Is female sexism a more serious problem

[Black Dagger]

What do people think about this statement?

Agree? Disagree?

Please explain your reasoning :)


so many feminists i hear talking about male sexism, what about female sexism? I would argue that thats a more serious problem in our society.

[Rollo]

Yeah, women are always opressing me.

[Phugebrins]

"so many feminists i hear talking about male sexism, what about female sexism? I would argue that thats a more serious problem in our society."
Possibly, but not in a 'men are so oppressed' sense. I'd say female sexism is a real problem where women do their utmost to support prejudice and reinforce gender roles. Not only is it an issue in of itself, but it creates a barrier for progress: it's one thing for the ruling class to be reactionary, but when workers are shouting you down with the rhetoric of the capitalists, that's going to put a big spanner in the works as far as revolution is concerned.

[Rollo]

The other day a 'feminest' friend I had said to me " ladies first " does anybody else find that kind of funny?

[Invader Zim]

I would say not, but it really depends on the scale. On an individual scale i imagine that it is just as much a problem, but in terms of society as a whole; no it is not.

The simple fact of the matter is that women are largely not in a position to oppress members of the other sex in the manner under discussion. The vast majority of employers and politicians are male. As women are in such a reduced position to oppress men (which in its self is the result of patriarchy within society) then logically female sexism cannot be a 'more serious problem'.

Oh and who came out with this point?

[Guerrilla22]

Probaly one of the reactionaries from right here in OI.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:15 AM
The other day a 'feminest' friend I had said to me " ladies first " does anybody else find that kind of funny?
Is she a radical feminist who believes women are superior to men. If not, she probably was being a hypocrite. The feminists I know don't believe in that.

[LuXe]

There wil ALWAYS be a biological difference between men and women, even if feminists manage to wipe all "sexism" from this world (Which is totally unrealistic btw.) there would be that bit of difference. (also calles penis and testosterone, and of course we are stronger. And also we have a different way of thinking, which is scientifically proven) Plus; if they are serious about "equality", they would certainly quit this "ladies first" bullshit. Also, in Norway they have actually a law saying that organisations have AT LEAST 40% female leadership. On the side here; There are MANY leader boards with 100% female people. Then they should also have a law saying AT LEAST 40 % men should be leader. Also they complain about lower wages. Well? Heres the answer; Females and Men have different areas of interest. This of course lead to the making a different amount of money. If you have a man and a woman working in a super-market, they are sure to be making the same amount. However, when the man chooses "engieneer" as his line of woek, and the female "hairdresser" they certainly make a different amount.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by LuXe
There wil ALWAYS be a biological difference between men and women, even if feminists manage to wipe all "sexism" from this world (Which is totally unrealistic btw.)
Why is it unrealistic?
And eradicting institutional sexism would be the most important step because that is what enables men to dominate women in society. (Obviously I don't sgree with the statement quoted by BD at all)


there would be that bit of difference.
So what? Difference doesn't equal inequality and discrimination.


(also calles penis and testosterone, and of course we are stronger.
It's a little more complex than that. ;)


And also we have a different way of thinking, which is scientifically proven)
Sources?


Plus; if they are serious about "equality", they would certainly quit this "ladies first" bullshit.
I've never actually met a feminist who was into "this ladies first bullshit." I love how these mythical creatures are constantly brought up...


Also, in Norway they have actually a law saying that organisations have AT LEAST 40% female leadership.
Yeah, it's called affirmative action, to ensure that groups that are generally underrepresented in particular roles are represented.

On the side here; There are MANY leader boards with 100% female people.
How many? What percentage out of all 'leaders' (what are we talking about here? Business? Public service?) are women?


Then they should also have a law saying AT LEAST 40 % men should be leader.
Absurd. The reason ffirmative action laws come into being is because men ALREADY fill the majority of positions- they don't need to be guaranteed places... It's pretty elementary.


Also they complain about lower wages. Well? Heres the answer; Females and Men have different areas of interest.
Oh really? Care to back that up? Not that such a thing could possibly be due to socio-cultural pressures at all. ;)


This of course lead to the making a different amount of money.
Yes, because traditionally "male" occupations are so much more valuable than traditionally "female" occupations. Those nurses and teachers are just deadweight, hey?


If you have a man and a woman working in a super-market, they are sure to be making the same amount. However, when the man chooses "engieneer" as his line of woek, and the female "hairdresser" they certainly make a different amount.
Because we all know that women are more naturally inclined to choose "hairdressing" as an occupation? :rolleyes:

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Sep 20 2006, 04:43 AM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Sep 20 2006, 04:43 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 10:15 AM
The other day a 'feminest' friend I had said to me " ladies first " does anybody else find that kind of funny?
Is she a radical feminist who believes women are superior to men. If not, she probably was being a hypocrite. The feminists I know don't believe in that. [/b]
I think she was kidding to create irony but it seemed kind of odd at first.

[LuXe]

Why is it unrealistic?
And eradicting institutional sexism would be the most important step because that is what enables men to dominate women in society. (Obviously I don't sgree with the statement quoted by BD at all)
It is not unrealistic. I think it would be better for you to say why it is possbile. Men doesnt dominate the women in the society. Where I live, the women do most of the dominating.



So what? Difference doesn't equal inequality and discrimination.
True. However difference changes the circumstances in a way that makes it another case. Discrimonation, huh? I belive it is more complex then so.


It's a little more complex than that. ;)
Care to elaborate?


Sources?
You have misunderstood me here. This may be a little OT, but men and women DO think differently in some situasions. Like for example. Finding a direction. Men picture their way from where they came, while women find their way from landmarks they make in their head. It also said alot about how they solve mathematical issues differently etc. I read this in a science-mag, which was written in Norwegian, it wouldnt help you much.


I've never actually met a feminist who was into "this ladies first bullshit." I love how these mythical creatures are constantly brought up...
I have. Just so you know.


Yeah, it's called affirmative action, to ensure that groups that are generally underrepresented in particular roles are represented.

How many? What percentage out of all 'leaders' (what are we talking about here? Business? Public service?) are women?
First: I know, however I elaborate this later in the text.
Second: This is buisness in general.


Absurd. The reason ffirmative action laws come into being is because men ALREADY fill the majority of positions- they don't need to be guaranteed places... It's pretty elementary.
Of course however, females fill alot of positions up where the men dont. If you are going to have equality, it has to be 100% equality. If the men already fill the major positions, and the females come rushing in. They push the men out, and they also make an uneven balance of sex in the system.


Oh really? Care to back that up? Not that such a thing could possibly be due to socio-cultural pressures at all. ;)
Different areas of interest, yes. These areas of interest grows from the young child to when she grows up. This makes her pick a line of work she is interested in. The areas of interest she had as a child is sure to be a influence to her.


Yes, because traditionally "male" occupations are so much more valuable than traditionally "female" occupations. Those nurses and teachers are just deadweight, hey?
Nurses in Norway make more then my father. And hes a civil engineer working for the government. With a very VERY long education time. The teachers in my school are both women and men. They make the same amount of money. Which only makes my point more clear; different line of work, different earnings. The sex has nothing to do with this.


Because we all know that women are more naturally inclined to choose "hairdressing" as an occupation? :rolleyes:
I choose a typical stereotype answer here. This of course doesnt cover them all, here :) But as a side-noe; all the hairdressers where i go are female. :) Also Norways biggest hairdresser "empire" (bad word :P but english beeing my secong language :P) is lead by a woman. This is "Nikita". Her name is "Inger Ellen Nicolaisen".

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Invader Zim
Probaly one of the reactionaries from right here in OI.

It was LoneRed, and no, he's not a restricted member.

