Sexsim: have the tables actually turned?

[HHammond]

No, we aren't. Women still have to deal with shit that men don't have to, and you can't say the same about the opposite. I have no idea why everyone on the internet is so against feminism.

This. This is why. This believe that women are so much worst off and that men just have no idea how easy they have it. I'm sorry, but there are PLENTY of things woman don't have to deal with that men do. Yes, the issues women face everyday are much more apparent because it seems that society has build this idea that men shouldn't show their feelings or their worries but it's okay for women to. The stuff men deal with is just not so obvious. Yes, you have a right to voice your anger and frustration and yes, women deserve MUCH more respect then they get but to brush it off with such a sweeping statement is just ridiculous.

However, men have a lot to make up for. For thousands of years we've oppressed woman and now we're starting to see what shitheads we are and all the things woman have to offer. Have the tables turned? No, I wouldn't say so. Women still have a lot of things to fight for and they should fight. I'd class myself as a femenist. I don't like the way the media portray women and the fact that so many people will lie down and accept that portrayal (although I am mainly focusing on girls in their late teens and twenties).

So, No. The tables have not turned. Sure, equality has not been gained yet and women still have a lot to fight for but this idea that men have it worse is just silly. Look how male dominated are society still is. Yes, it's becoming less so but it's still extremely difficult for a women to make it compared to a man.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Really, 2xDouble...Really?

Would it make you happy if I said there will always be an exception to the rule? That much is obvious, but generally, men are indeed the ones who propel the world forward.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What I do find interesting is the oft-asserted claim that "women are paid less than men for the equivalent work". Putting aside the arguments over salary vs wage (data can be produced to support both 'sides' of the argument), I simply don't find this plausible, since it relies upon the implication that capitalist greed is overwhelmed by patriarchal hegemony. Consider: apparently we live in a male-dominated capitalist society. Now, if women are indeed as capable as man in any given job, then what we have is a group of workers who can produce equivalent output at a lower price. Yet I'm supposed to believe that the male capitalists employing labour are so sexist that they would forgo an opportunity to increase their profit?

Well, I don't. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that workplaces should be largely occupied by female workers. Equivalent output, reduced input prices. Yet that's not the case, so I see only three possible conclusions.

1) Endemic sexism really is stronger than the profit motive.
2) Women are not, in terms of the more common occupations within society, as capable as men.
3) Women are not actually underpaid on average.

The first is laughable. The second cannot really be argued outside of specific examples (obviously there are roles where men and women excel versus each other, but in general?). So...

Why laughable? That sort of thing is hardly uncommon in other areas.

Putting aside the idea of women receiving less money for now, you'd agree that it's in the interest of the business/whomever to have the most qualified person for the position, right?

And yet, industry/politics/military of the Western world tends to be dominated by heterosexual white men. You could say they are the majority, but they sre still over-represented.

Or, to take a more concrete example, the US military has only recently allowed openly gay personnel to serve within its ranks. Is this because up until recently, gay people weren't good enough for the military? That they still aren't, and allowing them in is a mistake? Or was there a bias against them that had nothing to do with their actual ability.

Yes, it'd make rational sense for businesses to ignore gender, but prejudice isn't based on rationality. Few people are going to consciously reject a woman on the basis of her gender, they are going to assume that a woman isn't as good as a man (in some sense) and react accordingly.

Sorry cupcake

Of course, men are so hard-done by.
Dont fucking talk down to me.

EDIT: Ok that may have been a harsh reaction to start with, but seriously? Are you going to talk to me like I'm a little girl cause I brought up a point you disagree with? Did you do that to the guys disagreeing with you.

That's really cute and all, but how actually refuting my arguments instead? There's no need to make this personal.

Um, just possibly it's the person who has resorted to sexist language to patronise the other who is making it personal.

EDIT: Argh, fucked up the quote order.

 

[Phasmal]

Sorry cupcake

Of course, men are so hard-done by.
Dont fucking talk down to me.

EDIT: Ok that may have been a harsh reaction to start with, but seriously? Are you going to talk to me like I'm a little girl cause I brought up a point you disagree with? Did you do that to the guys disagreeing with you.

