Gender

[Nice]

i wonder in which category i belong then...

You've already seen my views on feminism and all the "women are discriminated" topic. But despite that, when i see some drunk guy or just some douche harrasing a girl, i'm definetly going to call him out on it. Not because the GIRL is being harrassed but because a PERSON is being harrased. If a female insults me, instinctivly i'm not going to react as quickly as i would with males but if she doesn't shut up i'm gonna insult her back. If some girl starts hitting me, first i'm gonna find out why, second if the reason is BS enough i'm gonna tell her to stop, third im going to smack her. Sorry but the "you never hit a girl" is bullshit to me. I respect girls as much as i respect men, if not more sometimes but if she's being a pain in the ass and doesn't stop, she deserves every right to get atleast slapped. Equality right?

Before you call me a wild abusive monster, read again through what i said. I don't think women belong in the kitchen or some bullshit like that and if i hear a guy say that, best case scenario for him would be me calling him out.

[Bridge]

And I will abandon the women are out for you sentiment when you acknowledge the assumptions that were made about my 'pseudo feminism' and the area where I live were out of line. I'm afraid your exposure to feminism is limited if I come off as extreme.

Are you saying that there is not a correlation between geographical location and inequality? In Saudi Arabia the average woman has it a hell of a lot worse than their Western counterparts, this is a fact. My assumption about where you live were justified I think, because I did not realize you were being rhetorical with the list of "then you'll understand"s, and understood it as a list of things that have happened to you. Is that unreasonable?

I would like to clarify that I do not think yo u are being extreme and I never called you that, I simply argued the merits of feminist extremism which you seemed to support. Hey, fighting for women's rights is a very noble endeavor. Believe me, I am all for it. I just think that extremism is always a slippery slope. It's not a matter of if somebody corrupts the message, it's a matter of when. I hope you are not saying that feminism has not been taken too far in the past, and while that certainly isn't the fault of every day feminists, it is a structural problem that can be exploited or just fall apart of its own accord.

Your point about egalitarians being more apathetic than feminists is perhaps valid, but I would perhaps say they are merely less passionate. It's certainly not an issue that keeps me awake at night, because as you would say I am privileged. That being said I do not like to see anybody receiving undue treatment and I do what I can to not propagate the idea myself. You have to understand that where I live it is not proper to "cat call" women or tell rape jokes (I did not even know there was such a thing). Most manifestations of sexism here are too subtle to notice most of the time, let alone criticize.

[Mechavomit]

@Dogfood

You belong in the category of normal people. The people the majority of this world consists of, or so I hope. I simply cannot imagine that there are women in first world countries that are only surrounded by jerks, who grope them and make rape jokes every day. And most feminists come from first world countries.

--
But really, explain to me how can a healthy middle-class 20-something girl with a nose job be "oppressed"? She literally chooses everything about her life, clothes, education, food, entertainment... a lot of people, both men and women, have no access to many of those things. So is she oppressed because there is a fashion standard? Because not enough vidya game characters are female? Because some idiot thinks she's sexy and decides it's ok to yell it out loud on the street?
There are RUDE people around, there are BAD people around. This isn't a sexism issue, this is a "bringing up your kids" issue. No use trying to fix grown-ass men, instead, try teaching your kids about the feelings of others.

I also checked out everydaysexism. Nothing even remotely close has ever happened to me in my 21 years. I'm not sheltered, I hang out with people a lot. Maybe it's the people I hang out with that matter. Or maybe it's because I don't have a victim complex.

[Cuyir]

I'm just going to post about a distinction I made in another thread (seeing how It was referenced by Abraxas) and leave it there because I have said everything i've wanted to say and Bridge, Paddy and Mechavomit have said everything else I would have said anyway (cheers).

Pseudo-feminism.

That's a distinction I make when feminists types miss the point, demonize men, use HIGHLY generalized descriptions of men, require qualifiers to be able to discuss an issue (ie ''men can't understand us because they're men and they're part of the oppressors"), have highly paranoiac views (see Mechavomit's crossed out comment) and generally use feminism as a tool to skew rights instead of striving for actual equality.

Equality is inviting and accepting discussion from everyone, not berating men for being born with a penis and testicles. Pretty sure that's why men are pretty fiery when feminism comes up and it turns into a clusterfuck.

