Modern feminism and you!

[Malaria]

I'm starting this thread as a response to comments made by DancingTofu in this thread, but it's intended as a general discussion of modern feminism, including its various movements and concerns. Reproductive rights, childcare, access to medical care, education, social justice, rape culture, portrayals in popular media, pay disparity and whatever else you might have, we wanna talk about all of it. If you've got some objections to some points of feminist thought, we wanna talk about that too.

First person to make a sammich joke gets the pleasure of knowing they're repeating the same tired, anti-woman lines we've all heard before.

And in case you're wondering why the hell you should care, keep in mind that in all likelihood, you are a feminist. Yes, you are.

My actual response to DancingTofu's comments going in the post below, 'cause it's kinda huge.

[Malaria]

Feminism, in modern society, is a farce.

That's a pretty sweeping derogatory statement.

Women are genetically, physically, and psychologically different from men.

The average woman is physically different from the average man, but we have more than our share of people that defy those norms, either by being "too" masculine or "too" feminine. Unless you're directly addressing primary and secondary sexual characteristics, in which case I'd say those don't always develop as we expect them to, and we exclude and embarrass those who aren't the norm when we insist that all men and women must be a certain way physically. This also doesn't leave room for those whose sex or gender doesn't fit with the gender binary.
I'd argue that the differing psychology between men and women is largely a societal construct. Societies that don't encourage men and women to behave along a hard/soft dichotomy, such as the Forest People of Cameroon and the Congo, raise people that are alike in psychology and personality.
As for genetics, besides the XX and XY chromosomes, (which aren't always guaranteed; XXY happens) there are always men and women who will develop extremely gender ambiguous or ambivalent traits. As it is, we don't have a clear standard for determining what physical and genetic traits (excepting chromosomal typing) are "inherently" feminine or masculine, as in the case of Carter Semenya.

This creates differences, such as women being better suited for creative tasks and men being better suited for systematic tasks.

I reject this outright. If we have more men in science or more women in arts, it's because we have historically encouraged men to intellectually rigorous tasks, while women were encouraged to pursue more artistic tasks. We encourage women and girls to think of themselves as being worse at science and math, and it's been shown that whether one enters those fields has nothing to do with objectively how skills one is, but rather how skills one thinks one is.

It also creates differences such as men being more prone to Autism and ADHD, whereas women are more prone to Schizophrenia and Bi-Polar.

I don't know anything about this, so I can't say either way. I can say I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not men and women should be treated equally, which they are not.
 

I'm not exactly an activist, but I've spent my entire life supporting equal-opportunity and minority acceptance, and I'm really tired of hearing ignorant feminists tell me that men are sexist and that society is dominated by "rape culture" and patriarchy.  It's not.

Your previous experience in supporting equality in whatever form does not leave you qualified to decide whether or not inequality of genders and sexes is an issue.
I wouldn't say that just men are sexist. I'd say everyone is sexist. It's written into us by our society, and also possibly by our genetics depending on what science you want to pay attention to. Just like we're all hardwired for racism. Fortunately for us, we live in glorious Western civilization, where we're supposedly above functioning entirely on the basis of our baseline genetic instincts.
Just because you believe that society isn't patriarchal or containing a rape culture doesn't mean you're right. It just means you don't notice or aren't bothered by these things. I can't walk around alone at night. I feel a moment of panic whenever I pass a man on the street. This is because it has been drilled into me that if I am not cautious, I could be raped. If a bunch of factors happen to coincide, (wearing a short skirt, alone at night, willingness to smile at strangers and engage in conversation with them) I will likely be blamed by at least some people for the rape. Not my potential rapist; me. Doesn't that seem indicative of a problem?
The most conversative estimates say that 1 in 6 American women will be the victims of sexual assault, either attempted or successful, at some point in their lives. That is a stunningly high number. I'm not saying men don't rape men or women don't rape women or women don't rape men and that these things aren't an issue, but this is disproportionately an issue of man-on-woman crime. Therefore it is an issue that needs to be addressed to men regarding their attitude toward women instead of victim-blaming, which is our current practice.

The only actual serious sexism I've seen on a significant scale is workplace discrimination against men on the basis that it's apparently not professionally acceptable for men to have long hair, but for women it's fine.

Just because you haven't seen or noticed it doesn't mean it's not there. It just means it's something that isn't bothering you personally.
All right. Men can't have long hair. But women can't win for losing when it comes to dressing in a professional setting. Women are either too staid or too sexy. If they're too staid, they're perceived negatively by their coworkers and bosses, meaning a more unpleasant work environment. If they're too sexy, it's the same. Oh, and let's not forgot that pesky wage gap. Depending on your source, woman make anywhere from 75 to 84 cents for every dollar a man makes, with variables controlled for hours worked, industries and positions in their companies.

Beyond that all the "sexism" I've seen is just feminist propaganda endorsed by matriarchal, hyperdominant women who profiteer on society's inherent gullibility.

I think there are misandrists out there, ruining it for people who actually seek equality of sexes and genders, but I'd say that the large proportion of feminists are people that want nothing more than to live in a more equal world.
I'm not sure what you mean by hyperdominant women in this case. Women who aggressively, confidently lead their organizations and movements in the way that they believe will most effectively achieve their ends? Because I wouldn't call them hyperdominant. I'd call them competent.
I don't really understand where you think anyone is profiteering. Women's rights groups are largely non-profits, and there isn't all that much money in the nonprofit sector.

Just figured I'd, you know, throw that out there.  And for the record, I was raised almost entirely androgenous.  Didn't really identify as male or female until one day I found a moustache growing upon my face and decided I'd just live with being male.

That means that you haven't, at any point, lived as a woman, and are therefore making all these sweeping generalizations about something you have no firsthand experience about? Hate to sound like a bitter caricature of a feminist, but good job mansplaining to all us silly wimmenz. Without you, how would we really know what's going on?

[NARUNIK]

woah.....


The second quote is true.The fourth quote is true. Im not sure about anything else here, thank you very much.

My reasons are from Discovery Channal.

Can anyone explain SAMMICH to me?

[Malaria]

woah.....


The second quote is true.The fourth quote is true. Im not sure about anything else hear, thank you very much.

My reasons are from Discovery Channal.

Can anyone explain SAMMICH to me?

I maintain that that science generally holds. Unless you happen to be one of the many, many people for whom it doesn't. In which case, they're just one more reason for people to treat you badly for failing to fit the paradigm.

It's an extension of that whole line of thought where women belong in the kitchen, making food for their men. "Make me a sammich, bitch" is sort of the whole ideology condensed into one phrase, used for humor by people who think it's cool to say those sorts of things. They're being edgy, donchaknow.

[NARUNIK]

XD!!!!!


Oh I know those types of people. I think the joke is funny but the realism of it is not.

"DO THE DISHES HOE."- lol...

[Malaria]

I don't like it, but that's mostly because women do a disproportionate amount of housework and childrearing in most heterosexual couples. People make those jokes like it's some sort of antiquated way of thinking when it really isn't. With men doing on average a third as much of what's traditionally considered "women's work," what it really reflects is our modern situation. Not as bad as it once was, but still fundamentally unequal.

[AllyKat]

Sad to me this needs to be said but just in case I'm a moderator, administrator, director, but my opinions are my own

This thread could go utter super flame war REALLY fast, so I'm camping it here and now. I'll also be camping any male side counter thread (including the original post) for objectivity.

FULL Disclosure: I am female. I also grew up with sociological and ethical pressures to be a nuturer and a maternal entity at primary, and a provider and a active economical asset secondary. My personal aspiration is to one day be within my means to not be required to work the 9-5 grind, stay at home with my children and assume the physical attiributes, charisma and intellectual prowess of a 1950's classic television housewife. (re: I want to be able to wear a house dress and heals and pearls while I clean my house and look freaking classy as hell whilst I entertain my guests, teach my children, clean my house and portray model citizenship)

I do not, will not and cannot agree with the "femminist movement" until it, or those who lead it provide me an end game rationale for their actions. As with any community, movement, market or politically charged party; Femminism is based upon a good idea, powered by people (women?) who had individual goals, needs and rationales. These people use a very public, very smart business model and activism to power there own lives and careers. The industry of revolution and civil disobedience is one of the largest and most secure markets out there, especially on something that cannot be quantified or "won" like "equality" and "femminism". Its like the War of Drugs, or War on Terror... you cannot win them, but heaven knows we will spend billions of dollars trying.

So thats my full disclosure, keep the discourse objective, and no mudslinging and I'm willing, for conjecture's sake, to allow the open market place of ideas to flourish here.

Edit for disclosure of my rank and status of opinions being my own.

[@random]

As an addendum to AllyKat's comment:

The forum Code of Conduct states in part:

• Keep discussion friendly and civil, and keep discussion focused on the issue rather than the person. No personal attacks or speculating about another person's motives.
• Respect the subject matter of each thread. If you'd like to hold a discussion about a separate issue, please post in a separate thread.

Personal attacks will be removed posthaste. They're also likely to lead to negative consequences, so please don't push the line or even get near it.

[Malaria]

This thread could go utter super flame war REALLY fast, so I'm camping it here and now. I'll also be camping any male side counter thread (including the original post) for objectivity.

To start off: thank you. I really want this thread to be a productive discussion and not a flame war, because it's a topic that I find interesting and vital.

FULL Disclosure: I am female. I also grew up with sociological and ethical pressures to be a nuturer and a maternal entity at primary, and a provider and a active economical asset secondary. My personal aspiration is to one day be within my means to not be required to work the 9-5 grind, stay at home with my children and assume the physical attiributes, charisma and intellectual prowess of a 1950's classic television housewife. (re: I want to be able to wear a house dress and heals and pearls while I clean my house and look freaking classy as hell whilst I entertain my guests, teach my children, clean my house and portray model citizenship)

If you ever figure out the trick for doing tedious physical activity while in heels, you should share with the world at large.

I do not, will not and cannot agree with the "femminist movement" until it, or those who lead it provide me an end game rationale for their actions. As with any community, movement, market or politically charged party; Femminism is based upon a good idea, powered by people (women?) who had individual goals, needs and rationales. These people use a very public, very smart business model and activism to power there own lives and careers. The industry of revolution and civil disobedience is one of the largest and most secure markets out there, especially on something that cannot be quantified or "won" like "equality" and "femminism". Its like the War of Drugs, or War on Terror... you cannot win them, but heaven knows we will spend billions of dollars trying.

I think you've pointed out for yourself here why there can't be an end game: the feminist movement is not a single coherent entity. Constant forward progress is the goal, in terms of reproductive rights, childcare, agency, equal ability to participate in society and a thousand other things women get short-changed on. Even if there never is a final goal, a world in which people can live with a little more freedom without the constraint of gendered expectations, is for me a worthy goal.

[Malaria]

As an addendum to AllyKat's comment:

The forum Code of Conduct states in part:

• Keep discussion friendly and civil, and keep discussion focused on the issue rather than the person. No personal attacks or speculating about another person's motives.
• Respect the subject matter of each thread. If you'd like to hold a discussion about a separate issue, please post in a separate thread.

Personal attacks will be removed posthaste. They're also likely to lead to negative consequences, so please don't push the line or even get near it.

Thank you. I'll keep this in mind, and I hope everyone else does too.

[superjaz]

I volunteered at womens resouce center at psu couple of terms great place.

I am a odd sort I love cooking and sewing but if I were ever told that "thats what your for" I'd smack some one

I am really tired now so what I write might get mixed up, but this just popped in my head, simular to a minority, generously say the last 100 years things have changed ALOT, many "rights" men had over their wifes, are now against the law, 100 years IS NOT A LONG TIME, to just forget, forget and repeat same mistakes, 100 years heck in some places these things still go on.

One thing that puts things into prespective is this:
 my great grandma was not a legal us citizen until she was 24 years old because she was a native american, family has been in the US since before it was the US and took 24 years of her life to get reconized by her goverment.

Hope I am not too confusing or jumping too much, really tired, just yeah I guess its I believe feminism is the need to protect and prevent making the same mistakes man I could tell you horror storys

[AllyKat]

I'm a moderator, administrator, director, but my opinions are my own

I think you've pointed out for yourself here why there can't be an end game: the feminist movement is not a single coherent entity. Constant forward progress is the goal, in terms of reproductive rights, childcare, agency, equal ability to participate in society and a thousand other things women get short-changed on. Even if there never is a final goal, a world in which people can live with a little more freedom without the constraint of gendered expectations, is for me a worthy goal.

Setting aside the actual imperical data that may disagree with those claims in what has been catogorized as the "developed world" (I will set aside those countries classified as 3rd world by the U.N. and the E.U. because intrinsically you are asking a country unable to sustain its population to make a very large jump in Maslows pyramid) I would question whether or not certain changes are necessary to be "pushed" or whether natural evolution of sociology and economy intices these changes within us.

The first true femminist actions; and subsequent changes to government and policy occured out of economic need: Money and Stability made women feel powerless to provide because they had been required to fullfill a roll that relied on both from an outside source. In the early turn of the century the western world was becoming industrialized and commericalized, which meant the flow of power changed from those who do, to those who sell. When our male counterparts no longer physically control their income and social and economical standing, we in turn no longer control our households social and economical standing.

Because of this lack of control, women in western society felt helpless and demanded a oppourtunity to take control of their situation. Out of that need grew the inflation of needs and standard of living. Out of that inflation of standard of living grew more need to equalize. Thus began a increase of what requirements we (as society) had for sustainable lifestyles. We we demand more out of ourselves than one person can feasibly provide for their household, we naturally require those same things out of a secondary person. Thus began the stronger role of women in the workplace.

Historically woman have not been out of the loop completely when it came to society, and if history tells us anything it is that while it may not be obvious the role they play in our communities, it is with out a doubt as important, if not more so than their male partners.

While publically patriarical hierarchies have orchestrated our situation for the past few centuries I have no doubt that women with prowess have been monitoring and leading society quietly into equality through means genetically more adept in women than men; those of persuasion, coersion and delegation.

The genetic debate is one for another time. My overall point is the moment you center your crusade on one gender's rights specifcally, you assume that they take precident over anything else regarding gender rights. It's called centralism, and even those with intentions to make the "whole world" a better place are guilty of it when they call themselves feminists, or patriarchs or what have you.

Me? I am a humanist, whatever role needs to be played by you and yours, as long as you do it to the best of your ability and continue to support the overall continuation of the species in a sustainable and healthy way, that is all that matters. Intellectual and economic growth come through the practices of understanding societal and genetic limitiations and using those to our advantages objectively and without emotional involvement.

Edited to fix some big space gap I don't know how it appeared...

[DancingTofu]

For the record, everything I post here which I do not explicitly declare to be otherwise represents myself and only myself (and any sources cited); in no way are my statements those held or endorsed by Kumoricon and Altonimbus Entertainment, or relevant to my moderator status.  Furthermore, whereas all input is welcome, since the discussion subject is controversial, please keep statements informed, objective, and serious if you wish to contribute.  The intent of this debate (and any debate) is to exchange points of view, reasoning, and data so that all persons observing and participating leave with a more informed awareness of the subject.


I'm going to be truncating asides and portions of text that I feel can be left unaddressed.  If there's something you'd like me to rebut which I do not, let me know.  Truncations can be observed in the form of an ellipsis. (...)


My full initial response will take a while to full type because I want to be able to cite some legitimate scholarly articles in the interest of maintaining objectivity.  I'll be working in notepad and checking this thread regularly for new discussions to consider.  Hopefully I'll have a response available by Sunday, but I won't make any promises.


In the mean time, I've attached an essay I wrote a while back from when a feminist teacher gave the class a bunch of feminist articles and told us to write an essay based on what they said.  So instead I wrote an androgynist essay and I think I got a C.  It's probably not very good; I haven't read it since last winter so I probably don't even agree with most of what I said, but I figure it's an interesting read and something to put here until I can get my full rebuttal prepared

[goatchild]

I would just like to add my personal story of sexual discrimination in the work place. My apologies in advance for the length. I wouldn't post something so tl;dr if I didn't think it was 100% worth posting. : x

Both my mother and my father are general practice physicians. They went to the same medical school, the same residency, and have almost always worked in the same hospitals together. They have nearly identical training and job experience, and practice medicine in a very similar fashion, with the acknowledgment of the differences that come simply from being different people.

My mother has been fired from at least two jobs because a male coworker or superior was disregarding certain rules, or cutting corners, etc. and my mother called them on it. She went through the appropriate procedures to register her complaint and have something done about it. This was not my mother simply being vindictive against her fellow doctors who happened to be male, or her trying to take over and make things run the way she wanted them to. She was also not alone in her feelings. My father and other doctors shared her concerns. She was just the only woman who chose come forward and speak up, and refused to back down when her male coworkers and superiors tried to brush her off as a “female doctor” who didn't know what she was talking about.

There were legal discussions within the hospital that escalated to actual court trials and lawyers that drained my parents’ paychecks until we were living on spare change. My parents would not put the livelihood of our entire family on the line simply for a “misguided feminist temper tantrum”.

After that, my father began working at another health center. My mother started working as a part-time physician in the same health center. She was essentially doing the same job as the full time physicians, she was just limited in the hours she was allowed to work. There were several times where there was a full-time job opening at the health center, and my mother applied. She was rejected. The first time it happened, it wasn't a big deal. Then it happened again. And again. During this time my father had become an administrator for the health center. I would like to emphasize again that my parents have nearly identical training and experiences, and that my mother was, for all intents and purposes, already doing the exact same job that she was applying for.

Again, there was a full-time job opening, and my mother applied. My parents agreed that if an applicant who was significantly less-qualified for job was hired instead of my mother – who was doing the job already – they would both quit. A significantly less-qualified applicant, who happened to be male, was indeed hired. My parents both quit, and began a desperate search for new jobs. Again, my family’s livelihood was put on the line, even more-so this time because one of my sisters was in college now, and another family member was in and out of drug rehab programs, both of which my parents were already taking out loans and scraping change together to pay for. Funding the education and rehabilitation of our family members was just as important to them as being treated equally and with professional respect in the work environment. Eventually they found a job where they could BOTH work, doing the SAME job, and get the SAME paycheck. This job was in a completely different town. So my family packed up and left our home of thirteen years. My parents are currently working quite happily – and equally – in the local hospital of their new town.

Obviously there are other factors in both of these stories, as well as legal and occupational details that are protected by confidentiality and therefore I am not informed of. The facts still stand that when my parents were in the exact same job environment, my mother was more than once treated as if she were significantly inferior, ignorant, and unqualified, and subsequently labeled a “hot-headed angry feminist on a rampage” for fighting for the equal respect she deserves as an educated professional.

[RemSaverem]

Thanks for the thread, Malaria.  I taught a 6-month Free School course on "Women Resisting Genocide & Gynocide", using examples from the Holocaust, Burma, India, and Argentina. Misogyny and patriarchal oppression are real and are deadly. Not universal, but close. Not inbred, but inculcated. To dismiss the exigency of resisting them because a few opportunists entrench political fundraising on related diction is naive and dangerous. Oh, and some use other terms, e.g., mujerista and womanist, to differentiate from the most-publicized hegemony, viewed by many as insufficiently inclusive. Ally: Like voting? For real, outside of con? Thank a Suffragette, and then see if you feel less inclined to summarily dismiss feminism. M: For tips on doing housework in heels, ask a drag queen ;-) Really. That's from whom I learned to walk in 5 1/2-inch heels for a photoshoot. I don't wear heels anymore; I am too afraid to do other than wear shoes in which I could run away if I (G-d forbid) have to, given the rape 2 blocks away

[@random]

^{(My personal opinion, which reflects only upon myself)}

Two things to keep in mind about the relative prevalence of sexism:

1) We live in one of the most liberal regions of the US. There are a whole lot of -isms that are diminished here, but are very much alive and well (even flourishing) in other parts of the country. Even if you take "That doesn't happen here" as true, that doesn't mean it's not common elsewhere.

2) It's easy to notice an injury when you're the one on the receiving end, and difficult to notice it when you're on the end that benefits. Out of all the personality aspects humans are hardwired for, self-serving bias and selective obliviousness are two of the most pervasive. If even I (being male) notice sexism against women going on, then it's a fair bet that there's a whole lot more that I'm not noticing.

My overall point is the moment you center your crusade on one gender's rights specifcally, you assume that they take precident over anything else regarding gender rights. It's called centralism, and even those with intentions to make the "whole world" a better place are guilty of it when they call themselves feminists, or patriarchs or what have you.

Absolutely true, though it kinda bothered me on the first read until I realized that "you" was being used in the "any given person" sense of the word and not as a 2nd-person identifier. (English really needs more pronouns.)

I've also heard such people called "single-issue voters", and they range a wide gamut of issues. But I don't think that the existence of such people inherently discredits the cause they support. It's just to their discredit, personally.

I would just like to add my personal story of sexual discrimination in the work place. My apologies in advance for the length. I wouldn't post something so tl;dr if I didn't think it was 100% worth posting.

Wow - thank you for posting it; it was 100% worth it. I really admire your parents' courage.

[Malaria]

Setting aside the actual imperical data that may disagree with those claims in what has been catogorized as the "developed world" (I will set aside those countries classified as 3rd world by the U.N. and the E.U. because intrinsically you are asking a country unable to sustain its population to make a very large jump in Maslows pyramid) I would question whether or not certain changes are necessary to be "pushed" or whether natural evolution of sociology and economy intices these changes within us.

I maintain that the pay gap and the rate of rape in the US (we're not Johannesburg, but we still outstrip most other MDCs/first world nations) are stark examples of the inequalities faced by women.
At every turn, social change requires someone to push. Women didn't get the vote in 1920 because men finally decided that might be a swell idea or we all came to some sort of utopian agreement. Suffragists worked for those rights.

The first true feminist actions; and subsequent changes to government and policy occured out of economic need: Money and Stability made women feel powerless to provide because they had been required to fullfill a roll that relied on both from an outside source. In the early turn of the century the western world was becoming industrialized and commericalized, which meant the flow of power changed from those who do, to those who sell. When our male counterparts no longer physically control their income and social and economical standing, we in turn no longer control our households social and economical standing. Because of this lack of control, women in western society felt helpless and demanded a oppourtunity to take control of their situation.

Women were demanding power before industrialization was a major force in the US. Immediately after the American Civil War, suffragists lobbied for the women's vote to come at the same as that of African-Americans. Frederick Douglass encouraged them to shove it so that the suffrage activists could focus on getting the black men's vote. So I don't think you can say that women fought for their rights primarily as a consequence of the power shift of the Industrial Revolution.

Out of that need grew the inflation of needs and standard of living. Out of that inflation of standard of living grew more need to equalize. Thus began a increase of what requirements we (as society) had for sustainable lifestyles. We we demand more out of ourselves than one person can feasibly provide for their household, we naturally require those same things out of a secondary person. Thus began the stronger role of women in the workplace.

I haven't seen this connection, but this really depends on your interpretation of American consumer history, I suppose. My understanding was that working class women worked outside the home long before it became a consideration for middle or upper class women, not out of some need to raise the standard of living, but because working class wages were terrible and it was "work or starve," not "work or you won't get a better tenement."

Historically woman have not been out of the loop completely when it came to society, and if history tells us anything it is that while it may not be obvious the role they play in our communities, it is with out a doubt as important, if not more so than their male partners.

I agree. History has really amazing individuals throughout. But just because those specific women, and women in general, are critically important to our development as a culture and society, doesn't mean we give women the acknowledgment they deserve. Our capitalist society, which you cited above, does not value work that is not monetized. That extremely critical work women do is not monetized or valued in the same way that paying work of similar difficulty or duration is valued. This leads to a lack of respect and lack of options that come because of lack of acknowledgment.

While publically patriarical hierarchies have orchestrated our situation for the past few centuries I have no doubt that women with prowess have been monitoring and leading society quietly into equality through means genetically more adept in women than men; those of persuasion, coersion and delegation.

Most women are responsible for propagating the patriarchy to some degree. It's written into our culture, therefore it's written into us. We think in ways that privilege men over women. I catch myself at it sometimes. I reject outright the idea that women use more subtle methods of persuasion because of a genetic predisposition; it's because for a long time, those were the only options available to women. Even as the wisdom of the individual woman was valued, she was seen as an exception, and she still didn't have the opportunity to speak up directly and make her case, as men (assuming they were of the correct class/social station) could.

The genetic debate is one for another time. My overall point is the moment you center your crusade on one gender's rights specifcally, you assume that they take precident over anything else regarding gender rights. It's called centralism, and even those with intentions to make the "whole world" a better place are guilty of it when they call themselves feminists, or patriarchs or what have you.

