I have never met a feminist who'd try to do that. I am not even sure what you mean by that. You're contradicting yourself, anyhow, because you just claimed they are trying to obscure any gender-differences. Which is it? And what does it mean in practice, and why is it wrong?

I get the impression you think men should be macho alpha males, providers of the family who prefer physical labour and sports, and women should be caring, family-centered and at the very least choose careers in line with this natural tendency, if not stay at home and care for the children. Your problem seems to be that you believe in a monolithic, uniform ideal that is somehow "natural" and should apply to everyone. When "metrosexual" or "transgender" models are defended in public discussion, you think it is an attempt to turn them into the new norm. But that's not it: feminine men and masculine women (for want of a better word to describe the traditional contents of those adjectives) need to be defended and represented in the media because they are still, to this day, considered somewhat deviant. (That's not to say the inane celebrity fags on TV are exactly in good taste.) Their right to be who they are needs to be defended against society's pressure to conformity. I am sure there are "feminists" who think a sensitive, scrawny, caring and submissive male is the ideal model and better than the hulking, hairy, gruff alpha male archetype. But it's not really a competition: people should be free to be who they are, whichever it is, and it just so happens that the old patriarchal world view you espouse is still dominant though quickly receding. In some circles, I admit, the opposite view has taken hold and needs tempering also. But that's no argument against feminism: every ideology has its extremes, and between two vices lies the happy medium of virtue. Your extreme conservatism and, dare I say, bigotry is just as unjustified and evil as the extreme "feminism" you believe is its antithesis.

Feminism means that the individual is given the tools and the encouraging atmosphere to be whoever they want to be, with a variety of models available to choose from. If a man wants to be a macho man, he should be allowed to. If he wants to dress in silk and satin and become a nurse, he should be allowed to. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mum, more power to her, but if she wants to become a police officer she should not have to fight against societal prejudice. That is feminism: obliteration of monolithic values and the monopoly of men on masculinity and women on femininity, all the while preserving these models as available options. That is why it is important to have a variety of characters of genders, sexual orientations and careers on television and other media: to provide people with a diverse pool of models to identify with, and to create a culture where diversity is not only tolerated but considered normal and, really, not even worthy of comment. When you go to a job interview, your sex, gender, sexual orientation or how you choose to express yourself on the femininity-masculinity spectrum shouldn't even be a point of interest.

I agree with 'feminism' (mostly radical, Marxist versions of feminism) to the degree that are dealing with (historical) contingencies that includes gender roles and (scientific, not ideological i.e. the badly worded "naturalized racism") biology.

The problem of feminism is that some or all women want to do what some men are doing. What do we do from here? If she wills it and it is possible, should we? Should we ideally maybe?

From here on, it usually gets weird. I reject literature-like and psychoanalytic interpretations (I'm probably straw-manning it, so if you have a stronger argument, you're welcome to present it.
For instance, some of these will claim that our use of language is violent towards women. Like the use of the word "fuck" and its variations. So "I'm fucking him up" is describing violent act and "I'm fucking her" is exercising 'symbolic' violence towards women, which increases violence towards women.
Now I never read an article that actually empirically shows this and I know from linguistic research that language does not work like that (George Lakoff).
We create concepts by similarities. So a waterfall is water, falling. A running-nose comes from applying the analogy of running to our nose. If time is money, you're wasting my time. I'm on borrowed time. If we conceptualize time as a one space dimension. Time is moving forward or moving backwards.
We "fuck" someone in the sense of thrusting our fist or leg onto him, similar to...well, you know.
Not because we are exert 'symbolic' violence towards women.

Another point is, because our gender roles or values are contingent does not mean we have to dump them or that they are not 'worthy enough' - that's up to how we would like to equalize our system of values. Concerning gender, I tend to be straight, that's a contingent biological fact about me, yet it does not imply I should stop being straight. Women could too value their own gender role.
Issues start when we hold contradicting values. So, in the case of women, women today give birth, that's a contingent fact as well. Most of us value that gender role.
The issue is, we value equality as well, so a woman giving birth takes away time from her, it hurts her career, should her husband give birth instead if she values her career? Ideally?
I don't know honestly.

I agree with your example re: fucking, but it's true that there are latent assumptions regarding proper gender roles and hierarchies in everyday language. I don't think they exert great influence on the way we think about men and women or how we organize our society; rather, they probably reflect such attitudes, and when attitudes change the expressions begin to stand out as awkward, funny, archaic. It's good to be aware of them to a reasonable extent and avoid them. A relevant example, I think, is that women seem to be more often dismissed, berated or threatened in sexual terms and as such presented as flesh, objects of male sexual activity or devious seducers. It is probably more a consequence of underlying attitudes than the cause of their propagation, but it's impolite anyway and as such to be avoided.

Every biological fact and value system is contingent, of course, and there is no necessary connection between the two. (This, I think, is what Rasputin fails to sufficiently respect.) If our culture tended to be totalitarian and we wanted to exert moral pressure to normalize gender roles into a binary system, we certainly could - that's most of history for you. But we've developed in a direction where individualism, liberalism and criticism of natural or otherwise predetermined moral laws is fairly fundamental to our ethics. And I honestly don't see any reason we should strive to change that. We are starting to reach the point where we come to believe (realize, I'd like to say) that how people choose to express their gender identity is really not a pressing social concern and that we should grant the choice to individuals. If a woman wants to have a career and a man wants to stay at home caring for the children, that's between them. If a man wants to dress up as a woman, that's really nobody's business but his own. If a woman wants to work at a construction yard, she should be subjected to the exact same tests and criteria as every man on the job. Society does not have to "espouse" all these alternatives with active support; I think media and the education system would do well to provide children with a diversity of models to craft their own identities with, but mostly gender should be a non-factor until it has practical consequences - and even then, it should be those consequences specifically, not gender in general, that we're concerned with. (Say, giving women maternity leave during the last month of pregnancy. After birth, the father and mother should have equal right to stay at home, whichever suits their family better.)