If I was as terrified as Abraxas is insinuating she is (she's probably not, she's just rattling off the same issues/problems women go through), I would never go out. Indeed, in an early stage of my life I WAS afraid to go out. "Will a drunk driver crash into me and kill me on impact? Will I be mugged or far worse? Will I be attacked JUST for being from a certain part of the city? Will I be in the worst possible place when rival drug dealing outfits are fighting against each other?" A lot of things can and will happen everyday, worrying about them to that degree (or more likely in this case, using these scenarios as arguing points in a discussion about whether feminism has some negative types) is moot. Yeah, I live in a place where crime is rampant. Yeah, I have to be careful. But that's that. I'd be holed up in my home if I gave TOO much thought to it. Yeah, I can be raped, murdered, assaulted, mugged, crashed, targeted and a host of other such things but you don't see me rattling them off as a qualifier for something. It happens. I know. It sucks. I can still function without seeing people of a certain ethnicity as ''out to get me''. I have jewish friends, they don't see germans as ''out to get them'' because of The Holocaust but they KNOW some people still have some hatred towards them but they function without resorting to exaggerating.

If anyone's noticed, I haven't identified as male or female in these forums. Why? There's no reason to. I see every human as a human being. In my book, we are all humans (and in the context of this forum, we are all users on this forum). Our genders have some plus and minuses to them but to reduce a person to a gender (again, "men just can't understand") is completely paradoxical to feminism. Feminism SHOULD be about women's equality to men. About women's rights and treatment; it's not about exaggerating the behaviors of SOME men and then attributing said behavior to everyone else (I know Abraxas has already discussed this but her comments were still highly accusatory to men). It's not about having MORE rights than men (there are some feminist groups out there that see men in a pretty unequal way, to put it ever so nicely) or seeing everything society has done as some patriarchal conspiracy ("you are making us to be foolish children for wanting to save females first! We can save ourselves!"). Feminism is simply put, a tool for which to strive for equality.

Pseudo-feminists are ruining it for everyone. I don't consider myself a feminist, but a humanist. I don't see feminism as this group of evil and loudmouthed shrews and white knighting males (which exist, sadly), which is WHY I make a seemingly offensive and needless distinction. To reiterate, I see feminism as a tool that can and has been used for good reasons. Shame that it has also been used for some pretty negative and generally paradoxical reasons. Summed up, my distinction between "feminism" and "pseudo-feminism" is a personal construct BECAUSE I like the ideas feminism brings and it would be depressing if I bundled together real respectable feminism ideals with the shrieking harpies that seem to be loudest (not calling anyone here a shrieking harpy). A distinction that has gave me some piece of mind.

This is why I mentioned that I never see us reaching a consensus on this. Some men will always be pathetic little shitbags and some women will always seek to demonize men, try to have more rights than men (basically treating men as inferior) and just missing the point of feminism. Maybe that's a highly negative view for a humanist, but that's what I think.

[Paddy™]

The average heterosexual male is not likely to be a victim of domestic violence.

Not true. The instances of violence, murder, control, sexual aggression/coercion and other forms of relationship-centred abuse are roughly equal between genders, as is shown through the studies and meta-studies done on the issue. Search the web for some examples:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gender+symmetr...c+violence

This is the same kind of research which led to feminists harassing Erin Pizzey, and even killing her dog, until she had to leave the country. It doesn't fit with the feminist world view, the dogma, the party line, so it's ignored or distorted and its proponents are labelled rape apologists, misogynists or something similar.

The average heterosexual male is far more concerned about being 'friend zoned', while the average heterosexual female is fearing being raped and killed by that guy who won't leave her alone at the bar.

Really? Women in bars are, on average, in constant fear for their lives and their safety? That doesn't sound normal, and it's not something I've ever heard from women personally. If anything, men have more to fear in a bar; men are far more often the victims of random violence, especially where alcohol is being consumed in high quantities.

I'd like you to post the survey of "average heterosexual males" upon which you've based your argument that their main concern is with being "friend zoned". I'm interested to see if this phenomenon is also found amongst lesbians and homosexual males, or if it's an inherently heterosexual male issue. I'm being somewhat facetious, of course, because I think the entire premise is ridiculous and supported by no data whatsoever.