I don't think I'm privileging feminist activism over any other form of activism, this just happens to be something I am comfortable discussing and engaging about. I feel as if I have some understanding about what needs to be done, which I don't have for alterabled, elder or race/ethnic rights. We fight what battles we are capable of fighting.

Me? I am a humanist, whatever role needs to be played by you and yours, as long as you do it to the best of your ability and continue to support the overall continuation of the species in a sustainable and healthy way, that is all that matters. Intellectual and economic growth come through the practices of understanding societal and genetic limitiations and using those to our advantages objectively and without emotional involvement.

I'm a humanist too. But like I said above, I do what I can where I can.
I think it's too easy to say everyone should act how they can act. Our abilities are limited by our circumstances. People in less advantaged situations will develop abilities that are different from those in more advantaged situations. It's too easy to say that we believe everyone should be equal and free to act as they can, because circumstances play a part in who we are. In order to have a world where genetic predispositions and natural abilities can flourish, unhampered by social disadvantage or lack of privilege, we have to work for it. I think that mess is something too complicated to be dealt with in one fell swoop of fervent humanism. It must be chipped away at from every angle, every rights discrimination tackled by those who understand that particular facet.

[tofutakeout]

All I'm going to say is the 4th quote is wrong. You do not get a certain disorder more so than another gender because you are that gender. I've known plenty(far too many actually) of men that were Bi-polar or Schizophrenic(Or both). And the same goes for woman with ADHD or Autism. I'm not even going to press the rape issue, it's too personal of a subject.

I'm not a feminist, I have my own views on things but I do not think one gender is better than another. This goes along with my sexual preference of being Pansexual. I feel that this is a topic that is somewhat necessary is the world(if done correctly) to help somehow achieve a type of quality. But I also feel that it might be a bit much for the forums here. But that's just my opinion.

[Gryffinclaw Princess]

Okay so I didn't read most of the stuff before this because frankly...it was mostly all tl;dr for me.


Now, I don't intend this to be a flame or a personal attack or anything of the sort. This is simply my own personal opinion on the topic of equality.
If anyone is offended by this then please tell me so and I will change it, delete it, or something.

Also, I probably repeat myself in this a bit so forgive me.


I can honestly say I am not a feminist. And yes, I went to the link.
I say this because I really don't care about equality. I'm probably one of the only women in the world but hey, it works for me.
I don't expect to be treated equally because I honestly don't believe men and women are equal. Men are better at some things and women are better at other things. I am not saying women are better at cooking because hell, I can't cook worth jack. But I can bet you there is at least one thing I am better at then most men. Every person, no matter gender, is better at one thing or another. So no, we are not equal and I do not expect equality.
I expect to be treated better than others in what I am good at. If someone of lesser ability is treated as my equal, I get extremely pissed because I know I am better. To me, (again, no personal attacks meant here!!) equality is an excuse made up by those who feel dehumanized and pushed down under the foot of someone "better" than them.
To be equal, one must be the exact same. That is what equality means. That is why in a math equation, we can do the same thing to both sides. Because both are the exact same and equal each other in every single aspect. Men and women are not like this. One is always greater than the other in one thing or another.


(Another disclaimer of not trying to attack anyone. Just giving my own opinion here.)

I am a woman who loves feminist jokes. I am always telling men to grow some balls, put on the pants, and chain their women to the stove. Why? Because it's funny to me. Why is it funny? Because of the looks on the faces of the men when I say it. I love making fun of women and I have been one for 19 years.


Again, I don't like equality. I know equality isn't just skills but it is also just the idea of men and women. That mindset is needed.
Navy SEALs: Women aren't allowed because they are women. (Long submarine travels [Period issues here] and a need to always stay calm with no change in emotions during a mission which is hard for a lot of PMSing women.)
If we demanded equality in that branch of the military, a lot of people could end up dead because of women and their raging hormones.


Also, our society was built upon a standing of men above women. Men naturally are stronger than women unless a woman works hard at it. But if we don't go buffing up our muscles, we are naturally weaker. We are also naturally shorter than most men. The average height of an American woman is 5'5". I'm 5'3" and I can barely reach the shelf in my closet and I need to use a step ladder in the pantry.
My brother is about 5'9" and uses me as an arm rest sometimes. He never works out and I do. He is still probably ten times stronger than I am.
Why? Because, to me, men are naturally stronger and built to be more efficient than women.


As far as men and women being treated equally in simply the gender aspect...
Yeah, again I really don't care. Men can treat me like crap all they want and I will just treat them like crap right back.
I know in the work place I can't do this but I can easily deal with it. They can say whatever the hell they want to be about being a woman but I'm not going to let it effect my life. And if someone who is a man gets hired above me when I am obviously more qualified well...then I guess I know to not apply there again, don't I? It's their loss, not mine.


So that is a brief little bit about my belief of equality. :/
It just...doesn't work for me and I don't care for it.

[RemSaverem]

Sorry for the break; my phone allows only X # of letters per post. Ally: I had read only your 1st post when I replied. While I respect humanism, I try to get beyond anthropocentrism to include as many species in my consciousness as I can (starting with but not solely by being vegetarian for 20 years).Jaz: Your gramma's story is very important and epitomizes social constructionism and the need for feminist reconstructionist epistemology: whomever is in power not only sets the paradigms but even defines whom are considered valid participants in discussions, politics, the nation, etc. & thanks for your volunteering.G: Thank you for such classic examples of entrenched institutional sexism/the glass ceiling. M: The stats are 1 in 3 women get sexually abused, 1 in 10 men. Oh, and marital rape exemptions are still on the books in several states: If the guy who raped you is your husband, you're SOL in those states, where you're still chattle. Anyone still want to be Devil's Advocate on that one? Thought not.

[Malaria]

You all are super awesome for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to this thread. Thank you. <3 Unfortunately, I'm tired and my brain is shutting down, so I'm not gonna be pulling apart any more posts tonight. I'll get through what I can tomorrow.

[~boogiepop~]

Men and women both suck.

Extreme for reals Woman Haters should get kicked in the balls.
Extreme Feminists should get kicked in the cooter.

I don't consider myself a feminist and my views on things like this are relatively simple, because I like to keep things that way. I'm a hater, but I hate everyone equally no matter race, gender, sexuality, all that junk. People are generally just terrible things.


That's all I really have to say on the matter.

(Also if this sounds retarded, I'm totally sorry, my brain is melted from animating and writing papers.)

[@random]

I expect to be treated better than others in what I am good at. If someone of lesser ability is treated as my equal, I get extremely pissed because I know I am better. To me, (again, no personal attacks meant here!!) equality is an excuse made up by those who feel dehumanized and pushed down under the foot of someone "better" than them.

At least as I understand it, equality doesn't mean everyone gets treated the same. It means that everyone gets the same chances.

You say you'd be extremely pissed if someone of lesser ability is treated as your equal. (So would most people.) Would you stop being extremely pissed if you knew that the reason for it was because you're female?

[makichan]

I find these quotes to be very useful for this discussion:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

-and-

"We should strive to create environments that are safe for discomfort." -Bell Hooks

That being said, I think that this is an appropriate topic to explore. If we aren't respectful of one another's opinions and it becomes a matter of who's right and who's wrong, the discussion will be rather counterproductive. Hopefully this can be an educational experience.
I believe that there should be equal opportunities given to men, women, and intersexuals. Equality, for me, is very important even if it happens to conflict with my own personal beliefs. Who am I to say what's immoral or that certain people should be given more opportunities while others just have to "deal with it"? We as a society should strive towards acceptance and equality rather than trying to fit everyone in boxes.
I don't see anything wrong in wanting to stay at home and raise kids and there shouldn't be anything wrong with wanting equal opportunities in the workplace.
I can probably carry on forever about this topic but I'm absolutely tired.
I kind of want to sit back and see what others have to say and I'll go through and read through all of these again tomorrow. Hope that what I said made sense to someone lol. Night everyone '3'

[Washougal_Otaku]

If you ever figure out the trick for doing tedious physical activity while in heels, you should share with the world at large.

I moved the entire charity auction items from the dealer's hall to the auction site while wearing high heels back in '09, and I'm a male.  That was, well, painfully fun.  I think I was able to do it as well as I did because of some of the various exercising and training techniques I did in sports.

As for this argument, I will agree that there needs to be a little more respect from the males of our society, but also, there's a high percentage of "feminists" who take things way too far (I'm not saying a majority, but a high enough % that makes all of them look bad).  It's like they find "sexual discrimination" in places where there was none.  Having a feminist for a cousin gives me jurisdiction to say this; she even tried to use caber tossing as an example once.

Oh, and as for the "sammich" thing, I'll say that to whomever I want to, which is usually a friend that I'm just playing with (until she throws a shoe at me) or a Subway employee, because that'd be her job.  Now I want a sammich.  Hey, I have bologna in the fridge...

"WASHOUGAL!  GO MAKE YOURSELF A SAMMICH!!!"
"Aaron, you sexist jerk..."
"...just do it."
"Okay."

[sandrobotticelli]

This is definitely an interesting read. Unfortunately I have not done a lot of in depth analysis of feminism and thus cannot make a good argument for or against it.

I will say this however, extremes of anything are not good. I don't mind feminists, but I don't like the ones that take it overboard. For instance, I was in a class with someone who considered themselves extremely feminist and we both saw this woman with some books in her hands walking towards a door. A man came over and opened the door for her and the feminist next to me said, "Isn't that absolutely disgusting? What, he thinks she couldn't open the door for herself? Asshole." Yes, or maybe he was just trying to be polite. I personally like gentlemanly behavior, even if there are some that consider it to be demeaning to women. I like being treated like a lady from time to time, I'll admit it.

 Not to mention in some of my literature classes as well I see this, if you're majoring in women's studies it makes sense to discuss it a lot, or if it's a general concern to you, but my Celtic mythology class is often overtaken with nothing but the roles of women topics. Which are, in fact, interesting mind you. However, they have come to the conclusion that the writers have made women "weak" even though the strongest characters often take charge over their husbands and the strongest woman in the stories is richer, and more powerful than her husband the king. Even if this wasn't the case, it's important to look at things from a historical context, unfortunately that's how things were back then and we have to analyze it with a grain of salt. Maybe that's the inner anthropologist/archaeologist coming out in me. For instance, Uncle Tom's Cabin would probably be considered "racist" by today's standards but that doesn't mean that it's not a good piece of literature. People could argue about the role of women in Jane Austen's stories as well. I'm not saying that people don't have the right to be critical of the role of women in literature, in fact it's a way of analyzing it.Not to mention if you're majoring in women's studies this can often by a necessity, and I understand that. But when you get too wrapped up in the fact that it's not fair to women you lose the merit of the story in general. There are some women in my Celtic mythology class who have decided not to read anymore of the stories because of some of its sexist nature. This is sad, because there are a lot of good and interesting messages in the stories that they're missing out on.

[AllyKat]

Malaria - a response to your commentary is being created. I started on it last night, and fell asleep midway, only to wake up a bit behind schedule for work this morning and not have time to complete it! It is on my computer at home, and I'd prefer to use those thought rather than attempt to recreate them.

However, I think its worth noting that it appears we all have different versions or definitions of what equality means and where equality can be achieved. This is why the argument for feminism or centralism has so many misnomers. Since we need some definitions, I figured I'd try and provide some.
Equality: (n)

- the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status
- a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced; "on a par with the best"
-  Mathematics A statement, usually an equation, that one thing equals another.

Equal: (adj)

- of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another
- regarding or affecting all objects in the same way
- capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task
- not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion

What the definition of these two words shows me is that the idea of equality of two beings with completely separate genetic traits, though of the same species; is scientifically impossible.

To assume complete similarity in quantification of a human male to a human female requires so many concessions it is unlikely have any intellectual merit. Genetic anomalies occur in all creatures to permit a bit of leeway between the two averages. In general, those anomalies cancel each other out against the average, leaving the "norm" to be (as far as humans are concerned) a dominate male and a passive aggressive female.

Regardless; the point must be made that equality is, or can be likened to, a pipe dream of society. Without hierarchies, a consumerist society ceases to function. Actual equality requires every person to be capable of, and allowed to achieve the highest possible outcome of all scenarios. This means that EVERYONE must be capable to achieve the top score on every test, everyone must be allowed to apply for and be hired to perform every job, no human may be excluded from the pot in reference to anything and everything, or all must be excluded.

Class-ism is an imperfect societal model, it requires that there must intrinsically be some peoples who leave below human comfort, societal comfort and well below their means, in order for people to live within and above them. The ying to the economical yang. However, I would argue that Communism too, has its own imperfections, namely regulation and the survivalist and aggressive nature of all human beings to preserve ones self. In a society without social ladders and hierarchies, who governs and delegates? Who monitors and regulates education to ensure all peoples are qualified for any job?

The only way to ensure exact equality would be if we were to create robots that did EVERYTHING, maintained by other robots that required no maintenance or were maintained by other robots of the same style, allowing humans to have no job, no need for income and no desire. Only without the desire and drive to achieve more do we cease the drive for equality. Complete equality if impossible because it is against human nature to remain at the same level as all others. We naturally desire some edge against the competition.

However, that does not mean we shouldn't strive to perfect and equalize the feasibility of opportunities. Education and training should be available at an equal rate, as should benefits and securities. These things are the real building blocks of sustainable equal communities. When we encourage the differences within human beings, celebrate them and support their growth, however the differences may be traced to origin, and when we give everyone the chance to succeed (not entitlement, the right) and the opportunity to be happy (not entitlement, the right) then we are successfully promoting "equality" as best it can be promoted. But that doesn't come from one gender or one focus point, it comes from all of them turning their backs on individual agendas and focusing on the whole communities most basic needs; knowledge and well being.

When we have those two things; the need to fear in order to survive loses its inherency.

[RemSaverem]

Re: Ally's reference to 3rd World nations as too focussed on survival to work on feminism. While I believe the comment was well-intended, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can't end hunger without ending overpopulation, which means empowering women to say no, to use contraception, to refuse to be child brides. Can't stem AIDS without helping women have jobs other than prostitution. Can't end poverty without encouraging literacy and public education for women. Can't save dwindling natural resources without ecofeminism.

[Washougal_Otaku]

empowering women to say no - or neutering the men that can't control themselves (I'd like my tax dollars to go to that!)
to use contraception - or guys could give a crap enough to wear something
to refuse to be child brides - Okay, I agree with this one 1,000,000%
Can't stem AIDS without helping women have jobs other than prostitution - AIDS knows no profession; new cases happen more from "doing it" with someone you "love" than from a prostitute
Can't end poverty without encouraging literacy and public education for women - or anyone, for that matter...
Can't save dwindling natural resources without ecofeminism - Huh?

[Washougal_Otaku]

Oh, and as for the "sammich" thing, I'll say that to whomever I want to, which is usually a friend that I'm just playing with (until she throws a shoe at me) or a Subway employee, because that'd be her job.  Now I want a sammich.  Hey, I have bologna in the fridge...

"WASHOUGAL!  GO MAKE YOURSELF A SAMMICH!!!"
"Aaron, you sexist jerk..."
"...just do it."
"Okay."

In case anyone was curious, I decided to make a bowl of cereal instead.

[AllyKat]

Re: Ally's reference to 3rd World nations as too focussed on survival to work on feminism. While I believe the comment was well-intended, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can't end hunger without ending overpopulation, which means empowering women to say no, to use contraception, to refuse to be child brides. Can't stem AIDS without helping women have jobs other than prostitution. Can't end poverty without encouraging literacy and public education for women. Can't save dwindling natural resources without ecofeminism.

Although, if we go that far, then we could objectively say we are disturbing the natural order by not allowing women to empower themselves and instead are allowing our societal makeup (which already assumes degradation of women) to invade what used to be a dual controlled society.

Most "undeveloped" countries were tribal in society, providing for the means of a small community on both the spiritual and physical needs. Tribal communities of almost every region are known for the partnership of the feminine and masculine in all things, a balance in nature and a celebration of the duality of life. Westernization paved the way for economic growth and a sensation of wayward-ness, the feeling that these beliefs of co-evolution were misguided or old fashioned, and women were the ones who got the boot.

Fall far enough into the jungle, the desert, the mountains or the valleys however, and you return to a cooperative community of both.

But that is, unfortunately almost always the case; the hand that helps is also the hand that hurts.

[goatchild]

However, that does not mean we shouldn't strive to perfect and equalize the feasibility of opportunities. Education and training should be available at an equal rate, as should benefits and securities. These things are the real building blocks of sustainable equal communities. When we encourage the differences within human beings, celebrate them and support their growth, however the differences may be traced to origin, and when we give everyone the chance to succeed (not entitlement, the right) and the opportunity to be happy (not entitlement, the right) then we are successfully promoting "equality" as best it can be promoted.

This, I feel, is the main purpose of feminism for many feminists. Yes, there are radicals, and yes, there are goals that feminists fight for that are much more difficult – or impossible – to achieve. While I would love to live in a society where women don’t have to be so afraid to walk down the streets alone, and are not judged solely on their appearance in the work place as if their choice to wear a skirt or pants tells you whether or not they are competent at their job, these kinds of goals are much harder to fight for and take much longer to achieve. I will still fight for them, but the vast majority of my effort remains focused on legal equality. Because that IS something concrete than CAN be achieved, possibly in the very near future.

But that doesn't come from one gender or one focus point, it comes from all of them turning their backs on individual agendas and focusing on the whole communities most basic needs; knowledge and well being.

I agree. Unfortunately such a widespread unified action is very unlikely. In our country, any sort of legal privilege has to be gained by being focused, specific, and precise with whatever it is you are trying to legalize (or outlaw). I am equally active in and support many other groups who fight for equal rights, not just women, but in order to make any progress in those individual groups, they must centralize their arguments and focus on the most specific goals they can. They cannot simply band together and end legal inequality for all people in one fell swoop. They simply would not win that legal battle. Instead it must be done step by step, piece by piece, group by group, like every fight for equal rights in our nation’s history has been fought (and sometimes won). With every group that gains legal rights, our nation gets one step closer to granting equal legal rights to all its citizens, and fulfilling “the whole communities most basic needs; knowledge and well being.”

[AllyKat]

This,.../snip [my post on education and training]....snip\ I feel, is the main purpose of feminism for many feminists. Yes, there are radicals, and yes, there are goals that feminists fight for that are much more difficult – or impossible – to achieve.

This is why I am in a different resolution than the feminist or feminism strand of opposition to oppression. By being "feminist" I akin myself to holding the female above the male (that is by definition, the position of the feminist) which is not, I believe, what most rational minded women opposed to oppression believe;

They believe in dual partnership and the ability for women to have the same rights, responsibilities and consequences as their male counterpart. That isn't really "Feminism" it's actually Androgynism - the belief that both sexes are united in one person, without preference to one or the other. When you work on one, you detriment the other. Much like attempting to work a seesaw by yourself - you can push one side up or down, but that is always going to inversely affect the other side.

More Definitions for the debate:

Feminism: (n)
- the presence of female characteristics in males
- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Masculinism: (n)
- to make or become masculine, esp to cause (a woman) to show male secondary sexual characteristics
- an advocate of the rights of men

Androgynism: (n)
- the quality or state of being androgynous
- a person wishing to abolish gender

Humanism: (n)
- a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.


Hope those help with the discourse!

edited because I forgot the snips! whoops!

[makichan]

Since we're telling stories in between our perspectives I thought I'd share one of mine.
So, my cousin and I come from completely different backgrounds. I was raised in an all-women family that traveled state-to-state in order to find better job opportunities. My cousin was raised in a traditional family in Houston, where men's work and women's work are clearly defined and separate.
When he came to visit me a few years ago, he had a huge attitude. Since he didn't understand the dynamics of our family, he came off, well, sexist. We were doing chores all throughout the house and this kind of came up:
Me: 'Kay, so it's your turn to do the dishes.
Chris: Hah. That's a woman's job!
Me: Well then, you better get your ass in there and do some dishes >:O

And he did. Actually, he was kind of surprised that I reacted so harshly. I think it's because he's never seen me react that way before. That comment just struck a chord with me. We had sort of grown up together and I would often stay in Texas during the summer. As a guest there, I was expected to contribute so it's not like he was Cinderella or anything. I mean, I understand that the dynamics in his family are different... but you can't say those things to a group of women that have divided both "men and women's work" for the majority of their lives.

[RemSaverem]

Everyone is entitled to differing definitions of feminism. Mine is simple:If you are someone who is cognizant of any particular aspect of oppression (including misogynist violence, institutionalized sexism, denial of opportunities, etc.) that is specifically afflicting women and/or girls and/or disproportionately affecting women and/or girls; and you are someone who would like to see that dynamic change, either so that that form of oppression is eliminated (or as close to such as is humanly possible) or so that the way that it affects people is no longer based on gender; then you are thinking along the same lines as what I consider to be feminism, though only you can choose whether you adopt the specific label.This is true even if someone else might think that what you want is "conservative" or "backward". For example, there are a wide spectrum of women who all would like to see an increase in options women have to utilize midwives. Some are coming from a radical, overtly feminist perspective, deconstructing the oppressive nature of patriarchal medicine, how the growth of the male-dominated OB/GYN profession pathologized the most natural act there is, the giving of birth. Others are rural fundamentalist Christians or Christian scientists who desire fewer medical interventions for completely different reasons, have different values, are pro-lifers who would not call themselves feminists. But if both share the goal of increasing women's healthcare options, they can work in coalition and build consensus--both of which acts are,themselves, processes from the feminist movement. I know; I just helped the (feminist) midwife whose (feminist) books I edit run a conference for midwifery educators (some who would and some who would not adopt the title).

[goatchild]

Feminism: (n)
- ...
- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Androgynism: (n)
- ...
- a person wishing to abolish gender

First of all, thank you for posting all of these definitions. They are very helpful. : )

I personally, and most of the feminists I know, do not wish to abolish gender entirely, though I certainly know feminists and non-feminists who do. Men and women (and everything in between and outside of) are very different, in many ways that have already been discussed in this thread. I do not think men and women should be equal in all parts of life, because that simply isn't possible, for genetic, physical, psychological and so many other reasons. I love being a woman and would never consider myself even capable of being equal in all ways with people of other genders. I had not heard the term Androgynism before, and it did make me pause and consider what exactly I am advocating. In essence, I believe that a person's gender should not dictate what rights they are or are not entitled to by law, whether they identify as male or female or outside of the sexual binary. But I certainly don't wish to abolish gender entirely. All genders should be celebrated and respected for their differences. In the end, I am still a feminists, because I am still fighting for the "social, political, and all other rights of women [to be] equal to those of men". I fight for the rights of other gender groups as well, but as I said before, one step at a time. I do what I can where I can.

Thank you again for posting these definitions. On a side note, I am very intrigued by how non-specific the definition of masculinism is compared to the definition of feminism:

Feminism: (n)
- ...
- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Masculinism: (n)
- ...
- an advocate of the rights of men

I would just like to ask if this was paraphrasing, or if this is the actual dictionary definition that you found before I comment on it. : )

[@random]

Just a random thought, as befits my handle:

To me, it's somewhat ironic that one of the talk radio hosts who was instrumental in tarring the word "feminist" by redefining it as "a woman who wants to treat men as inferiors, demonizes the other side, and makes histrionic, overblown claims of victimization"... was fond of replacing it at every turn with "feminazi" to clarify how horribly they mistreat him and other men.

Repeat something often enough and people tend to believe it, even if it doesn't logically follow: Women who advocate equal rights... are the moral equivalent of the regime that perpetrated the Holocaust? Which would make you the moral equivalent of Holocaust victims? And they demonize the other side, and they're also grossly overdramatic in claiming to have been victimized? You don't say. =/

Don't get me wrong - I know that shrill, histrionic feminists exist. (There are shrill, histrionic people in every group.) But in his specific case, it was the fireplace calling the kettle black. And personally, I think it's sad that we've allowed people like him to redefine term after term (union, liberal, socialism, feminism, progressive, equality) as something horrible and ugly, then abandon it for fear of being called one. But what makes me saddest of all is that apparently, his definition is now so universally believed that the dictionary definitions of the word had to be modified to accommodate it.

[RemSaverem]

@ Random: That was Rush Limbaugh, right? Ugh.
There are very few things that more render me incensed than the abuse and trivialization of diction related to the Holocaust to attempt to render impotent valid progressive social movements and/or to ostracize or ridicule their earnest, ethical proponents.

@ androgynism: Check out Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time". I remember it from when I was in undergrad for its depiction of a culture in which only one pronoun was used: per.