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 14:04

A relevant example, I think, is that women seem to be more often dismissed, berated or threatened in sexual terms and as such presented as flesh, objects of male sexual activity or devious seducers. It is probably more a consequence of underlying attitudes than the cause of their propagation, but it's impolite anyway and as such to be avoided.

We do that when we employ people or work for people - we use them as instruments to our ends. I want to get paid and he wants work to be done. That does not imply he should not take into account my humanity, but that's not his or my main goal. For a one-night stand, I think that's pretty familiar. I don't see a real issue with Playboy magazines as long as we remember that they are human, too.

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 14:04

...If our culture tended to be totalitarian and we wanted to exert moral pressure to normalize gender roles into a binary system, we certainly could - that's most of history for you. But we've developed in a direction where individualism, liberalism and criticism of natural or otherwise predetermined moral laws is fairly fundamental to our ethics....I think media and the education system would do well to provide children with a diversity of models...After birth, the father and mother should have equal right to stay at home, whichever suits their family better.)

There are no true individuals. We're born into societies, shaped by them and in turn it's shaped by us. There's a boundary that we decide on as ethical, but not a total separation. Never. If a man wants to dress as woman in public places or stay at home instead of his wife, that will affect society around him. We decide what acts are fine by us and what not.

No one crafts his own identity, it will be crafted out of what we are provided with - by society and external causes - our choices are within that framework.
You could live in a 'totalitarian' society where it is forced upon you to provide more than two models although you don't want to, even tho you do tolerate differences. It all goes down to values and how we equalize them.

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 13:40

That is feminism: obliteration of monolithic values and the monopoly of men on masculinity and women on femininity, all the while preserving these models as available options. That is why it is important to have a variety of characters of genders, sexual orientations and careers on television and other media: to provide people with a diverse pool of models to identify with, and to create a culture where diversity is not only tolerated but considered normal and, really, not even worthy of comment. When you go to a job interview, your sex, gender, sexual orientation or how you choose to express yourself on the femininity-masculinity spectrum shouldn't even be a point of interest.

That's one of the best ways to put it that I read.
The question is, again, why would anyone want that? Sure, it sounds cogent, yet
practically, has it occurred to you that you would like to know what you're hitting on? That structure maybe a thing we want? Some of it at least?
I personally prefer a female hostess in a restaurant. Females make me feel different than men. Females tend to feel the same way about certain aspects about men.
I don't see an issue with gender roles, unless they 'break' in certain cases.

Written by Candlemass on 03.01.2015 at 14:53

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 14:04

...If our culture tended to be totalitarian and we wanted to exert moral pressure to normalize gender roles into a binary system, we certainly could - that's most of history for you. But we've developed in a direction where individualism, liberalism and criticism of natural or otherwise predetermined moral laws is fairly fundamental to our ethics....I think media and the education system would do well to provide children with a diversity of models...After birth, the father and mother should have equal right to stay at home, whichever suits their family better.)

There are no true individuals. We're born into societies, shaped by them and in turn it's shaped by us. There's a boundary that we decide on as ethical, but not a total separation. Never. If a man wants to dress as woman in public places or stay at home instead of his wife, that will affect society around him. We decide what acts are fine by us and what not.

No one crafts his own identity, it will be crafted out of what we are provided with - by society and external causes - our choices are within that framework.
You could live in a 'totalitarian' society where it is forced upon you to provide more than two models although you don't want to, even tho you do tolerate differences. It all goes down to values and how we equalize them.

While true(ish) in an academic, sociological/psychological discourse, that seems like a very banal and trivial point in this context. We are not interested in the subtleties and exact formulations of human behaviour; I am describing the de facto ethical assumptions and value systems which are dominant and generally accepted in the ethical discourse of our culture (even if not always consistently adhered to) and making a case for them, or for an attitude towards gender roles that seems to be the most in line with them. We are, after all, engaged in an ethical debate: to merely observe that the individual isn't wholly separate from society is not really a challenge to individualism (which is the moral decision to value the individual), and to state that we decide what's fine by us is fairly Captain Obvious in response to me trying to argue for one such decision. In this paragraph, at least, you're side-stepping with detached analysis the ethical and political issue which we live out in our lives.

Quote:

That's one of the best ways to put it that I read.
The question is, again, why would anyone want that? Sure, it sounds cogent, yet
practically, has it occurred to you that you would like to know what you're hitting on? That structure maybe a thing we want? Some of it at least?
I personally prefer a female hostess in a restaurant. Females make me feel different than men. Females tend to feel the same way about certain aspects about men.
I don't see an issue with gender roles, unless they 'break' in certain cases.

That is a fair point, but from my perspective it's also fairly easy to answer in practice. I may want to know what I am hitting on, but if I were to demand it as my right, that would stipulate a duty on everyone else to always openly express their gender - not to mention, it would require us to come up with a solid definition of gender which we would apply to everyone, binary or otherwise. That is certainly possible, but it does not seem reasonable. You would restrict many people's freedoms a lot more by satisfying the desire to know what you're hitting on (without asking, presumably). Putting aside the logistics of it all, it's probably safe to say that people generally feel their gender identity more deeply and experience restrictions on personal freedom based on their gender as more painful than is the case with the convenience of readily identifying the gender of a potential sexual partner (you can always ask). Weighing rights and freedoms is always somewhat subjective and arbitrary, but that's life, and I think it's fairly easy for most people to come to a reasonable consensus on many such questions.

In simple terms, it boils down to asking "Is this a big deal for me, and is it a bigger deal for them?" If, after critical analysis and exercises to see the issue from other perspectives, you can honestly say that it really is a big deal for you, bigger than you think the other party justified to consider their view, then by all means stick to your guns. But most of the time, I think both extreme feminists and anti-feminists make a big deal out of nothing and completely ignore the implications for other people.