[Kman]

But really, explain to me how can a healthy middle-class 20-something girl with a nose job be "oppressed"? She literally chooses everything about her life, clothes, education, food, entertainment... a lot of people, both men and women, have no access to many of those things. So is she oppressed because there is a fashion standard? Because not enough vidya game characters are female? Because some idiot thinks she's sexy and decides it's ok to yell it out loud on the street?

you can look at the multiple statistics i posted a few pages ago regarding the fact that women, factually speaking, have a harder time getting employed and are generally paid less

or the fact that whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal is still a debate

or the dozens and dozens of social norms that are ingrained in our society to demoralize women (which has already been touched on many times in this thread)

like jfc just cause they're not fighting for the right to vote or some obvious shit like that doesn't mean that sexism doesn't still exist

[Paddy™]

you can look at the multiple statistics i posted a few pages ago regarding the fact that women, factually speaking, have a harder time getting employed and are generally paid less

This is a myth born out of an overly simplistic view of the data, as has already been pointed out in this thread.

The rate of work-related deaths is 20 times higher for men than it is for women. This isn't a coincide or evidence that women are less clumsy with a chainsaw, it's evidence that men generally do more dangerous and physically demanding work. This is just one example of how men and women are better suited for/attracted to different kinds of occupation, which brings about imbalance in the amount of money earned. Blame evolution, not sexism.

A man and a woman with equal qualifications and equal liability will not be treated differently because of their genitalia, and if they are there'll be a lawsuit which the woman will win every time.

or the dozens and dozens of social norms that are ingrained in our society to demoralize women (which has already been touched on many times in this thread)

Which social norms demoralise women? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just asking for a few examples.

like jfc just cause they're not fighting for the right to vote or some obvious shit like that doesn't mean that sexism doesn't still exist

True, but that's besides the point. Sexism is bad, we're all in agreement there. Sexism exists even today, no argument. Sexism is best cured with feminism, not even close.

[Kman]

The rate of work-related deaths is 20 times higher for men than it is for women. This isn't a coincide or evidence that women are less clumsy with a chainsaw, it's evidence that men generally do more dangerous and physically demanding work. This is just one example of how men and women are better suited for/attracted to different kinds of occupation, which brings about imbalance in the amount of money earned. Blame evolution, not sexism.

fair enough point but that still goes back to the whole idea that it's kind of dictated by society what men and women should and shouldn't do; it's assumed that men should do jobs that require more physical work and generally are more dangerous. yes there's the whole argument of genetics making it easier for men to do those sorts of jobs but considering we've moved past genetic advantages in the name of equality (gay marriage becoming legal despite the fact that homosexuals can't reproduce, education for the mentally disabled, etc. etc.). obviously there's nothing very concrete you can do to change that, though raising future generations without a set mindset that certain genders are meant for certain occupations can help a lot.

A man and a woman with equal qualifications and equal liability will not be treated differently because of their genitalia, and if they are there'll be a lawsuit which the woman will win every time.

well yeah of course no employers going to say upfront "i am not hiring you because you are [x] gender" unless they wanted to get in legal trouble, most probably don't even intend to sway towards a certain gender when hiring others, but a lot of the time imposed biases can affect an employers decision. this goes back to that idea that we're brought up in a society that views men as the hard workers and women as the stay at home mom type, cause naturally with that mindset employers will be more inclined to hire a man.

that chart i posted a few pages back doesn't lie anywho, interpret it how you want, this is just what i make of it given what i've learned about the matter.

Which social norms demoralise women? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just asking for a few examples.

women aren't meant to be sexual or promiscuous. this is why when a women goes around and sleeps with a bunch of guys she'll most likely be viewed a lot worse than if a guy went around and sleep with a bunch of girls. think of it, the large majority of the time the girl in the first case would be viewed as a slut but the guy would have been viewed as a "player" or some shit like that.

women have to be skinny, shaved, and well dressed if they want to be viewed as beautiful. this does of course effect men to a certain extent too, but it's generally imposed on women much much more. that's why you don't hear of guys developing anorexia or bulimia

like i mentioned before, women are supposed to take a much less rigorous and hands on profession then men, and if they have kids they're often expected to give up there job for a few years to raise their kid

women are expected to be submissive to men when it comes to sex and relationships, this has a lot to do with that first point i brought up. it's also where the whole concept of the frinedzone comes from, since guys assume that women are obligated to want them back if they pursue feelings for a girl.

dunno thats just a few i thought of off the top of my head

---

i forgot how much i actually dislike typing out walls of texts in online debates so im outie have fun all of u

[VaeVictis]

And I will abandon the women are out for you sentiment when you acknowledge the assumptions that were made about my 'pseudo feminism' and the area where I live were out of line. I'm afraid your exposure to feminism is limited if I come off as extreme.