[Delirium]

Sexism against women certainly is a systematic problem which has actual material consequences, therefore a more serious issue.

But it still bothers me that sexist jokes against men are socially accepted, but it is hard to argue against it without sounding sexist yourself.

[Rollo]

I don't mind male sexist jokes aslong as they are in good taste.

[Gnosis]

The simple fact of the matter is that women are largely not in a position to oppress members of the other sex in the manner under discussion. The vast majority of employers and politicians are male. As women are in such a reduced position to oppress men (which in its self is the result of patriarchy within society) then logically female sexism cannot be a 'more serious problem'.


Sexism against women certainly is a systematic problem which has actual material consequences, therefore a more serious issue.

It doesn't matter which is a more serious problem. They are both delusional, they are both unhealthy.
Trying to figure out which is more unhealthy is not the point, even if the above quoted is the truth.
The point is that they are both unhealthy and should be analyzed until their mutual annihilation.

This question is like asking which is better, the penis or the vagina?
It's like asking: which is more relevent to the reproduction process?

They both play a part, it doesn't matter who happens to be 'on top'.

Sexism perpetrated by females against males (or other females) is equally as unhealthy as sexism perpetrated by males against females (or other males).
But it is an expression of an idea, an opinion, a perspective. The reaction of a mind to stimulus, conditions, memories, and dreams:


There wil ALWAYS be a biological difference between men and women, even if feminists manage to wipe all "sexism" from this world (Which is totally unrealistic btw.) there would be that bit of difference. (also calles penis and testosterone, and of course we are stronger. And also we have a different way of thinking, which is scientifically proven) Plus; if they are serious about "equality", they would certainly quit this "ladies first" bullshit. Also, in Norway they have actually a law saying that organisations have AT LEAST 40% female leadership. On the side here; There are MANY leader boards with 100% female people. Then they should also have a law saying AT LEAST 40 % men should be leader. Also they complain about lower wages. Well? Heres the answer; Females and Men have different areas of interest. This of course lead to the making a different amount of money. If you have a man and a woman working in a super-market, they are sure to be making the same amount. However, when the man chooses "engieneer" as his line of woek, and the female "hairdresser" they certainly make a different amount.

My reaction:
Actually, the overies produce testosterone as well as estrogen. And the clitoris? That is the 'female' manifestation of a penis, the 'male' part of the vagina.
And men have nipples and fore-skin. The fore-skin is considered the 'female' part of the penis. That is why certain tribes of people practice circumcisions, to further pronouce either the male or female aspect of the body, to further seperate the sexes, to further define the seperate sex-roles in life and within the tribe.
Also note that the penis is not always erect, most of the time it is passive, and also that the clitoris becomes erect when stimulated.

Also, there is no universal-standard, model male or female. They both come in a variety of shapes, sizes and strengths, not always the same, not always dependent on sex. To say that all men are big and strong is like saying that all women have large breasts and pronounced hips, not only is it relative, but it isn't true.
What is called the penis is by nature assertive, assertion is associated with masculinity because being male is associated with having a penis. What is called the vagina is by nature receptive, reception is associated with femininity because being female is associeted with having a vagina.
But being a man doesn't necessarily automatically make you an assertive temperment or aggressive appearence. Likewise, being a woman doesn't necessarily automatically make you a receptive temperment or docile appearence.
(there are plenty of transvestites and trans-sexuals who will argue that having a penis does not mean you are a man, and having a vagina does not mean you are a woman... I guess its all in how you look at it...)

"Ladies first" (much like any other freedom) is not equality when it has become dictation and dogma. When it is expected, forced, or undesired (by a male or a female), then there is no equality, there is a power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.

However, lovingly holding a door open for another person sends a statement to that person, whether they are male or female. Allowing someone to go ahead of you sends a message that they are cared for or appreciated, honored or respected, or maybe they have a nice behind worth looking at... Allowing someone to allow you to go ahead of them sends a signal as well.

When putting someone else first, or allowing yourself to be put first, is an act of the heart, sincere in its delivery or acceptence, then where is the inequality, where is the struggle?
You as a man are expressing yourself, holding that door open for a woman, and she is recieving your gesture by walking through it. You as a woman are recognizing a man's desire to express himself, and by accpeting it you are accepting his emotional existence.
This way both of your emotional needs are fulfilled, and this is a healthy relationship.
(is it necessary that I point out that it is possible that a woman hold a door for a man or another woman, or a man hold a door for another man, or that not all women are emotionally receptive and not all men are emotionally assertive?)

In any case, your roles are not the same role, they have different appearences, you are two seperate bodies, each with its own configuration and destiny, but you are both acting out the only two parts that make the whole play possible, without one or both of you, nothing happens.
Male and female parts are complementary, relative, without one the other has no definition, there is no relationship, there is no plot, there are no characters, there is no play, the universe is meaningless.
So there are two halves to one whole. What is the use of struggle over which half makes the whole when really the whole does not exist without both?

Struggle and conflict are futile, and that is why they should be let go of.
The expressions of sex and love are really the only things worth living for, so they should be allowed. To restrain them causes conflict because all of life is sex and love, and to deny that is delusional, and to deny is to be in conflict, and to be in conflict is futile.
Really, expressions of love are futile as well, but they are Love, and so the futility of it can be forgiven so long as it is accepted. It becomes a problem when the futility is not accepted, then there is a power struggle, but the struggle is futile because death is omnipotent, not, even love, escapes...

So don't be oppressive or reppressive, that will only cause conflict, and conflict is futile.
Allow love and sex to flow freely from you until you die, and when you do, don't hold on or struggle because that is both oppressive and reppressive, and both of those cause nothing but conflict, and conflict is as futile as love...


But it still bothers me that sexist jokes against men are socially accepted, but it is hard to argue against it without sounding sexist yourself.

You want to change the world? Change the way you look at it, change the way you interact with it, change the way you feel toward it. Change yourself and you will have changed your relationship to the world. Change your relationship to the world, and you have changed the world.
It is no harder, no simpler than that.

Stop arguing, it only makes the problem seem more real. But the problem isn't reality, the problem is delusion, idea, ideology, the mind, the way the reality is seen: through thick glasses colored by the smoke of a dying tradition.
Let it go, move on and be free of it.
Analyze it to death and then let it die.
There is a point at which analysis actually keeps it alive, knowing when to stop comes naturally unless you desire the process of analysis or maybe you are unwilling to let go of the origional struggle...

[LoneRed]

It's about time I found BD pitifully attempting still to discredit me. Silly kid

I suggest you take a look at your "feminism" and try to fit it in with the real world.

[Herman]

QUOTE
The simple fact of the matter is that women are largely not in a position to oppress members of the other sex in the manner under discussion. The vast majority of employers and politicians are male. As women are in such a reduced position to oppress men (which in its self is the result of patriarchy within society) then logically female sexism cannot be a 'more serious problem'.


QUOTE
Sexism against women certainly is a systematic problem which has actual material consequences, therefore a more serious issue.


It doesn't matter which is a more serious problem. They are both delusional, they are both unhealthy.
Trying to figure out which is more unhealthy is not the point, even if the above quoted is the truth.
The point is that they are both unhealthy and should be analyzed until their mutual annihilation.

This question is like asking which is better, the penis or the vagina?
It's like asking: which is more relevent to the reproduction process?

They both play a part, it doesn't matter who happens to be 'on top'.

