Are you implying that I'm a bitter ugly person?Lonelykiller said:
If so, that's rather harsh for an internet forum.
Gender Theory
- Thread starter ultrachicken
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If so, that's rather harsh for an internet forum.
Serious Responce-
"Why is it okay for women to hit men, but not the other way around?"
Because men do it to protect women.
psychologically-
inspite of agressive actions taken against males, they have to present themselves as strong enough to take such aggression from perpsective mates and not scare the individual off in kind with agressive behaviour.
socially-
it is precieved that males are generally more structurally well built to deal with and deal physical trama. women on the other hand not so much so. this preception leads to the idea that men are stronger and women are weaker which in turn feeds the ideal that men should be able to take it and that using their strength agianst a weak woman is wrong.
"It's less acceptable for women to be aggressive (this results in the average woman receiving a lower wage than the average man)"
well, that isn't the cause of women receiving lower wages but that is an entirely diffrent argument about equiality and socio-economical standings as well as deep seeded primitive psychology.
Medically and psychologically-
men are fueled by testosterone which leads to increased agressive factor and dominence taking actions. while females can have specific drives to achiving high ranking positions, the drive, tenaciosity, and agressive factor of males usually wins out over the female whom will usually give up on such conflict before it escilates too high
Men are considered great if they have sex with lots of women, but if a woman has sex with lots of men they're considered a slut.
Psychology-
the only purpouse of men is to procreate and protect.
the purpouse of women is to nurture, love, and grow.
because of this when men speak of women like conquests they are fufilling their primortial desire to procreate and are vindicated for it by their fellow men. however when a woman takes her sexuality upon herself sharing many partners she is seen as forsaking her purpouse. she selfishly seeks carnal pleasure and sexual gratification which works at ends with her precieve position she is required to fufill.
"Why is it okay for women to hit men, but not the other way around?"
Because men do it to protect women.
psychologically-
inspite of agressive actions taken against males, they have to present themselves as strong enough to take such aggression from perpsective mates and not scare the individual off in kind with agressive behaviour.
socially-
it is precieved that males are generally more structurally well built to deal with and deal physical trama. women on the other hand not so much so. this preception leads to the idea that men are stronger and women are weaker which in turn feeds the ideal that men should be able to take it and that using their strength agianst a weak woman is wrong.
"It's less acceptable for women to be aggressive (this results in the average woman receiving a lower wage than the average man)"
well, that isn't the cause of women receiving lower wages but that is an entirely diffrent argument about equiality and socio-economical standings as well as deep seeded primitive psychology.
Medically and psychologically-
men are fueled by testosterone which leads to increased agressive factor and dominence taking actions. while females can have specific drives to achiving high ranking positions, the drive, tenaciosity, and agressive factor of males usually wins out over the female whom will usually give up on such conflict before it escilates too high
Men are considered great if they have sex with lots of women, but if a woman has sex with lots of men they're considered a slut.
Psychology-
the only purpouse of men is to procreate and protect.
the purpouse of women is to nurture, love, and grow.
because of this when men speak of women like conquests they are fufilling their primortial desire to procreate and are vindicated for it by their fellow men. however when a woman takes her sexuality upon herself sharing many partners she is seen as forsaking her purpouse. she selfishly seeks carnal pleasure and sexual gratification which works at ends with her precieve position she is required to fufill.
No not at all. I was merely pointing out that this may be a reason why some people make a big deal out of gender issues. The existence of gender issues does not suggest anything beyond their existence. But I don't think an emotionally stable person is going to worry why women are allowed to hit men when the answer is that they are allowed to because they are physically smaller and much weaker.ultrachicken said:
I have yet to see a Scotsman hassled for wearing a kilt, unless it was because he'd refused to wear it 'regimentally'. I've also yet to see a Scot called a perv for wearing one; at least, I've yet to see a Scot called a perv without serious, harmful, and embarrassing repercussions for the person doing the name-calling.teh_pwning_dude said:
Honestly, in my opinion, if a girl is charging at you wanting to hurt you then go ahead and lay the ***** down. -.- Any girl who tries to attack a guy thinking "Oh, I'm a girl, they can't hurt me because they'll get in trouble" needs smacked. I just don't know why it has to lead to bodily harm in any way, shape or form though. Other than self defense of course.Cheveyo said:
I had to hit a guy in the crotch before and I don't regret it. He tried to touch me inappropiately and wouldn't stop. It was a bit forceful too if I have to add details for you to get the picture. Even pushed him away a few times but insisted that I was just playing with him, which I obviously was not. I don't want to post this whole story on here, so that's all I'm going to say. Had to hit him there for him to get off me. And that's the end of that.
i believe in gender equality...EQUALITY, i mean if a woman can do the job as well as a man pay her the same as a man, and vice versa but im sick of men having to watch what they say cause it might hurt her feelings... but seriously im the same way with race, example if the black man is better then the white man yeah ill hire him but if hes not i wont, age and religion fall into this as well
Congrats on being an ass; maybe some of us have jobs to go to that don't have an internet connection. My point remains valid, and you remain silly-looking.teh_pwning_dude said:
Depends?Pararaptor said:
In Australia a guy wears a dress and it's considered that he's actually confident and comfortable enough in himself not to think that wearing a dress would compromise his masculinity. (Of course, depends on the area too...ya wear a dress out beyond the black stump and it might get you beat).