I do not think of androgynism as desiring to abolish gender, but as desiring to decrease the extent to which there is a focus on gender differentiation within culture, and as desiring to increase the awareness that black/white thinking as to male/female presents a false dichotomy, as there are more than two gender orientations (and even more than two sexes, chromosomally and anatomically).

[Malaria]

I can honestly say I am not a feminist. And yes, I went to the link.
I say this because I really don't care about equality. I'm probably one of the only women in the world but hey, it works for me.

So the fact that average pay for women working the same job as an equally qualified man is (depending whose statistics you're using) anywhere from 75 to 85 cents for every dollar a a man makes? I imagine as someone who will eventually be working for their living, (if you aren't already) that's sort of a problem. Love don't pay the bills, after all.

I don't expect to be treated equally because I honestly don't believe men and women are equal. Men are better at some things and women are better at other things. I am not saying women are better at cooking because hell, I can't cook worth jack. But I can bet you there is at least one thing I am better at then most men. Every person, no matter gender, is better at one thing or another. So no, we are not equal and I do not expect equality.

A common misconception running through this thread is that feminists are using "equal" to mean "the same," when what that really means is equality of rights and privileges without discrimination based on sex or gender.
Humans are largely a dimorphic species, but choosing to conceptualize feminism as only a struggle centering around the man/woman dichotomy is flawed. It doesn't take into account people who aren't clearly one or the other sex or gender, or who aren't cisgender or cissexual. It also doesn't take into account men and women who are cisgender/cissexual and just happen to have traits that are traditionally associated with the other sex.
For example, there's me. I recently took the Bem Sex Inventory Report, which is a test constructed during the 70s in order to parse how a person fits, personality-wise, into the traditional traits associated with masculinity, femininity and androgyny. These are my results:
"You scored 82.456 out of 100 masculine points, 33.333 out of 100 feminine points, and 48.333 out of 100 androgynous (neutral) points." I obviously lean very strongly towards masculine traits even though my sex is female. I don't want to be treated badly for expressing traditionally masculine traits, which I am naturally inclined to, just because I happen to be female. But I am treated badly. I am called a bitch, hyperdominant, overly aggressive and am told I should be more ladylike. But being ladylike doesn't make happy. It won't fulfill me in this life. As a feminist, I want the option to be able to choose what fulfills me. I want everyone to have that opportunity, including the men who would score low in masculine traits and high in feminine ones. I don't believe the traditional understandings of sexual roles should inhibit people from expressing their real personalities the way they do now.

I expect to be treated better than others in what I am good at. If someone of lesser ability is treated as my equal, I get extremely pissed because I know I am better.

I do too! So I hate it when a guy is privileged as a leader over me because we believe men are naturally inclined to leadership roles. I want to be valued for the skills and personality I actually have, not what I'm assumed to have because I happen to have a bunch of female physical characteristics.
This is a large part of the feminist movement. Women and men are automatically assumed to be good at some things and worse at others solely on the basis of their sex, without consideration for facts of personality, education or experience. People should be considered as they are, not as the stereotypes of their sex dictate they should be.

To me, (again, no personal attacks meant here!!) equality is an excuse made up by those who feel dehumanized and pushed down under the foot of someone "better" than them.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement. Don't you find it bad that we are making entire portions of our society feel dehumanized because we can't find it in us to treat people like whole individual humans, rather than representations of a stereotype? I don't like feeling that way, and I don't think anyone should ever have to. It's a miserable feeling. To me, it's a worthy goal to change our society in such a way that no one ever has to feel that way because of a chance of genetics that made them their sex, ethnicity, race, gender, age, ability, class or any other thing.

To be equal, one must be the exact same. That is what equality means.

That is why in a math equation, we can do the same thing to both sides. Because both are the exact same and equal each other in every single aspect. Men and women are not like this. One is always greater than the other in one thing or another.

Not in this discussion (at least not how I'm using it), and not colloquially. This isn't mathematics; this is human life. I'd argue that the bulk of skills associated with one skill or the other are mostly skills that either sex could do, if we were raised in such an environment that men and women were encouraged to develop them equally and not split along lines of sex.

(Another disclaimer of not trying to attack anyone. Just giving my own opinion here.)

I think you're good. There's an implication here that we're dealing in personal opinion and ideology.

I am a woman who loves feminist jokes. I am always telling men to grow some balls, put on the pants, and chain their women to the stove. Why? Because it's funny to me. Why is it funny? Because of the looks on the faces of the men when I say it. I love making fun of women and I have been one for 19 years.

That's cool. I don't find them funny because encouraging gender and sex discrepancies makes my life a lot harder, and doesn't leave room for people who defy norms just by being who they are inherently.

Again, I don't like equality. I know equality isn't just skills but it is also just the idea of men and women. That mindset is needed.

I disagree. When we value one sex over the other as we do now, we engender and pathologize a lot of unnecessary complexes and lose out on the competence of a lot of people.

Navy SEALs: Women aren't allowed because they are women. (Long submarine travels [Period issues here] and a need to always stay calm with no change in emotions during a mission which is hard for a lot of PMSing women.)
If we demanded equality in that branch of the military, a lot of people could end up dead because of women and their raging hormones.

Women aren't allowed because we have all sorts of assumptions about the limits of the abilities of women, as clearly demonstrated in your post. However, we also have a lot of assumptions about men that are affecting this situation. For one thing, we assume that men are naturally better at controlling their emotions. But if you were told from a very young age that you were naturally good at any given thing, you'd either get good at it or feel terrible all the time for failing to do this supposedly natural thing. Men have to be good at controlling their emotions out of self-defense.
Also, here's a dirty little secret of biology that no one really talks about: men experience monthly hormonal cycles. They're different from the ones women have, but they still involve emotional upheaval. I can't source this, unfortunately, since I learned it from my fifth grade bio text.
So if we expect everyone who is a Navy SEAL to abide by their very strict discipline, including stoicism and the ability to keep minor physical nuisances from interfering with their duties, than we can easily take on women. We just have to make sure they're capable, in the same way that we make sure the men are capable. Besides, women in the military are already expected to go about their duties normally, period or no. There's no reason that some of them can't manage the extra difficulty inherent to being a Navy SEAL.

Also, our society was built upon a standing of men above women. Men naturally are stronger than women unless a woman works hard at it. But if we don't go buffing up our muscles, we are naturally weaker. We are also naturally shorter than most men. The average height of an American woman is 5'5". I'm 5'3" and I can barely reach the shelf in my closet and I need to use a step ladder in the pantry.
My brother is about 5'9" and uses me as an arm rest sometimes. He never works out and I do. He is still probably ten times stronger than I am.
Why? Because, to me, men are naturally stronger and built to be more efficient than women.

Yes, we did build our society on those foundations. We also built our society on slavery. I think we can take that to mean societies can change over time to suit the needs of the people living in them.
Height seems like kind of a non-issue. We have stools and stepladders and all sorts of other innovations to deal with things out of reach.
Efficiency is not the same thing as strength, especially since the bulk of our work nowadays is done on computers. He-Man's giant muscle fingers aren't much of an advantage when you need someone who can type 80 WPM.

As far as men and women being treated equally in simply the gender aspect...
Yeah, again I really don't care. Men can treat me like crap all they want and I will just treat them like crap right back.

But I don't want to be treated like crap. And I don't want other people to be treated like crap on the basis of aspects of themselves they can't control. Just because you're comfortable in the status quo doesn't mean everyone is.

I know in the work place I can't do this but I can easily deal with it.

I don't think you should have to deal with it. I think you should be valued entirely on your skills and experience, without anyone making assumptions about ability based on your sex. Did you read Goatchild's story? Sometimes it's more than a little tolerable sexism. Sometimes it's your career on the line.

They can say whatever the hell they want to be about being a woman but I'm not going to let it effect my life.

That's very strong of you, and I commend that. Not everyone can take constant constant criticism being leveled about them because of their sex. Some of us find it wearing and miserable and would like to live in a world where it isn't an issue.

And if someone who is a man gets hired above me when I am obviously more qualified well...then I guess I know to not apply there again, don't I? It's their loss, not mine.

It is your loss. Because you just lost something most everyone in our society needs, which is a source of income. It might not be an issue for you now at this stage in your life, but if you're ever independent you're gonna need a way to pay the bills. If no one will hire you because they assume you're in some way deficient purely because of your sex, I seriously doubt you'll be so cavalier about it.

[AllyKat]

I just have a quick side note, as I really didn't want to get into this incredibly a lot but its an interesting fact:

One of the biggest reasons why women are not allowed to be Seals or Rangers or on the front lines (As far as the general public knows) is because of Politics. Every time a female military officer dies, political ratings for the party in charge go down more than when they report a whole helicopter or platoon of male military officers. Political monitors track these changes and have advised heads of DoD areas to prohibit women from being in areas where they are more likely to die. Apparently seeing a girl die in combat upsets Americans too much.... interesting isn't it?

See, here's my take on the whole thing; cause basically I agree that rights are good and we should all have them and work to have them. I just see the equality differently.

However; I think both males and females can do almost any job. Given enough time and energy anyone can do just about anything. What it comes down to is your leaders... is how you will get it done the way they want it done?

I think this conversation is getting some really interesting comments!

I'd like to congratulate Gryffinclaw Princess, regardless of if I agree or disagree with your perspective, I'm proud of you for stating it. You know well it is not a popular opinion, but you discussed it openly. To be fair to you, there are more women than you think who are of the same belief. They work the maternal and very earnestly rely on the males in their community to provide the paternal as society has defined them historically. A woman with that mentality would not find the concept of lower pay disheartening because she'd either be working a minimum wage job to assist minimally with the bills or to get her family through a rough economic patch or she wouldn't be working at all. Another option is she is working for the fun of it, and doesn't care about her wage, just the job.

But I hope everyone is having fun... this is really a great conversation!

[RemSaverem]

Thanks, Ally! I am having fun, and I agree that this is really valuable! So thanks to Malaria for starting it! (I'm at work and will have to read your epic deconstruction of Griffinclaw Princess's post at another time, sorry for that.)

I was wondering if there would be interest in a sidebar thread: Feminist characters and themes in anime & manga?

I was brainstorming about this this morning, watching the extras from disc 2 of Princess Tutu.

I consider Princess Tutu to be a feminist anime for two main reasons (the following might be viewed as spoilers):
(1) The use of a nonviolent, non-confrontational, collaborative, supportive approach to resolve both inner conflicts and interpersonal conflicts, rather than engaging in any form of battle.
(2) The emphasis on the characters' choosing to be who they want to be, love and feel whom and how they want to love, ally with whom they want to ally, and live how they want to live, regardless of the scripts the one in power has written for them.

Any comparable observations? (Trigun & Utena come immediately to mind.)

[Felix]

Feminism: (n)
- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Just want to restate this. Feminism is not about elevating females above males; its goal is to achieve equal opportunity for all sexes and genders. Radical feminists who go beyond this into the realm of 'women are superiour' are just as wrong as men who believe they are better than women.

A discussion on feminist issues in anime and manga would be interesting. It's much harder for me to find female characters that I can respect in anime/manga as opposed to male characters, due to the way the genders are often portrayed.

[reppy]

I once stumbled upon a hardcore feminist message board -- you know, the ones who call themselves "womyn" -- and it wasn't pretty.  I'd never heard the phrase "I wish I had my son poured down a drain at Planned Parenthood when I had the chance," (or some variation thereof) used so much.  Yikes.

[NARUNIK]

I once stumbled upon a hardcore feminist message board -- you know, the ones who call themselves "womyn" -- and it wasn't pretty.  I'd never heard the phrase "I wish I had my son poured down a drain at Planned Parenthood when I had the chance," (or some variation thereof) used so much.  Yikes.

Hurray for the shortest message here. I actually read it.

[RemSaverem]

There are as many different variations of radical feminism as there are denominations of Christianity. So it is as illogical to overgeneralize about us as it would be for me to allege all Christians plan to murder abortion providers or that every otaku only writes flames. The unifying characteristic of any radical philosophy or activism is simply the aim to foment some sort of perceived improvement in  paradigms and structures, often redefining and redesigning them, rather than simply asking to be allowed to access the status quo.

[Washougal_Otaku]

I once stumbled upon a hardcore feminist message board -- you know, the ones who call themselves "womyn" -- and it wasn't pretty.  I'd never heard the phrase "I wish I had my son poured down a drain at Planned Parenthood when I had the chance," (or some variation thereof) used so much.  Yikes.

I've heard similar things before, including reading something about a woman who became a feminist because her husband was an abusive [CENSORED] and left her after having their son.  She put her son up for adoption when he was 3, I think, saying that she refused to have a male living in her house ever again.

[Malaria]

There are as many different variations of radical feminism as there are denominations of Christianity. So it is as illogical to overgeneralize about us as it would be for me to allege all Christians plan to murder abortion providers or that every otaku only writes flames. The unifying characteristic of any radical philosophy or activism is simply the aim to foment some sort of perceived improvement in  paradigms and structures, often redefining and redesigning them, rather than simply asking to be allowed to access the status quo.

I wanted to say something along these lines, in response to all the comments about "radical" feminists. I am, within the terminology of the feminist community, a radical feminist. I believe in more than just the need to guarantee equal rights and privileges for men and women. I believe we need to find a way to make room in our society and in our notions of sex and gender for third-gendered, intersex, transitioning, gender-fluid and otherwise varied people so that they can exist comfortably, with full acknowledgment by the world at large.

People who hate men and want to see them subjugated by women aren't any sort of feminist. They are misandrists, which is what most of you seem to mean by radical or extreme feminist.

[Malaria]

Men and women both suck.

Extreme for reals Woman Haters should get kicked in the balls.
Extreme Feminists should get kicked in the cooter.

I don't consider myself a feminist and my views on things like this are relatively simple, because I like to keep things that way. I'm a hater, but I hate everyone equally no matter race, gender, sexuality, all that junk. People are generally just terrible things.


That's all I really have to say on the matter.

(Also if this sounds retarded, I'm totally sorry, my brain is melted from animating and writing papers.)

So you don't care what happens any of us other humans, 'cause we're too much hateful messiness? That sounds kinda lonely, but whatever suits you, I guess.

[Felix]

People who hate men and want to see them subjugated by women aren't any sort of feminist. They are misandrists, which is what most of you seem to mean by radical or extreme feminist.

Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion!

I believe we need to find a way to make room in our society and in our notions of sex and gender for third-gendered, intersex, transitioning, gender-fluid and otherwise varied people so that they can exist comfortably, with full acknowledgment by the world at large.

THIS.
Though I don't usually have any problems with being... alternately gendered. People are confused by it, but I've yet to find myself in a situation where it made me uncomfortable.

[Washougal_Otaku]

I believe we need to find a way to make room in our society and in our notions of sex and gender for third-gendered, intersex, transitioning, gender-fluid and otherwise varied people so that they can exist comfortably, with full acknowledgment by the world at large.

THIS.
Though I don't usually have any problems with being... alternately gendered. People are confused by it, but I've yet to find myself in a situation where it made me uncomfortable.
[/quote]

I personally don't care; I don't get uncomfortable about it unless the individual makes me feel uncomfortable, just like if they were a "normal" male or a "normal" female.

[Malaria]

I moved the entire charity auction items from the dealer's hall to the auction site while wearing high heels back in '09, and I'm a male.  That was, well, painfully fun.  I think I was able to do it as well as I did because of some of the various exercising and training techniques I did in sports.

I am seriously impressed. Round of applause, sir. -claps in a circle-

As for this argument, I will agree that there needs to be a little more respect from the males of our society, but also, there's a high percentage of "feminists" who take things way too far (I'm not saying a majority, but a high enough % that makes all of them look bad).  It's like they find "sexual discrimination" in places where there was none.  Having a feminist for a cousin gives me jurisdiction to say this; she even tried to use caber tossing as an example once.

Respect is certainly a large part of it, but there's also getting rid of entrenched assumptions about what women are and should be based on years of traditional thought that doesn't necessarily hold up under the realities of people's lives.
Squeakiest wheel gets the most grease. Most feminists will tell you they want the pay gap closed and they want rape culture to stop killing women's ability to move around freely and without fear of all men ever. If they've really been paying attention, they'll say they want companies to stop using the "pink it and shrink it" design to supposedly appeal to women, and they want the media to stop encouraging children from the youngest age possible that they need to either be manly men or princesses. What do you think is taking it too far?
I don't know what caber tossing is, so I can't say either way. However, it's possible that your cousin is seeing things this way because it's something that bothers them directly and makes them feel more discriminated against. It really isn't up to you to say whether or not that's taking it too far. If their reasoning is weak, that's different, but being like "no dude I think that's too far therefore it is" is straight up imposing your will on them, and smacks of lack of respect for their opinion.

Oh, and as for the "sammich" thing, I'll say that to whomever I want to, which is usually a friend that I'm just playing with (until she throws a shoe at me) or a Subway employee, because that'd be her job.  Now I want a sammich.  Hey, I have bologna in the fridge...

"WASHOUGAL!  GO MAKE YOURSELF A SAMMICH!!!"
"Aaron, you sexist jerk..."
"...just do it."
"Okay."

Dude, if I was a Subway employee and you told me to make you a sammich, I would throw a shoe at you. If I thought I could get away it. But seriously, imagine every person who thinks that joke is funny makes it to every female sandwich shop employee they've got working for them. That would be so annoying.

[Malaria]

Felix and Washougal: While it's awesome that you guys are comfortable being alt-gendered in your lives, (seriously that is really cool, more people should have that) it isn't something I or many other people have. I still have family I'm accountable to, and as far as they're concerned I'm a straight woman. Even on my very liberal college campus there's awkwardness associated with being agendered and asexual, starting with "That's a real thing?" moving on to "But how do you know?" and the very worst, "That's silly." I want to live in a world where that simply isn't an issue. I won't get that for myself or others by being complacent.

[Malaria]

I once stumbled upon a hardcore feminist message board -- you know, the ones who call themselves "womyn" -- and it wasn't pretty.  I'd never heard the phrase "I wish I had my son poured down a drain at Planned Parenthood when I had the chance," (or some variation thereof) used so much.  Yikes.

Yeah, these are pretty clearly misandrists. Nothing feminist about them.

[Washougal_Otaku]

I moved the entire charity auction items from the dealer's hall to the auction site while wearing high heels back in '09, and I'm a male.  That was, well, painfully fun.  I think I was able to do it as well as I did because of some of the various exercising and training techniques I did in sports.

I am seriously impressed. Round of applause, sir. -claps in a circle-

Thank you!

I don't know what caber tossing is, so I can't say either way. However, it's possible that your cousin is seeing things this way because it's something that bothers them directly and makes them feel more discriminated against. It really isn't up to you to say whether or not that's taking it too far. If their reasoning is weak, that's different, but being like "no dude I think that's too far therefore it is" is straight up imposing your will on them, and smacks of lack of respect for their opinion.

Caber tossing is the Scottish game where someone carries a large log vertically, then chucks it; similar to the shot put, but a lot harder. 

I think her main reason for the griping is because women use smaller cabers than men do.

Oh, and as for the "sammich" thing, I'll say that to whomever I want to, which is usually a friend that I'm just playing with (until she throws a shoe at me) or a Subway employee, because that'd be her job.  Now I want a sammich.  Hey, I have bologna in the fridge...

"WASHOUGAL!  GO MAKE YOURSELF A SAMMICH!!!"
"Aaron, you sexist jerk..."
"...just do it."
"Okay."

Dude, if I was a Subway employee and you told me to make you a sammich, I would throw a shoe at you. If I thought I could get away it. But seriously, imagine every person who thinks that joke is funny makes it to every female sandwich shop employee they've got working for them. That would be so annoying.

In all honesty, I think what makes the joke funny is the idea of gender superiority being a load of crap and hearing someone with that mindset still in practice.

[reppy]

I once stumbled upon a hardcore feminist message board -- you know, the ones who call themselves "womyn" -- and it wasn't pretty.  I'd never heard the phrase "I wish I had my son poured down a drain at Planned Parenthood when I had the chance," (or some variation thereof) used so much.  Yikes.

Yeah, these are pretty clearly misandrists. Nothing feminist about them.

That's the first time I've heard that term.  For what it's worth, they at least self-identified as being feminist, or maybe some variation of that word.

[Malaria]

Thank you!

You're welcome!
If athleticism is a prereq for being good at heels, I am so screwed. -3-

Caber tossing is the Scottish game where someone carries a large log vertically, then chucks it; similar to the shot put, but a lot harder.  

I think her main reason for the griping is because women use smaller cabers than men do.

That can get really complicated really fast when you have people who aren't clearly and easily defined as one gender or the other. I think I mentioned back in my first post the case of Caster Semenya, who pretty much exemplifies why that might be an issue.

In all honesty, I think what makes the joke funny is the idea of gender superiority being a load of crap and hearing someone with that mindset still in practice.

That's really why I don't find it funny. People still think like this, and for every few people who chuckle because it's such a silly idea, you get someone who's chuckling 'cause it's so true, and those wimmenz are so silly. It also trivializes the sort of thinking that actually goes into disadvantaging women, and lets people think that because they recognize the ridiculousness of this particular obvious point, they can't be sexist thinkers in other, more subtle ways.

[Malaria]

I once stumbled upon a hardcore feminist message board -- you know, the ones who call themselves "womyn" -- and it wasn't pretty.  I'd never heard the phrase "I wish I had my son poured down a drain at Planned Parenthood when I had the chance," (or some variation thereof) used so much.  Yikes.

Yeah, these are pretty clearly misandrists. Nothing feminist about them.

That's the first time I've heard that term.  For what it's worth, they at least self-identified as being feminist, or maybe some variation of that word.

Well, if you come out of this thread with nothing else, at least you'll know the fancypants term for man-hating.
They self-identify as feminists, but sane feminists look at them and go ARGH WHY YOU DO THIS. Like I am doing right now. We don't want them in our equality club. 3:

[Felix]

Felix and Washougal: While it's awesome that you guys are comfortable being alt-gendered in your lives, (seriously that is really cool, more people should have that) it isn't something I or many other people have. I still have family I'm accountable to, and as far as they're concerned I'm a straight woman. Even on my very liberal college campus there's awkwardness associated with being agendered and asexual, starting with "That's a real thing?" moving on to "But how do you know?" and the very worst, "That's silly." I want to live in a world where that simply isn't an issue. I won't get that for myself or others by being complacent.

It always makes me sad when people can't accept other people for who they are. Some people just cling so adamantly to their beliefs that they can't understand.

[MiriaRose]

Feminism: (n)
- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Just want to restate this. Feminism is not about elevating females above males; its goal is to achieve equal opportunity for all sexes and genders. Radical feminists who go beyond this into the realm of 'women are superiour' are just as wrong as men who believe they are better than women.

A discussion on feminist issues in anime and manga would be interesting. It's much harder for me to find female characters that I can respect in anime/manga as opposed to male characters, due to the way the genders are often portrayed.

By radical feminism you mean. . Oh, how do I describe it? Misandrists? Straw feminists? In any case, you don't mean the actual philosophy of radical feminism, right?

EDIT: Oh god I just read the rest of this thread and Malaria brought up my point already. >.> Sorry.

[DancingTofu]

So, my original plan was to take the time to fully respond to all of Malaria's initial statements as well as any new lines of discussion that came into play in the mean time, but that's not going to happen with how much action this thread is getting.  Instead, I'm going to try to just cover as much as possible without responding to anything specifically.

First of all, an excellent graphical scale of different hormones and neurotransmitters found in blood samples.  Note that the scaling is logarithmic.  As you can see, there's a huge difference between Males and Females for testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone.  This is the cause of the major stereotypes that men are larger, more muscular, and more emotionally consistent than women, and women have better memory, more "common sense", and are smaller than men.  These are accurate claims when looking at modes, medians, and averages; they are well-supported by neuroscience, psychological science, and chemical biology.

That said, it is entirely inappropriate to judge an individual based on an attribute of a population which that individual identifies with, but it really can't be prevented, yet there comes a point when stereotyping is widely accepted as bad (generally when the legal system and societal moralities dictate as such).  In the communities in which most of the people involved in this discussion currently exist, that is the case.  Certainly, there are other countries and even a few states or small communities here and there where sexism is not considered bad, but most of us operate within environments where it is.  That being the case, activism is really quite counterproductive.  By drawing attention to something like that, you make people think about it, and when people think about sexism, well, they're thinking about it.  If they don't think about it, but they subconsciously know it's bad, sexism is gone.  The fight for sexual equality has made a lot of progress in the last 100 years.  Today, organized activism is trivialized in our society.  The fight for equality is, as has been said, never won, but you can't win unless you fight the enemy.  Sexism against women, as it exists today, is largely caused by women drawing attention to the fact that they are, in fact, women.  Society teaches us to have a strong emotional attachment to our respective genders, and by becoming attached to our genders, we mold ourselves into the stereotypes we claim to be fighting against.  A woman who wear's womens' clothing then complains about being labeled a woman is a hypocrite.  As Ghandi said, "Be the change you wish to see in others."  Stop trying to change the whole world and just change yourself.  Exist within your own appropriate world and the world will change itself upon observing your wellness.