Sexism perpetrated by females against males (or other females) is equally as unhealthy as sexism perpetrated by males against females (or other males).
But it is an expression of an idea, an opinion, a perspective. The reaction of a mind to stimulus, conditions, memories, and dreams:

QUOTE
There wil ALWAYS be a biological difference between men and women, even if feminists manage to wipe all "sexism" from this world (Which is totally unrealistic btw.) there would be that bit of difference. (also calles penis and testosterone, and of course we are stronger. And also we have a different way of thinking, which is scientifically proven) Plus; if they are serious about "equality", they would certainly quit this "ladies first" bullshit. Also, in Norway they have actually a law saying that organisations have AT LEAST 40% female leadership. On the side here; There are MANY leader boards with 100% female people. Then they should also have a law saying AT LEAST 40 % men should be leader. Also they complain about lower wages. Well? Heres the answer; Females and Men have different areas of interest. This of course lead to the making a different amount of money. If you have a man and a woman working in a super-market, they are sure to be making the same amount. However, when the man chooses "engieneer" as his line of woek, and the female "hairdresser" they certainly make a different amount.


My reaction:
Actually, the overies produce testosterone as well as estrogen. And the clitoris? That is the 'female' manifestation of a penis, the 'male' part of the vagina.
And men have nipples and fore-skin. The fore-skin is considered the 'female' part of the penis. That is why certain tribes of people practice circumcisions, to further pronouce either the male or female aspect of the body, to further seperate the sexes, to further define the seperate sex-roles in life and within the tribe.
Also note that the penis is not always erect, most of the time it is passive, and also that the clitoris becomes erect when stimulated.

Also, there is no universal-standard, model male or female. They both come in a variety of shapes, sizes and strengths, not always the same, not always dependent on sex. To say that all men are big and strong is like saying that all women have large breasts and pronounced hips, not only is it relative, but it isn't true.
What is called the penis is by nature assertive, assertion is associated with masculinity because being male is associated with having a penis. What is called the vagina is by nature receptive, reception is associated with femininity because being female is associeted with having a vagina.
But being a man doesn't necessarily automatically make you an assertive temperment or aggressive appearence. Likewise, being a woman doesn't necessarily automatically make you a receptive temperment or docile appearence.
(there are plenty of transvestites and trans-sexuals who will argue that having a penis does not mean you are a man, and having a vagina does not mean you are a woman... I guess its all in how you look at it...)

"Ladies first" (much like any other freedom) is not equality when it has become dictation and dogma. When it is expected, forced, or undesired (by a male or a female), then there is no equality, there is a power struggle between an oppressor and an oppressed.

However, lovingly holding a door open for another person sends a statement to that person, whether they are male or female. Allowing someone to go ahead of you sends a message that they are cared for or appreciated, honored or respected, or maybe they have a nice behind worth looking at... Allowing someone to allow you to go ahead of them sends a signal as well.

When putting someone else first, or allowing yourself to be put first, is an act of the heart, sincere in its delivery or acceptence, then where is the inequality, where is the struggle?
You as a man are expressing yourself, holding that door open for a woman, and she is recieving your gesture by walking through it. You as a woman are recognizing a man's desire to express himself, and by accpeting it you are accepting his emotional existence.
This way both of your emotional needs are fulfilled, and this is a healthy relationship.
(is it necessary that I point out that it is possible that a woman hold a door for a man or another woman, or a man hold a door for another man, or that not all women are emotionally receptive and not all men are emotionally assertive?)

In any case, your roles are not the same role, they have different appearences, you are two seperate bodies, each with its own configuration and destiny, but you are both acting out the only two parts that make the whole play possible, without one or both of you, nothing happens.
Male and female parts are complementary, relative, without one the other has no definition, there is no relationship, there is no plot, there are no characters, there is no play, the universe is meaningless.
So there are two halves to one whole. What is the use of struggle over which half makes the whole when really the whole does not exist without both?

Struggle and conflict are futile, and that is why they should be let go of.
The expressions of sex and love are really the only things worth living for, so they should be allowed. To restrain them causes conflict because all of life is sex and love, and to deny that is delusional, and to deny is to be in conflict, and to be in conflict is futile.
Really, expressions of love are futile as well, but they are Love, and so the futility of it can be forgiven so long as it is accepted. It becomes a problem when the futility is not accepted, then there is a power struggle, but the struggle is futile because death is omnipotent, not, even love, escapes...

So don't be oppressive or reppressive, that will only cause conflict, and conflict is futile.
Allow love and sex to flow freely from you until you die, and when you do, don't hold on or struggle because that is both oppressive and reppressive, and both of those cause nothing but conflict, and conflict is as futile as love...

QUOTE
But it still bothers me that sexist jokes against men are socially accepted, but it is hard to argue against it without sounding sexist yourself.


You want to change the world? Change the way you look at it, change the way you interact with it, change the way you feel toward it. Change yourself and you will have changed your relationship to the world. Change your relationship to the world, and you have changed the world.
It is no harder, no simpler than that.

Stop arguing, it only makes the problem seem more real. But the problem isn't reality, the problem is delusion, idea, ideology, the mind, the way the reality is seen: through thick glasses colored by the smoke of a dying tradition.
Let it go, move on and be free of it.
Analyze it to death and then let it die.
There is a point at which analysis actually keeps it alive, knowing when to stop comes naturally unless you desire the process of analysis or maybe you are unwilling to let go of the origional struggle...

Well said.

[kurt]

Way to fish at reaction river BD :rolleyes:

[Dyst]

Well, I have noticed in a lot of movies and television series (not that I watch that much) and such, these days, that if there is for example a competition between the male and the female main characters, then there's a higer chance that the female would win.

Especially if it's a competition conserning something women traditionally have been recognized as "bad" at (or worse than men) like wrestling. A man and a woman wrestles then you can be pretty certain the women will win (and the man will be portrayed as weak). I think they do this to avoid the "discrimination stamp" but it is in fact discriminating towards men.

Not sure if it's such a big deal though, but it bugs me.

[bombeverything]

It is not unrealistic. I think it would be better for you to say why it is possbile. Men doesnt dominate the women in the society. Where I live, the women do most of the dominating.

In what way? I think you are looking at this from a personal, individual standpoint rather than looking at it within the socio-political context we live in. That is, your generalising. How exactly do womyn "dominate men" where you live? Could you provide some specific examples of this?


True. However difference changes the circumstances in a way that makes it another case. Discrimonation, huh? I belive it is more complex then so.

What?? :huh:


Care to elaborate?

Gender is about more than simple biological differences. It refers to the way that ideas around what is "masculine" or "feminine" is a result of social conditioning rather than biology. Sex and gender are different things.


You have misunderstood me here. This may be a little OT, but men and women DO think differently in some situasions. Like for example. Finding a direction. Men picture their way from where they came, while women find their way from landmarks they make in their head. It also said alot about how they solve mathematical issues differently etc. I read this in a science-mag, which was written in Norwegian, it wouldnt help you much.

Well if it was in a science mag it must be true :lol:.


Of course however, females fill alot of positions up where the men dont. If you are going to have equality, it has to be 100% equality. If the men already fill the major positions, and the females come rushing in. They push the men out, and they also make an uneven balance of sex in the system.

But we live in a society that is not at all "equal". Affirmative action laws exist only in societies with significant structural inequalities. That is why they exist. Would you say the same thing if we were talking about affirmative action in relation to "race"?


Different areas of interest, yes. These areas of interest grows from the young child to when she grows up. This makes her pick a line of work she is interested in. The areas of interest she had as a child is sure to be a influence to her.

You said that womyn have different interests to men. This implies that these "interests" are biologically rather than socially based. Eveyone has different interests. Also what would these different interests be? I would be very interested in hearing some examples.


Nurses in Norway make more then my father. And hes a civil engineer working for the government. With a very VERY long education time. The teachers in my school are both women and men. They make the same amount of money. Which only makes my point more clear; different line of work, different earnings. The sex has nothing to do with this.