I don't have an issue with gender roles, either. I only have an issue when they calcify and prevent people from doing something harmless that is important to them. The purpose of models like gender roles should be to guide people and make life easier; not to harm and limit. (I think it's well documented that some of the expectations laid on men over the 20th century had an adverse effect on their emotional and mental health; just think of all the WWII vets who couldn't talk about their emotional traumas, or the boys bullied for wanting to dance instead of play football.) And I do think diversity, in most anything, is more interesting, exciting and valuable than monotony. That may be an aesthetic judgement as much as an ethical one, but I see no compelling reason to give it up.

Written by Candlemass on 03.01.2015 at 14:53

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 14:04

A relevant example, I think, is that women seem to be more often dismissed, berated or threatened in sexual terms and as such presented as flesh, objects of male sexual activity or devious seducers. It is probably more a consequence of underlying attitudes than the cause of their propagation, but it's impolite anyway and as such to be avoided.

We do that when we employ people or work for people - we use them as instruments to our ends. I want to get paid and he wants work to be done. That does not imply he should not take into account my humanity, but that's not his or my main goal. For a one-night stand, I think that's pretty familiar. I don't see a real issue with Playboy magazines as long as we remember that they are human, too.

I fully agree with you, Playboy and instruments and all. However, that was not my point. My point was that women are systematically treated different than men as regards their sexuality, in a way generally not favorable to women. Women who state their opinions tend to be attacked as women, whereas men are more commonly criticized for their political opinion, religion, nationality or what-have-you without explicit reference to their gender (except when they are called faggots). Sexually active women are slut-shamed by men and women alike, whereas men are more commonly dismissed and studs or players. There is a real, statistical difference there and it is not irrelevant. If half the population are systematically being talked and thought about differently than the other half for no reason relevant to the topic at hand, that is a pretty clear sign of discrimination, inequality or flawed attitudes, at the very least. Caitlin Moran had a pretty good rule of thumb: if something someone does bothers you, try to swap a woman for a man in that situation and see if it would happen all the same. If so, they're just being impolite; if not, you've encountered some misogyny.

There was a funny headline some time back in a Finnish paper. It was something like "A film by Finnish mothers nominated for [whatever international film award]". It turns out they were film professionals who just happened to be female and have children, and that was not in any way relevant to the short film they did. Out of the blue, these lauded professionals were identified primarily through their motherhood (and thus gender), something which I've never seen happen to male directors. That's the kind of language that still conveys some weird assumptions and attitudes in our culture. It was not a big deal and I did not notice anyone else commenting on it, but I found it quite hilarious and revealing.

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 15:51

You would restrict many people's freedoms a lot more by satisfying the desire to know what you're hitting on (without asking, presumably)....

It runs deeper than that. There is no need for restriction because we implicitly already do that. Men tend to wear whatever and women not-whatever, and it makes gender identification easier, you could guess the evolutionary reasons for that. No one wants to get into a bar and start asking one after one if "she's" into boys (or anything at all). The thing is, most of us not only are comfortable with it most of the time, we desire it. It makes life easier to most of us.

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 15:51

But most of the time, I think both extreme feminists and anti-feminists make a big deal out of nothing and completely ignore the implications for other people.

Exactly, a deal out of nothing. It feels that feminism today deals with bunk.
20th century abuse of soldiers with post-trauma ("yellows") has to do with crooked psychology, not gender. There are many important things that happened for women during the 20th century, like martial rape becoming illegal. Because I care for my mother's/sister's/friend's well-being and I don't see them as lacking in autonomy or subjectivity. That makes a great deal of sense and compassion to me - but that's not gender creation - that's suiting my values to reality.

Gender creation. Most people who desire x by education/biology, have no implications because they do not anyways, desire y. The existence of those who don't is pretty normal and banal regardless. Gender is not a 'big deal' to me, it just is there, and certain ways I value it and in some I don't.

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 15:51

And I do think diversity, in most anything, is more interesting, exciting and valuable than monotony. That may be an aesthetic judgement as much as an ethical one, but I see no compelling reason to give it up.

If everyone had their own gender I'm assuming people grouping up would seem as more "interesting" and that groups of structured 'monotony' (pretty colorful groups actually) would be more aesthetic and elegant than a mess.

(1) I actually think diversity is a terrible thing. I'm just joking. Because in certain places I'll get crucified for saying that. Joking again. It's just a meaningless sentence(1). It's meaningless because it is context sensitive regardless of how much we get pumped day in and day out that a certain word in a "good" abstract. No, I would not like to see diversity in Nature magazine. Some people should not public scientific articles, like creations. I would not like to see diversity on the roads. I don't think 12 year old or 89 year old should drive. I would not like to live in a neighborhood with ISIS in the name of "diversity".

At the bottom of things, I would like people to feel comfortable with who they are. That does not imply tho that I would like to see superficial "gender equality" more than I would like creationists publishing in scientific journals in the name of a holy abstract. I value science and I value feminine females which I can tell are females. There's nothing to be ashamed of it. I like pussy (and I hope pussy likes me ).

It's a matter of style more than functionality and conflating the two is a mistake. My girl friend is a medical student that spent two years in a military field unit months under mortar fire and in ambushes. She was a chalk leader and she finished as distinguished commander. She's ruder and bolder than me. Because her notebooks have pink covers never got in her way in anything during her life (and she likes her pink notebooks ).

Written by Guest on 31.12.2014 at 02:21

That men on strike book sounds ridiculous

But it isn't, it's written by a female psychologist. It's not necessarily an attack on Feminism, it's not even intended to be edgy. It's just explaining why men in modern times are boycotting marriage, higher education and the 'american dream'. It logically explains how a lot of that is to do with feminism.

Feminism is not equality (neither is any other collectivist idea).