The concept of rape culture is something I really want to address, because it's really something that the feminist movement took and tried to use, and it's been terribly counterproductive.  I fear rape and sexual predation.  While I won't divulge details since it's not something I'm really comfortable discussing publicly, I will say that I have been sexually violated in the past by both women and men, and I can say with utmost confidence that the correspondence of rape and gender has nothing to do with sexual inequality.  Almost all rape is a declaration of false superiority, used by people who are insecure about their value, and wish to enhance their image of self-worth by expressing sexual dominance over another person. Some posted at some point that rape rates are 1 in 3 for women, and 1 and 10 for men.  Those are wrong.  Those might be reported rates, but those are absolutely wrong.  Most rapists threaten their victims to keep them quiet.  Most victims are children.  Most people have mysterious holes in their childhood where there seems to be no memories.  Rape is a disturbing sociopathic act which violates every law and moral imaginable.  It occurs an act of theft, assault, adultery, murder, gluttony, envy, extortion, blackmail, and so much more.  By accusing men, many--if not most--of whom have been sexually abused at some point in their lifetime (whether they're willing to remember it or not) that they are guilty of cultivating rape culture is incredibly destructive to self esteem.  That brings us right back to the actual cause of rape: our society is frequently demoralizing to people who haven't actually done anything wrong, and feminism is a big finger-pointer.

I also want to address the issue of perception here.  I'm not victimized by sexism against women, since I'm not one and have a pretty huge moustache which declares me not one, but I am the victim of sexism, and what I see is something that happens on a very individual level.  The sexism that happens isn't universally held, and therefor it's a personal, case-by-case situation, not something that needs to be addressed to society.  If a population of men is sexist against a woman, that woman should absolutely call them out on it, and since our legal system's bogus, a lot of the time it won't work out too great, such as in goatchild's story.  However, a bogus legal system doesn't equate to sexism.  It equates to a bogus legal system that doesn't always give enough of a damn to uphold law and liberty.  Women get shafted; so do men.  Back to goatchild's story, yeah, her family encountered some sexism in the medical field.  Then they managed to find a place where sexism wasn't an issue.  Again, sexism exists, but it's far from universal.  Equality for women in most industries is pretty balanced.  In the few were it isn't, look at who's running them.  Old white men.  So old white men are sexist.  Well that's nothing new.  The good news is they'll die/retire/get replaced soon, and eventually everyone running everything in the US will have lived their entire lives in societies where sexism was universally considered a bad thing, same with racism, or if you want an example of something that would have gotten me excluded from almost all aspects of society and possibly murdered a few hundred years ago, left-handedness.  Society finds really stupid reasons to exclude people, but would you take me seriously if I started pushing for equal rights for lefties?  I wouldn't take me seriously.  With the exception of a few very backwards states, women in the US have full equal rights.  Far moreso than gays, transexuals, asexuals, hermaphrodites, Latinos, muslims, and other populations.  Women are discriminated against.  That's a real shame, which is why I choose not to discriminate against women, and I'm in full support of anyone else who chooses not to discriminate against women.  If I witness discrimination against a woman, I call the offender out on it if it's something significant, because I'm not okay with discrimination, and I do the exact same thing when I see anyone being discriminated against.  Jews, Christians, Canadians; some people grow up thinking bigotry's alright and all you have to do is tell them personally: "That's not okay."  Usually that's all it takes.  Feminism, as most often observed, is impersonal.  It's a population addressing the public.  That was great in the 40's and 50's when legal rights were really being established, and it worked fine for 30 years prior and after, but now it's not the way to go about it. 

Malaria, maybe you're a personal feminist.  Maybe you don't go to rallies and watch Oprah; maybe you're like me and just call people out when you see discrimination which I'm totally chill with, but then why do you declare yourself a feminist?  Why not just say "I fight for equal rights and to end discrimination"?  If you see unjust discrimination against a Moslem, do you call the offending party out on it?  Do you believe that Women are entitled to certain rights that others who suffer from discrimination just as much or more are not entitled to?  Because that is what I see when I see feminism; I see people who are too busy supporting the rights of one population to give proper attention to others more in need.

[@random]

First of all, an excellent graphical scale of different hormones and neurotransmitters found in blood samples.  Note that the scaling is logarithmic.  As you can see, there's a huge difference between Males and Females for testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone.  This is the cause of the major stereotypes that men are larger, more muscular, and more emotionally consistent than women, and women have better memory, more "common sense", and are smaller than men.  These are accurate claims when looking at modes, medians, and averages; they are well-supported by neuroscience, psychological science, and chemical biology.

Everyone has anecdotal stories of how hormones do or don't affect emotional stability, I'm sure. I've seen it happen both ways. I've known women whose emotional affect went way the heck out of control when they were getting too much progestogen from low-estrogen or no-estrogen hormonal contraception. And one of my best friends, who has to take steroids when his Crohn's gets out of control, is one of the gentlest people I've ever known because he goes so far out of his way not to let hormones send him into "roid rage". But anecdotal stories, as meaningful as they are to us as individuals, are not the same as data. Have any studies been done which correlate emotional stability to gender and hormones?

Additionally, the PNG that you link shows that the highest concentrations of progestogens (specifically, 17-OHP) are to be found in males, though they're close during the follicular phase. This is close, but not quite true (as is often the case with Wikipedia graphs). Male levels of 17-OHP are slightly surpassed by peak levels during the luteal phase. And if we were going off of anecdotal evidence, in my experience progestogens (which are weakly androgenic in females) and testosterone are far more destabilizing to mood than estrogen. In fact, estrogen seems correlated to mood stability, given that the famous "PMS" occurs in the luteal phase when progestogen levels are at their highest and estrogen levels are low. For that matter, estrogen withdrawal has been positively correlated with mood swing, and replacement with stabilization.

All of this begs the question: Are women commonly thought of by men as "overemotional" because for several days a month (i.e. there's a noticeable contrast), they're exposed to a progestogen:estrogen ratio similar to what men are exposed to all the time (i.e. no noticeable contrast)? If that's the case, then I don't think it's fair to say that being prone to mood swing every day of the month is more emotionally stable than being prone to mood swing for several days a month.

[superjaz]

All of this begs the question: Are women commonly thought of by men as "overemotional" because for several days a month (i.e. there's a noticeable contrast), they're exposed to a progestogen:estrogen ratio similar to what men are exposed to all the time (i.e. no noticeable contrast)? If that's the case, then I don't think it's fair to say that being prone to mood swing every day of the month is more emotionally stable than being prone to mood swing for several days a month.

Thing is this is assuming that "progestogen:estrogen ratio similar to what men are exposed to all the time" is the only factor that makes a woman "over emotional" during those days

[@random]

All of this begs the question: Are women commonly thought of by men as "overemotional" because for several days a month (i.e. there's a noticeable contrast), they're exposed to a progestogen:estrogen ratio similar to what men are exposed to all the time (i.e. no noticeable contrast)? If that's the case, then I don't think it's fair to say that being prone to mood swing every day of the month is more emotionally stable than being prone to mood swing for several days a month.

Thing is this is assuming that "progestogen:estrogen ratio similar to what men are exposed to all the time" is the only factor that makes a woman "over emotional" during those days

Excellent point; experiencing pain and physical discomfort isn't going to improve anyone's temperament. I was simply addressing the hormonal issue that had been raised.

For the record, I'm not asserting that "overemotional" is a fair or accurate charge. Quite the opposite. I'm repeating it in quotes because it's something that was commonly said, historically.


(Fun random fact for the day: we get the word "hysterical" from the same root word as "hysterectomy", because primitive medicine held that hyperemotional states were caused by the uterus. This claim has been going around for a while as a "reason" not to trust women's rationality, and it just won't die.)

[Washougal_Otaku]

Having lived with four women all of my life, I've seen some "patterns" once their times came around (Yes, I got to a point to where I could tell who had their times).  I got the impression that it took some of their stronger personality traits and magnified them.  Things got scary around my house at times, and others it was somewhat depressing.  Either way, I spent a lot of time in my room, which they didn't understand why... go fig

[@random]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying hormones don't have the potential to make people more prone to mood swing. I listed off a couple of examples, myself.

All I'm saying is that it's not a valid reason to treat women as more emotionally unstable than men, because 1) the exact relationship between hormones and mood is poorly-understood and 2) men are possibly even more susceptible to the same effect.

[reppy]

More susceptible?! Well, that sounds kind of sexist!

Just kidding. 

[Felix]

Do differences in hormones mean women and men shouldn't have equal rights and opportunities?

[Malaria]

Do differences in hormones mean women and men shouldn't have equal rights and opportunities?

pffhahaha this made me laugh. Thanks Felix.

Everyone else, I'll get to your posts later. I had an interesting night, so I'm not at the height of clear thought right now.

[@random]

More susceptible?! Well, that sounds kind of sexist!

Just kidding.  

Argh, you caught me - I'm sexist against everyone who has hormones, being that I'm a budding asexual (no pun intended). Hormones of any sort are evil. Down with them, I say!

Now I have to kill you for learning my secret.  

[RemSaverem]

@ Felix having a positive experience of being alt-gendered: That. Is. Awesome. More power to you.
@ Malaria for differentiating radical feminism from misandry: That's it exactly. Thank you.
@ Hormones: It is not simply what one experiences biochemically but how one is inculcated from earliest childhood to view the experience of our natural bodily rhythms. In goddess culture, in the new Red Tent movement, in Chassidic Judaism, in various pre-Christian cultures, women are valorized as life-bearers, celebrate being in harmony with the moon, are given access to special honors (such as purifying Mikveh bath rituals), are even seen as most intuitive & most in touch with nature, during our cycles.
Contrast that with Western Christian-influenced culture, "Original Sin", massive multi-million dollar industries with advertisements and products centered around shaming women for natural processes and scents, teasing and harrassment of young girls entering puberty...oh and the fact that the increasingly younger and younger age of onset of menarche is directly a result of overutilization of artificial hormones in animal feed and of exposure to toxics (http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm). And the vast prevalence of early childhood sexual assault against those who hit puberty early (happened to me concurrently at 9). And you have an undeniable constellation of environmental and psychological factors that are culturally constructed that shape how women experience our cycles that are unnecessarily negative and in the absence of which many of us (I'd go so far as to say most of us other than those with dysmennorhea) would have a positive or at least neutral experience of those very same hormones.

[DancingTofu]

random, individuals develop tolerances and dependencies to hormones, chemicals, toxins, and neurotransmitters based on their exposure to them over time.  Obviously, the average adult male isn't ten times as large and angry as the average adult female, because a tolerance to testosterone is developed.  Likewise, males adapt to a comfortable consistency when it comes to hormone levels; male mood cycles are strictly environmental, whereas women have steep, observable biological hormone cycles.  I'm not at all claiming that this makes women wild and crazy and unstable; but it's certainly a difference.  Hormones directly control which neurotransmitters are being produced in the nervous system, which directly controls muscle stimulation and which parts of the brain are being triggered.  Also, neural steroids such as progestrogens, especially progesterone, affect myelination of nerve cells which is a process where glial cells coat the axon of a nerve cell to prevent it from unintentionally triggering other nerve cells.  Lower progesterone correlates to less myelination, which correlates to bad triggering of nerve cells.  Nerve cells are what your brain is made of.  An unmyelinated nerve cell is like an uninsulated wire.  I build computers, and once neglected to properly insulate a wire.  Just one.  At one point that wire came in contact with the metal body of the computer case and shorted out the entire computer.  All it takes is one bad trigger like that to have an adverse effect on the brain as well (although the probability of a total shutdown occurring is much less likely, since the brain is much more elaborate than a computer), but I imagine you can understand how less myelination might correlate to some genuine adverse psychological effects tied into a woman's natural hormonal phase.  Now, I'm not saying the difference in myelination is severe, but it's another element that is there.

Also, the term mood swing is a DIFFERENCE in mood or personality.  If it's consistent; it's not a mood swing - just perhaps a more aggressive person.  On the other hand a female can be perfectly pleasant and rational 25 days a month, then she can be angry and aggressive for the other 5 days.  Whatever a male is like, he's generally like that pretty much all the time.  Women naturally have a cyclic personality.  I don't think that justifies workplace discrimination, especially in a case like with goatchild's mom where the workplace was familiar with her and knew that she was (presumably) emotionally and rationally stable enough to work in the medical field.  However, I think it justifies a degree of discretionary caution.  If you spend a week with a male and he is completely laid back and rational, you can expect him to be the same way if you spend another week with him in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, et cetera.  You can't always have the same expectations from a woman.  In order to know what a woman is like, from her best to her worst, you really need to spend 2 or 3 months around her to get a feel for what she's like throughout her cycle.  Hormonally speaking, women are dynamic, men aren't.  Some people train themselves to be otherwise (as a musician, I've intentionally trained myself to have mood swings so I can write dynamically), and I say more power to them.  It's the differences we exhibit that make our society work, and the more different we are as a society, the more different roles we can serve.  That said, if you subscribe to a gender but not the socially accepted roles of that gender, you're swimming upstream against a powerful river and it's your own fight.  Gender roles will exist as long as gender exists.

[RemSaverem]

More susceptible?! Well, that sounds kind of sexist!

Just kidding.  

Argh, you caught me - I'm sexist against everyone who has hormones, being that I'm a budding asexual (no pun intended). Hormones of any sort are evil. Down with them, I say!

Now I have to kill you for learning my secret.  

@ Random: Thanks for a fun full-circle stream-of-consciousness here.  As I actually have a penpal on FB who is a public advocate of asexuality (i.e., of the assertion that for some, celibacy is an inborn orientation the way that being gay or straight is for others),
it took me awhile to remember examples of asexual reproduction via budding from AP Bio...which then reminded me of the asexual relationship between Sheldon Cooper & Amy Farrah Fowler (er...if readers don't know that's on Big Bang Theory, they need to be reminded there is TV out there that is utterly geekworthy that is not animated!).

P.S. Thank you for point about the misogynist etymology of hysterical.

[RemSaverem]

First of all, an excellent graphical scale of different hormones and neurotransmitters found in blood samples.  Note that the scaling is logarithmic.  As you can see, there's a huge difference between Males and Females for testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone.  This is the cause of the major stereotypes that men are larger, more muscular, and more emotionally consistent than women, and women have better memory, more "common sense", and are smaller than men.  These are accurate claims when looking at modes, medians, and averages; they are well-supported by neuroscience, psychological science, and chemical biology.

Everyone has anecdotal stories of how hormones do or don't affect emotional stability, I'm sure. I've seen it happen both ways. I've known women whose emotional affect went way the heck out of control when they were getting too much progestogen from low-estrogen or no-estrogen hormonal contraception. And one of my best friends, who has to take steroids when his Crohn's gets out of control, is one of the gentlest people I've ever known because he goes so far out of his way not to let hormones send him into "roid rage". But anecdotal stories, as meaningful as they are to us as individuals, are not the same as data. Have any studies been done which correlate emotional stability to gender and hormones?

Additionally, the PNG that you link shows that the highest concentrations of progestogens (specifically, 17-OHP) are to be found in males, though they're close during the follicular phase. This is close, but not quite true (as is often the case with Wikipedia graphs). Male levels of 17-OHP are slightly surpassed by peak levels during the luteal phase. And if we were going off of anecdotal evidence, in my experience progestogens (which are weakly androgenic in females) and testosterone are far more destabilizing to mood than estrogen. In fact, estrogen seems correlated to mood stability, given that the famous "PMS" occurs in the luteal phase when progestogen levels are at their highest and estrogen levels are low. For that matter, estrogen withdrawal has been positively correlated with mood swing, and replacement with stabilization.

All of this begs the question: Are women commonly thought of by men as "overemotional" because for several days a month (i.e. there's a noticeable contrast), they're exposed to a progestogen:estrogen ratio similar to what men are exposed to all the time (i.e. no noticeable contrast)? If that's the case, then I don't think it's fair to say that being prone to mood swing every day of the month is more emotionally stable than being prone to mood swing for several days a month.

Your research and your logic continue to impress me. Thank you, Random. BTW: One way I've been able to get guys to stop talking about hormones is to remind them that if they don't want their girlfriends to be affected by hormones, they better man up and be the one taking full responsibility or birth control....It's revealing how many men are like 'hormones=bad' when it's a convenient excuse for their sexism or judgement, then immediately 'hormones=good' when they want their own lovers to ingest hormones in pill form every day rather than inconvenience or discomfit themselves with prophylactics.

[@random]

random, individuals develop tolerances and dependencies to hormones, chemicals, toxins, and neurotransmitters based on their exposure to them over time.  Obviously, the average adult male isn't ten times as large and angry as the average adult female, because a tolerance to testosterone is developed.  Likewise, males adapt to a comfortable consistency when it comes to hormone levels; male mood cycles are strictly environmental, whereas women have steep, observable biological hormone cycles.

Do you have a source for this assertion? I'd be interested in seeing the research that's been done since I was in school, because the notion that hormones are like a drug which builds up tolerance pretty much flies in the face of what I learned there.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not being sarcastic. As one of my mentors put it, one of the most important aspects of molecular biology is knowing how very much we DON'T know. It's a developing field, and the theories of one generation are often overturned by the next generation. (You don't have to look any farther than transposons or the chemiosmotic theory for examples of that. Both were ridiculed, and both are now pretty much accepted as fact.*)

But this would indeed be news to me, and it doesn't seem to jive with the fact that hormonal contraception (including non-cyclic such as Depo-Provera or Lybrel) doesn't induce tolerance. A woman can take it for decades, and doesn't need to keep increasing doses lest it become ineffective.


_{* - Actually, those make their own interesting story in the context of this thread. Both discoveries had sound work behind them, but they were ridiculed and ignored until "one of the boys" did the research themselves. McClintock was outside the club by virtue of being a woman in the '40s and '50s, and Mitchell was outside the club by virtue of independently funding his own research.}

[RemSaverem]

Random, once again you are on point. The very notion of what constitutes valid research and who are viewed as valid researchers is itself elitist and sexist. This observation and documentation of the pervasiveness of such in positivistic physical and social sciences form the cornestones for and create the exigency for feminist epistemologies. @DT IMHO, it is ridiculous to think men don't have cycles. Think serotonin, dopamine. Think sports, steroids, caffeine, intoxicants, stress. Think THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE: Build-up of tension, violent explosion, honeymoon period. Think of the vastly disproportionate number of murders committed by men. I am anti-essentialism, but if you want to push essentialism, women as nurturers vs men as murderers is as valid a cliche/stereotype as any (and could just as easily be portrayed in statistics), so you should be rallying for all political offices to be held by females. Ready to let go of essentialism yet?

[Washougal_Otaku]

I just wanted to say that, first of all, I'm not too thrilled to admit that this is where I got this from.

Second, I agree with one saying from Family Guy: "Feminism is about being free to make your own choices."  (Or something like that)

[@random]

Random, once again you are on point. The very notion of what constitutes valid research and who are viewed as valid researchers is itself elitist and sexist.

Elitist? Yeah, I'd still pretty much have to agree with that. Research is still a "club"; in some ways a mutual-admiration society. And there's a lot of "You scratch my back, I scratch yours" wrt grant funding, which makes for issues with objectivity.

Sexist? Ehhhh... I can't speak for all fields, but I think that's mostly in the past now (at least in the physical sciences). What's left now is lingering "viewpoint" sexism - i.e. the same kind of stuff that led to the long-held misconception (no pun intended) that sperm and egg take on the stereotypical male-female sex roles, with the sperm trying to make the egg "give it up". Researchers' frame of reference for understanding their data is shaped by their experiences, which makes for misunderstandings if most of the researchers in a field have the same traditionally-male perspective. Give it another generation or two, though, and it'll (probably) mostly be gone as well.

[RemSaverem]

Entrenched androcentrism in research science is often literally deadly. Take the medical research field. For years what you saw in print about what to watch for in heart attack warning signs was based solely on how heart attacks present in men, which was presumed to be generalizable to women. But it's not. Heart attacks can present differently in women (i.e. have different onset symptoms). Heart medicines that were tested only on men can kill women, etc.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~squiroga/santill.HTM
I have a several books about entrenched androcentrism in medicine. One of the earliest/most famous is called "Mal/e-Practice". Among other deadly examples: When a male presents with pain, male doctors are more likely to look for physical causes; when a woman presents with pain, male doctors are more likely to look for emotional causes. There are huge industries and millions in advertising to help men with erectile dysfunction (pills, machines, herbs); women who are not orgasmic (even if the reason is lack of anatomical knowledge on their partner's part or PTSD from abuse) or who otherwise do not enjoy or are disinterested in sex with men are still stigmatized as "frigid" and pathologized. Etc.

[jaybug]

One, the pay disparity is an AVERAGE. TO get women equal, you will need to seriously dampen men's pay. Factors contributing to this disparity are number one, motherhood, and not working concurrently. WHile they are not earning money, they are counted in the entire wage calculations. And whether not working for a short time, or giving up entirely, until the kids are grown, would mean either we can have no male CEOs, or athletes who earn extraordinary salaries, or we just keep doing what we are doing.

Limiting the amount of financial aid available to men.

crud, I forgot the second one now.

Did anyone yet mention the genital mutilation of women in countries of a certain religion?

Women can own concealed handguns here, ya know. Buy one, practice, OFTEN.

Is it just me, or did the original thread seem to be the only way to elevate women, was to trod upon men?

[reppy]

I'm sure some people consider circumcision to be genital mutilation. ^^

[kylite]

I think .... for me... the greates tpoint of interest is in the male and female though process.

I remember reading somewhere that men think in straight lines where as women tend to think in circles. Both have their strong and weak points.

The great divide between men and women would seem to be that of perception. What one percieves as correct anoter sees as wrong.

The funny part is neither part is completely right or wrong. Hence we are all equals we are not the same being.

(wow do I sound sappy but Im trying to word that so as not to be offensive to anyone)

[reppy]

I am deeply offended by people that try not to offend others.  Way to go, pal!

Just kidding.

I understand what you're saying. ^^

If all men and women acted and thought the same .. man, I'd be one sad kitty cat. D:  I like girls that well, act in a way that is different from how I act.  In case you couldn't tell, I act incredibly manly.  All the time.

[DemonSpawn]

In case you couldn't tell, I act incredibly manly.  All the time.

That's sarcasm right?

[@random]

In case you couldn't tell, I act incredibly manly.  All the time.

That's sarcasm right?

I suspect it was meant that way, but I wouldn't have any trouble accepting it as a serious assertion. It takes a heck of a lot more courage to fly in the face of societal gender constraints than it does to fit in with them. (^_^)

[Malaria]

Jaybug:

One, the pay disparity is an AVERAGE. TO get women equal, you will need to seriously dampen men's pay. Factors contributing to this disparity are number one, motherhood, and not working concurrently. WHile they are not earning money, they are counted in the entire wage calculations. And whether not working for a short time, or giving up entirely, until the kids are grown, would mean either we can have no male CEOs, or athletes who earn extraordinary salaries, or we just keep doing what we are doing.

The higher number, 84 cents to the dollar, corresponds to men and women working the same hours in the same positions in the same fields, ie employees who are functionally the same with their only major difference being their sex.
No one is counting the outliers of professional sports. However, that presents its own set of issues. Salaries are capped in the millions for men in the NBA, while women in the NBA top out at about $200,000 per year. Talk about a sex-based pay disparity.
No one here is saying we need men to make less or women to make more, but for everyone to make the same wage for the same work, which isn't the reality. A lot of getting higher wages and promotions in corporate environments involves asking for them. There's a whole psychology of salary negotiation and when tough negotiation is appropriate associated with each sex. Women who are willing to fight for promotions and raises are viewed poorly in their office environments (think the word "bitch"), while men exhibiting the same behavior are lauded.

Limiting the amount of financial aid available to men.

The idea of affirmative action-type financial aid is to improve the standard of living and opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged classes of society. White, straight, middle class, able-bodied men don't need the leg up, for the most part. They're already society's favorite class, enjoying all sorts of privileges and advantages.

crud, I forgot the second one now.