Are you saying that there is not a correlation between geographical location and inequality? In Saudi Arabia the average woman has it a hell of a lot worse than their Western counterparts, this is a fact. My assumption about where you live were justified I think, because I did not realize you were being rhetorical with the list of "then you'll understand"s, and understood it as a list of things that have happened to you. Is that unreasonable?

I would like to clarify that I do not think yo u are being extreme and I never called you that, I simply argued the merits of feminist extremism which you seemed to support. Hey, fighting for women's rights is a very noble endeavor. Believe me, I am all for it. I just think that extremism is always a slippery slope. It's not a matter of if somebody corrupts the message, it's a matter of when. I hope you are not saying that feminism has not been taken too far in the past, and while that certainly isn't the fault of every day feminists, it is a structural problem that can be exploited or just fall apart of its own accord.

Your point about egalitarians being more apathetic than feminists is perhaps valid, but I would perhaps say they are merely less passionate. It's certainly not an issue that keeps me awake at night, because as you would say I am privileged. That being said I do not like to see anybody receiving undue treatment and I do what I can to not propagate the idea myself. You have to understand that where I live it is not proper to "cat call" women or tell rape jokes (I did not even know there was such a thing). Most manifestations of sexism here are too subtle to notice most of the time, let alone criticize.

Unfortunately, it is a common symptom of privilege to be able to ignore (or worse, acknowledge and not care about) the little things that make life difficult for an under-privileged group. But that under-privileged group gets to feel that apathy in one way or another by maintaining the status-quo.

I agree that feminism tends to lack much in the intersanctionality department. It's unfortunate, but it is being addressed in some feminist circles. And of course there were times in history and current affairs were some mad radicals decided to descend upon an otherwise benign affair.
The small, as you say, 'unnoticeable' instances are exactly what helps to keep a current system in place. I'm not saying you have to shout from the rooftops are attend protests, but just question these 'unnoticeable' things and seek to change them. You'll affect the bigger picture. That's great the rape jokes and such aren't widely accepted in your area. Awesome. But that doesn't mean that there are not problems. No area in the world is a utopia free of such things.

I just don't understand the helpless and apathetic attitude that you have. I'm not asking you to paint signs and storm government buildings, I'm asking you notice the little things that can be potentially harmful.
My personal anecdotal evidence here is insufficient, but feminism has had my back more often than humanism. To be perfectly frank, egalitarianism has very much lulled over and minimized them. I don't hold it against all of them, but they are every bit as toxic as a 'radical' feminist. I know those groups are not inherently toxic. Neither is feminism.

[Paddy™]

The Great Wall of Text can be seen from space:

Spoiler below!

fair enough point but that still goes back to the whole idea that it's kind of dictated by society what men and women should and shouldn't do; it's assumed that men should do jobs that require more physical work and generally are more dangerous. yes there's the whole argument of genetics making it easier for men to do those sorts of jobs but considering we've moved past genetic advantages in the name of equality (gay marriage becoming legal despite the fact that homosexuals can't reproduce, people of all ethnicities and genders being accepted into sporting events and larger competitions like the olympics despite the fact that people of certain backgrounds statistically preform better, etc. etc.). obviously there's nothing very concrete you can do to change that, though raising future generations without a set mindset that certain genders are meant for certain occupations can help a lot.

The question is, does society dictate what men and women should or shouldn't do for a living, or do men and women dictate that for themselves? I'm sure the answer is as complex as it is old, but I'm not so quick to blame society or the "patriarchy", and I'm not even sure that it's a problem that needs solving. It appears to be a problem if you look at it from the position of a feminist who believes men are trouble. If you were to take the position of a male chauvinist you might say that the fact of men dying 20 times more often at work than women shows that women are the oppressors. Obviously I don't think that's true either haha, but I'm demonstrating how a single piece of data can be used to support many different and mutually exclusive ideas.