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 13:40

I have never met a feminist who'd try to do that. I am not even sure what you mean by that. You're contradicting yourself, anyhow, because you just claimed they are trying to obscure any gender-differences. Which is it? And what does it mean in practice, and why is it wrong?

I get the impression you think men should be macho alpha males, providers of the family who prefer physical labour and sports, and women should be caring, family-centered and at the very least choose careers in line with this natural tendency, if not stay at home and care for the children. Your problem seems to be that you believe in a monolithic, uniform ideal that is somehow "natural" and should apply to everyone. When "metrosexual" or "transgender" models are defended in public discussion, you think it is an attempt to turn them into the new norm. But that's not it: feminine men and masculine women (for want of a better word to describe the traditional contents of those adjectives) need to be defended and represented in the media because they are still, to this day, considered somewhat deviant. (That's not to say the inane celebrity fags on TV are exactly in good taste.) Their right to be who they are needs to be defended against society's pressure to conformity. I am sure there are "feminists" who think a sensitive, scrawny, caring and submissive male is the ideal model and better than the hulking, hairy, gruff alpha male archetype. But it's not really a competition: people should be free to be who they are, whichever it is, and it just so happens that the old patriarchal world view you espouse is still dominant though quickly receding. In some circles, I admit, the opposite view has taken hold and needs tempering also. But that's no argument against feminism: every ideology has its extremes, and between two vices lies the happy medium of virtue. Your extreme conservatism and, dare I say, bigotry is just as unjustified and evil as the extreme "feminism" you believe is its antithesis.

Feminism means that the individual is given the tools and the encouraging atmosphere to be whoever they want to be, with a variety of models available to choose from. If a man wants to be a macho man, he should be allowed to. If he wants to dress in silk and satin and become a nurse, he should be allowed to. If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mum, more power to her, but if she wants to become a police officer she should not have to fight against societal prejudice. That is feminism: obliteration of monolithic values and the monopoly of men on masculinity and women on femininity, all the while preserving these models as available options. That is why it is important to have a variety of characters of genders, sexual orientations and careers on television and other media: to provide people with a diverse pool of models to identify with, and to create a culture where diversity is not only tolerated but considered normal and, really, not even worthy of comment. When you go to a job interview, your sex, gender, sexual orientation or how you choose to express yourself on the femininity-masculinity spectrum shouldn't even be a point of interest.

I am not contradicting myself, feminism is, because it is going in numerous directions, and while wanting one thing over here, wants another thing over there, but how are you going to achieve that if one and the other are incompatible? You're not. They keep digging a bigger hole under their feet because they do not have a unified view of things, they just have the more "popular" views that are trending, and they accept it without question.

And you are confusing what I am saying. It is one thing for a person to chose what they want to be, and another for a certain standard to be pushed through media, and that is what feminism is doing. And I may be conservative and old fashioned, that is my choice, but when feminism stops attacking male masculinity and creating a boogey man out of it in attempt to "fix the problem of gender" maybe we will stop pushing back.

I agree with your last statement, I never said that people should no be free to express themselves.

Written by Guest on 04.01.2015 at 03:27

Written by Guest on 31.12.2014 at 02:21

That men on strike book sounds ridiculous

But it isn't, it's written by a female psychologist. It's not necessarily an attack on Feminism, it's not even intended to be edgy. It's just explaining why men in modern times are boycotting marriage, higher education and the 'american dream'. It logically explains how a lot of that is to do with feminism.

Feminism is not equality (neither is any other collectivist idea).

Check out "Female Chauvinist Pigs" written by a feminist, pretty decent little book.

And as far as the second part is concerned, I agree. The same way phrases like "Military intervention for the sake of peace, freedom and democracy" are being thrown around every time they want to justify spending money (or national security/safety) the same way the "equality" is being thrown up in defense, and usually it is by definition. I keep repeating, feminism in theory, and feminism in action are two different things.

Written by Rasputin on 04.01.2015 at 04:43

And you are confusing what I am saying. It is one thing for a person to chose what they want to be, and another for a certain standard to be pushed through media, and that is what feminism is doing. And I may be conservative and old fashioned, that is my choice, but when feminism stops attacking male masculinity and creating a boogey man out of it in attempt to "fix the problem of gender" maybe we will stop pushing back.

You make it seem as if a patriarchal (for lack of a better word) model is not dominant in the media anymore. There is, of course, no single standard being pushed through the media, but on average the signals are certainly in support of very traditional gender roles. All these lifestyle and wedding shows with celebrity gays and reality TV with angry lesbians are being presented as a reaction to the mainstream discourse, and they are certainly in the minority. (And I don't think they are very good at offering sensible, realistic models either; but the lowest level of subversion tends to be a crude inversion of roles.)

Maybe it's just that the phenomena you disagree with and you feel are contrary to your own values catch your attention more. For the few crude inversions on TV, there are dozens of very traditional shows and channels, and really emancipatory, intelligent and revolutionary shows are few and far between. I mean, we have (at least in Finland) entire channels branded for men and women, respectively, from the name to the programming. Men get Top Gear, Myth Busters, Ice Road Truckers, historical documents and action flicks, women get decoration, cooking and other lifestyle shows, in addition to romantic comedies and garbage like Eat Pray Love. Your view is still the mainstream, you just don't notice it so much precisely because it is the norm. Even if I don't think the alternatives in the media are very good, we can do with a little subversion in the face of such a monolithic tradition.

I'm not saying those traditional channels and shows are bad, mind you. It's supply and demand, after all, and clearly the programming has succeeded in reaching a target audience. But as fans of a rather marginal counter-culture/music genre ourselves, we should be acutely aware of the need for diversity. Especially in the case of gender roles, it is something a large part of the population (perhaps the majority) is actually aware of and interested in, and so the media is trying (often clumsily) to answer this real need and demand.

