Advertisement
by Nazi Flower Power » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:33 am
by The Black Forrest » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:36 am
by The Black Forrest » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:36 am
Napkiraly wrote:It seems OP you should actually first find out what feminism actually is. Because many have been pointing out that these gender roles hurt men and women for quite some time now.
by Sun Wukong » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:38 am
Nazi Flower Power wrote:Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."
by Susurruses » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:42 am
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Susurruses wrote:
Dude, if you think there are only 'men' and 'women' then you need to seriously examine what you've been taught about sex (hint: it's more diverse than a simplistic binary; it's a spectrum) and gender (hint: it is also incredibly diverse and varies culturally).
Gender roles are a sociocultural phenomenon; it is absolutely possible and viable to break them down and not force people into boxes without the ensuing collapse of society and sexual relationships.
1. That's horseshit and you know it, sex does come in a simple binary, there's no spectrum, and there's no mayonnaise gender.
2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological
by Susurruses » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:43 am
Sun Wukong wrote:Nazi Flower Power wrote:Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."
It's almost as if people criticize feminism without bothering to learn what it is at all.
But no... that couldn't be. Who would be so dishonest?
by Forsher » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:11 am
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:I don't think men can watch after a fetus, considering we aren't seahorses???? ONce it's fully baked, sure, but the bun in the oven kinda can't leave.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:Albul wrote:Blasted idioms... I can't be fun if y'all are being too literal. What I meant by a bun in the oven is that the woman is pregnant... Women can't really expect to keep the fetus alive with the demanding physical labor needed to hunt.
Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:Aye, but that still doesn't mean the women were unable to pick up a spear and go hunting, if necessary, as having too few hunters in a tribe would have led to starvation.
Shevardino wrote:a man can work overtime consistently and of course get payed more than a woman coworker, and men do work significantly more overtime on average than women).
Ever single female STEM major I knew changed to humanities majors before the end of freshman year, and it's an extremely common trend across the entire nation.
Most women can't make the cut, or don't utilize the massive amounts of woman-only resources and opportunities that fill my university mailbox to the brim every week. The only women I see around the lab I work at are all Asian immigrants except for one. ONE. Something needs to be done to encourage women to use the resources available to them without lowering standards of high education/skill fields to meet arbitrary employment quotas.
Shevardino wrote:YES when women put their middle finger up to gender roles they can make the cut, as easily as men. This is what I keep saying. Over, and over, and over again. And you seem to have omitted the most on "most women can't make the cut." So long as most women believe they cannot make the cut, they may become disheartened and give up. I have said multiple times that this is the cause and what neds to be changed. I keep saying that this is due to the current status quo which needs to change. As the far as the words I'm using doing the exact opposite, that seems to stem from your desire to infer a different message than I'm putting forward.
by Empire of Narnia » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:19 am
by Jinos » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:26 am
by Earl of Sandwich IV » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:26 am
Empire of Narnia wrote:Feminists want equality between males and females. I am a feminist. Every group has radicals though, but they shouldn't make everybody forget about what the movement is really about.
by L Ron Cupboard » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:29 am
Nazi Flower Power wrote:Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."
by Empire of Narnia » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:29 am
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Empire of Narnia wrote:Feminists want equality between males and females. I am a feminist. Every group has radicals though, but they shouldn't make everybody forget about what the movement is really about.
That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.
by Earl of Sandwich IV » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:32 am
Empire of Narnia wrote:Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.
Women are still discriminated against in a lot of jobs. Look at Sony if you don't believe that. Certain developing countries still have laws that discriminate against women. For example women in Saudi Arabia can't drive even though Sharia law says nothing about cars.
by Jinos » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:33 am
Empire of Narnia wrote:Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:That is old school feminism. But equality has already been achieved. New school feminism is about quotas and blaming society for personal shortcomings.