If you remember, I'd be happy to hear it later.

Did anyone yet mention the genital mutilation of women in countries of a certain religion?

I know this practice is often associated with Muslim countries, but anthropologically speaking I've only encountered it as a practice associated with African tribes, pre-monotheist imperialism. And I think it's a horrible practice, I'm just not sure what you want to address about it.

Women can own concealed handguns here, ya know. Buy one, practice, OFTEN.

By putting the onus for defense against violent crime on the victims, you lose the opportunity to teach criminals not to commit crimes. Also, not all women like guns. Not everyone can afford to deal with the legal mess of a gun. A gun-owning friend of mine told me once that in any case where you defend yourself with a gun, even if you're in the right, you can expect to spend at least $20k in legal fees anyway. I don't have $20k.
 

Is it just me, or did the original thread seem to be the only way to elevate women, was to trod upon men?

... Which original thread? I think it's just this one.
I am paraphrasing really hard here, but "Equality feels like discrimination to the privileged." Privilege is an unfair advantage given to one class of people just because they're that class. Achieving equality means losing the unfair advantage. Men have to lose their male privilege in order to achieve equality of sexes and genders.

[Malaria]

I think .... for me... the greates tpoint of interest is in the male and female though process.

I remember reading somewhere that men think in straight lines where as women tend to think in circles. Both have their strong and weak points.

The great divide between men and women would seem to be that of perception. What one percieves as correct anoter sees as wrong.

This sounds like hyper-generalized bull to me. There are a lot of sociological theories out there about how men and women think, and it's hard to give credence to any particular theory, largely because I don't see men and women as being such unified wholes. Lots of people exist outside the prescribed norms of their sex. There might be some differentiation between the thought patterns of cisgender people, but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. We have to take people's thoughts as they are, not how we believe they should be according to their perceived sex.

DancingTofu, I'm still working on your post. It just happens to be a lot. XD

[reppy]

No one is counting the outliers of professional sports. However, that presents its own set of issues. Salaries are capped in the millions for men in the NBA, while women in the NBA top out at about $200,000 per year. Talk about a sex-based pay disparity.

That's more of a popularity issue.  As it stands currently, The WNBA product does not have the same caliber of athlete and talent that the NBA does.  It does not garner the same audience.  You can claim a sex bias, but I'd much rather watch this, this, this, or this.

[DancingTofu]

DancingTofu, I'm still working on your post. It just happens to be a lot. XD

Thank goodness I decided to go with an abbreviated version then ;P

[Malaria]

No one is counting the outliers of professional sports. However, that presents its own set of issues. Salaries are capped in the millions for men in the NBA, while women in the NBA top out at about $200,000 per year. Talk about a sex-based pay disparity.

That's more of a popularity issue.  As it stands currently, The WNBA product does not have the same caliber of athlete and talent that the NBA does.  It does not garner the same audience.  You can claim a sex bias, but I'd much rather watch this, this, this, or this.

I really have no interest in basketball, so I can't say too much either way. It's just a neat number I saw a while back on Jezebel in an article I can't find anymore. xP

[reppy]

Honestly, I'm more irritated by the fact that the most "attractive" female athletes make the most money, not the most skilled.  But that's an issue with society and what people are willing to pay money to see.

[Malaria]

Honestly, I'm more irritated by the fact that the most "attractive" female athletes make the most money, not the most skilled.  But that's an issue with society and what people are willing to pay money to see.

Ohey, it's like women are often valued more for their looks than their skills. As opposed to men, who can be valued largely for their skills above their looks.

[Malaria]

So, my original plan was to take the time to fully respond to all of Malaria's initial statements as well as any new lines of discussion that came into play in the mean time, but that's not going to happen with how much action this thread is getting.  Instead, I'm going to try to just cover as much as possible without responding to anything specifically.

Sounds good to me.

First of all, an excellent graphical scale of different hormones and neurotransmitters found in blood samples.  Note that the scaling is logarithmic.  As you can see, there's a huge difference between Males and Females for testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone.  This is the cause of the major stereotypes that men are larger, more muscular, and more emotionally consistent than women, and women have better memory, more "common sense", and are smaller than men.  These are accurate claims when looking at modes, medians, and averages; they are well-supported by neuroscience, psychological science, and chemical biology.

Ohmijesus so much science I have no practical grasp of. You'll have to forgive me for deferring to Random's interpretation of the data, because I don't have the knowledge base needed to draw any conclusions.
I'm more able to speak to the danger of turning the average into the expectation, and the power of reinforced expectation. When you tell someone, directly and indirectly throughout their lives, that they will be emotionally consistent, they will work to appear more emotionally consistent. Unless, by chance, they happen to have been raised in an environment that discouraged that sort of social programming, or they are smart and self-aware enough to reject it on their own. In which case, they get looked at strangely by everyone around them that did and does subscribe to that programming, programming which doesn't include tolerance for people outside the norm. Thus, those who aren't exact medical average, and instead exist in the many unacknowledged liminal spaces of sex and gender, suffer from the intolerance of those who have very set ideas of what each sex should do and be like.
When I say people in a liminal space, I don't necessarily mean trans people or genderqueer or intersex people. I mean women who aren't inherently very empathic or men who aren't inherently very muscular. By allowing prejudice based on something as variable as the medical average, we encourage the suffering of those who aren't the medical average, and we give ourselves leave to make assumptions and judgment

That said, it is entirely inappropriate to judge an individual based on an attribute of a population which that individual identifies with,

Glad we're agreed.

but it really can't be prevented,

Of course it can. Widespread social movements in the last twenty years have vastly improved the social acceptability of queer people, when for a long time we had all sorts of “science” that told us they were bad, evil perverts and pedophiles. Knowing that we've made mistakes like that in the past, going forward we can make the conscious choice to judge people based on their individual qualities, rather than depending on science which, as Random pointed out, is unclear at best.

yet there comes a point when stereotyping is widely accepted as bad (generally when the legal system and societal moralities dictate as such).

Just because we think a thing is generally bad doesn't mean we do anything to actively prevent its implementation. Most stereotyping is written write into our psyches by years and years of messaging about what qualities various types and classes of people have.

In the communities in which most of the people involved in this discussion currently exist, that is the case.

See above. We stereotype whether we think it's a good idea or not. You do it, I do it.  Only with constant vigilance and critical examination of our judgments of individuals can we discover what stereotypes might be coloring our perception of those individuals.

Certainly, there are other countries and even a few states or small communities here and there where sexism is not considered bad, but most of us operate within environments where it is.

It really, really depends on what you mean by sexism. It's almost never so simple as “women bad, men good,” or “women should be in the kitchen, men should be doing hard labor.” The sort of sexism that we encounter on a day to day basis is passed over as “the way it should be,” like in Griffinclaw Princess's post. Her opinions aren't abnormal. She spoke rather eloquently for the silent majority.

That being the case, activism is really quite counterproductive.  By drawing attention to something like that, you make people think about it, and when people think about sexism, well, they're thinking about it.

I think it's great when people are forced to reconsider their underlying assumptions. When people can effectively question themselves, they become more thoughtful and are likely to act more conscientiously.

If they don't think about it, but they subconsciously know it's bad, sexism is gone.

Not thinking about it doesn't mean people aren't encountering, it just means they don't care. You can't call the days before any sort of feminist movement not sexist just because it wasn't a concern for anyone. Ignorance isn't absence.

The fight for sexual equality has made a lot of progress in the last 100 years.  Today, organized activism is trivialized in our society.

I sort of agree with you here in the general sense. The combination of emotional distancing and ease of organization through the Internet has made activism easy to the point where people feel as if they've contributed to a cause just by joining a Facebook group.

The fight for equality is, as has been said, never won, but you can't win unless you fight the enemy.  Sexism against women, as it exists today, is largely caused by women drawing attention to the fact that they are, in fact, women.

You can't dismiss the sexism I and many others experience in our day to day lives. As I said above, just because you are ignorant of it does not make it absent.

Society teaches us to have a strong emotional attachment to our respective genders, and by becoming attached to our genders, we mold ourselves into the stereotypes we claim to be fighting against. A woman who wear's womens' clothing then complains about being labeled a woman is a hypocrite.

I don't know if you haven't noticed, but the stereotypes for what women are and do are expansive. More than any woman could really be. A lot of women want people to stop expecting them to fit those stereotypes and instead allow them to be whatever it is they are that isn't “womanly”: hate children, be childfree, be aggressive, be sloppy, be loud, love sports, focus on their careers, be perfectly happy without a man in their lives, suck at cleaning and all the rest of the things that women are regularly told that they shouldn't be, aren't, won't ever be. My skirt doesn't mean I want to have children, that I'm emotionally comforting, that I want to have sex. It means I like my skirt. The stifling and narrowing of women's self-expression, such that they have to be constantly vigilant of what messages they're sending because there's so much wrapped up in every move a woman makes, is one of the reasons I am such an activist. It sucks living that way. I don't like, and I don't want it for anyone else. There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to be taken for an individual, rather than a set of stereotypes. There's no hypocrisy, just a bunch of loaded assumptions being made by everyone who isn't the individual in question.

As Ghandi said, "Be the change you wish to see in others."  Stop trying to change the whole world and just change yourself.  Exist within your own appropriate world and the world will change itself upon observing your wellness.

As much as I can be, I am the change I wish to see in others. But it's really hard to lead by example when the example is a ruthless second-guessing of every impression I form of a person, evaluating for irrational judgments made based on inculcated stereotypes of which I don't know the full depth or breadth.
This philosophy is lovely but doesn't apply to my situation or that of any other woman. I don't have the option of existing in my own appropriate world. It doesn't exist.

The concept of rape culture is something I really want to address, because it's really something that the feminist movement took and tried to use, and it's been terribly counterproductive.

Except for all those victims who've been empowered to report their rapists, get help for any psychological trauma and counter-victim blaming advocacy.

I fear rape and sexual predation.

Hey, me too! Doesn't change the fact that it's disproportionately a cis man-on-cis woman crime.

While I won't divulge details since it's not something I'm really comfortable discussing publicly, I will say that I have been sexually violated in the past by both women and men, and I can say with utmost confidence that the correspondence of rape and gender has nothing to do with sexual inequality.

Your experience, for which you have my sympathy, is extraordinary. However, we have attitudes about what constitutes consent, specifically about women, that do make it an issue for and about women. Women are perceived as “asking for it” and inherently consenting when exhibiting any number of behaviors. Things like being dressed attractively, (the standards for which vary pretty wildly) flirting (or being perceived as flirting), being drunk high or otherwise impaired are all taken as “implied” consent. Women who are raped while dressed well, not sober or after talking to a guy for a while are often perceived as somehow complicit in their own rapes. Men who date rape women who were too drunk to consent get off scot free all the time, just because we have set beliefs about how women should respond to men's sexual advances. In worse cases, where it's impossible for wives to accuse husbands of rape, it becomes an issue of consistently valuing the wants and needs of men over that of women in something so basic as what we do with our bodies. In that situation, women exist at least partially to attend to the needs of their (male) partner at their own expense, because as a society, we value the sexual needs of men more than the safety and security of women.

Almost all rape is a declaration of false superiority, used by people who are insecure about their value, and wish to enhance their image of self-worth by expressing sexual dominance over another person.

Or, as in a lot of cases, a declaration by the rapist that their wants and needs come before those of their victim.

Some posted at some point that rape rates are 1 in 3 for women, and 1 and 10 for men.  Those are wrong.  Those might be reported rates, but those are absolutely wrong.  Most rapists threaten their victims to keep them quiet.  Most victims are children.  Most people have mysterious holes in their childhood where there seems to be no memories.

1 in 3 is the largest estimate I see, 1 in 6 the most conservative. Just fyi. Haven't seen anything other than 1 in 10 for men, though. And those statistics do take into account the frequency of unreported rapes. I don't know the formula for it, so I can't comment on its validity.

Rape is a disturbing sociopathic act which violates every law and moral imaginable.  It occurs an act of theft, assault, adultery, murder, gluttony, envy, extortion, blackmail, and so much more.  By accusing men, many--if not most--of whom have been sexually abused at some point in their lifetime (whether they're willing to remember it or not) that they are guilty of cultivating rape culture is incredibly destructive to self esteem.  That brings us right back to the actual cause of rape: our society is frequently demoralizing to people who haven't actually done anything wrong, and feminism is a big finger-pointer.

They'll stop being accused when they stop cultivating it. Every time a man chooses to see a woman as an object rather than as a whole person, and shares that choice with the men around him, the value of women as a whole is diminished. The less men value women, the more likely they are to put their desires ahead of those of the woman, and hey, suddenly we get our rate of rape, which is stunningly high in comparison to other industrialized nations.
I'd argue that it takes a certain amount of confidence to rape someone. You have to feel as if you are more powerful than them to begin with, that you can get away with it, that it's okay for you to do so, even that it's your right. It makes sense that the consistent privileging of men over women carries over into sex, too.

I also want to address the issue of perception here.  I'm not victimized by sexism against women, since I'm not one and have a pretty huge moustache which declares me not one, but I am the victim of sexism, and what I see is something that happens on a very individual level.

The patriarchy hurts everyone, it's true. Expectations of behavior go both ways, and are equally harmful to all people who try to function outside the norm. However, the status quo gets men all sorts of nice things to with their social taboos. Assumptions about emotional reliability and clarity, suitability to positions of authority, all these things are yours just for having a penis!
Re: acting individually. No one acts in a vacuum. Individual actions are influenced by social norms are influenced by individual actions.

The sexism that happens isn't universally held, and therefor it's a personal, case-by-case situation, not something that needs to be addressed to society.

When the personal sexism is endemic to the whole society, then it should be addressed by the society and the individual.

If a population of men is sexist against a woman, that woman should absolutely call them out on it, and since our legal system's bogus, a lot of the time it won't work out too great, such as in goatchild's story. However, a bogus legal system doesn't equate to sexism.  It equates to a bogus legal system that doesn't always give enough of a damn to uphold law and liberty.  Women get shafted; so do men.  Back to goatchild's story, yeah, her family encountered some sexism in the medical field.  Then they managed to find a place where sexism wasn't an issue.

A legal system that doesn't pursue the claims of women because it assumes that the claims are always frivolous is totally sexist. The point is that women get shafted differently just because they're women.
The sexism in Goatchild's story shouldn't have been happening at all. We shouldn't dismiss it just because her mother succeeded in finding better conditions for herself. We should be enraged that it happened in the first place, because no one deserves to have their skills and their experience undervalued just because of their sex or gender.

Again, sexism exists, but it's far from universal.  Equality for women in most industries is pretty balanced.  In the few were it isn't, look at who's running them.  Old white men.  So old white men are sexist.

Old white men are sexist, but so are the rest of us. You and me and everyone else who was raised in our sexist society.
Equality for women in most industries isn't balanced at all. Hard sciences, especially, struggle to recruit  a parity of men and women, because women are often discouraged from going into science, math or engineering. Not as much as before, but still a problem. Corporate management is still dominated by men, too.

Well that's nothing new.  The good news is they'll die/retire/get replaced soon, and eventually everyone running everything in the US will have lived their entire lives in societies where sexism was universally considered a bad thing, same with racism, or if you want an example of something that would have gotten me excluded from almost all aspects of society and possibly murdered a few hundred years ago, left-handedness.  Society finds really stupid reasons to exclude people, but would you take me seriously if I started pushing for equal rights for lefties?  I wouldn't take me seriously.

The people who benefit from the discrimination of old white guys, the slightly younger white male successors, aren't going to give up all the privilege they get from discrimination. I mean, maybe it'll be better. But as far as I'm concerned, it's never better fast enough. It's never enough until we are actually judging people based on who they really are, rather than the stereotypes we've decided they represent.
… Did you just try to say that racism isn't an issue anymore? Because that is straight up not true. This isn't my area of expertise, but just a quick look at the rates of poverty by ethnicity will tell you there is something very wrong with how our wealth is distributed, even generations after we supposedly ended all discrimination on the basis of race.
I just consulted with a couple lefties, (critical types, sensitive to inculcated biases) and according to my extremely shotgun poll, lots of people are apparently kind of jerks to lefties, intolerant of an inherent difference that is part of their lives. Since we live in a right-handed oriented world, lefties are expected to cope with industries that almost uniformly produce instruments, such as scissors, that don't suit how they function at all. Those concerns are dismissed with a casual “use your non-dominant hand, it's no big deal,” but I can attest from many a stupid, bored experiment that using your non-dominant hand is hard. If we can put ramps in sidewalks so alter-abled people can use our streets, we can give lefties scissors they can use properly. So we should stop being jerks to lefties and give them their scissors.
All that, right there? Perfectly serious. No one should ever have to suffer at all because of intolerance or apathy countenanced by privilege.

With the exception of a few very backwards states, women in the US have full equal rights.

On paper. I'm more interested in the subtle discriminations that shape the lives of women. 

Far moreso than gays, transexuals, asexuals, hermaphrodites, Latinos, muslims, and other populations.  Women are discriminated against.  That's a real shame, which is why I choose not to discriminate against women, and I'm in full support of anyone else who chooses not to discriminate against women.  If I witness discrimination against a woman, I call the offender out on it if it's something significant, because I'm not okay with discrimination, and I do the exact same thing when I see anyone being discriminated against.

That's very noble of you. That doesn't mean you know what the real time extent of sexism is in our society. It's okay if you don't really want to think about it, or don't like the way it's framed, but it'd be cool if you respected the need for those who are suffering from it to identify and address those concerns as they saw necessary in order to improve their own standard of living.
Slightly more concretely, when endemic sexism is limiting access to healthcare, both reproductive and otherwise, women get knocked down to the second level of Maslow's pyramid. You might not think of the attitudes underlying these problems as problematic in and of themselves, because you seem to believe that medical averages justify the stereotyping of women's emotional stability, which feeds into a societal perception of the lack of reliability re: women's own medical decisions and judgments, but reducing the quality of life for whole swaths of people like that is just not cool.

Jews, Christians, Canadians; some people grow up thinking bigotry's alright and all you have to do is tell them personally: "That's not okay."  Usually that's all it takes.  Feminism, as most often observed, is impersonal.  It's a population addressing the public.  That was great in the 40's and 50's when legal rights were really being established, and it worked fine for 30 years prior and after, but now it's not the way to go about it.

That's what it takes to get them to stop one particular behavior when they're in your presence specifically. Doesn't change underlying damaging attitudes.
I find feminism very personal. It's my way of seeking a greater standard of living.
As I said above, it's not so much about legal rights anymore. It's about assumptions and stereotypes that underpin consistent mistreatment of women.
Also, you should really leave it to the activists themselves to decide how to go about their causes. Seeing as they're the ones working at them constantly, seeing what works and what doesn't.

Malaria, maybe you're a personal feminist.  Maybe you don't go to rallies and watch Oprah; maybe you're like me and just call people out when you see discrimination which I'm totally chill with, but then why do you declare yourself a feminist?  Why not just say "I fight for equal rights and to end discrimination"?  If you see unjust discrimination against a Moslem, do you call the offending party out on it?  Do you believe that Women are entitled to certain rights that others who suffer from discrimination just as much or more are not entitled to?  Because that is what I see when I see feminism; I see people who are too busy supporting the rights of one population to give proper attention to others more in need.

Oprah really isn't my brand of feminism. She does good work, but I don't find anything particularly interesting about her show or her empire. Thinking about it, I don't know any self-identified feminists that look to Oprah as a feminist touchstone. She ain't no Gloria Steinem.
In terms of causes outside feminism, I am better read, more critical and more capable of commenting on daily discriminations oriented around sexism than I am of any other -ism. So I am primarily a feminist. But then we stumble on something known in feminist circles as intersectionality, where the rights of women intersect with eco justice, reproductive rights, racism, ableism, look-ism, access to education, access to basic material needs and a thousand other issues. I care about all of it, but feminist issues are where I am most able to act, and it makes the most sense for me to dedicate my energy where I can act most effectively. Everyone has a niche cause, and that's much better than everyone trying to push for some general, overly broad set of changes. Depth is more important than breadth, when it comes to individuals trying to instigate radical social change. As has been discussed previously in the thread, there is a whole complex of -isms that need to be addressed in the world and everyone does what they can so that in the end everyone can get as much of what they need in terms of an end to discrimination and an increase in social and economic justice. Feminists aren't suggesting that we should privilege an end to discrimination for women above that of others, especially since a lot of feminists also happen to be women of color who would like to see an end to the racism in their lives. All activists act concurrently, sometimes counter-productively, as effectively as they can.
I will not pansy out and fail to say that I am a feminist, because that ignores the stigmatization of that word. This is what a feminist looks like: I am not a stereotype of a bulldyke or a bra burner or a misandrist. There is nothing wrong with clearly stating my intention to fight for equality of sexes and genders. Just because I say I'm a feminist doesn't mean I'm not also a humanist, but failure to address issues specifically is a failure to act effectively.
I am a feminist because I put energy, thought and consideration into how to make my world less sexist specifically. I don't just “call people out” when I notice something wrong. Negative enforcement can only do so much. Forward motion and progress are needed to resolve the issues associated with sexism and every other -ism. The sort of behavior that you're advocating is pretty passive. It only addresses problems when they're obvious. I want to eliminate root causes. I want the media to stop brandishing girl and boy children with caricatures of who they are and who they should be, because I don't want them to grow up thinking they should be a particular way just because of their genitalia. I want companies to stop underpaying their women employees. I want to stop hearing terrible, nonsense generalizations about what women are or what men are and what they should be. So I'm a feminist.

[DancingTofu]

Malaria: This is kind of a really lackluster response and I apologize for that, but there's nothing left that I really have a counter-argument for.  I think I could still argue over some trivial details, but I'll refrain, since doing so wouldn't really be productive in any way whatsoever.  It's probably better to say that I don't necessarily agree with you 100%, but I can respect your views and arguments as you've presented them.  I follow my own advice and live in my own reality where I see things as they can and (I think) ought to be, and you live in the reality where things are a lot less mellow.  I won't fault you on that if you don't fault me for my ignorance (and therein my bliss).

[melchizedek]

First, I have to say I share boogiepop's opinion.

From my life experience as a male I've got to say it seems like things are skewed in women's favor.  At college, they have women's resource center, women's studies, mother's rooms. 

I knew a classmate that took a women's studies class and questioned the professor about a few things, he got the response "You are male and thus not able to understand".  Apparently in her opinion, males are handicapped for being male.

Also, at work women get better breaks for having children.  Men can take an unpaid bonding leave.  Women can take a paid maternity leave, and if they want within a year take the same unpaid bonding leave.  So much for equality.

Look at divorce.  Statistically speaking women come out way ahead in divorce.  84% of single parent families are women.  Most all of the men I know who got divorced never have custody of their children, it doesn't matter who has a better job or a number of other things, unless the mother is completely incompetent she'll get the kids.  The only case I know of where the dad got the kids was when the mother still failed to pay rent even tho he was sending her child support and spent all day at home screaming at her sons. 

There was a best of craigslist post a while back that talked about how if you are a man, you are on your own, there isn't societal support that there is for women, suck it up and accept the fact of our society.

That being said, I'm with boogiepop in her conclusion, people on either extreme need to be...well yeah, go back a few pages to read. 

[reppy]

Honestly, I'm more irritated by the fact that the most "attractive" female athletes make the most money, not the most skilled.  But that's an issue with society and what people are willing to pay money to see.

Ohey, it's like women are often valued more for their looks than their skills. As opposed to men, who can be valued largely for their skills above their looks.

I recently started working in the IT field.  My boss says he used to have long hair (as I once did -- had to cut it to get a job -- that's an entirely different rant), then he cut it and found out he could make 60% more.  Looks do count for males, but only so far as they appear professional.  They can still be ugly as sin. ^^;

Look at divorce.  Statistically speaking women come out way ahead in divorce.  84% of single parent families are women.  Most all of the men I know who got divorced never have custody of their children, it doesn't matter who has a better job or a number of other things, unless the mother is completely incompetent she'll get the kids.  The only case I know of where the dad got the kids was when the mother still failed to pay rent even tho he was sending her child support and spent all day at home screaming at her sons.

My brother had to go through all kinds of trouble to get custody of his kids.  If I recall, after a lot of time spent in court, he got them because his ex-wife just signed them over to him after her mother and their pastor urged her to do so.  You see, she has a drug addiction, was in an out of rehab, and was actually hospitalized twice while pregnant (not my brother's kid, hence the divorce) for alcohol poisoning.  And if I recall, if they weren't able to find the father (we knew who it was, but he was trying to avoid paying child support) then my brother was going to have to pay child support for a kid that wasn't even his.  Speaking of child support, my brother has never received a cent from either of the two mothers he has kids with.