I mean, most blokes wouldn't do it half as much as women wear jeans, but it's not something that's completely unheard of.
You know what else is just like this: rape. There's a misconception that rape can't happen if it's a female on male (here's some TvTropes which have both links and explanations on them http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsOkWhenItIsFemaleOnMale http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle4zfvfjq8 ).Adrimor said:
As for one thing I see often in things like movies and tv shows: if a man is basically the slave of a woman no matter how she mistreats him, it's comedy. If it's reversed, the woman in question is to be pitied.
Canberra? Where all the pollies are? I was unaware progressive and politicians went togetherteh_pwning_dude said:
!In Perth, mate. Go to Sydney and you'll see your fair share of dress-wearers too. Only a different slant.
That is an immensely flawed approach to sexuality as it implies that the woman is an object designed to keep unchaste stuff locked out, or possibly away, which is "opened" by sex with men. Goes back to the idea that women are pursued, and men pursue, always. Such metaphors belittle the subject matter through misleading symbols and detract from a dialogue that society needs to have by attempting to state it in such black-and-white terms. And don't even get me started on the heteronormative overtones.Eukaryote said:
A lot of gender theory pisses me off because people use it to generalise beyond reasonable bounds. That and differentiating between nature and nurture gets increasingly complex as individuals mature, shaping their own identity with the aid and influence of social pressures. It's similar with the cut-and-sealed nature of polarising statements. They simply don't allow sufficient middle ground.
Hi. I'm a feminist. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.173444.4890970] I'm not a 'feminazi' except to the people who feel like dismissing me without ever listening to what I have to say. That kind of generalisation made about feminists is deeply flawed, because it tends to be followed with the concept that the vast majority of us are misandrists rather than that being the small, but vocal proportion. Much like the vocal proportion of the male population who think that as a woman I should be a mother above and beyond anything else, with a man to actually have the financial capacity in that relationship. Or a whore. Neither faction represent the whole.Pyromaniac1337 said:
You know, I was going to read the whole thread before I commented, but this just enrages me. Ignorance and LATENT (the implication here is that men are so sexist, they don't even KNOW they're sexist) gender discrimination. Yeah, so these people running million dollar companies that they built from the ground up by taking advantage of the MEN who worked for them, but they're stupid. In fact, they're so stupid, they're willing to sabotage their own profits. What do I mean? Well, if women will work for less than men, then why not hire more of them? A company completely staffed by women would be spending (according to the blatantly misandrist figures tossed about) 25 cents less on the dollar than companies staffed by men. A company that did this would rule the economy so fast every other company would rush to follow them, and soon, women would own the economy. This has yet to happen, why? It's simple really, the figures that show women making less than men fail to take into account things such as hours worked, experience in the field, time missed due to women's unique issues, etc... How about some real facts? Women live, on average five to seven years longer than men, and yet people want more research into women's health issues, while very little to none is being spent on men's (you know, like Prostate Cancer, you know the prostate, the organ women don't have?)health issues. How about the fact that any time there's a war, thousands of MEN will die? How about the fact that men account for 95% of workplace fatalities? How about the fact that the reason for this is that the high risk, dangerous jobs are almost exclusively done by men? How about the fact that men are expected to go to work at a job they hate to provide for a woman who may or may not even appreciate it? You talk about ignorance and gender discrimination?SuperUberBob said:
Sounds like I need to pay Canberra a visitteh_pwning_dude said:The state/city with decriminalised pot, insane amounts of porn, the most lax driving/learning laws, civil unions and (up until recently) legal fireworks?
The Five Progressive P's of Canberra mate; Porn, Pot, Poofs, Politicians and Public Servants (formerly Pyrotechnics)
This is a classic example of feminist shaming tactics. Well, get it out of here, it's not an argument, and contributes nothing to the discussion.LiquidGrape said:
P.S.: There's a list online of shaming tactics feminists (and let's face it, women at large) use to shut down conversation of issues. I won't link it, but if you're interested, send me a message for the link.
P.P.S: This is a code blue.
Relax mate, I wasn't being serious.Foolishman1776 said:
Well, not completely.
But to cut to the chase; I'd say it's obvious to anyone with their head firmly attached to their neck that we inhabit a gregarious sphere which reeks of sexism.
Now I am fully aware of that sexism as a concept is binary in its application.
But nobody can deny the patriarchal machinations which govern our society to this day.
It's only recently that this perception of sex has been challenged, and most adamantly so by feminism.
The reason why feminists are accused of being "man-haters" or "fascists" is because we're purposefully attacking issues which fortifies the subconscious constructs of male dominance.
P.S
I sincerely hope I misread your post, but did you mean to imply that only women can be feminist?
D.S