Womyn do not earn as much as men in general. How do you account for that difference if structural inequality does not exist?


I choose a typical stereotype answer here. This of course doesnt cover them all, here :) But as a side-noe; all the hairdressers where i go are female. :) Also Norways biggest hairdresser "empire" (bad word :P but english beeing my secong language :P) is lead by a woman. This is "Nikita". Her name is "Inger Ellen Nicolaisen".

Then please choose one that isn't a stereotype. You might find this difficult. Also, are you agreeing with the statement?

[bombeverything]

Stop arguing, it only makes the problem seem more real. But the problem isn't reality, the problem is delusion, idea, ideology, the mind, the way the reality is seen: through thick glasses colored by the smoke of a dying tradition.
Let it go, move on and be free of it.
Analyze it to death and then let it die.
There is a point at which analysis actually keeps it alive, knowing when to stop comes naturally unless you desire the process of analysis or maybe you are unwilling to let go of the origional struggle...

At the end of the day we still have to work to survive. What we have to get rid of is capitalism. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum.

[t_wolves_fan]

Radical feminists are the only people whose arguments are more absurd than those of communists.

Their entire philosophy rests on being victims. No matter what, they are victims and they'll never accept any other view of reality. They literally may as well shoot themselves.

[Rollo]

I guess if you put it that way I might shoot myself. Damn I can't afford to buy a gun because the people that owned the company I worked for were caught stealing the investors money so now I'm jobless.



I hate Germaine Greer, she's one of the real nutball feminists that think men should all be castrated at birth. If there's a more sexist woman I haven't herd of her.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by LoneRed+Sep 21 2006, 04:40 PM--> (LoneRed @ Sep 21 2006, 04:40 PM) It's about time I found BD pitifully attempting still to discredit me. Silly kid

I suggest you take a look at your "feminism" and try to fit it in with the real world. [/b]
Er... i'm not trying to 'discredit' you, unless you're saying that posting your comment in and of itself achieves this? On that point i agree with you. I don't have to 'try' to do anything, you're free to discredit yourself.

I'm sorry, 'your feminism' what is that supposed to mean? I don't own feminism, nor am i a feminist, but then again, none has that has anything to do with this thread. This is meant to be a discussion of 'female sexism', and the contention that this apparent phenomenon is a 'more serious problem' in society than [male] sexism.

And you know what? You're free to perhaps, explain your position? Explain how 'female sexism' is a 'bigger problem' in society than sexism.

Hmm?

And please don't call me 'kid', aren't you like 15 years old? :unsure:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Way to fish at reaction river BD

Was there a point to this post?



Rollo
I hate Germaine Greer, she's one of the real nutball feminists that think men should all be castrated at birth. If there's a more sexist woman I haven't herd of her.

Whilst i care very little for Germaine Greer ('hate' is a little strong don't you think?), it's prettty silly to suggest that she supports male castration.

I can understand that you're probably being hyperbolic, but still, that kind of inflammatory stuff just feeds into popular anti-feminist discourse, 'yar you fuckin saggy tits bra burner!' Is paraphrase of what one of the late steve irwins worshippers had to say about Greer :wacko:

And in the context of this thread, such comments are really unhelpful/unproductive, the thread is in OI, i don't really want it to turn into an anti-feminist rant thread, though LoneRed has already taken the lead with his comments about 'your [meaning, my] feminism'... nevermind this thread is about 'female sexism'... not feminism per se, though LoneRed obviously sees a link there.

[KC]

Women do not earn as much as men in general. How do you account for that difference if structural inequality does not exist?

Could you provide this statistic?


I'm sorry, 'your feminism' what is that supposed to mean?

He's talking about your idealist conception of feminism.


Was there a point to this post?

I do believe he was calling you out on your bullshit attempt to continue your vendetta against LoneRed. Fishing for a restriction, perhaps?


I can understand that you're probably being hyperbolic, but still, that kind of inflammatory stuff just feeds into popular anti-feminist discourse, 'yar you fuckin saggy tits bra burner!' Is paraphrase of what one of the late steve irwins worshippers had to say about Greer

Saggy tits are disgusting.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)He's talking about your idealist conception of feminism.[/b]

See this is the thing, LR has no idea what my conception of feminism is, nor does that have anything to do with this discussion of 'female sexism'.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I do believe he was calling you out on your bullshit attempt to continue your vendetta against LoneRed. Fishing for a restriction, perhaps?

Um, you realise LR said he would be happy to debate this very quote on the general board right?

And no, i don't have a 'vendetta' against LR, he's his own worst enemy, i don't think he needs any more.


KC
Saggy tits are disgusting.

Thanks for that.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Sep 22 2006, 01:51 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Sep 22 2006, 01:51 AM)
Originally posted by LoneRed+Sep 21 2006, 04:40 PM--> (LoneRed @ Sep 21 2006, 04:40 PM) It's about time I found BD pitifully attempting still to discredit me. Silly kid

I suggest you take a look at your "feminism" and try to fit it in with the real world. [/b]
Er... i'm not trying to 'discredit' you, unless you're saying that posting your comment in and of itself achieves this? On that point i agree with you. I don't have to 'try' to do anything, you're free to discredit yourself.

I'm sorry, 'your feminism' what is that supposed to mean? I don't own feminism, nor am i a feminist, but then again, none has that has anything to do with this thread. This is meant to be a discussion of 'female sexism', and the contention that this apparent phenomenon is a 'more serious problem' in society than [male] sexism.

And you know what? You're free to perhaps, explain your position? Explain how 'female sexism' is a 'bigger problem' in society than sexism.

Hmm?

And please don't call me 'kid', aren't you like 15 years old? :unsure:


[email protected]
Way to fish at reaction river BD

Was there a point to this post?



Rollo
I hate Germaine Greer, she's one of the real nutball feminists that think men should all be castrated at birth. If there's a more sexist woman I haven't herd of her.

Whilst i care very little for Germaine Greer ('hate' is a little strong don't you think?), it's prettty silly to suggest that she supports male castration.

I can understand that you're probably being hyperbolic, but still, that kind of inflammatory stuff just feeds into popular anti-feminist discourse, 'yar you fuckin saggy tits bra burner!' Is paraphrase of what one of the late steve irwins worshippers had to say about Greer :wacko:

And in the context of this thread, such comments are really unhelpful/unproductive, the thread is in OI, i don't really want it to turn into an anti-feminist rant thread, though LoneRed has already taken the lead with his comments about 'your [meaning, my] feminism'... nevermind this thread is about 'female sexism'... not feminism per se, though LoneRed obviously sees a link there. [/b]
Fuck steve irwin.

Germaine Greer has gone from feminist into female dominist. I sware she's lost a few bolts. I don't hate her as so much as I hate her point of view on men.

All societies on the verge of death are masculine. A society can survive with only one man; no society will survive a shortage of women.

I didn't fight to get women out from behind vacuum cleaners to get them onto the board of Hoover.

I have always been principally interested in men for sex. I've always thought any sane woman would be a lover of women because loving men is such a mess. I have always wished I'd fall in love with a woman. Damn.

Perhaps women have always been in closer contact with reality than men: it would seem to be the just recompense for being deprived of idealism.

Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.

The sight of women talking together has always made men uneasy; nowadays it means rank subversion.

She's a major sexist and loves to say that women are the superior sex on the planet.

[Gnosis]

At the end of the day we still have to work to survive. What we have to get rid of is capitalism. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum.

The struggle to maintain an existence is futile. Existence in general is futile, that is why one must struggle if one wishes to 'maintain' it...