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 13:05

I don't see what physical and biological differences have to do with the topic. We're discussing politics, ethics and culture, and there should be no room for biological generalisations in those spheres. I am not as strong and big as some other man, nor do I have the potential to be - yet that has no effect on my legal rights and my status in society. Why should the difference between sexes be any different? Those differences are statistical, they are generalisations; even if they were the best way to categorise people (and I'm sure there are better empirical ways, such as measuring actual physical performance) I don't see what possible consequence they should have.

Erhm... because some people believe that because of these differences women cannot do some jobs, or they may not be able to do it well, for example constructions... and also women may become mother so that will affect their careers.

Also for jobs like management, engineering and law... apparently women are less preferred when there is a man with exactly the same level skills and also education because of the consequences.

In my opinion everyone must be able to take on the job they're ready to do and want to choose, however, I think the job situation must be suitable for the person ( whether man or woman) even though they must not be restricted by their genders for choosing a job. I mean when a woman needs to take months off because of pregnancy that must not be a concern for her, it must not lead to losing a job or even getting downgraded.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I know not much about the conditions in other places of world.

Written by angel. on 04.01.2015 at 14:21

Erhm... because some people believe that because of these differences women cannot do some jobs, or they may not be able to do it well, for example constructions... and also women may become mother so that will affect their careers.

Also for jobs like management, engineering and law... apparently women are less preferred when there is a man with exactly the same level skills and also education because of the consequences.
...

Correct me if I'm wrong, I know not much about the conditions in other places of world.

Yes, men are more preferred and for a relevant reason at the current arrangement. Those differences mean, de facto, that women will have a harder time 'excelling' in certain jobs and employers know that.
Even tho it's illegal to fire a woman with small children or when pregnant, it still happens - and collecting the evidence and filing a low suit is challenging in most cases. Having men take pregnant leave too helps actually in this aspect, child day care, a 'family-friendly' job etc.
Becoming a mother is a choice, a choice which many women give-up in, especially in European societies - which its affect you can see in low birth rate (if that's a good or a bad thing is another matter) and social arrangements (you need immigration and cultural changes to sustain).
I find it hard to believe that women tend to participate in certain jobs more than men - is coincidental (women have milk for their children and that's not the only biological difference among many) to take into account or is an historical consequence of male oppression- it was to a great degree simply pragmatically more workable.

Written by angel. on 04.01.2015 at 14:21

Written by IronAngel on 03.01.2015 at 13:05

I don't see what physical and biological differences have to do with the topic. We're discussing politics, ethics and culture, and there should be no room for biological generalisations in those spheres. I am not as strong and big as some other man, nor do I have the potential to be - yet that has no effect on my legal rights and my status in society. Why should the difference between sexes be any different? Those differences are statistical, they are generalisations; even if they were the best way to categorise people (and I'm sure there are better empirical ways, such as measuring actual physical performance) I don't see what possible consequence they should have.

Erhm... because some people believe that because of these differences women cannot do some jobs, or they may not be able to do it well, for example constructions... and also women may become mother so that will affect their careers.

Also for jobs like management, engineering and law... apparently women are less preferred when there is a man with exactly the same level skills and also education because of the consequences.

In my opinion everyone must be able to take on the job they're ready to do and want to choose, however, I think the job situation must be suitable for the person ( whether man or woman) even though they must not be restricted by their genders for choosing a job. I mean when a woman needs to take months off because of pregnancy that must not be a concern for her, it must not lead to losing a job or even getting downgraded.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I know not much about the conditions in other places of world.

I don't think it is about not being able to do the job, it has to do with costs of having an employee who may get injured more easily and also a person who might take the leave of absence because of pregnancy. I can give you a practical examples, from my experience and from the experience of my friend, and it just happened last year. I worked in a warehouse during the summer, and there was about thirty of us, 21 male and 9 females. And this job entailed unloading big trucks, using forklifts and other machinery to transport pallets that were sometimes several tons. The shifts ranged from 8 to 12 and sometimes to 16 hours with overtime. Once you start, you need to keep going, because the trucks are constantly arriving with various loads. In three weeks we had 6 females out on Medical Leave, and one male who had an accident and injured his shoulder. After three more weeks, we had another male out, and all of the remaining females were on Medical Leave for various injuries. Out of those 9, only 3 returned to work, and not long after resigned. You may call me a misogynist again, but I don't think that women physically can do every job that a male can, and this is no disservice to women, because there are jobs that man would not want to do or would not be as good in that role.
Now, the second part of the story. My friend works in retail, and he is the only male there, the rest 11 workers are all females. He gets to do all the hardest jobs because he is male, and none of the females want to come and help aside from one of the other coworkers. Four out of those females were pregnant, and I think one still is. The crazy holiday shopping came around and you know what happened? Three females called in due to their pregnancy, the female that was helping my friend got injured and she was out, three more decided to spend holidays with the family and took a write up, and the remaining pregnant one worked a 6 hour shift and went home because here ankles were swollen. This as you can imagine left an extreme strain on the remaining staff that they had to compensate. This late in the season, they could not get more staff to work because of the budgetary concerns, and when the females were getting hired, it was known that they were pregnant, so they hired them regardless, but this caused one hell of a crazy month at work.

I am not a business owner, but if I was, these are some things I would have in mind when I hire people. I agree with you that pregnancy should not have an effect, but unfortunately it does. I think it would help to have a Limited Term Employee to stand in while the female is on Maternity leave, but most places are prohibited from doing that, so that is why in the Corporate industry, they try to dampen that. Now with the destruction of unions, I think we will have the return of the Industrial era USA, where you work for nothing almost and you are less and less protected.

Also, a lot of those jobs that you talk about Mary, like for instance construction, mining, working in a mill, working in a lumberyard etc., are not jobs that the majority of women go for. That was one of the biggest things with feminism, the fought for women to work in any job, but at the end of the day very few wanted to work there anyway. The jobs that they wanted were all CEO or upper level Management jobs, which is not a coincidence, because from my experience and just observation, women while able to do physical work, do not really want to do physical work.