I agree that we don't have to be ruled by our genes (we combat our evolution all the time through our behaviours), and there are women in policing, the military, construction, etc. But you can't overcome the limitations of your physical make-up through sheer willpower; if you're a slender woman, you won't do too well lifting bails of hay or swinging a pick-axe. Obviously a slender man would have the same problem (despite his long arms and ability to levitate), but men tend to make up the greater number of the burly sorts.

It wasn't that long ago that my dad - a muscular Judo expert from Belfast - would be teased for being a nurse, because that's a "woman's job". The teasing wasn't so strong when he moved into mental health nursing, and was handling violent killers and psychopaths in a lock-up ward. A woman could do that job, of course, but on balance it's going to attract men; men aren't herded into the hospital to work against their will, after all.

women aren't meant to be sexual or promiscuous. this is why when a women goes around and sleeps with a bunch of guys she'll most likely be viewed a lot worse than if a guy went around and sleep with a bunch of girls. think of it, the large majority of the time the girl in the first case would be viewed as a slut but the guy would have been viewed as a "player" or some shit like that.

This is very true. I don't know if this is something to be blamed on men/maleness, though. The words "she's a total slut" tend to come from a woman's lips before they do a man's, in my own experience anyway.

The double-standard exists and is something to fight against, but feminism isn't the cure and I don't know that men are the cause.

women have to be skinny, shaved, and well dressed if they want to be viewed as beautiful. this does of course effect men to a certain extent too, but it's generally imposed on women much much more. that's why you don't hear of guys developing anorexia or bulimia

I'm not sure of the statistics about the prevalence of body dimorphism between genders, but I do know that it's not rare for it to hit men. It's almost certainly more shameful and embarrassing for a man to admit it or seek help for it, as is the case with male victims of domestic violence. Men certainly kill themselves a hell of a lot more often than women.

like i mentioned before, women are supposed to take a much less rigorous and hands on profession then men, and if they have kids they're often expected to give up there job for a few years to raise their kid

Again, are women supposed to take a less hands-on approach or do they naturally gravitate towards work which is less physically demanding?

women are expected to be submissive to men when it comes to sex and relationships, this has a lot to do with that first point i brought up. it's also where the whole concept of the frinedzone comes from, since guys assume that women are obligated to want them back if they pursue feelings for a girl.

I think I know what you mean regarding the expectation that women should be submissive to men, but I think that attitude has been headed out the door since the final episode of M*A*S*H aired. I don't personally know anyone who thinks that way about women. My dad might have been that way had my mum let him XD

The Friend Zone debate is a double-standard in itself. Women are apparently seen as pure, virginal, and impeccably forthright, and men as sex-fiends. Women are just as capable as men of wanting to be with someone and then for that person to reject their romantic advances in favour of friendship. That the process has a name and is attributed to men isn't evidence that it's really a man thang, men just happen to talk about it more. I don't even understand how it's a point of debate; women desire men, sometimes the man isn't interested, so she's "friend zoned". Are we to believe that women take that in stride and that men are the only ones to be irritated or disappointed when it happens to them?

---

Unfortunately, it is a common symptom of privilege to be able to ignore (or worse, acknowledge and not care about) the little things that make life difficult for an under-privileged group. But that under-privileged group gets to feel that apathy in one way or another by maintaining the status-quo.

You are not under-privileged. By no stretch of the imagination can you possibly say that you are under-privileged or that you belong to an oppressed class. It's a self-imposed fantasy of victimhood which has no basis in reality whatsoever. I don't even know why Bridge is conceding so much to you in this debate, you're saying things which are so patently false and drenched in hyperbole as to defy reason.

Feminism is not a cause, it's an identity. Women are not under attack and are not uniquely threatened. Men are not privileged. If you want to start listing all the ways in which men are "privileged" I'll match them one-for-one with the ways in which women are "privileged", which will prove nothing and will convince you of nothing because this is not a genuine debate for you, but is instead a dumping ground for feminist soundbites, battle cries, talking points and demonstrably incorrect statistics and data.

I haven't responded so directly to you before, but the quoted paragraph is so smug, patronising and self-important that I just had to. You speak as if you've just stepped off of a slave ship in 1750. It's depressing.