On some issues, certain things are biased in favor of men, and others in favor of women.  I think women getting custody of kids is based on the belief that women are better natural caregivers.  I tend to believe so as well.  Having said that, I also believe it's possible for men to do just as good (or bad!) a job of raising children.

[Washougal_Otaku]

^ To touch up on that, in some states, including Washington (I don't know about Oregon), the rate of fathers getting custody rather than mothers is going up, especially in first-time cases.  Sometimes it is a matter of the mother being a failure at motherhood, sometimes it is because the father works better for the children as a whole, and in some cases it's because the parents agreed that this option would work better.

As for the hair thing, being one who had to get his hair cut because of a "job policy," I feel that this policy is crap, at least where I was working at the time.  It was Taco Bell.  I was originally told that guys could have long hair, so long as they kept it up, just like the females.  No problem; in fact, I got so familiar with the policies regarding hair, that I became the top enforcer of the policy.  Over half of the females would do some mediocre job, like have a hairnet over just the bun part of their hair, or something like that.  A couple would give me lip about it, but still did it correctly when I called the head manager to back me up.  I thought it was sexist and hypocritical that I was asked to cut my hair, after all of this, so I decided to not care about the policy any more.

 

[@random]

(completely tangential rant)

If you ask me, "policy" makes a much better epithet than any of the words we have to censor on the forums. Forget men screwing women or women screwing men, the worst of it comes from the corporations that screw us both.

(/completely tangential rant)

[Malaria]

Malaria: This is kind of a really lackluster response and I apologize for that, but there's nothing left that I really have a counter-argument for.  I think I could still argue over some trivial details, but I'll refrain, since doing so wouldn't really be productive in any way whatsoever.  It's probably better to say that I don't necessarily agree with you 100%, but I can respect your views and arguments as you've presented them.  I follow my own advice and live in my own reality where I see things as they can and (I think) ought to be, and you live in the reality where things are a lot less mellow.  I won't fault you on that if you don't fault me for my ignorance (and therein my bliss).

As long as you stop claiming modern feminist activism is a farce, I will leave you to live in as much ignorant bliss as you like.
edit: I actually take that back after thinking about it for a bit. If you acknowledge that my arguments are valid (in that you have no counter-arguments) and therefore acknowledge that sexism is kind of a problem, don't you feel sort of... amoral when you choose not to consider that problem as it appears in your day-to-day life?
Mods, is that too personal? I don't even know at this point.

I also went back and reread my post from last night, and I'm sorry it was full of glaring grammatical issues. >< That's what I get for writing things as quickly as possible while I should be sleeping.

[Malaria]

I realized as I was writing this that I've citing the concept of male privilege constantly, and I forgot that for most people this isn't an idea they encounter often. Here is Barry's Male Privilege Checklist, which is a pretty comprehensive list of all the things men don't have to deal with in their daily lives thanks to being men and not women or genderqueer people.

From my life experience as a male I've got to say it seems like things are skewed in women's favor.  At college, they have women's resource center, women's studies, mother's rooms.

Those things are desperate efforts to make up the desperate difference in privilege faced by women. WRCs wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't so difficult/stigmatized for women to get reproductive health services such as birth control, contraceptives and abortion clinic referrals. Especially since the onus of sexual health in any partnership is automatically put on the women, women have to take of their health, especially their sexual health, much more than men do. Women's studies are there to make up for a historically androcentric scholarship community. Our understanding of human nature is largely an understanding of the nature of men, without credence for the worldview and experience of women. A lot of accomplishments of women throughout history were dismissed and marginalized because a lot of our history is taught using Great Man Theory, where we focus on the flow of history as something perpetrated by individual leaders and geniuses, mostly white men. Without women's studies, it's likely most people would never notice that this is something that's happening, much less an actual issue.

edit: I was stupid and forgot about the primary reason for the existence of women's health centers. It's because women need specifically trained doctors to deal with the fact that their genitalia is internal, as opposed to men who can pretty much tell immediately if something has gone wrong because it's all visible. Women can't tell for themselves, so they need routine medical checks to make sure that nothing is going wrong where they can't see it.

I knew a classmate that took a women's studies class and questioned the professor about a few things, he got the response "You are male and thus not able to understand".  Apparently in her opinion, males are handicapped for being male.

There are some life experiences men can't ever have because they're male, and are insulated by male privilege. That doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding, she probably just didn't feel like trying to make him go through the whole rigmarole of acknowledging his privilege. Making anyone own up to any sort of privilege they might have is tiring and often unrewarding.

Also, at work women get better breaks for having children.

Assuming the company is willing to hire them at all, for fear of them being "unreliable" due to the assumption that they will be the primary caregivers for any children they have or might have.  

Men can take an unpaid bonding leave. Women can take a paid maternity leave, and if they want within a year take the same unpaid bonding leave.  So much for equality.

In exchange, women have to go through pregnancy and labor. The human body evolved in such a way that there isn't actually room for either of those processes in your modern human woman. I would totally trade away maternity leave for never having to push a newborn through a 10 cm canal in my body.
There's also a lot of assumptions about parenting tied up in how leave is doled out. Because we automatically assume a woman will be the primary caregiver, and because she will be seen as selfish if she chooses to be otherwise, (see the Checklist above) a woman must have extra forms of maternity leave or risk social stigmatization. If we expected parenting to be a cooperative venture, men and women would probably get about the same amount of leave.

Look at divorce.  Statistically speaking women come out way ahead in divorce.  84% of single parent families are women.

And then we stigmatize the hell out of single parent families, assuming that the woman is somehow morally deficient (if she was never married) or a shrew and a bitch (if she was) for running her life in such a way.

Most all of the men I know who got divorced never have custody of their children, it doesn't matter who has a better job or a number of other things, unless the mother is completely incompetent she'll get the kids.

The entrenched assumptions about who should be the primary caregiver in any given situation are also disadvantageous for men sometimes too. Perfect example of how the patriarchy hurts everyone. We're predisposed to make judgments based stereotypes of sexes and genders rather than the realities of individuals, and everyone loses.

The only case I know of where the dad got the kids was when the mother still failed to pay rent even tho he was sending her child support and spent all day at home screaming at her sons.

Wouldn't it have been better if the authorities involved in this situation had judged it based on the realities of the people involved rather than assumptions about how they would act due to their sex and gender?

There was a best of craigslist post a while back that talked about how if you are a man, you are on your own, there isn't societal support that there is for women, suck it up and accept the fact of our society.

Maybe if we stopped automatically assuming men should handle it on their own because men are the Competent Handlers of Things and Situations, men could establish more support systems for themselves without being looked down on for being "weak."
The writer of that post also had the option of working to improve societal support for men in crisis instead of complaining.

That being said, I'm with boogiepop in her conclusion, people on either extreme need to be...well yeah, go back a few pages to read.

I think it's assumed in any reasonable and rational discussion that extremism is bad.

[MiriaRose]

Also, at work women get better breaks for having children.  Men can take an unpaid bonding leave.  Women can take a paid maternity leave, and if they want within a year take the same unpaid bonding leave.  So much for equality.

Here is an interesting article. I had a much better source about how pregnancy affects women in the workplace, but I can't seem to find the link.

EDIT: Here's an article about pregnancy discrimination.

[jaybug]

It's been a long time since I last read any studies on gender pay issues, but what I was thinking back to was what I said. And now you are saying something completely different. Could you please cite a source?

20,000 people show up for every Blazer game. There were so few attending the Portland WNBA franchise, it went away. Why pay women the same as Kobe, when there isn't enough money coming through the door? Would paying women more, make a better game? Wouldn't it be better if women were good enough to play in the NBA?

So because my parents got college educations, and I am a white male, that means I should not be able to go to college? Well that's just great, thanks! And you expect me to be on your side when push comes to shove?

[superjaz]

Also, at work women get better breaks for having children.  Men can take an unpaid bonding leave.  Women can take a paid maternity leave, and if they want within a year take the same unpaid bonding leave.  So much for equality.

Look at divorce.  Statistically speaking women come out way ahead in divorce.  84% of single parent families are women. 

I want to know where this mythical place offering paid maternity is, oregon law just has that US women get auto paid maternity?
What is maternity leave?
"Maternity leave, now often called parental or family leave, is the time a mother (or father) takes off from work for the birth or adoption of a child. Actual paid "maternity leave" — while the norm in every other developed country — is unusual in the United States, although some enlightened companies do offer new parents paid time off, up to six weeks in some cases.

Most likely, you'll use a combination of short-term disability (STD), sick leave, vacation, personal days, and unpaid family leave during your time away from work."
unpaid personal days is all my job offers, oregon law  gives the unpaid leave, anything else is in the hands of the employers

As for the skewed divorce, sad to say there is a reason they are called dead beat dads,   maybe males have a gentic predisposition to be okay with leaving the state to avoid child support?

[DancingTofu]

Malaria: This is kind of a really lackluster response and I apologize for that, but there's nothing left that I really have a counter-argument for.  I think I could still argue over some trivial details, but I'll refrain, since doing so wouldn't really be productive in any way whatsoever.  It's probably better to say that I don't necessarily agree with you 100%, but I can respect your views and arguments as you've presented them.  I follow my own advice and live in my own reality where I see things as they can and (I think) ought to be, and you live in the reality where things are a lot less mellow.  I won't fault you on that if you don't fault me for my ignorance (and therein my bliss).

As long as you stop claiming modern feminist activism is a farce, I will leave you to live in as much ignorant bliss as you like.
edit: I actually take that back after thinking about it for a bit. If you acknowledge that my arguments are valid (in that you have no counter-arguments) and therefore acknowledge that sexism is kind of a problem, don't you feel sort of... amoral when you choose not to consider that problem as it appears in your day-to-day life?
Mods, is that too personal? I don't even know at this point.

I also went back and reread my post from last night, and I'm sorry it was full of glaring grammatical issues. >< That's what I get for writing things as quickly as possible while I should be sleeping.

Certainly.  I misspoke, and I entirely withdraw that claim.  I choose not to become a part of the issue, just as I choose not to become a part of politics, war, or other great controversies.  There's too much subjectivity in all of those.  All of existence consists of forces which push against each other.  Think of the yin-yang.  There's the yin, the yang, and the boundaries with separate and enclose them.  Society's the same way.  I choose to be a part of neither side, and instead reside upon the boundary of disputes.  I'm not perfect at it and probably never will be, but I aim to be as objective, uninvolved, and critical as possible.

[Felix]

So because my parents got college educations, and I am a white male, that means I should not be able to go to college? Well that's just great, thanks! And you expect me to be on your side when push comes to shove?

When did anyone say that?

[Malaria]

It's been a long time since I last read any studies on gender pay issues, but what I was thinking back to was what I said. And now you are saying something completely different. Could you please cite a source?

Have a source. Rereading that, I'd actually underestimated the pay gap. 80 cents to the dollar at best, 69 cents to the dollar at worst.
I was actually addressing your point that the pay disparity is owing to the tendency of women to work less, or work lower-paying jobs, and pointing out that that simply isn't true. I didn't address the fact of women working less at lower-paying jobs, but I can do that now.
In the articles Miria pulled up, they make it clear that even in academia, a career for the bloodily career-minded if ever there was one, women's jobs are still valued less than those of their husbands when it comes time to drop hours in order to raise children. The effect is moreso in other fields, where working full time to research and publish isn't as much of a time suck. Because we have these entrenched ideas about women's roles in the home, women are socially disadvantaged if they choose to honor their career above their children. We think of them as irresponsible mothers, even when fathers do exactly that constantly. So it's almost inevitable that a woman will drop hours or take a less-demanding job in order to care for her children. According to her own social programming and the disapproval she'll garner from others, she doesn't have a choice. If we made parenting a more cooperative venture, men and women could be more able to work equal hours.

[Break for comments by Jaybug removed by randompvg. Point below stands on its own okay, so I figure I'll just leave it as is.]

I would prefer it if rape wasn't such a prevalent crime in the United States, such that anyone should even have to consider owning a gun just to deal it. Which, if you think about it, is a hella extreme measure. The onus of violent crime should not be on potential victims. I am not responsible for violent actions taken against me, and I should not have to live in fear just because our society fails to teach men that women are people and not objects for their gratification.

20,000 people show up for every Blazer game. There were so few attending the Portland WNBA franchise, it went away. Why pay women the same as Kobe, when there isn't enough money coming through the door? Would paying women more, make a better game? Wouldn't it be better if women were good enough to play in the NBA?

I remember when I was younger, during the period of time when Mia Hamm was getting more visibility for professional women's soccer, I would often hear this particular gem: "You know what's a funny joke? Women's sports." So maybe no one goes to WNBA games because we've cultivated this culture where women doing a physical activity couldn't possibly be as interesting as men doing a physical activity. And because most young women don't aspire to professional sports because it's not a thing that women get respect in, it removes a lot of the competition that drives the rise in skill level in men's sports.
Maybe it'd help if women's professional sports were as heavily or dramatically advertised. If one were to say it isn't advertised because it isn't bringing in money, and no one cares because their attention is never on it because it's never advertised, then you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy of why no one cares about professional women's sports.

So because my parents got college educations, and I am a white male, that means I should not be able to go to college? Well that's just great, thanks! And you expect me to be on your side when push comes to shove?

This a strawman. No one wants to deny you entry into college. It's already easier for you than it is for everyone who isn't a white son of college-educated professionals.
You get a lot of social advantages for being all the things you listed above. All of these things will make it significantly easier for you to get an education, get a job and get respect. Every other class of society that doesn't have your advantages, so they need support systems in place in order to deal with the disadvantage.
I'm not asking you to "side" with me. I'm asking everyone to try to create a world in which people are judged based on their real personalities, opinions, skills and experiences, regardless of their sex or gender. Speaking more broadly, regardless of any inherent trait that can't be chosen, such as socioeconomic class, physical ability, appearance, race, ethnicity, age, sexuality or anything else a person can be.


DancingTofu: I disagree that you can be separate from conflict, but you have my kudos for the intellectual consistency.

[melchizedek]

Not sure I got my point across as to why I think boggiepop has the correct idea.  People that get way to into a certain line of thinking tend to pre judge. 

If this was a patriarchal thread I'd likely post more stuff about how women have suffered, but most of the posts seem to be going the other way so picked the less popular side.   Someone's got to stand with Tofu

People who are on both extremes need to be kicked like boogie said because either way it is prejudiced and prejudiced sucks 100% IMO

Yeah, boogie has the right idea

[RemSaverem]

Not much to add atm from here at work, & I've only skimmed since my last message, but a few very quick things:Yes, there is still female genital mutilation (the worst of which is infibulation). Yes, some consider male circumcision to also be genital mutilation. Many of the activists working to educate parents into choosing not to engage it are in the midwifery / doula / homebirth movements.@ Kylite: There are books such as the legendary "Women's Ways of Knowing" that posit feminist epistemologies, i.e., that propose that patriarchy has both denigrated women, and, withheld vast amounts of beneficial knowledge from canonic scholarship and from shaping hegemonies, simply because of the chasms that can exist between positivistic science and postulations accredited as valid within patriarchy and subjective, feeling-based/nature-based, empathy-driven observations discredited within patriarchy for being feminine. Feminist revisionist epistemology (which was my major in undergrad) is the discipline of systematically examining who decides what is valid knowledge and what are valid sources of knowledge, on what bases such decisions are made, upheld, enforced, yet simultaneously rendered invisible, what is lost in not acknowledging wisdom accumulated by other parties via other means, and how to re-incorporate or newly-incorporate those sources of wisdom. A classic example would be that modern pharmaceutical science displayed wise women herbalists and curanderas, but now, the industry is recognizing that many herbs actually have healing properties and is rendering them into pills to market. PS Special thanks to Malaria & to randompvg, who have become my favorite posters on the forum (other than some occasionally very fun Doctor Who-related posts).

[reppy]

I would prefer it if rape wasn't such a prevalent crime in the United States, such that anyone should even have to consider owning a gun just to deal it. Which, if you think about it, is a hella extreme measure. The onus of violent crime should not be on potential victims. I am not responsible for violent actions taken against me, and I should not have to live in fear just because our society fails to teach men that women are people and not objects for their gratification.

I think any sensible person would prefer that.  There are certainly precautions one can take to avoid being raped.  You might say, "Well, why can't we just live in a world where I don't need to do that?"  That would be awesome if such a world could ever exist.  But it won't.  There will always be people who, despite being taught otherwise, have no qualms with committing rape, murder, or theft.

I don't walk around late at night because there is always the possibility I could be attacked/mugged.  It'd be cool if I could, but I don't plan on it happening any time soon nor do I lament the fact that I must take precautions to protect myself.

Edit: Just for the record, I think carrying a gun around to protect from rape is a bit extreme.  Yeah, I bet it's damn effective, but it seems like overkill.

I remember when I was younger, during the period of time when Mia Hamm was getting more visibility for professional women's soccer, I would often hear this particular gem: "You know what's a funny joke? Women's sports." So maybe no one goes to WNBA games because we've cultivated this culture where women doing a physical activity couldn't possibly be as interesting as men doing a physical activity. And because most young women don't aspire to professional sports because it's not a thing that women get respect in, it removes a lot of the competition that drives the rise in skill level in men's sports.
Maybe it'd help if women's professional sports were as heavily or dramatically advertised. If one were to say it isn't advertised because it isn't bringing in money, and no one cares because their attention is never on it because it's never advertised, then you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy of why no one cares about professional women's sports.

I can only speak for the WNBA, but I feel like it is heavily advertised.  They advertise the heck out of it during NBA games, especially when the WNBA season is approaching.  The WNBA is integrated into the NBA All-Star game in a segment called "Shooting Stars."

As to why I think it isn't as popular?  I've watched a few of the playoff games and they can be exciting, but I don't feel like the overall product is anywhere near the same as the NBA.  I don't know if it ever will be on par with the NBA product. NBA as it currently exists puts a very large emphasis on athleticism and height.  WNBA has a higher emphasis on fundamentals.  If you want to watch a more technical game, then you watch the WNBA.  If you want to watch guys that will dunk over 3 people in traffic, then you watch the NBA.

I'm not asking you to "side" with me. I'm asking everyone to try to create a world in which people are judged based on their real personalities, opinions, skills and experiences, regardless of their sex or gender. Speaking more broadly, regardless of any inherent trait that can't be chosen, such as socioeconomic class, physical ability, appearance, race, ethnicity, age, sexuality or anything else a person can be.

(This response doesn't make sense out of context, but if I recall the original discussion was about school.)  My preference would be that higher education be free for everyone.

But one issue I have with favoring one gender or race in order to create "balance" is that you deny things to decent people that have no control over their gender or race and how they're treated.  I have no control over the fact that I'm a white male; I have no control over how society treats white males.  Yet, since white males receive preferential treatment by some/most, that can be held against me in certain cases.  How is that fair?  Why not look at socioeconomic backgrounds on an individual basis and determine if that person say, needs more financial aid for school?

[legoman60]

Entrenched androcentrism in research science is often literally deadly. Take the medical research field. For years what you saw in print about what to watch for in heart attack warning signs was based solely on how heart attacks present in men, which was presumed to be generalizable to women. But it's not. Heart attacks can present differently in women (i.e. have different onset symptoms). Heart medicines that were tested only on men can kill women, etc.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~squiroga/santill.HTM

I'm sorry to bring this post up but it has been bugging me since I read it. Just to make sure I understand what you are saying: Basically heart attacks present differently in men than in women. Therefore if women are taught to look for the symptoms that men present they wont know that they are having a heart attack, and it is more likely to kill them.

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. I believe that the scientists/doctors conducting these studies Assumed that a condition that (usually) does not affect hormones or sex organs would present the same symptoms for men and for women. I believe that this is a safe assumption. This is because nearly every disease and condition on the history of medicine that does not affect hormones or sex organs will present the same symptoms in both men and women. Yes, there can be exceptions. Yes, they found one the hard way. Yes, medicine is not an exact science. It might be easier to think of this way: if a person rolls a die 3000 times, and every time it comes up six, this person (as well as any observer) would expect it to be a six on that 3001st roll.

I do apologize if I sound rude, I tend to make my points quite forcefully. I will continue to follow this thread as it interests me, however I probably will not post again unless it is to point out logical fallacies or flawed logic as I am not fond of debating -isms.

[@random]

Speaking personally: I don't understand. Why is any person's response to the possibility of being raped anyone's business but their own? 

Speaking as moderator: I do not want to see another post that gets within a mile of making judgments on your fellow posters' feelings on that (or any other) matter, or what you think it says about them. If you want to articulate your own feelings, that's okay as long as you make sure it relates to the topic. But I'm not going to repeat again that the forum Code of Conduct states, in part:

• Keep discussion friendly and civil, and keep discussion focused on the issue rather than the person. No personal attacks or speculating about another person's motives.
• Respect the subject matter of each thread. If you'd like to hold a discussion about a separate issue, please post in a separate thread.

To be a little clearer: "You said XYZ, and I think it's wrong for the following reasons" is fine. "You said XYZ, so you must hate freedom and want the terrorists to win?" is going to be deleted.

_{(For the record, reppy's post is not the reason I'm saying this - in fact, it's a pretty darn good example to follow. It just happens to be two posts above mine and mention the same subject of rape.)}

[kylite]

An observaiton only:

over the last week I have paid attention to what footwear males and females wear and seen an interesting trend.

Men tend to prefer a shoe with a bit of flair and a heavy tread. Sneakers or loafers seem to be the norm

Women tend to gravitate to calf high boots, or flat sole skater shoes.
The occasional high heel but thats more a rarety then the norm.

[RemSaverem]

@ legoman60: How you think and feel in regard to a post is up to you, but how you think and feel in regard to medical science does not change the fact that historically, studies have been done on and about one subgroup, and that results are not generalizable. Everyone needs to take into consideration that factors far beyond genetics/organs/hormones are at play in how symptoms present. There are such environmental factors as who is enculturated to express when they have physical and/or emotional pain and who is not, who is validated for their opinions about themselves and who is not, diet, size, muscle tone, medications taken regularly, access to insurance, etc. There are so many factors that influence whether or not the "same" medical emergency (such as a heart attack) will have the "same" outcome (percentage likelihood of comorbidity or fatality) in different people. The desire to minimize the extent to which any gender is more likely to die from something than any other gender is entirely legit.

[Malaria]

If this was a patriarchal thread I'd likely post more stuff about how women have suffered, but most of the posts seem to be going the other way so picked the less popular side.   Someone's got to stand with Tofu

So... are you saying you concede the points I made, but were playing devil's advocate for discussion's sake?

People who are on both extremes need to be kicked like boogie said because either way it is prejudiced and prejudiced sucks 100% IMO

Yeah, boogie has the right idea

Uh, I'd prefer to discuss rather than kick anyone, but that's cool too I guess?

[legoman60]

@ legoman60: How you think and feel in regard to a post is up to you, but how you think and feel in regard to medical science does not change the fact that historically, studies have been done on and about one subgroup, and that results are not generalizable. Everyone needs to take into consideration that factors far beyond genetics/organs/hormones are at play in how symptoms present. There are such environmental factors as who is enculturated to express when they have physical and/or emotional pain and who is not, who is validated for their opinions about themselves and who is not, diet, size, muscle tone, medications taken regularly, access to insurance, etc. There are so many factors that influence whether or not the "same" medical emergency (such as a heart attack) will have the "same" outcome (percentage likelihood of comorbidity or fatality) in different people. The desire to minimize the extent to which any gender is more likely to die from something than any other gender is entirely legit.

Okay either I misunderstood to you or you have misunderstood me. In a nutshell what I am saying is upwards of 90% of diseases and conditions that do not affect hormones or sex organs present with the same symptoms in both men and women. Therefore, it is a safe assumption that a disease or condition that does not affect hormones or sex organs will present the same in men and women. Therefore the exact example of heart attacks in men and women is not an example of sexism because it is a valid assumption that a disease or condition that does not affect hormones or sex organs will present the same or very similarly in men and women.

The expression of a symptom and the choice to act or not act on it does not change that fact that it presented itself. I am not looking at the outcomes, there are too many variables to predict those (at least in medicine) with any sort of reliability. I am looking at symptoms, something you have failed to address.

What you are using in your most recent post is a logical fallacy known as a red herring ( definition of a red herring). The issue is symptoms of conditions that do not affect hormones or sex organs generally present the same in men or women. What you are addressing is who will act on the presenting symptoms, which has nothing to do with my point.