As far as engineering goes, it is male dominated area, like nursing is a female dominated are (at least in the USA), as far as the Law is concerned, I have not seen that, here in the USA that is pretty much 60/40 ratio of men/women, but I have not seen or heard anyone avoiding a female lawyer because she is a female. You get the best lawyer to defend you or help you, regardless of gender.

Written by IronAngel on 04.01.2015 at 11:47

Written by Rasputin on 04.01.2015 at 04:43

And you are confusing what I am saying. It is one thing for a person to chose what they want to be, and another for a certain standard to be pushed through media, and that is what feminism is doing. And I may be conservative and old fashioned, that is my choice, but when feminism stops attacking male masculinity and creating a boogey man out of it in attempt to "fix the problem of gender" maybe we will stop pushing back.

You make it seem as if a patriarchal (for lack of a better word) model is not dominant in the media anymore. There is, of course, no single standard being pushed through the media, but on average the signals are certainly in support of very traditional gender roles. All these lifestyle and wedding shows with celebrity gays and reality TV with angry lesbians are being presented as a reaction to the mainstream discourse, and they are certainly in the minority. (And I don't think they are very good at offering sensible, realistic models either; but the lowest level of subversion tends to be a crude inversion of roles.)

Maybe it's just that the phenomena you disagree with and you feel are contrary to your own values catch your attention more. For the few crude inversions on TV, there are dozens of very traditional shows and channels, and really emancipatory, intelligent and revolutionary shows are few and far between. I mean, we have (at least in Finland) entire channels branded for men and women, respectively, from the name to the programming. Men get Top Gear, Myth Busters, Ice Road Truckers, historical documents and action flicks, women get decoration, cooking and other lifestyle shows, in addition to romantic comedies and garbage like Eat Pray Love. Your view is still the mainstream, you just don't notice it so much precisely because it is the norm. Even if I don't think the alternatives in the media are very good, we can do with a little subversion in the face of such a monolithic tradition.

I'm not saying those traditional channels and shows are bad, mind you. It's supply and demand, after all, and clearly the programming has succeeded in reaching a target audience. But as fans of a rather marginal counter-culture/music genre ourselves, we should be acutely aware of the need for diversity. Especially in the case of gender roles, it is something a large part of the population (perhaps the majority) is actually aware of and interested in, and so the media is trying (often clumsily) to answer this real need and demand.

I guess, the shows and media that is trending in the USA, or just the culture in general is more prevalent and showcased here in comparison to EU. While I would concede that the Patriarchal model is still in the media, I see it being pushed aside more and replaced with this new mentality of the hook up culture. I don't think we had a truly traditional show since the 90-ies. I'm sure you are familiar with Everyone Loves Raymond and shows like that. What I keep noticing in shows, and advertisement is that men are getting depicted as more stupid and almost inferior. I am not saying that it is 24/7 in your face, I am saying that it is progressively getting there. When you have an old show like "Married with Kids" where the entire family is kind of obtuse, that is one thing, but when you start inserting what I just described then I have to wonder. Me personally, I am fed up with the "reality shows" I guess they are the ones that almost create the most damage but that is what people want I guess. And this "(And I don't think they are very good at offering sensible, realistic models either; but the lowest level of subversion tends to be a crude inversion of roles.)" is a very good observation, and there is where I think we have a problem, the execution of it all. I mean, personally, I don't give a damn if people are gay or not, you live your life without trying to convince me that and force me to believe or force me to accept your terms, and we will get along great, but as soon as you try to demonize me for my own views, then we have an issue. The USA media is very good at taking sides, and playing with people. I remember 10 years ago, the media was still to an extent "conservative" now it is "liberal" and at the same time, they play these trending games of few weeks, and then whoosh, not a word is said afterwards, but during that time they instigate a conflict. This just shows to me how easily people are persuaded to believe something and support something, and even unconsciously endorse it, without actually having any thoughts of it, or supporting it at the end of the day.


I have no problem with diversity and equality, I just want that to be policed little better, because we can achieve equilibrium without insulting, attacking, marginalizing and forcing anyone to concede to our views. I don't expect nor do I try to push people to accept the traditionalist approach that I endorse, but at the same time I still want for that choice to be there without being made into this women raping/oppressing creature, that's all. I

I think this is an interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-straight-talk-for-white-men.html?_r=0

Written by Twilight on 22.02.2015 at 09:40

I think this is an interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-straight-talk-for-white-men.html?_r=0

I opened the link because the coffee-deprived me thought that idiot Niklas Kvarforth wrote it. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read. Not that I didn't know about the topic, I witness it every day, but the mention of numerous studies on it quite reassured me. Often people will call me paranoid when I perceive actions against me that could have been influenced like in the article.

Http://beforeitsnews.com/military/2015/04/mandatory-us-army-now-practicing-wearing-high-heels-photovideo-2470718.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044380/The-denigration-men-Ridiculed-abused-exploited-triumph-feminism-today-s-men-second-class-citizens-argues-deliciously-provocative-new-book-s-time-chaps-fought-back.html

That idea of having soldiers walk in high heels is ridiculous. It's not like women use that kind of shoes all the time. It's generalizing. Doesn't make sense. Looks like something that could have appeared in South Park, as a joke.

Written by Twilight on 11.05.2015 at 11:34

That idea of having soldiers walk in high heels is ridiculous. It's not like women use that kind of shoes all the time. It's generalizing. Doesn't make sense. Looks like something that could have appeared in South Park, as a joke.

Well, extreme liberalism is a mental disorder.

A naturalist (what I ascribe to) vs a (Post-Modern) Feminism (what I don't ascribe to).
This is so predictable it's...:lol:. Echos the Science Wars.

Written by Candlemass on 05.06.2015 at 00:41

A naturalist (what I ascribe to) vs a (Post-Modern) Feminism (what I don't ascribe to).
This is so predictable it's...:lol:. Echos the Science Wars.