I would tell you to get rid of -isms in general, capitalism included. Why? Because they cloud the mind, distract from the truth.
Example:
The 'right to free speach' is a capitalist idea, correct?
In any case, it is an idea, an ideology, a way of interpreting and interacting with the environment.
However, the ideology is not the environment, it is not the truth.
Where is the truth?
The ability of a person to freely express his or her mind. This is where the truth is, not in the 'right', but the ability.
Can you freely express your emotions, your opinions? Do you have the mental, emotional, physical tools to achieve this, or do you not? Do you have something to say and a mouth to say it?
The 'right' to free expression means nothing if you have nothing to express. The 'right' to free expression means nothing if you have an opinion yet are some how unable to express yourself. 'Rights' are mere ideology, the truth is in your ability.

So I see all of these people struggling over the right to speak freely when they've got the ability already, but they don't think to use the ability for anything other than to struggle for the 'right'. They are distracted from the truth, they hold an opinion about the way things 'should be' instead of just looking at the way things actually are.

Capitalist, communist, anarchist, sexist, its all the same, its all ideology, its all the mind. When dealing with any of them you are dealing with all of them.

Ideology is a struggle.
Let's say you've decided that you are a 'communist', you attempt to apply the ideology to an environment 'maintained' by 'capitalists'. The environment does not agree, it does not reflect the image you hold in your mind.
You say to your self "This idea is right, this reality is wrong".
So then you are in struggle, and you know that something must change.
I might tell you to change your mind and the struggle would end, but let's say you wish to keep your ideology and change your environment to fit...
You can do it, you can shape the world after your own image, and then it won't appear to disagree with your mind any more.
But it is futile, the ideology, the struggle, the result...

The universe, the truth, will not bow down to your ideology, though you may shape your environment and your mind so that it may appear, and you may more easily believe, that it does.

It's like paving a road. Pave it all you want, but if you go even one season without cleaning it and paving it and patching it, what happens?
It naturally deconstructs, transforms, evolves. If you never pave it again, eventually the road won't exist any more. Plants will grow where it once was, and your ideas about it won't make any difference.
But then you could always go on mending it, struggling with it. And some one can struggle in your place when you're dead, but the futility cannot, even then, be denied.

[KC]

Why don't you take your bougie coffee-shop post-modernist trash elsewhere?

Better yet, try telling that to a worker. Guess what their reaction would be?

[LoneRed]

Yes, I am my own worst enemy, thank you BD for solving all my ills for enlightening me, I like jumping in on this thread,its my laugh for the day.


BD read some of what Rollo said, Germaine Greer, is.. useless to humanity. As well as others who preach such stupid shit.

BD if you can't differentiate the more popular bourgeois strands of feminism from working class feminism, nothing more can be said. Its that point that nothing more can be said.

Unless of course you bring up another old post.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:06 PM
BD read some of what Rollo said, Germaine Greer, is.. useless to humanity. As well as others who preach such stupid shit.
Be that as it may, why is this one writer a larger problem than the systematic discrimination against women promoted by the capitalist class?

[SPK]

so many feminists i hear talking about male sexism, what about female sexism? I would argue that thats a more serious problem in our society.

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 12:03 AM
Female sexism, is quite easy, The majority of the "feminist" movements are sexist, in that they try to "liberate" women but in the process enact and support even more reactionary principles, ones come from their influence in the middle class intelligentsia. The Backwards feminism I've been talking about, or have all of you failed to understand that?

The lack of a class based analysis for one of an institutional or using abstract terms and principles in advocating their "feminism"
If someone wants to criticize bourgeois feminism for not having a class analysis, then that is entirely legitimate. Such criticisms have come from within the women's movements themselves, generally from working-class women and women of color. However, the term "female sexism" does not in any way correctly describe any aspect of those kinds of criticisms. It is a term that comes from the reactionary campaign by the ruling class to rollback the gains made by women over the past 40+ years.

What, precisely, do you think are the actual problems with bourgeois feminism? What analysis lies underneath this phrase "female sexism" that you are using?

[LoneRed]

regardless of our differing wordage used, thats what i mean by it.

Bourgeois feminism focuses on the wrong issues, or the wrong side of issues, it sees all things in a black and white view, it doesnt look deep enough into things. I have a house meeting to go to, but will respond better later

[Dean]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 19 2006, 04:47 PM
What do people think about this statement?

Agree? Disagree?

Please explain your reasoning :)


so many feminists i hear talking about male sexism, what about female sexism? I would argue that thats a more serious problem in our society.
Economically, sexism "helps" males, usually.

Socially, sexism "helps" females and males, such as in male - dominated households versus women who dominate their husbands.

Also, the perception of sexism as male - oriented implies that there is no sexism that involves female dominance. I say it goes both ways.

[UrbanNinja]

I think female sexism, along with all forms of sexism, racism, and descrimination in general, depends on the person as a singular subject. I have feminist friends who don't treat me any different than they treat women, and then i know of feminists who are sexist against men. I think its a personal thing that pertains only to that person(s).

[Dean]

(Post Deleted)

[Dean]

Also, I wrote an essay related to this subject:


Originally posted by "Feminism and Its Role in the Emancipation of Mankind"

Extreme Feminism, as a movement which puts women above men, is inegalitarian. I feel that the women's liberation movement is traditionally about treating women with as much respect as men, but perhaps more importantly I think that the lack of this in historically patriarchal societies is what feminism is a response to.

However, a movement which considers the mind of a women as potentially the same as the mind of a man holds a disrespect for both genders, probably as a result of dogmatism. In other words, the term "equality" has been misinterpreted by these people to mean "the same" and they have become too entrenched in the idea to give it up for a more reasonable one.

I feel that women have a very important role in society, and that their liberation (particularly politically) is vital to society for not only those women who seek to have political power, but to all of society.

A bit of history is pertinent before I make my conclusion:

Women, in pre-historical tribal societies, were generally the governors of the tribe. This is because they have an instinctually nurturing mind, which is healthiest for a tribe, as a tribe's main focus is the survival and health of all of it's members. In fact, men played no role in child rearing in these pre-historical societies. We know that much of a child's development is dependant on their parent's attitudes, and in this way the child would become endowed with the nurturing characteristics of his or her mother.

Men thusly served their role of game hunter and defender of the tribe with regard to essentially nurturing drives endowed upon them by this matriarchal lifestyle. The male mind is in no way submissive and written on like a blank sheet of paper, however. He also has inherent characteristics, such as a drive to learn and intuit how mechanical things work. This is how he fills the role of a master hunter and defender.

Though this implies that each gender should strive for roles it is best fit for according to pre-historical times, this is far from the truth. It is true that feminism should attempt to put women in positions of political power, and break down barriers preventing women from having these positions. However, society is no longer so simple as to be productively responsive to a culture of matriarchy - men must also retain power. The complexities of our class society cannot be alleviated by creating more class; it is this alienation that has caused such oppressive socio-economic disparity. Our government uplifts the human spirit only insofar as all humans are able to effect it.

Likewise, the family is by no means a bad structure; a child needs a father to endow him or her with traits of reason and mechanical aptitude, and a mother to endow him with a thoughtful and nurturing attitude. But a mother should by no means be mechanically asinine, and likewise a father should have a good sense of nurturing. People in general should learn to acquire these traits to actuate their own will. This is the only way a conscious society can become reasonable and peaceful, and in this way we can fulfill the messianistic message of "Heaven on Earth."

Originally May 5/4/2005




More of my papers can be found Here... (http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays.htm)

[LoneRed]

Bd you should take a gander at what he wrote there.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Dean
Extreme Feminism, as a movement which puts women above men, is inegalitarian.
Why so people always bring up 'female superiority' as if it was this huge movement. It's not. Get over it.