[Malaria]

I think any sensible person would prefer that.  There are certainly precautions one can take to avoid being raped.  You might say, "Well, why can't we just live in a world where I don't need to do that?"  That would be awesome if such a world could ever exist.  But it won't.  There will always be people who, despite being taught otherwise, have no qualms with committing rape, murder, or theft.

I'm not suggesting we should be working towards a crime-free utopia, I'm saying we should be working on the underlying attitudes in our society that make rape so prevalent. If fewer people found themselves okay with rape, or willing to justify or victim-blame the crime into something less severe, we'd have less rape period.

I don't walk around late at night because there is always the possibility I could be attacked/mugged.  It'd be cool if I could, but I don't plan on it happening any time soon nor do I lament the fact that I must take precautions to protect myself.

Let's say you are walking around late at night and you do get mugged. What do you expect people's reactions to be? I think, in your case, most people wouldn't immediately say "oh, well, it's your fault for being out so late." But if a woman, who was out alone at night, is raped, the initial reaction by most people is exactly that.
And really, all this ignores the fact that 84% of rapes are acquaintance rapes. The men women trust most in their lives are most likely to be the ones that rape them. Talk about constant fear.

Edit: Just for the record, I think carrying a gun around to protect from rape is a bit extreme.  Yeah, I bet it's damn effective, but it seems like overkill.

And if you do shoot your rapist, you really don't have a guarantee you won't get charged for it.

I can only speak for the WNBA, but I feel like it is heavily advertised.  They advertise the heck out of it during NBA games, especially when the WNBA season is approaching.  The WNBA is integrated into the NBA All-Star game in a segment called "Shooting Stars."

As to why I think it isn't as popular?  I've watched a few of the playoff games and they can be exciting, but I don't feel like the overall product is anywhere near the same as the NBA.  I don't know if it ever will be on par with the NBA product. NBA as it currently exists puts a very large emphasis on athleticism and height.  WNBA has a higher emphasis on fundamentals.  If you want to watch a more technical game, then you watch the WNBA.  If you want to watch guys that will dunk over 3 people in traffic, then you watch the NBA.

I meant outside advertising, but that's good to know.

I see what you're saying. Our basketball-watching market isn't geared to the sort of play the WNBA engages in, and that makes more sense. I've learned something new, thank you. : D

(This response doesn't make sense out of context, but if I recall the original discussion was about school.)  My preference would be that higher education be free for everyone.

But one issue I have with favoring one gender or race in order to create "balance" is that you deny things to decent people that have no control over their gender or race and how they're treated.  I have no control over the fact that I'm a white male; I have no control over how society treats white males.  Yet, since white males receive preferential treatment by some/most, that can be held against me in certain cases.  How is that fair?  Why not look at socioeconomic backgrounds on an individual basis and determine if that person say, needs more financial aid for school?

I'd prefer that too. Loans suck. :I

Socioeconomic background is a factor. If you're the first member of your family to go to college, or if you're from a lower class or impoverished family, regardless of your sex, race, gender, whatever else, you can expect a lot of financial aid.
However, historically disadvantaged classes of people get extra help, because it's necessary if we want to see parity of education, opportunity and wealth across classes and segments of society.
To dispel an assumption that seems to be underlying this line of argument, there aren't any scholarships that you can get just for being a woman. You can get scholarships for feminist activism, or for being a single mother returning to college, (this incentive is necessary, considering how much harder it is for single mothers to support themselves and their children even without attending college full or part time) or for being a non-trad student entering college for the first time, but there's no special advantage just for women. White, straight, middle class women with college-educated parents have to work to get scholarships in other arenas, just like white, straight, middle class men with college-educated parents do.

[RemSaverem]

I'm confused by your post. I'm curious where you would obtain a statistic such as the 90% that you cite. I'm curious if there is even the hypothetical possibility for there to be any "disease or condition that does not affect hormones or sex organs". Perhaps you meant to say "does not affect reproductive hormones". Because, to take the simplest example, even a common cold can affect hormones. Say it's pouring rain, you're driving 65 mph on the freeway, and you have a sneezing fit, during which for the briefest of moments you're actually unsafe because your eyes are forced shut by a full 30-60 seconds of sneezing. Almost anyone would feel a little bit of fear in that moment, thus circulating adrenaline (the "fight or flight" hormone) through their system.

I am not solely addressing "who will act on" anything. I'm addressing that historically, what constituted medical research was based solely on a small portion of the population, and that extrapolating based on presumption of generalizability has proven both false and dangerous.

[Malaria]

An observaiton only:

over the last week I have paid attention to what footwear males and females wear and seen an interesting trend.

Men tend to prefer a shoe with a bit of flair and a heavy tread. Sneakers or loafers seem to be the norm

Women tend to gravitate to calf high boots, or flat sole skater shoes.
The occasional high heel but thats more a rarety then the norm.

Makes sense. Fashion's just as dimorphic as our perception of sex and gender.

[legoman60]

I'm confused by your post. I'm curious where you would obtain a statistic such as the 90% that you cite. I'm curious if there is even the hypothetical possibility for there to be any "disease or condition that does not affect hormones or sex organs". Perhaps you meant to say "does not affect reproductive hormones". Because, to take the simplest example, even a common cold can affect hormones. Say it's pouring rain, you're driving 65 mph on the freeway, and you have a sneezing fit, during which for the briefest of moments you're actually unsafe because your eyes are forced shut by a full 30-60 seconds of sneezing. Almost anyone would feel a little bit of fear in that moment, thus circulating adrenaline (the "fight or flight" hormone) through their system.

I am not solely addressing "who will act on" anything. I'm addressing that historically, what constituted medical research was based solely on a small portion of the population, and that extrapolating based on presumption of generalizability has proven both false and dangerous.

A. Now you are nitpicking my argument. Don't do it. You knew exactly what I was trying to get across, therefore I have accomplished the goal of communication. How I format said message in inconsequential.

B. "extrapolating based on presumption of generalizability" is fairly close to how medicine works. Think about it, this person's forearm has an unexpected 90 degree angle in it; generally, A human arm can not do that naturally, therefore, coupling that with the excruciating pain,  this person has a broken arm. Of course, there is no presumption here. This is because generally speaking (and with leeway for gender differences) humans are the same.

Humans fall into generalizations very easily. Nearly every human has 206 bones, two kidneys, one stomach, 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs, etc. (Insert the standard, "Yes, there are exceptions" clause.)Generally all humans will (within reason) react the same way to stimuli, this has proven true time and time again by both psychology and medicine.

Thats a great deal if generalities there. Hmmm, maybe humans are all generally the same. Maybe, just maybe, conditions and diseases, other than those that affect sex organs or sex hormones (because you insist), will, more often than not, present the same in both men and women.

Oh, as for the statistic, they teach in collegiate level writing courses that you don't need to cite common sense information. I did make up the number. However the logic still holds true. To test this I would like you to name, off the top of your head (everyone can join in this too), ten diseases or conditions that present differently in men and women that do not affect sex organs or sex hormones.

[RemSaverem]

I'm going to try to word this gently and rationally, so that it is clear that what I am trying to fix is the illogic of an argument, not the person presenting it, in contrast to the prior post, with negative characterization of me personally.

Simple point of fact #1:
It is not nitpicking an argument to ask for the source of a percentage or statistic that is cited. It is seeking clarification as to the validity of the source. Presenting the implication that there is a source puts the responsibility on the presenter to be able to back it up, if clarification is requested.

Simple point of fact #2:
It is especially not nitpicking, if it turns out that the person who presented the supposed data as though it were factual, admits to having completely made it up. It is correctly having doubted the validity of the assertion. I am not saying that I think the poster had ill intention, simply that the poster was making a guess based on what is likely to be an absence of medical knowledge. (Poster: If you are actually medically trained, I apologize for making that guess.) I've worked in medical fields from translator to transcriptionist for over a decade and have never heard anything along the lines of what you suggest, and if there had happened to be any scientific evidence to back the disputed claims up, it could have influenced my beliefs, so asking for it was entirely valid.

 #3: If it happens that what the poster wants to do is make an assertion that there are no significant differences between men and women because both are genetically human and almost everything in each of them is the same, well, a logical extrapolation from that would be that the poster would join feminists in activism for equal rights, equal pay, abolishing any form of discrimination or oppression based on gender. If that's one's agenda, more power to those aims! But anyone will be more of service to the cause by being able to back up what s/he says, rather than seeing it as adversarial to as her/him to do so, when that is not the aim.

#4: To the poster: I have no idea who you are, so I do not know if you have been authorized by any colleges to actually teach any courses, to know what is permissible at any specific college in terms of telling students to lie (make up their own statistics or overgeneralizations). However, I have actually taught Women's Studies 100 at one of the best universities in the country (arguably the world): University of Michigan (Ann Arbor campus). There is no such carte blanche, and in fact, blanket assertions devoid of fact are among the key factors that lead to the lowering of a grade or the consideration of a term paper to be incomplete. Given that there many forum participants are newly college students, please do not recommend a strategy that could cause them to fail a class or assignment.

BTW: I have to leave work but here are 4 off the top of my head: alcoholism, depression, eating disorders, fibromyalgia.

[AllyKat]

*moderator hat on*

I'm going to once again stress the neccesity to not take argumentation personally. saying someone "could seem foolish" or "stupid" for something that they say is bordering on the negative side of the code of conduct. I know that stuff flies in Speech & Debate but I'm saying here and now for all of us to watch our tone with each other. Mind your p's and q's and have a gentleman's & gentlewoman's debate here. It seems to be going great other wise!

To test this I would like you to name, off the top of your head (everyone can join in this too), ten diseases or conditions that present differently in men and women that do not affect sex organs or sex hormones.

Just for fun I thought I'd answer this, since I can!
 
Heart Disease
Bi-Polar Disorder
Depression
Stroke
Muscular Dystrophy
Cancer
Infertility (I wont count this one entirely because symptoms are so wide and vary situation to situation)
Parkinson's Disease
Panic Attacks
Autism

And thats all I could think of off the top of my head... the last one I had to ask my mom to think of and she reminded me...

Sleep Apnea!

^_^ That was fun!

[reppy]

And really, all this ignores the fact that 84% of rapes are acquaintance rapes. The men women trust most in their lives are most likely to be the ones that rape them. Talk about constant fear.

You know, I read this response awhile ago and it has been weighing heavy on my mind.  Lots of thoughts going through my head.  It is really disgusting and sad that so many men see nothing wrong, or have no fear of repercussions, with taking a woman's body for his own pleasure.

Sometimes you can't see the gravity of something because it isn't real to you.  It's like willful ignorance due to lack of proximity.  

I don't know.  I'm not really making sense right now. ^^  Sometimes when I hear something like that, I stop and think about all the girls I know and the girls I have loved in the past.  I think about how they are and were so much more than just something for sexual pleasure.  I think about their smile, their intellect, their determination, the hopes and dreams they had, etc.  Ever just stop and really look at someone and you can see how truly human they are?  Like you can almost see the thoughts as they go around in their head? It just breaks my heart to think that people don't see that or they just look the other way and can harm someone like that.

My mom was molested at a very young age.  She repressed it for many, many years.  I'll spare you all the details of how she came to remember it.  But it was a very traumatic experience for her.  She said she woke up in the middle of the night, screaming like she was being killed, because she suddenly remembered everything that happened and pieced all these weird feelings and memories together.  I know it had a huge impact on her life in a negative way.  My sister was also molested.  My parents noticed she was acting very strange, drawing weird pictures in school, talking about killing herself, drawing pictures of nooses.  I think she was only 8 years old at the time.  In both cases, it was by someone "close": in my mother's case, it was her mother's boyfriend at the time; in my sister's case, it was a couple of our uncles who were teenagers at the time.

Sometimes I wonder what it's like to have no conscience.  I would never want to live that way, but I do wonder how some people can't see the harm they cause other people with their actions.  A moment of satisfaction, and you have visited years of ruin upon someone that did nothing to deserve it.

[RemSaverem]

@ Ally, great list. Especially in light of the post that follows it, I'd add PTSD. @ Reppy: Thank you for such a brave, raw, candid, unfiltered post, presented with empathy and respect. I was there the moment a best friend was triggered to recall suppressed memories of her dad molesting her when she was a child (later externally verified) and decompensated into a PTSD-induced breakdown. It was one of the most harrowing and heartbreaking things I have ever seen. The only caveat is that while there are fetishists and pedophiles, many sexual assaults are about power and control, not gratification, for the assailant.

[melchizedek]

If this was a patriarchal thread I'd likely post more stuff about how women have suffered, but most of the posts seem to be going the other way so picked the less popular side.   Someone's got to stand with Tofu

So... are you saying you concede the points I made, but were playing devil's advocate for discussion's sake?

People who are on both extremes need to be kicked like boogie said because either way it is prejudiced and prejudiced sucks 100% IMO

Yeah, boogie has the right idea

Uh, I'd prefer to discuss rather than kick anyone, but that's cool too I guess?

People that are close minded are not worth the time of discussion.  If someone becomes emotionally invested in their point it becomes more about defense than considering how other people might think / feel. 

Some of the stuff I agree with in these post, other stuff I don't. 

Red herrings in the thread kinda bug me, take a debate class perhaps sometime and learn about debate structure

[superjaz]

This is definitely a subject that we can agree to disagree.  We all have had 101 events in our lives that shaped our view on the subject.  Even the extreme opinions shouldn't be dismissed as they are based on real events that occurred.                             

[@random]

True. In the abstract, anecdotal evidence is never as compelling as true data... but then again, when's the last time you heard of someone saying they decided to become an activist because they read a study that showed that women earn 69% of what men doing the same job get? Statistics are more true to the universal experience, but they have little meaning to us individually.

The stories that change someone's attitude for life are never the ones that made the most "logical" sense. They're the personal ones, like goatchild's or reppy's. They're the stories of one person's experience.

It'd be a tremendous error to extrapolate and decide that since one female doctor was blatantly discriminated against, all female doctors are. But that doesn't mean personal stories don't have a lot of meaning to the people who experienced them.

[RemSaverem]

This is definitely a subject that we can agree to disagree.  We all have had 101 events in our lives that shaped our view on the subject.  Even the extreme opinions shouldn't be dismissed as they are based on real events that occurred.                             

Thank you. I agree, and so does the field of radical feminist social science.
It actually is a cornerstone of radical feminist epistemology to see n=1 as the ultimate in social research. N=1 is a modality in which open-ended oral histories are taken and transcribed, and an individual's life story, with the individual defining for herself/himself what constitutes the major milestones, turning points, epiphanies, accomplishments, and themes, is itself the data. The researcher does not define the data, direct the narrative, etc. It is a natural flow, thus empowering to the person contributing the research. The model is collaborative rather than top-down, exploratory rather than empirical. I engaged several of these studies as an Honors Women's Studies major, and then found the same techniques very helpful as a Masters in Social Work major. The best authors on the subject are Liz Stanley  Sue Wise, in their groundbreaking 1982 book, "Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research".

[AllyKat]

Not the opinion of Kumoricon/Altoniumbus Entertainment... yada yada yada...

And yet, because we are a survivalist "me" oriented species, we normally have little internal response to other peoples hardship.

(which sounds like I'm saying I don't care about anyone's problems, when thats not what I mean, give me a moment to explain)

We may feel regret or pain of loss for someone elses problems, but we can never truly feel the depth of suffering that those close to trauma or affected by disaster feel. We don't respond emotionally to those events, unless in guilt and feeling of "preventative" karma.

One instead will give money to charities, or disaster relief out of a feeling of neccesity to their humanity. Because I am human, I care about other humans, because I care, I must show I care. To show I care I will provide a service to those in need, the service I have the ability to provide is monetary/time/supplies/comfort. While many people genuinely feel something for those in crisis, humans by nature are singular beasts and cannot adequately feel the same despair as someone who has experience a trauma until they have gone through one themselves, even then, its a different situation, different feelings - apples to oranges - and you can't translate pain.

So to sway others to the cause or reasoning, the only sure-fire means is objectivity. We can understand numbers, we can justify statistics (that are credible) and we use Ad Populum and Ad Verecundian, to appeal to those who follow. We use Ad Nauseam and Ad Numerum to appeal to those who are motivated by shock.

There is a bag of tricks a mile wide and deep for every situation and a fallacie for every type of person. Why? Because "sob stories" as it were (please don't take that personally, I'm speaking from the wide perspective) don't affect the populous who is dissaosicated with you. Most people without general reason or reguirement to care, rarely will. Those who do are most likely already a part of your previous constituencey and are not the target of your discourse or persuasion. So we appeal to the masses. We throw facts and we throw shock and awe and we tell them what will happen to THEM if they don't agree.

Because while personal experience should work in debate, because it's real, it rarely does because people don't trust people.

(at least in my personal experience)

[RemSaverem]

I definitely understand where you are coming from, Ally, in that we in this culture are so vastly oversaturated with exposure to both real and fake violence by mass media that we become somewhat inured to it. However, I actually find (and we each are likely to have our own different responses) that I respond more viscerally, empathize more clearly, with first-person accounts than with statistics. Both are valid, when collected and presented with integrity, and both have their place.

[reppy]

I recall this phrase, I'm totally going to botch it, but .. "A toothache in Philadelphia is more important to that person than a flood in Indonesia."

If it doesn't affect us, a lot of times we don't care.

I have a guy come in a lot where I work.  We always talk about subjects like religion or politics or strange things. ^^  One day he comes in and remarks at how I'm always smiling and seem so happy all the time.  "How can you be so happy?  There's so many terrible things going on in the world.  I can't stand it."

Gotta strike that balance.  I'm not unaware of what's going on in the world, but you can't let it consume you, either.  Having said that, I do appreciate the work of the people that do let it consume them, because they are the best advocates.

[kylite]

now to toss in one little defense for the male species

No man will EVER say "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"

Women coined that phrase and use it with the precision of a doctor with a scalpel

[RemSaverem]

@ Reppy -- I totally agree.
It's the same with *any* kind of politics--including interpersonal stuff at work/volunteer, even convention, sites. If one lets it, negativity will consume a person (& make him/her unable to fight it to protect yourself or others)-- so we need to not let it!

@ Kylite-- I would conjecture that if women are more likely to say that to men than the reverse, it might be because men are more likely to think it and not say it out loud to women. I am fully certain that people of all genders have tendencies to hide things from partners of all genders, whether in relationships of an intimate or a business nature. Sometimes "for their own good", sometimes to "not rock the boat", sometimes selfishly. But it's a relatively omnipresent phenomenon.

[MiriaRose]

now to toss in one little defense for the male species

No man will EVER say "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"

Women coined that phrase and use it with the precision of a doctor with a scalpel

I so wish that were true.

If this was a patriarchal thread I'd likely post more stuff about how women have suffered, but most of the posts seem to be going the other way so picked the less popular side.   Someone's got to stand with Tofu

So... are you saying you concede the points I made, but were playing devil's advocate for discussion's sake?

People who are on both extremes need to be kicked like boogie said because either way it is prejudiced and prejudiced sucks 100% IMO

Yeah, boogie has the right idea

Uh, I'd prefer to discuss rather than kick anyone, but that's cool too I guess?

People that are close minded are not worth the time of discussion.  If someone becomes emotionally invested in their point it becomes more about defense than considering how other people might think / feel.  

Some of the stuff I agree with in these post, other stuff I don't.  

Red herrings in the thread kinda bug me, take a debate class perhaps sometime and learn about debate structure

Wait, do you mean people with extreme opinions or people who are closed minded? I consider myself to be a "radical," but I'm willing to hear what other people have to say.

As for red herrings, I'm not sure what you mean, but in public debate one can debate anything as long as one can link it back to the subject matter. It's possible to link these back to the subject matter.

[RemSaverem]

@Miria, I agree that what was being called red herrings links back, given that the topic of the thread is simply "Modern feminism and you!", so anything related to feminism (or to issues that point to a need for feminist activism) is valid for discussion here.

[melchizedek]

Red herring is a particularly smelly fish that people will run across a trail to get someone (maybe a sent dog) off track. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

If say rem makes a point, and someone says btw, "insert obscure reply." I'd call that a red herring.

[MiriaRose]

Only if they're trying to divert attention from the main point of the thread.

Which is probably what we're accidentally doing now.

Also, still curious about whether you think extremism and open mindedness are mutually exclusive.

[AllyKat]

Red herring is a particularly smelly fish that people will run across a trail to get someone (maybe a sent dog) off track. 

I thought Red Herring was the name of that mean bully kid on a Pup named Scooby Doo!

Jeese, I am so out of the loop.

Actually, a red herring is a logical fallacy where someone uses an alternate causality that seems plausible, but has fabricated evidence in its favor. If you can't prove it, don't use it. If you use it and can't prove it, then you are fabricating evidence in your favor and have mislead people with a red herring... gets you off the track of the real culprit, or, even worse, destroys a case for a legitimate threat.

For more information on Red Herrings; see the classic movie "Clue"

[RemSaverem]

How funny. All this time I was only aware of its use in mystery novel plotting. A red herring is a set of clues that leads you to suspect someone of the crime --you can come up with a plausible motive and method, but they are not actually the perpetrator. And sometimes the set of clues is deliberately set by another, to throw the detectives (or whomever) off the proverbial scent of the actual perpetrator. How funny to find out the other derivations and usages of the phrase! Thanks!

Speaking of derivations of phrases: I try very hard to never use "rule of thumb" when I mean "short cut" or "heuristic" or "easy set of steps or rules to remember". The reason is the origin of the phrase, which I'd never heard until my first Women's Studies class. Centuries ago it was part of English Common Law that a man could beat his wife, legally, so long as the "switch" (piece of wood) used was no thicker than the width of his thumb. Of course, there was no comparable permission for wives to beat their husbands.....

[legoman60]

...Because, to take the simplest example, even a common cold can affect hormones. Say it's pouring rain, you're driving 65 mph on the freeway, and you have a sneezing fit, during which for the briefest of moments you're actually unsafe because your eyes are forced shut by a full 30-60 seconds of sneezing. Almost anyone would feel a little bit of fear in that moment, thus circulating adrenaline (the "fight or flight" hormone) through their system.

This is called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

#3: If it happens that what the poster wants to do is make an assertion that there are no significant differences between men and women because both are genetically human and almost everything in each of them is the same, well, a logical extrapolation from that would be that the poster would join feminists in activism for equal rights, equal pay, abolishing any form of discrimination or oppression based on gender. If that's one's agenda, more power to those aims! But anyone will be more of service to the cause by being able to back up what s/he says, rather than seeing it as adversarial to as her/him to do so, when that is not the aim...

This is another red herring.

#4: To the poster: I have no idea who you are, so I do not know if you have been authorized by any colleges to actually teach any courses, to know what is permissible at any specific college in terms of telling students to lie (make up their own statistics or overgeneralizations). However, I have actually taught Women's Studies 100 at one of the best universities in the country (arguably the world): University of Michigan (Ann Arbor campus)...

This is the False Authority Fallacy Just because you are certified teach woman's studies does not mean you are an authority on English writing.

That is three different fallacies so far, one use twice for a total of four.

Simple point of fact #1:
It is not nitpicking an argument to ask for the source of a percentage or statistic that is cited. It is seeking clarification as to the validity of the source. Presenting the implication that there is a source puts the responsibility on the presenter to be able to back it up, if clarification is requested.

You were nitpicking my word choice (reproductive hormones).

...There is no such carte blanche, and in fact, blanket assertions devoid of fact are among the key factors that lead to the lowering of a grade or the consideration of a term paper to be incomplete. Given that there many forum participants are newly college students, please do not recommend a strategy that could cause them to fail a class or assignment.

Any and every collegiate level writing course teaches that you do not have to cite information that is considered common knowledge or common sense. For example: if I said that John F> Kennedy was killed in 1963 I would not have to cite my source for that because, even if you (the reader) do not know the year, every legitimate source you look into would say the same thing. Other examples of this are: the capitol of Oregon is Salem, Barack Obama is the 44th president of the U.S., the twin towers in NYC were destroyed on 9/11/01, humans have 206 bones (normally), caffeine is a legal drug, diseases and conditions that do not affect sex hormones or sex organs will generally present the same (symptoms) in both men and women, etc.

That last line is what this is about.

For years what you saw in print about what to watch for in heart attack warning signs was based solely on how heart attacks present in men, which was presumed to be generalizable to women. But it's not. Heart attacks can present differently in women (i.e. have different onset symptoms).