I'm surprised she is even speaking about this, because Feminism has no science, it is more of a religion of anything else. But interesting.

Written by Rasputin on 05.06.2015 at 04:30

I'm surprised she is even speaking about this, because Feminism has no science, it is more of a religion of anything else. But interesting.

Between the self-proclaimed "Anti-white" activists and the PoMo "E=mc2 is a "sexed equation" because it "privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (Luce Irigaray) -
there must be a more charitable representation of feminism. One of them was Iron Angel which was very articulate and I decided to pick up Mill's "The Subjection of Women".

Written by Candlemass on 05.06.2015 at 13:00

Written by Rasputin on 05.06.2015 at 04:30

I'm surprised she is even speaking about this, because Feminism has no science, it is more of a religion of anything else. But interesting.

Between the self-proclaimed "Anti-white" activists and the PoMo "E=mc2 is a "sexed equation" because it "privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (Luce Irigaray) -
there must be a more charitable representation of feminism. One of them was Iron Angel which was very articulate and I decided to pick up Mill's "The Subjection of Women".

Unfortunately, the mainstream is not about reading/researching or supporting that. In the USA, and England, and I am seeing it in other EU countries, feminism is focused on waging war against men, by using offensive language, spouting lies (1 in 4 women will be raped), slut-shaming, patriarchy...take your pick. Feminism, modern feminism that rides the media completely makes women to be babbling idiots and children, not to mention victims. Very fun.

Stíll have not met a single woman who was supporting feminism in the fanatic and irrational way Rasputin has been talking about it here.

Written by Twilight on 05.06.2015 at 23:25

Stíll have not met a single woman who was supporting feminism in the fanatic and irrational way Rasputin has been talking about it here.

Go to Huffington Post, Jezebel, Mother Jones, Bitch Media and few other sites, and let me know how that goes for you.

Written by Twilight on 05.06.2015 at 23:25

Stíll have not met a single woman who was supporting feminism in the fanatic and irrational way Rasputin has been talking about it here.

For a more concrete example than Rasputin's above post, Bahar Mustafa was recently in the news for banning white men from an college diversity event. Here is a statement she made defending her actions "There have been charges made against me, that I am racist and sexist to white men. I want to explain why this is false. I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist to white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender". This is the kind of thing that I think Rasputin is talking about. I can't interpret that as anything other than a 'war on men'.

Written by ixsetf on 06.06.2015 at 05:35

Written by Twilight on 05.06.2015 at 23:25

Stíll have not met a single woman who was supporting feminism in the fanatic and irrational way Rasputin has been talking about it here.

For a more concrete example than Rasputin's above post, Bahar Mustafa was recently in the news for banning white men from an college diversity event. Here is a statement she made defending her actions "There have been charges made against me, that I am racist and sexist to white men. I want to explain why this is false. I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist to white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender". This is the kind of thing that I think Rasputin is talking about. I can't interpret that as anything other than a 'war on men'.

That is a part of it, there is more. New York now has laws against "manspreading" in Subway, the first man got cited already. Women Studies advocates are fighting for Studies in Male Literature from taking off, rape claims by alleged victims are taken as truth with no evidence provided or given (which in turn can send any man to Prison for something that he has not done) basically they are suspending the due process in this case. There is an attack on everything masculine, everything that is associated with men being men, since lifting weights, being assertive and strong are "Patriarchal" and that must be destroyed. Women can lie to men, but if a man seduces a woman while lying to her about anything is a crime or at least they are trying to make it one (basically again, dishonesty equals rape). I can go on and on, but it is saturating Colleges and is in full swing in the USA media. Also, every form of discussion, questioning and logical thought is being suspended, under the guise of Misogyny and "offensive sexist language" as well as that you cannot say no to Feminism, if you are not for Feminism you are a woman hater and have no place in the Western society.

I only need to look at Sweden to see how once proud Vikings have been silenced by their own women, no wonder they are importing like crazy.

Written by Rasputin on 06.06.2015 at 05:52
That is a part of it, there is more. New York now has laws against "manspreading" in Subway, the first man got cited already. Women Studies advocates are fighting for Studies in Male Literature from taking off, rape claims by alleged victims are taken as truth with no evidence provided or given (which in turn can send any man to Prison for something that he has not done) basically they are suspending the due process in this case. There is an attack on everything masculine, everything that is associated with men being men, since lifting weights, being assertive and strong are "Patriarchal" and that must be destroyed. Women can lie to men, but if a man seduces a woman while lying to her about anything is a crime or at least they are trying to make it one (basically again, dishonesty equals rape). I can go on and on, but it is saturating Colleges and is in full swing in the USA media. Also, every form of discussion, questioning and logical thought is being suspended, under the guise of Misogyny and "offensive sexist language" as well as that you cannot say no to Feminism, if you are not for Feminism you are a woman hater and have no place in the Western society.

I only need to look at Sweden to see how once proud Vikings have been silenced by their own women, no wonder they are importing like crazy.

Yep, there is definitely more than what I posted. I didn't want to go into all of it at once because explaining everything would require a really massive post. I currently am attending one of those colleges, and as a result I've seen a lot of people say some really crazy things in the name of feminism.

Also since a lot of people tend to do this, please don't place me on 'team conservative' for this. I try to approach each political issue individually, instead of just taking the 'liberal' or 'conservative' positions for everything like most people seem to do. In general I would say I lean slightly left, but that won't stop me from siding with conservatives on an issue if I have reason to.