I feel that the women's liberation movement is traditionally about treating women with as much respect as men, but perhaps more importantly I think that the lack of this in historically patriarchal societies is what feminism is a response to.
It's actually about freedom for women. 'Respect' is loaded with all kinds of paternalistic connotations and allows men to determine the direction of change- because they are the ones doing the 'respecting.' Framing feminist discourse in terms of freedom allows women to determine their own agenda.


However, a movement which considers the mind of a women as potentially the same as the mind of a man holds a disrespect for both genders, probably as a result of dogmatism.
I studied neuroscience for a semester, and I vividly remember my professor saying that she knew of many studies into supposed differences between the male and female brain- but that NONE of them had proven anything conclusively. NONE.
Besides, why begin a discussion of feminism with an idea about innate neurological differences? It just establishes grounds for discrimination.


In other words, the term "equality" has been misinterpreted by these people to mean "the same" and they have become too entrenched in the idea to give it up for a more reasonable one.
Who are 'these people?'


I feel that women have a very important role in society,
Role? What role? Who determines hat women's role is?


and that their liberation (particularly politically) is vital to society for not only those women who seek to have political power, but to all of society.
Lol.


A bit of history is pertinent before I make my conclusion:

Women, in pre-historical tribal societies, were generally the governors of the tribe.
Source? I know this was the case in some societies, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the majority.


This is because they have an instinctually nurturing mind,
What a load of unfounded shite. You're not advocating gender liberation at all, you're romaticising women's oppression!


In fact, men played no role in child rearing in these pre-historical societies.
Source?


We know that much of a child's development is dependant on their parent's attitudes, and in this way the child would become endowed with the nurturing characteristics of his or her mother.
But were the boy's immune to this? You know, since they didn't do any caring work when they were adults?


Men thusly served their role of game hunter and defender of the tribe with regard to essentially nurturing drives endowed upon them by this matriarchal lifestyle.
What are you basing this stuff on?


The male mind is in no way submissive and written on like a blank sheet of paper, however.
Why did you feel the need to say this?


He also has inherent characteristics, such as a drive to learn and intuit how mechanical things work.
What bullshit! "Men are rational, women are emotional."


This is how he fills the role of a master hunter and defender.

Though this implies that each gender should strive for roles it is best fit for according to pre-historical times, this is far from the truth. It is true that feminism should attempt to put women in positions of political power, and break down barriers preventing women from having these positions.
Don't you see that by arguing for innate gendered natures you're just reinforcing sexism?


However, society is no longer so simple as to be productively responsive to a culture of matriarchy - men must also retain power.
Virtually no feminists are arguing for a matriarchy- articularly a return to some mythical matriarchy that didn't actually exist. And men shouldn't retain power as men- but as human beings. I'm an anarchist, I want to empower everyone...


The complexities of our class society cannot be alleviated by creating more class; it is this alienation that has caused such oppressive socio-economic disparity.
Strawman.


Likewise, the family is by no means a bad structure; a child needs a father to endow him or her with traits of reason and mechanical aptitude, and a mother to endow him with a thoughtful and nurturing attitude.
Again, nineteenth century pseudoscience. Because women can't be rational, men can't be emotional. I'm starting to think you don't belong on this forum at all.

What about same-sex parents?


But a mother should by no means be mechanically asinine,
Yes, because mothers have historically been asinine...


and likewise a father should have a good sense of nurturing.
But it's not their primary role, right?


People in general should learn to acquire these traits to actuate their own will. This is the only way a conscious society can become reasonable and peaceful, and in this way we can fulfill the messianistic message of "Heaven on Earth."
Now I understand where this drivel came from... Religion. Yum.

[Dean]

Why so people always bring up 'female superiority' as if it was this huge movement. It's not. Get over it.
In what stroke did I claim that there was some large movement? I was actually describing feminism as focused only on women, which does represent the minority. That is why I clarify it at the begining. The whole point of the essay is to point to egalitarian means as those which can free women and men from their expected roles.


It's actually about freedom for women. 'Respect' is loaded with all kinds of paternalistic connotations and allows men to determine the direction of change- because they are the ones doing the 'respecting.' Framing feminist discourse in terms of freedom allows women to determine their own agenda.
Respect doesn't have any necessary connotations in relation to masculiminity. This is simply a strawman attack. That's like saying anything having to do with social power is inherantly masculine, which seems to me to be anti-feminist.


I studied neuroscience for a semester, and I vividly remember my professor saying that she knew of many studies into supposed differences between the male and female brain- but that NONE of them had proven anything conclusively. NONE.

Besides, why begin a discussion of feminism with an idea about innate neurological differences? It just establishes grounds for discrimination.

While I do remember seeing studies that have implicated otherwise (though not in the sense I described), I don't think one can point to chemical science as the only means by which we understand social interaction, which is what I am describing. This has nothing to do with my point, which seems obvious enough. Female animals have innate nurturing mindsets, and I do not see how humans differ greatly. I have personally detatched myself from this view somewhat, though. I think males have this drive too, especially in socialized species, because to concern oneself with the well-being of others as a part of your nature logically points to a nurturing drive.


Who are 'these people?'
Those who claim that "equality" or more approiately "egalitarianism" means 'blindness.'


Role? What role? Who determines hat women's role is?
I would say that ideally, a woman who productively responds to her society is the best decider of her role, but regardless her role is simply what it becomes based on social and personal and economic concerns. My girlfriend recently said women should rule over men because they wouldn't start stupid wars, and while I do see a general opposition to war among women that is more prevalent I do not agree that women ought to have power over men. I believe that mutual respect, that is understanding and tolerating the rightful freedom of, is the role that each gender has. I still maintain that women are more nurturing than men and their presence as mothers is a basic positive for society.


Source? I know this was the case in some societies, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the majority.
Actually, by saying somethign is 'prehistorical' you leave out any possibility of proof, but many sociologists agree with me, and Marx toyed with the idea. To prove that it was the case to historical scholars is oxymoronic. It often stems from the conceptualization of the mother as the first leader to each human, and the idea that people stay in the tribe their mother is from.


What a load of unfounded shite. You're not advocating gender liberation at all, you're romaticising women's oppression!

Advocating oppression means advocating power over others, which I have not done. I am concerned with class liberation, and unlike Marx I see women as a disenfranchised class as well - though I do not believe that men in general attempt to perpetuate this system.


But were the boy's immune to this? You know, since they didn't do any caring work when they were adults?

The answer is yes, as stzated in the next quote you respond to:


Men thusly served their role of game hunter and defender of the tribe with regard to essentially nurturing drives endowed upon them by this matriarchal lifestyle.

What are you basing this stuff on?

Apparently, your own logic.

And I say that men are not blank sheets of paper because it is implied if I only point to how they are endowed with nurturing characteristics.


What bullshit! "Men are rational, women are emotional."
No. All responses to wordly situations are emotional. A stoic response is probably the sickest of all, and I don't claim that rationality in any way is unemotional. In fact, I think rationality is served more in my description of a socially nurturing womam's mind than that of a mechanically - oriented man's. Neither of which are meant to blanket or exclude other characteristics, by the way.


Don't you see that by arguing for innate gendered natures you're just reinforcing sexism?

Virtually no feminists are arguing for a matriarchy- articularly a return to some mythical matriarchy that didn't actually exist. And men shouldn't retain power as men- but as human beings. I'm an anarchist, I want to empower everyone...

If I were encouraging "gender roles" I would encourage matriarchy, as my paper implies. But I don't; the prevalent feminist movement of the sixties was laden with such ideas. They have since generally died out, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it. I don't see how an idea that is not yours, which I never said was yours, should matter?