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that have similar symptoms (present the same) in both men and women:
Alcoholism
Depression
Fibromyalgia
Bipolar Disorder
Parkinson's Disease

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that have dissimilar symptoms (present differently) in both men and women:
Heart attacks (according to RemSaverem)
Stroke

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that are umbrella names for multiple similar conditions (needs further refining):
Eating disorders
Heart disease
Cancer
Infertility
Autism
Muscular Dystrophy

Occurrence and Presentation are two different things. It seems that this is the source of the confusion.
BTW, that is two out of seven (not counting umbrella terms) that I researched for 28%, which is still the minority.

Yes I still have to look up Panic Attacks and Sleep Apnea. I do, however, have to leave at this point.

[AllyKat]

*Mod Hat Off*

Any and every collegiate level writing course teaches that you do not have to cite information that is considered common knowledge or common sense. For example: if I said that John F> Kennedy was killed in 1963 I would not have to cite my source for that because, even if you (the reader) do not know the year, every legitimate source you look into would say the same thing. Other examples of this are: the capitol of Oregon is Salem, Barack Obama is the 44th president of the U.S., the twin towers in NYC were destroyed on 9/11/01, humans have 206 bones (normally), caffeine is a legal drug, diseases and conditions that do not affect sex hormones or sex organs will generally present the same (symptoms) in both men and women, etc.

While I could argue that you are using a straw-man fallacy to reciprocate, I think it better than I address the argumentation, than continue to "get nitpicky" about different fallacies. The point of knowing all the logical fallacies is not to flount the knowledge or argue them, it is to teach people what *not* to do in a debate. Discourse is not the where's waldo of inmproper debate, we recognize the inacuries, show why they are wrong (IE: "when you say that all disesase effect hormones, you are really getting away from the point of my argumentation, which was to explain a specific type of hormone that most disease do not effect. I did make an error in my speech, but lets not get distracted by the language errors and forget the debate) as opposed to derailing your argumentation further by trying to define "is" as it were.

Further more, when we talk about "common knowledge" a lot of the argumentation show so far fills us with further jargon and hear-say. What one teacher and one college may consider appropriate does not automatically stretch across all colleges. In order to assert this you would need the curriculum of at least 60% of the colleges (either from around the state, the USA or the world) and have comparitive evidence to suppose that they all legitimately teach it is "okay to make up percentages and statistics as long as the general populous believes it to be true." What you have stated here, is Ad Populum or an appeal to the popular choice or public opinion. This is the most widely used fallacy, as I'm sure you know and is probably the center of this entire debate (Re: Feminism). You cannot justify inaccurate percentages and impericals with the allowance of a teacher based on "What everyone else" does. No teacher will let you get away with that because the deffinition of "Common Knowledge" is so diverse. If you were speaking to Canadian youth, or in a public forum debate in a low income ghetto in the united state, the assertion that JFK died in XXXX may be common knowledge to you, but would not be common knowledge to everyone else. A judge would ask for the same documentation they ask for of any evidence. Regardless of the impunity of the item, if it weighs on the case, it must be backed by citation.

The only leeway one MAY have in this argumentation is if the item is seen as an aside from the important evidence. For instance, if I were to want to convey that men are the most prevalent criminals associated with rape, I could infer to you that generally those who report victimization by rape are female, and then I would cite a source showing that the percentage of female to female rape or sexual assault crimes is lower than XX% of all total reported rapes in the United States. I would then surmise that if it is not a female doing the majority of the crimes reported, and that the trans gender or gender neutral populous at this time is low enough to have insignificant effect on the numbers, than males would be the largest demographic perpetrating rape in the USA.

I used two un-cited "facts" in that argumentation line. Either of which could legitimately be knocked down by my opponent if they found empirical evidence to disprove. However since both the idea that women are the most common rape victims is inherent in our societies psyche, and that trans gender/ gender neutral folks are few and far between is an easy idea for anyone to swallow, they can be stated without fact safely... but do not be shocked if your opponent at least attempts to come up with argumentation against items that you have not cited. Any points that you do not prove outright can be used against you, and if they fall, so does your entire case on that point. So its best not to leave a source or fact un-cited.

However, we are all a bit guilty of Ad Vericandium (authority without authority) because none of us is a major in genetics and properly understand the difference between human males and human females. We can use conjecture and Web MD all we want but the truth of the matter is that the actual differences between human females and human males are probably so diverse between races and naturalization that it would be hard for even the best geneticists working completely on the Human Genome Project to completely quantify them.

What differences we know to be between males and females, have to be understood as superficial at best, and at worst, fabricated.

Then again, most of science starts out as fabrication and hypothesis doesn't it?

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that have similar symptoms (present the same) in both men and women:
Alcoholism
Depression
Fibromyalgia
Bipolar Disorder
Parkinson's Disease

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that have dissimilar symptoms (present differently) in both men and women:
Heart attacks (according to RemSaverem)
Stroke

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that are umbrella names for multiple similar conditions (needs further refining):
Eating disorders
Heart disease
Cancer
Infertility
Autism
Muscular Dystrophy

Occurrence and Presentation are two different things. It seems that this is the source of the confusion.
BTW, that is two out of seven (not counting umbrella terms) that I researched for 28%, which is still the minority.

Yes I still have to look up Panic Attacks and Sleep Apnea. I do, however, have to leave at this point.

I'm confused by what you are asserting here? Are you discrediting certain examples we have brought forth? or merely putting them into a different subcategory?

Occurrence and Presentation are different things, although I don't know where this is prevalent in our conversation. At what point did the mistake get made to confuse the two? I was under the impression we were looking for disease/disorders which show different symptoms for males then do females.

While I'm certain that one might adhere to the idea that WebMD or other scholarly documents on the Internet may have most of the data and therefore be a credibly resource in contention, it is by no means the end all or be all of discourse regarding medical data. Most symptoms of diseases require a diagnostician, of some great skill to adequately sift through and decode. Most of us will never see one, much less be treated by one, they are a very expensive luxury. The majority of cases of anything are broken down to its simpliest and most common of attributes and diagnosed thusly.

From here we get the rampant amount of misdiagnoses and incorrect treatment that is a large part of our medical field today. What I presented was a list of disease and disorders (as narrow scope or wide as I pleased as the definition was not set to require a specific strand or stage or scientific name of condition) that host a wide variety of symptoms which present themselves in females but not males, or males but not females. This is what was asked for, as my understanding is. So you'll have to clarify for me the exact request so I can do better research. All of my proclamations were valid however, under that scope.

(EDIT: You may notice that previous to this edit there was some discourse missing, apparently my copy and paste skills did not shield me from missing a piece of my own quotation)

[RemSaverem]

As I am writing from my phone, I will be brief atm, & Ally: very impressive &informative. Thank you. Lego, you overlook the obvious. It is your lengthy, tedious, &fallacy-full assertion,which not only is not common knowlege,but nowhere near the medical/scientific community's consensus,that initiated the diversion from the thread's topic.If diversion + falsehood, falsification,&/or fallacy = red herring, then you're the one who gets that mantle.It happens that I'm curious about formal logic, speech & debate, &enjoy learning new terms, even in Latin.But such was neither the title of Malaria's thread, nor a stipulation for participation therein. This is not a contest for who can bully another into regretting their posts  as not worth the baseless nitpicking that follows.IMHO, this should be a safe space for sharing (a) real experiences,(b) documented facts, (c)helpful suggestions, theories,opinions, but to dissect arguments only in ways that feel collaborative, exploratory, symbiotic (feminist didactic praxis).

[AllyKat]

*mod hat still off, but I'm keeping it in plain sight just in case we get waay too derailed here*

I guess I just don't like the word feminist/feminism. Why does one who fights for equality have to have the name of one of the parties involved in the inequality.

What if, 100 years from now, it's males who are outnumbered, out ranked and misrepresented? Will we change the name of those fighting for equality to masculinist/masculinism? It just seems to me that the name breed the negativity that we are trying to cease.

Here's the cycle:

Men & Women Cooperate -> Evolution of commerce breed competition and dissension -> Dissension leads to class-ism, and monetary focus -> Jobs and duties not reciprocated with monies or goods are treated as inferior -> Women who traditionally took on non-monetary focused duties are linked to those duties and inferiority -> Women are decreased in professional importance and intelligence publicly -> Women are subdued -> Women are dissatisfied -> women are disobedient -> women are punished -> women revolt -> women gain power/prowess -> women work to revise historical perception -> women achieve rights -> women gain public favor -> Economic excess due to increased workforce and production without increased consumption -> Decrease in consumption in western civilizations due to female workforce growth -> Increase in technology -> decrease in manual labor jobs in western civilizations -> male populous loses work -> male populous becomes assigned and dependent on duties and jobs not reciprocated with monies or goods -> men are associated with duties and jobs assigned to them -> men are viewed as inferior do to lack of monetary gain

And the cycle continues. When we put the name "Feminist" on a action of equality it means that we are asking the woman to fight to rise up, and the men to let us rise up... which does that thing where, you aren't really accusing the guys around you of propagating anti female action, but because of the way the protest is worded, it feels like a slam on all guys for something they had no control over really (I'm speaking of course of the layman, not our politicians and historical male figures who did do bad things to the image of females) so they begrudgingly concede and assist in the cause, but there is a bitterness to their assistance, which is passed on through the generations, continuing to breed the same separation of the male and the female that we are trying to destroy.

I suppose this comes down to one sentence; "What's in a name?"

[RemSaverem]

@ Ally's edit: Great clarifying questions, and I totally agree. @ Lego: I believe that you saw my initial clarification of your 1st post as though it were a denigration, when my intent had been to (a) be sure I understood what you meant, and (b) look into what medical research and/or personal medical experience would have to say on the subject, rather than generalize. I own that I could have been more explicit.

[@random]

_{(As Ally said, "Mod hat off", and I'm quite guilty of not always making that clear. For reference, unless I say I'm speaking as moderator or I'm taking an action which only a moderator could take, it's pretty safe to assume I'm speaking only for myself. But I will try to make the difference clearer in the future.)}

However, we are all a bit guilty of Ad Vericandium (authority without authority) because none of us is a major in genetics and properly understand the difference between human males and human females.

*sheepishly raises his hand*
I'm neither an expert nor a genetics major - however, I did major in biochemistry, and did a couple of years of graduate study in cellular and molecular biology as well as an independent study of hormonal contraception. But don't think of me as an authority in the field of physiological (including neurochemistry) differentiation by gender, because I'm not.

Even the "experts" in any given field are almost always experts only in their very narrow specialties. A geneticist may be able to tell you everything there is to know about sex-linked traits, but they're not likely to have specialized medical knowledge of how hormones do or don't affect disease processes. The number of people in the entire US who could honestly call themselves experts in physiologically differentiating by gender (by virtue of expert knowledge in multiple fields of study) can almost certainly be counted on two hands. And they're typically pretty busy people. So, as Ally says, the odds that one of those people is posting here is negligible.

List of mentioned diseases and conditions that are umbrella names for multiple similar conditions (needs further refining):

It's a fair point that some of the terms (cancer, eating disorders, etc) are umbrella terms that should be differentiated. And it's also a fair point that some of the conditions under those umbrellas (uterine cancer, prostate cancer, etc) don't really belong in the discussion. But it hardly reduces the size of the list to go from "eating disorders" to "anorexia", "bulimia", and all of their nasty little cousins. Or to go from "cancer" to "cancer of" every non-gender-specific organ system that can be affected by sex hormones. Hormones have receptors all over the body, not just the places you'd automatically think of.

[RemSaverem]

@ Random, you continue to amaze me. I had no idea you had such expertise. Your modesty about it is as impressive. @ Ally, I can follow your line of thinking. The emphasis on job access and valuation is surpisingly neo-Marxian. I believe the teeter-totter is not equally balanced, though, because no matter what happens in the marketplace, there are still other patriarhal institutions and attitudes in almost every other component of society.

[jaybug]

Does anyone have any new numbers for people in abusive relationships? Last I read it was 90% stayed, and 90% of men left. Seems 90% of women have some serious self-esteem issues. Why?

Did you read about the Women's safe house in California that men began to show up to abuse the women that fled them? Turns out the men were grown up boys of women who went there to flee from their abusive partners. Why wasn't the cycle broken?

But then I am still wondering how we got more racist after 40 years of Americans grew up watching Sesame Street.

[JeffT]

Speaking of derivations of phrases: I try very hard to never use "rule of thumb" when I mean "short cut" or "heuristic" or "easy set of steps or rules to remember". The reason is the origin of the phrase, which I'd never heard until my first Women's Studies class. Centuries ago it was part of English Common Law that a man could beat his wife, legally, so long as the "switch" (piece of wood) used was no thicker than the width of his thumb. Of course, there was no comparable permission for wives to beat their husbands.....

This is a debunked urban legend (and quite an old one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm

[reppy]

Does anyone have any new numbers for people in abusive relationships? Last I read it was 90% stayed, and 90% of men left. Seems 90% of women have some serious self-esteem issues. Why?

I really don't understand the mentality behind this.  Is it fear of reprisal?  Do the women think he only hits them because he "loves them" so much and hates it when they "act up"?  Are they not independent enough to where they could get out of the relationship?  I think there a lot of factors, and self-esteem issues are only one of them.  Maybe the women in question grew up with an abusive father, so they think that's how normal relationships work.

Did you read about the Women's safe house in California that men began to show up to abuse the women that fled them? Turns out the men were grown up boys of women who went there to flee from their abusive partners. Why wasn't the cycle broken?

I'm having a hard time deciphering this. ^^;


Just wanted to say I agree with AllyKat (re: "feminism").  It does seem odd to complain about all the "-manisms" in language, and then....  Realistically, it's probably the most suitable name because, well, how else are you going to know where the heck they stand? ^^  Just a little funny, I guess.

[RemSaverem]

@ Urban myth-- haven't had time to research it.
@ What Jaybug was saying. I hadn't heard the story, but I think he was saying that there was a shelter that was in a location known only to law enforcement, employees/volunteers, and the women and kids who are sheltered at that location because of being victims of domestic violence. And that boys who had been there when their moms were abused, and therefore knew the location of the shelter, had grown up to, themselves, become abusers, thereby knowing where their own victims were sheltered, and trying to attack/harrass/intimidate them at the physical shelter itself. (Of note: The shelter at which I worked only took male kids up to the age of 12 for various reasons, including fear of something like this, as well as to reduce likelihood of molestation or sexual pressuring by kids who had seen or experienced abuse upon peers at the shelter.)
@ Why abuse victims stay: A huge spectrum of reasons. Fear of being killed if caught trying to leave (happens frequently). Love, mistaking control for love, not having $, not having anywhere safe to go, not having family or social support, fear/threats of having kids and/or pet taken away or killed (happens frequently), fear of being outed (for same-sex domestic violence), fear of being deported (in cases where marriage was the basis for a green card; we saw a lot of this), and above all "The Cycle of Violence", the pattern of tension-building --> violent explosion --> honeymoon period, shockingly effectively depicted in "Love the Way You Lie", the Eminem/Rhiana song/video with Dominic Monaghan & Megan Fox.

[legoman60]

from ten minutes using google:

Read the 4th (marked) point
princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/08/cite

Read the second set of bullet points
owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/02/

Read the section titled "Common knowledge? Or not?"
library.albany.edu/usered/cite/citing.html

Ad populum? I think not.

[RemSaverem]

Lego, though quite bored of the subject, I will once again try to point out the glaring pink elephant in the room that you continue to miss:
You are repeatedly trying to defend that you should not have had to cite any sources on something because it was "common knowledge". However
(a) It was not common-- It is not the case that the majority of the scientific/medical world agrees with you, let alone that the general population would. You have not shown this to be the case.
And (b) It was not knowledge--Your statement as initially worded was factually incorrect to begin with.

Since you've already admitted you made up your statistic, that's totally different than simply failing to cite one.

This is not in any way saying that I think you are a negative person. Just that you're repetitively interjecting material that, IMHO, does not belong in the thread and could decrease others' interest in following the stated purview of the thread.

Can we please drop this entire soap box that is off-topic and detracts from the rest of the thread, thus, once again, being its own red herring? I know I personally am done with it, in the sense that I would be so very grateful if we could please get back to actually talking about issues pertaining to injustices against or empowerment of women, and not just sit and defend ourselves or our own ways of approaching arguments.

Of note: If your intent is not to defend yourself personally, but to educate others about what certain internet sources think is okay to do in certain circumstances, or about what Latin terms mean what in  formal logic/debate systems, I would be glad to read about such in separate, appropriately titled threads. I do genuinely have interest in learning logic/debate strategy. But it is not for this thread, IMHO. Thank you.

[reppy]

I haven't really been attention too closely, but I haven't really seen much in terms of source citing on either side.  If someone asks for one, sure, try and dig it up.  But this isn't a formal debate nor is it going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.  So, we should all prolly lighten up a lil'.. ^^

[RemSaverem]

I haven't really been attention too closely, but I haven't really seen much in terms of source citing on either side.  If someone asks for one, sure, try and dig it up.  But this isn't a formal debate nor is it going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.  So, we should all prolly lighten up a lil'.. ^^

I agree generally with what you are saying here. When there are statements that could have literally life-or-death consequences, as is the case with some of the examples in this thread, is the only time I think it's important to be somewhat clear even in a chat thread.

[@random]

_{(Speaking as a grumpy old mod who needs more sleep and less kids on his dadgum lawn.)}

So, feminism as it relates to our lives... sounds like an interesting subject. Anyone feel like discussing it? 

Domestic violence and sexual abuse - are these feminist issues, criminal issues, or somewhere in between?
Hormones - is anyone familiar with studies for or against the hypothesis that they have an effect on mental stability that makes "separate but equal" treatment rational?
Cooperativity and altruism versus adversarial confrontation as different means to the end of equality - what role does each of these have in different situations?
Discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere - has it changed form, diminished, become more subtle, somewhere in between, or none of the above?
And so on.

There are a whole lot of subjects that have been brought up which pertain to the topic, and which have a lot of life left in them. Meta-argumentation isn't one of them.

[RemSaverem]

I agree. It would be interesting to see if anyone has successfully made the legal argument that Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS (if I am correctly recalling the US Supreme Court case that overturned Jim Crow laws & declared segregation by race illegal) extrapolates to rendering "separate but equal" unconstitutional for other delineations, e.g., gender, orientation.

[@random]

_{(Speaking personally)}

Not everybody remembers it, but Brown v. Board was necessary to overturn another Supreme Court decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) which held that "separate but equal" was valid. Some of the justifications for it were the same as we're hearing now - pseudo-scientific explanations were used to rationalize why black people were supposedly intellectually inferior. It was called "scientific racism", a term that mercifully died in the '50s or so. I hope that in 2110, people will be saying the same about how scientific sexism died back in the 2050s.

"Separate but equal" jobs are still with us now as a matter of fact, if not law. When I was in college working in a grocery store, I was the only male cashier. Females were supposed to follow the ladder of cashier - head cashier - office manager, while males were supposed to follow the ladder of bagger - produce/stocking - manager in one of those departments - assistant manager - store manager. After all, women (supposedly) can't do heavy lifting or strenuous work like men can. When I tried to apply at other places, they'd let me work as a bagger - but would take untrained women over me, despite the fact I had years of experience. And I still see the same kind of stuff happening now. If nothing else, the fact people have argued for it here demonstrates it.

The reductio ad absurdum of doing away with "separate but equal" as applied to gender would be to say that it invites mandatory unisex bathrooms, changing rooms, etc. Most people genuinely would be horrified at the prospect, and find it abominable. But you know... that exact same argument (visceral dislike, i.e. "Would you really want a --- to --- beside you?") was made wrt racial segregation.

Nonsexualized nudity is not unheard of. An anecdote I heard a looooong time ago was that in Japan after World War II, the occupying Americans were horrified at the concept of unisex hot springs and public baths. They demanded that they be segregated by gender forthwith - which the Japanese didn't quite understand, but complied by putting up a rope so that men would stay on one side and women on the other. With increasing Western influence, things did change - but there are still some unisex onsens around, vestiges of the past. And even in Western culture, if nothing else, one would think we realize nudity isn't inherently sexual by virtue of the fact that we accept same-sex nudity (even though we no longer try to deny that gay people exist).

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the path to gender equality is for us to relax our custom of seeing each other's bodies as nothing but sex objects. (And I'm really not trying to start a discussion of locker rooms in this thread.) I'm just saying that even in the extreme cases, we should be willing to question our assumptions about what make men and women different, and how far that should be taken. Actually, come to think of it... I guess I am questioning the validity of viewing each other first as sex objects and second as people.

It's not what's between your legs that's important, it's what's between your ears.

[Malaria]

Sorry I haven't been posting at all these last few days. I've been using my breaks from college work to derp around in the Cosplay forum. >>

As for what's been going on lately, while it's good to have a properly structured debate, excluding or outright ignoring anyone who can't participate along the clearly defined lines of classic debate structure is a really great way to strangle the conversation. That's even a recognized tactic in silencing discussions of privilege! Which I think we'd like to avoid. At least I know I'd like to, since I don't have the formal education needed to recognize when my argument is veering off the perfectly groomed paths of logic, and it'd really suck to have to exclude myself from a discussion I started. So let's try to take one another on good faith, assume we are trying to engage fairly, and do so on the discussion topic of feminism and not on meta-argumentation.
/rawr rawr I started this thread I get to say what goes rawr rawr

[RemSaverem]

^ Thank you.

[RemSaverem]

http://www.youtube.com/iamagirldoco#p/u/3/L83-Qd6FyN8
"I Am a Girl" documentary from Australia. Profiles 10 girls, including a 15-yr-old pushed into sex work to support a family of 19.
Statistics cited in trailer include 1 in 4 girls will be sexually assaulted before age of 18. 62 million girls are denied access to education. A girl dies every minute giving birth.
The claim is that there is no demographic subgroup (e.g., by race, ethnicity, religion, etc. or by class) that more increases one's exposure to violence, poverty, disease, illiteracy, etc., than simply being born female.

[PhantmK]

Okay so I just read through the entire thread. (By the way some amazing arguments, be proud of yourself folks.) Which when you look back at all of it, there is a LOT. But I feel it was a worthy read.

Before I even start please realize that it is essentially 5 in the morning and I have been sick the past 2 days, so I apologize for any discrepancy, but I felt if I did not type this now I would forget all my thoughts.

First off I am a male. Secondly I am a feminist although not very actively.

Now a couple points and this first one goes out to men in general: BE AWARE you do have a time of the month as well! Yes its true, once every month or so men have a hormonal imbalance just like women. I have read it and heard it for years and if you don't believe me read up: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=431376 (Yes I understand there is hyperlink but I am trying to get to bed so please forgive my laziness.) It is not exactly the same thing but we do have a form of it. Get used to the idea, really take a good look at yourself for a few months and you will find days where you have felt "off" from your normal self.

Another thing and I know it has been discussed however this is my view: Feminism tends to get associated with Females and only female equality an awful lot and its not hard to see why. But in case you don't multiple memory studies in psychology (I just studied this in Psychology 201 I can post the book name later if you wish to research) show that the average (most common) way memories are stored is by association. And due to the beginning of the word Feminism being the same as Female (Fem) and the fact that females are mentioned in the meaning of the word. This association is what stays with the average person whom has only every so often heard the word without looking into it with any further detail.
However, Feminism as a whole goes both ways. Feminism is about equality for both males and females. SO if you believe that men should have the same equality as women or women should have the same equality as men, you have a feminist belief. (Being nerdy I know but ex: if Feminism means  XX = XY then Feminism also means  XY = XX)

Okay now that I have that bit off my chest I did notice something else that started to be discussed and then got veered away from.
Morals. All equality is different in the perception of each person. So the argument at hand is one of the hardest type, one of morality. Convincing someone to change their moral code can be one of the hardest things you could ever do. Also, when dealing with morality, you have to consider that how they were raised, how they were educated, personal events and interactions, and where all of those things happened. All of these things and more can go into just one of the aspects of the equality attempting to be reached. Even if it is trying to be reached by both sides, there can be a breakdown of allies in the argument let alone foes.

My thought is this: What, where, and how do you think equality should be? And if you were to be lenient toward letting some part of your ideal be compromised what would it be?

Now I agree and disagree with a lot of different things that were said, (such as female circumcision ~Shudder in disgust~ which is awful) But for the time being to keep it simple; I mainly agree with Malaria on many of her points. Although I do have some different views which I will discuss later with a fresh mind.

Thanks for the evening of intrigue and thought, Hope to be discussing this again later today.

[RemSaverem]

@ Phantom, thank you, that was awesome. @ Malaria, since I didn't get off work in time to meet you at Radien's, maybe we could meet for tea with Roget?