Written by ixsetf on 06.06.2015 at 06:52

Written by Rasputin on 06.06.2015 at 05:52
That is a part of it, there is more. New York now has laws against "manspreading" in Subway, the first man got cited already. Women Studies advocates are fighting for Studies in Male Literature from taking off, rape claims by alleged victims are taken as truth with no evidence provided or given (which in turn can send any man to Prison for something that he has not done) basically they are suspending the due process in this case. There is an attack on everything masculine, everything that is associated with men being men, since lifting weights, being assertive and strong are "Patriarchal" and that must be destroyed. Women can lie to men, but if a man seduces a woman while lying to her about anything is a crime or at least they are trying to make it one (basically again, dishonesty equals rape). I can go on and on, but it is saturating Colleges and is in full swing in the USA media. Also, every form of discussion, questioning and logical thought is being suspended, under the guise of Misogyny and "offensive sexist language" as well as that you cannot say no to Feminism, if you are not for Feminism you are a woman hater and have no place in the Western society.

I only need to look at Sweden to see how once proud Vikings have been silenced by their own women, no wonder they are importing like crazy.

Yep, there is definitely more than what I posted. I didn't want to go into all of it at once because explaining everything would require a really massive post. I currently am attending one of those colleges, and as a result I've seen a lot of people say some really crazy things in the name of feminism.

Also since a lot of people tend to do this, please don't place me on 'team conservative' for this. I try to approach each political issue individually, instead of just taking the 'liberal' or 'conservative' positions for everything like most people seem to do. In general I would say I lean slightly left, but that won't stop me from siding with conservatives on an issue if I have reason to.

I will not label you anything, I don't like labels, although everyone here would label me as a hardcore conservative crazy motherfucker, but it is a forum and I don't really care. I find it interesting that people are trying to move away from "conservative" things, as if they are bad. Now, yes, there are things are bad, but are not tied only to conservative thought, but liberal as well. I am finding that the liberal thought is far more dangerous and oppressing than conservative is in this day and age. To tie it back to the topic at hand, we have feminists and their cohorts, who are outright prohibiting speakers they do not agree with from doing their presentations because they deem them offensive, which is control on free speech. People are more afraid today to speak the truth in fear of offending someone, and that is what feminism brought, reliance on emotion rather than logic.

Written by Rasputin on 06.06.2015 at 14:46
I will not label you anything, I don't like labels, although everyone here would label me as a hardcore conservative crazy motherfucker, but it is a forum and I don't really care. I find it interesting that people are trying to move away from "conservative" things, as if they are bad. Now, yes, there are things are bad, but are not tied only to conservative thought, but liberal as well. I am finding that the liberal thought is far more dangerous and oppressing than conservative is in this day and age. To tie it back to the topic at hand, we have feminists and their cohorts, who are outright prohibiting speakers they do not agree with from doing their presentations because they deem them offensive, which is control on free speech. People are more afraid today to speak the truth in fear of offending someone, and that is what feminism brought, reliance on emotion rather than logic.

The statement about labels was not as much directed at you as it was at other more liberal posters who would judge me for my assumed position on unrelated issues like gay marriage. This is particularly important as many feminists, for example Laci Green in her video "WHY I'M A...FEMINIST *gasp*", extend the definition of feminism to topics like LGBT advocacy. To me this shouldn't be considered a feminist position as it has very little to do with women at all, but many still do and assume that I am anti-gay for disliking modern feminism.

As for the conservative/liberal thing, I don't consider either term to be inherently superior. There are some liberal positions which I consider damaging like radical feminism, and some conservative positions like introduction of prayer into schools which I also find damaging. I agree the reliance on emotion over logic is troubling, but I am not convinced that this trend is a result of feminism. It seems more likely it is connected to an overall cultural shift likely related to several factors. It seems to me that it is only being exploited by feminists to create walls to protect them from outside thoughts.

Written by ixsetf on 06.06.2015 at 19:04

Written by Rasputin on 06.06.2015 at 14:46
I will not label you anything, I don't like labels, although everyone here would label me as a hardcore conservative crazy motherfucker, but it is a forum and I don't really care. I find it interesting that people are trying to move away from "conservative" things, as if they are bad. Now, yes, there are things are bad, but are not tied only to conservative thought, but liberal as well. I am finding that the liberal thought is far more dangerous and oppressing than conservative is in this day and age. To tie it back to the topic at hand, we have feminists and their cohorts, who are outright prohibiting speakers they do not agree with from doing their presentations because they deem them offensive, which is control on free speech. People are more afraid today to speak the truth in fear of offending someone, and that is what feminism brought, reliance on emotion rather than logic.

The statement about labels was not as much directed at you as it was at other more liberal posters who would judge me for my assumed position on unrelated issues like gay marriage. This is particularly important as many feminists, for example Laci Green in her video "WHY I'M A...FEMINIST *gasp*", extend the definition of feminism to topics like LGBT advocacy. To me this shouldn't be considered a feminist position as it has very little to do with women at all, but many still do and assume that I am anti-gay for disliking modern feminism.

As for the conservative/liberal thing, I don't consider either term to be inherently superior. There are some liberal positions which I consider damaging like radical feminism, and some conservative positions like introduction of prayer into schools which I also find damaging. I agree the reliance on emotion over logic is troubling, but I am not convinced that this trend is a result of feminism. It seems more likely it is connected to an overall cultural shift likely related to several factors. It seems to me that it is only being exploited by feminists to create walls to protect them from outside thoughts.

Interesting, I never had that issue with anti-feminist/anti-LGBT issue, maybe because I am anti to both

You are correct, there is no superior position either liberal or conservative, but I would have to say that in order to have a functional society a certain dose of conservative thought is necessary, instead of "do what I like." It may not be direct relation to Feminism, but is one by proxy. Women have taken a lot of control, at least in the media, regardless of what they say, and then a lot of it is passed down through the education system. Not to play gender bias, but women do tend to lean towards the emotion more, and to me that is obvious in online discussions, discussions in person, and even they themselves admit that they are emotional. Trigger-warnings are just one of the things that play to that ideology. You cannot discuss anything anymore if it offends someone, so the way to kill free speech is to cater to feelings, which is bullshit.