The complexities of our class society cannot be alleviated by creating more class; it is this alienation that has caused such oppressive socio-economic disparity.
Strawman.
I'm not talking about anyone in particular but those who clearly DO advocate this. That's like saying "Communists have commited purges and thus such totalitarianism is wrong" is a strawman. It's not. It refers to a political party or trend, namely Stalinism in my example, and I would agree with it. I am not an authoritarian communist. In my paper, I am referring to my initial description of feminism, which is described as advocating matriarchy.


Again, nineteenth century pseudoscience. Because women can't be rational, men can't be emotional. I'm starting to think you don't belong on this forum at all.

What about same-sex parents?

Besides arguments I've already made, same-sex marriages are implicated. I cannot say that it really relates to my point; I think that children expect and benefit from father and mother figures, though I don't think that sanctions ought to be put against same - sex marriages. This is a strawman - of course I don't say that same sex marriages give children the experience of fathers and mothers together. I don't claim that they are bad, either.



But a mother should by no means be mechanically asinine,
Yes, because mothers have historically been asinine...


and likewise a father should have a good sense of nurturing.
But it's not their primary role, right?

Again, nurturing is - and is described as in the paper - as the most important of any of the traits I describe. For the second one, I do think that nurturing is the primary role - of all humans. I thought this at the time of writing, though not as strongly or generally. In fact, unless you took my quotes as you read my paper, it would seem that you mistakenly take the role of victim of words that raise up women as communally - oriented, but only insofar as natural and sociological knowledge implies


Now I understand where this drivel came from... Religion. Yum.
Actually, I am not religious, but I do think that religions tend to favor gender equality, at least more than is implied by what has been written of them or what people make of them. I do not see how an affront to religion is necessary, especially when my point was clearly one about freedom and equality.

You can oppose what I say all you want, but I prefer realistic arguments. IF you're not for matriarchy, than you are not a part of what I describe quite clearly twice in the paper. If you ignore that female social creatures tend to be nurturing, fine, but don't claim that I called women emotional or dumb. I make a point to clarify that nurturing attitudes are important for political leaders, inherant in fact, but that political leaders ought not be only women. That is a defense against a quite different argument than one which demeans women.

[Dean]

Also.. why am I being restricted for simply stating in a different context what others have without restriction? I expect it has something to do with your misinterpretation of my writing.

I'd suggest that people either read - or question - those that they restrict first. It is clear that I do not believe in any dominace, disrespect or sanctions along sexist lines.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:54 PM


Why so people always bring up 'female superiority' as if it was this huge movement. It's not. Get over it.
In what stroke did I claim that there was some large movement? I was actually describing feminism as focused only on women, which does represent the minority.
Then why are you making a big deal over it? Why would LoneRed assert that it's a worse problem than male sexism?

By making a big deal over it, you give the impression you are bringing "up 'female superiority' as if it was this huge movement."

What's more, you say "In my paper, I am referring to my initial description of feminism, which is described as advocating matriarchy."

In reality, most self-described feminists do not in fact advocate matriarchy....


Respect doesn't have any necessary connotations in relation to masculiminity. This is simply a strawman attack. That's like saying anything having to do with social power is inherantly masculine, which seems to me to be anti-feminist.

Usage defines meaning, as any dictionary writer will tell you. And "respect" is often used exactly as Mujer Libre describes. It's even part of the standard Islamic fundamentalist response to "Western" feminism: "Islam respects women."

At best it's vague....freedom and equality are a better basis.

Equal rights does not require that people be identical. If it did, the whole bourgeois-democratic concept of equal rights ("all men are created equal") would be wholly impossible. Since all individuals have different needs, desires, and capabilities.


Female animals have innate nurturing mindsets,

Some do, some don't. (Unless you meant "mammals.") Some male animals also have instincts for care of the young. In many bird species, it's about 50-50.


and I do not see how humans differ greatly.

Since all animal species have different instincts - it's obviously crap science to assume humans have the same instincts as (which?) other animal species.

And you've dodged Mujer Libre's point - why are these alleged differences your starting point?

Since you're complaining about your restriction, presumably you claim to be an advocate of the liberation of the working class. If that's true, a different starting point is required.

In order to liberate ourselves, workers need class unity. For that, we need to fight against every kind of oppression, try to bridge every division in our class. Including sexism. Whether there are some biological differences in men's and women's psychology - is irrelevant.


Those who claim that "equality" or more appropriately "egalitarianism" means 'blindness.'

You mean sex-blindness, like "color-blindness"? That's not characteristic of any kind of feminist. It's characteristic of opponents of affirmative action and others on the political right.

It's certainly not characteristic of the "extreme feminists" you're trying to criticize! On the contrary, advocates of female superiority...tend to claim females are superior. (What a surprise!) Dworkin-style feminists are the last people to deny there are differences between men and women.


If you ignore that female social creatures tend to be nurturing, fine, but don't claim that I called women emotional or dumb.

But usually when someone does start going on about supposed inherent differences between the sexes - there's sexism on the way.

Even if they're claiming women are emotionally or morally superior, as with your praise for "nurturing". The claim that women were morally superior was a mainstay of Victorian sexism. Women were supposed to concentrate on raising good children and not dirty their pure hands with politics.


Also.. why am I being restricted for simply stating in a different context what others have without restriction?

Any system based on polling is going to have some inconsistencies. But why don't you point out others who've made similar claims about essential sex differences...maybe they should be restricted too.


In fact, men played no role in child rearing in these pre-historical societies.

I can't think of any anthropologist who's made any such assertion.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Did anyone see the film, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith"?

The film showed the differences a man approaches a chore compared to a woman's approach.

Both of these characters work for a shadowy government organization which uses assassination as a tool to advance policy. (The catch is the two are married to one another, don't know they are assassins, and are in marriage counseling.) The male approach to killing his victim is slipshot and improptu. The female approach is meticulous and executed with percision.

I commented on this to one of my girlfriends, who remarked, "Of course that's how they do it. He's a man and she's a woman. That's how we do things versus how you (males) do things."

I thought it all very cleaver.

The most serious problem in all of this is a prevention of one being able to serve to their potential. Most of the time I have no problem with telling authority "you can't stand in the way of a person attempting to achieve their potential. But there are limits. In my opinion, a girl does not have the RIGHT to play on a boy's football team in high school, even where tax $$ are spent. A male interviewer should be able to be barred from a woman's locker room and not be able to play the discrimination card. I suppose there are a couple more of these, but why go on.

For the IMPORTANT matters, such as promotion, service, and pay, there should be no bars.

To answer the specific question given, a lot of it has to do with one's perception. I can show you a white male, age 40, who will argue that his class of people is currently the most oppressed in America today. Whether you believe him or not.

The problem with a lot of this is that people do not view themselves as part of a group where it would disadvantage them.

For example: A woman is applying for a management job. The person doing the hiring tells her, "I'm sorry, but the average number of women in management in the U.S. versus men is, today, 6 to 1. We here at Shmedly Motor Cars are attempting to change all that, and this year hired women in management at 3 to 1 for the past 9 hirees. We have just doubled the number of women in management here compared to the national average. Please be proud of us. Now that we've done that, we are going to hire a man instead of you."

In the overall concept, she female candidate should be happy about Shmedly's attempt to reverse the discrimination. But, in reality, she couldn't probably care less about the other women who got the management jobs before she applied for one. All she knows is that she didn't get the job.

A problem is one that hits home, in the real world. People glaze over statistics and usually don't follow them for more than a day. But if one is personally disadvantaged by a decision, all the Affirmative Action in the world won't make them feel any better.