Women are still discriminated against in a lot of jobs. Look at Sony if you don't believe that. Certain developing countries still have laws that discriminate against women. For example women in Saudi Arabia can't drive even though Sharia law says nothing about cars.
by New Armarzia » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:39 am
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:Hold your horses. I know there are a lot of feminists here, but please, read what I have to say before going off and condemning me. I am not a misogynist and I do not advocate the discrimination of women (or any kind of discrimination at all). I completely agree with you that women are being discriminated against and I fully support the idea of equal rights and status for all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. My issue is that you're doing it wrong.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:Let's think of society as a living organism and look at this issue as a social disease. When you get a disease, what do you do? Do you treat the symptoms, or the cause? Because, if you don't eliminate the cause, those symptoms are just going to come back and social inequality (as well as racial inequality and every other kind of inequality) is a symptom, which you pit so many resources against, without ever considering the bigger picture and what is causing the disease.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:The fact is (and I recommend you take this very seriously), gender discrimination goes both ways. Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect. What you do not realize is that the discrimination of women is equally damaging to the male gender. How so? Because of the rigid social conventions on "gender roles" which we are all forced to abide by. While women are expected to "stay in the kitchen", men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful. In modern society, a man who displays affection, respect and loyalty to a woman, is considered a "pussy" and rejected as weak (and usually end up on the losing end). These gender conventions demand that men assert their dominance in a relationship and act the way we often do. In other words, we're just as conditioned and restricted by these conventions, as you are.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:Social conventions such as gender roles, racial and ethnic status, etc, are all just another excuse for the people with a very high social status, to restrict access to their position and eliminate potential competition, thus increasing their offspring's chances of inheriting that position of power. The cause of all these issues is heredity. To prove my point, we're seeing a whole bunch of problems, like racism, slowly being eliminated, while other forms of discrimination, such as classism (discrimination against the poor), are taking their place.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:I imagine that, at some point in the distant past, there was a struggle for social status and resources, in primitive human culture. At some point, that struggle was won by a group of males, for a some unknown reasons (it is possible that the opposite might have happened and females could have won, which would have resulted in a completely reversed scenario with women on top). Ever since then, that winning group has done everything in its power to not only consolidate its grip on the position which they have acquired, but to expand their power even further. Nowadays, we call these people "the 1%" and they're the ones who control the media, finances, etc, thus they're in a position to dictate which conventions should the society follow. In fact, all of these social conventions are the result of people playing by the rules of the privileged few, due to a misguided belief that thus, they are able to climb the social ladder just one step further. What you do not realize, is that the game is rigged. The people who make the rules will only seek to further their own interest and eliminate any and all potential competition, by making it impossible for people to compete in the first place. Thus, you have issues such as discrimination, which cause social frictions, malcontent, disappointment and stagnation and are invariably leading the human race towards its own destruction.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:Try going through a mental exercise with me. Imagine a world without inheritance. A world without an elite which has that position of power, merely because they inherited their advantage. If power and wealth were not hereditary, we could have a world where one had to earn his or her place, through their own merit. In my opinion, the only way to solve society's issue is through making people in power have more responsibilities, while eliminating heredity in its entirety (100% inheritance tax and the abolition of aristocracy). All those taxes could then go towards making the world a place where every person has the chance to succeed in life on his/her own. Think of it this way. What would you rather leave your children? Material assets like money and social position, thus very little motivation for self-improvement? Or a world which offers your children the possibility to start in the same position as everyone else (by eliminating the concept of pole position), thus stimulating them to grow and evolve? Leveling the playing field would only increase competition, thus promoting an accelerated improvement of society and the human race as a whole.
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:What I propose, is that you stop looking at this issue from such a narrow angle. Its not just about women's rights, its about humanity as a whole. Why not try to point out the negative effects that discrimination against women, has on men? Instead of addressing just one of the symptoms, why not seek to promote a world in which everyone starts off with the same chances and has an equal amount of support, to succeed in life?
by Esternial » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:41 am
Nazi Flower Power wrote:Only read the first page.... This thread is exactly the kind of thing that makes older posters and women lose interest in NSG. OP seems to have a very narrow definition of "feminism."
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:43 am
Jinos wrote:As much as I disagree with the other guy. Please don't bring up Saudi Arabia or other third world countries that haven't even seen first wave feminism as a way to defend third wave feminism.
by Empire of Narnia » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:47 am
by CTALNH » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:49 am
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Katganistan wrote:
Really?
How does sexual reproduction tie into one's paycheck, do tell.
Or into one's ability to do construction work? Teach? Work in finance?
I eagerly await your explanation.
Men and women are biologically different. Laying a social construct over that to attempt to force them to be socially equal is not going to help. The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.
by Empire of Vlissingen » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:49 am
by -Ebola- » Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:08 am
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote: The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:24 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: IC-Wave, Ifreann, Likhinia, Risottia, Simonia, Tiami, Tungstan
Advertisement