Gender

[Ghieri]

Not sure whether to feel proud or scared that I started this much debate.

[Alardem]

Not sure whether to feel proud or scared that I started this much debate.

You have popcorn?

Imma just leave this link here:

Incidents where women nerds were harassed, talked about it, and was promptly suggested to overblown criticism from men. Holy overreaction, Batman!

To Paddy - Why are women generally much more paranoid about walking alone at night than men?

[Paddy™]

To Paddy - Women are generally much more paranoid about walking alone at night than men are. It's pretty obvious why.

Everyone is weary of walking home alone at night, but for some reason only women's fear is worth noting?

Men tend not to talk about or show signs of being afraid, even though men are the most likely - by far - to be the victims of assault, muggings, murder and random violence on the streets. What women may or may not think/feel about walking home at night is irrelevant to the reality of the situation; men are attacked significantly more often than women.

Women are universally considered to be more valuable than men, as a rule, and it's a rule which has served our species well. That our species has outlived all other hominids is largely due to that fact, because women are the limiting factor in a species' propagation.

If you don't think women are held in higher regard than men, consider the following hypothetical news report:

"Seven people burned to death last night in a blaze which engulfed most of down town New York. Two of the victims were women."

Sounds fine, like standard news reporting, yes? Try this:

"Seven people burned to death last night in a blaze which engulfed most of down town New York. Two of the victims were men."

Yeah, that knot you felt in your stomach as you read the second version is quite illustrative of the point.

Men getting mugged and killed on the street doesn't provoke the same kind of outrage as when it's a woman. That might go some way toward explaining why women may feel more paranoid about walking home alone even though they're less likely to be attacked than men: women's safety is more important than men's, so it gets more airtime, more exposure, more warnings and reminders to stay safe, constantly being portrayed as weak victims under surveillance from predatory men by the media, etc. So yes, "it's pretty obvious why".

This is not a gender issue, especially when women are said to be the victims of something which obviously affects men far more (i.e. street violence). Everyone's fear is valid, no one's fear is special.

[Alardem]

Doesn't jive with the fact that women are more liable to sexual assault and violence from their partners. I know that many abused guys keep silent about being abused by their girlfriends, and that problem is exacerbated by the cultural norms about male strength. Sexist assumptions here hurt people of both genders, and thus is to blame.

"Seven people burned to death last night in a blaze which engulfed most of down town New York. Two of the victims were men."

Yeah, that knot you felt in your stomach as you read the second version is quite illustrative of the point.

Are you serious? I'm not affected by either. :p

What you've said effectively highlights one of feminism's issues - how "valuing" women as much as children under a pretext of benevolence actually prevents them from being considered the equal of men. It's what's churned out to prevent women from taking on risky jobs that men are allowed to do. I, too, roll my eyes at the 'women and children' cliche in news reports about battles or massacres, because it implies that the death and maiming of men is normal and to be expected.

And this is the crux: this assumption is unhealthy and we will be better off valuing all lives equally. If we are to use history/'biology' as a precedent for rationalizing current things, we may as well say that xenophobia, classism and other prejudices have served our "species" well in the past and therefore shouldn't be questioned. I say nuts to that.

[Paddy™]

Doesn't jive with the fact that women are more liable to sexual assault and violence from their partners.

But it's not even true that women are "more liable" to be on the receiving end of these kinds of assaults [click]. Again, that women's suffering is so prominently in the forefront of discussion about domestic violence shows us how much more seriously their suffering is considered. I don't begrudge them the consideration you understand, and I don't even particular care that men don't get the attention, it's the intellectual dishonesty, and the misuse of these data by feminists and other political ideologues, that irks me.

Are you serious? I'm not affected by either. :p

Hahaha fair enough. When I heard something similar, my reaction - despite knowing better - was to be repulsed by the idea of a man's death getting a special mention amongst the deaths of women, but I was fine with the first version. But seriously, if you heard the second version on the news, it wouldn't cause you to prick up your ears?

What you've said effectively highlights one of feminism's issues - how "valuing" women as much as children under a pretext of benevolence actually prevents them from being considered the equal of men. It's what's churned out to prevent women from taking on risky jobs that men are allowed to do. I, too, roll my eyes at the 'women and children' cliche in news reports about battles or massacres, because it implies that the death and maiming of men is normal and to be expected.

And this is the crux: this assumption is unhealthy and we will be better off valuing all lives equally. If we are to use history/'biology' as a precedent for rationalizing current things, we may as well say that xenophobia, classism and other prejudices have served our "species" well in the past and therefore shouldn't be questioned. I say nuts to that.

It's interesting that feminists consider the instinctive valuing of women to be patronising and to infantilise them, that it's something done by men, by choice. It confers a degree of intentionality, agency and conspiracy on an impulse which none of us is even consciously aware of until we've already experienced the flood of empathy and the desire to protect. I consider it to be something far less sinister than feminists do, and nowhere near as damaging. But I do agree with you 100% that it's no longer "needed". There are 7 billion of us now, I think we did too good a job XD

Expectations of gender are becoming less and less relevant/useful, and I'll be glad to see the back of them. Where feminism and its world view fits into that is another issue.

[VaeVictis]

Well...I'm running low on mental fuel, here. So I'mma let this awesome lady 'splain why feminism is as a good approach as any to gender inequality and such:



I know it's long, but please watch. It should at least give an idea of how little things are worked into our everyday vernacular and behavior that only serve to further perpetuate oppression and privilege. Changing those things can help change that.

[Ashtoreth]

I love men

This.

[VaeVictis]

I don't have anti-man agenda. I don't hate men.

If I have to repeat ANY of this again, I'm done.

[Ashtoreth]

*sigh*

I. DON'T. HATE. MEN.
I. DON'T. HAVE. AN. ANTI-MAN. AGENDA.
I. DON'T. HAVE. A. VICTIM. COMPLEX.

If I have to repeat ANY of this again, I'm done.

Is that directed at me? I just quoted that post because it was one of the only positive things I've read on this thread. I wasn't accusing you of anything.

[VaeVictis]

Is that directed at me? I just quoted that post because it was one of the only positive things I've read in this thread. I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Sorry! Not you. Just...a little built up frustration. Carry on!