asking for proof of something that nobody is claiming exists...
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 07:10:07 AM by shenlong55 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

Proof of what though?  What is it that you think the word patriarchy means?  Because it seems to me like your asking for proof of something that nobody is claiming exists...

I think Wikipedia's definition of patriarchy is pretty good:

Quote
Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Actually, reading the whole (fully referenced) page would clear up most of steveo's confusion and provide the proof he keeps asking for.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 08:28:27 AM by GuitarStv »