A. Hamilton

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 05:56 PM
Saggy tits are disgusting.
Comrade Stalin's Law HATES saggy tits!!! :blink:

[adz170]

i think theyre is a rise in mascalinists who believe men are being ill treated in the work place , or dont get things like time off for baby's .
i think femanism use to be an issue but it isnt anymore , not seriously anyway. i think it started at the vietnam war where alot of men got killed some women had to do their jobs , and from that point on women realised "wait a minute , we can be more then breeders of the new capitalist generations" , because they do raise the next generation of capitalism for the country and they do not get payed for it... , however i have no time for radical femanists who believe they do not need men and artifical insemination is the key...
A new thing which i have heard about is "marxist femanists" where women are compaigning because they think they are exploited by capitalism , We are all exploited by capitalism , i dont think it matters what gender you are. ;)
What do you guys think? :P :D :o ;)

[Alexander Hamilton]

adz170:

I have met plenty of women who said they are postponing having children to enjoy more fully their career, dating, and sex, or travel. I have met some women who tell me they will never have children at all.

Bu I have never met a woman who told me she realized, "wait a minute , we can be more then breeders of the new capitalist generations"

Your comment made me laugh that someone would put off children based on that exact phrase running through their minds.

Thanks,

A. Hamilton

[Dean]

Severian, you don't leave me much to respind to but your ironic hypocrisy. Claiming that female animals have nurturing attributes (true that it is sometimes the men instead or shared more) implies that one should think that most creatures similar to humans share responsibility in such a way. I wouldn't encourage your errant restriction process my implicating others, I will only defend myself. Others have said things I find sexist and demeaning anyways, though I Don't suggest they lose the right to post in the general community.

[TrueEquality]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:55 AM
(QUOTE)In what way? I think you are looking at this from a personal, individual standpoint rather than looking at it within the socio-political context we live in. That is, your generalising. How exactly do womyn "dominate men" where you live? Could you provide some specific examples of this?

He couldn't find exactly the right words to use as it's not his mother language but he has an intuitive idea of what's going on. For sure, there are more men in powerful positions than women. But the point that is missed is that this situation is the most beneficial one for women. This is because male politicians pander to women's groups more than women politicians do or would. In other words, men must support more women in power as it is their only chance of getting dealt an equal hand. For example, it took just a few months of Angela Merkel being in power before she was attacked for not focussing enough on women's rights. The female Family Minister came out with a statement not long after that no male politician would dare utter 'Deutsche Frauen sind faul und gierig i.e. German women are lazy and greedy'. German men silently and uncomplainingly put up with a serious breach of the German constitution which will only be recognised as being as morally corrupt as some of their 1930's laws in decades to come, that is, their military conscription. And guess who took the first steps at trying to eliminate this sexism - Angela Merkel's party! They have previously suggested a one-year social service obligatory for all women - a great idea any male politician would have been to afraid to utter for fear of sexism charges.
I noticed this more drastic example from Botswana that shows how truely disposable we men are, and how male suffering is regarded as normal and women's as tragic. For centuries of colonialism, flogging has been widely used in the whole area, but male rulers and politicians prevented it being used on women. Thus, women were getting convicted of the same crimes as men, but the men were getting floggings while the women got away with suspended sentences and fines. But from April this year on the principal of equal rights criminals of both sexes will equally be flogged. Although I am completely against flogging, this is at least a step in the direction of true equality. And even better, now that women are being flogged there human rights organisations might even think about trying to eliminate the practice altogether - it's not just expendable men who are suffering now, that is people with a value a little above that of an animal in those countries, but women! In that sense, remember that Saudi Arabia offers more equal rights to men and women than Singapore in this regard, equal punishments only being awarded in the former land, compared with the sexist practices of the latter.
I find most women are inherently fair when they are aware of the true facts. I don't believe a female politician would allow breast cancer research to be receiving 330% more funding than prostate cancer research, when more men die from prostate than breast concer. I believe statistics that show that 24 of 25 of the worst jobs in the US are 99-100% male would receive drastic attention. Men would be deconditioned that their lives are disposable, while it would be stressed that equal rights does not mean a sharing of the advantages only, leaving the unpleasant to the other sex. Imagine the outcry if a paper published a statistic tomorrow that of the 2000000 people killed last year at work over 96% were women, womyn. A male conspiracy to eliminate females by giving them the dirtiest, most dangerous unhealthiest jobs! Well that's what we live with daily.

[Gender is about more than simple biological differences. It refers to the way that ideas around what is "masculine" or "feminine" is a result of social conditioning rather than biology. Sex and gender are different things.

OK. But why does the question 'Do you belong in the kitchen?' to a group of women bring such a different response compared with the question 'Do you belong on building sites or down coalmines?' to a group of men? We men are not much better off than we were 100 years ago. The 7 year age difference in men and women's lives used to be 1 year in 1920. Then men continued their inventing of methods to save women's lives, such as safer birth techniques, antibiotics and all the other marvels that mean that half of all of us are alive that wouldn't have been if we had been left at the mercy of midwifery, the only example we have a job completely dominated by women since the dawn of time in practically all cultures. Men were banned from participation for millenia. Slowly, appalled at the 50% mortality mate for both mother and child, men started forcing their way in, invented the necessary tools (have a look at the forceps invented by an English doctor in the 17th century, which saved the lives of untold millions of mothers and babies having birth complications, and see if a university degree is required to come up with the idea) and reduced the mortality rate to what it is today. Are feminists grateful that half of them are not dead because men interfered with the job they were messing up? Do you see cries of gratitude from midwives (and if there are about as many female firefighters (to me firemen) as there are male midwives why are there no midhusbands or midpeople?) - no, search the net and you see them complaining about modern medicine, without which half of them would be dead. I don't know whether that's scary or funny. But while men were doing all this inventing to help women live longer they naturally couldn't count on women to start inventing anything to extend THEIR lives, even though history shows (eg Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, etc) that creativity is a factor not directly linked to having an education. So men die today like flies and no-one cares. Ask the next feminist you see with metal on her if she appreciates the 3000 chinese miners who die a year to extract metal for women to decorate themselves with, or the men who've died so she can have a house to live in.

[
Nurses in Norway make more then my father. And hes a civil engineer working for the government. With a very VERY long education time. The teachers in my school are both women and men. They make the same amount of money. Which only makes my point more clear; different line of work, different earnings. The sex has nothing to do with this.

(QUOTE) Womyn do not earn as much as men in general. How do you account for that difference if structural inequality does not exist?

Women earn 98% of what men earn. Still unfair but not as dramatic as the fantasy statistics given by some women's groups. A female academic at Hardvard calculated that. Start working dangerous unpleasant jobs, longer hours with more stress and commuting, and give us more of the cushy jobs you dominate, study stressful degress like Engineering (80% male) instead of hobby degrees like Art History (85% female) - men know they have to make a sacrifice to support a family while women assume either a man or the goverment will pay for their costs - then you may start earning like we do. But then half of the 2000000 dead working men a year might be women.
The bottom line is - men in power sometimes do stupid things, but the ones who suffer the most by far are men. Ask me if I would rather have been a man or a woman under the Taliban and I would certainly say a woman. How could I not in a country that has now 40% men and 60% women, all males from teenagers to men in their 60s being called up to fight on pain of death? Ditto for Bosnia with its 30% men, 70% women. Life and death is something that stands above all other discrimination, and that's what we men suffer from the most - women may not get the best jobs, but in the USA they have 12 years of free extra time in their lives! 7 years given to them by the inventions of men, plus a retirement age 5 years younger. A fairer system would see women working 7 years longer than men to make up for this difference, but that's another story.
That was a heck of a long post. But I just wanted to spread some perspectives I myself was unaware of until recently.
Just a few comments on an earlier post...sorry about the long quote.