That's really cute and all, but how actually refuting my arguments instead? There's no need to make this personal.

First of all, you made this personal by (repeatedly) talking down to me.
Also, women not being able to have their ideas taken seriously was less about being uneducated and more about being married off and knocked up and under their husbands authority for their lives?
Like I said, gamers have such wonderful attitudes towards women.

In the UK two women die every week from domestic abuse.


So no. The tables have not turned.

Also this.

 

[GryffinDarkBreed]

No, we aren't. Women still have to deal with shit that men don't have to, and you can't say the same about the opposite. I have no idea why everyone on the internet is so against feminism.

Because of feminazis. I know the movement, as a whole, demands equality, but them dumbshits are looking for supremacy.

Anyway, getting a job as an engineer (especially electrical engineering) is much easier as a woman. This is an unfortunate problem that we currently face.

Being the lazy, never-had-a-summer-job bastard that I am, I don't know much about affirmative action and all that, but is it really worse than having a worse biological setup (periods, pregnancy...), more prone to receiving violence (rape, spousal abuse...), and several other things I could mention, but am too lazy to elaborate on(lower income, larger share of housework, media problems, more strict social standards)?

Wait a second, back that train up.
Worse biological setup? What about testicular and prostate problems, they kill a fair amount of men each year. Also what about guys having that lovely extra problem of being prone to certain types of hernias due to the male set up?
More prone to violence? Last I checked in domestic cases women actually hit more often, it just happens that when guys hit they do more damage.
Lower income, a bit debatable, aren't women now the majority in a lot of high paying professions such as doctors, lawyers and whatnot?
Media problems? Please elaborate, because last I checked women in the media get away with a lot of crap that guys don't. An old guy calls some women nappy headed and a lynch mob goes after him. A bunch of women make fun of and demean a guy who gets his penis cut off by a spouse and its hilarious and "you go girl". If a guy did the same, he would be out of a job permanently in any media, but for women hey its cool because its empowering to them.

Breast cancer? And I doubt hernias are worse than pregnancy.
The second... I'd ask for sources but I didn't use any either (aside from Wikipedia). So I guess that's a draw?
Again, we're both talking out our asses.
I meant that women are always shown as highly sexualized in pretty much everything. You could say the same for men, but I don't think women are as ok about all their role models shown with huge boobs as men are with theirs with muscles (also, I've heard that overmuscled guys aren't that attractive to women, and that girls are attracted to asses anyways).
Special note on Don Imus: Agree that that was stupid. I think the thing was that he had said worse and "nappy headed hoes" was the straw that broke the camels back. Also, that may have been about racism as much as sexism.

A pregnancy doesn't destroy you for life. A Hernia will. A Pregnancy doesn't increase your odds exponentially for having another pregnancy. A Hernia does. If you have a hernia, you will have another, in the same place, it's only a matter of time. And that Hernia will increase the odds even more.

 

[tyriless]

Actually, you are. You claim that women don't have the ability to innovate, but instead adapt to creations and machinations of men. Therefore men explicitly control the ideas and "world" as it is, by setting the rules and mechanics of it. Women cannot change the rules, therefore they can never be superior to men: no matter how good women are at adapting, men can always undo or remake it.

Every one of your other arguments are supposedly to prove feminine superiority and advantage, but this, your own argument, disallows that possibility. Therefore you have contradicted yourself.

Also: You don't consider Radiology, an entire school of science, a significant invention?

The CPR mannequin?......L..O..L.

Yeah, you won't be laughing when you go into cardiac arrest. Got any idea how much force is needed to compress a human being's chest to ensure that the heart pumps oxygen into the brain or how hard you must push air into a person's lung. I do. That's crap takes practice to do right. Too hard and you break ribs and force air into the stomach, too soft and you got a guaranteed corpse. CPR mannequin is a simple invention, but before it came about there was nothing designed to mimic a thorax. As a life-saving teaching tool it was needed and thus significant.

Since its inception it has saved countless lives. Simple, ingeniously clever, and made by a woman.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Um, just possibly it's the person who has resorted to sexist language to patronise the other who is making it personal.
Why laughable? That sort of thing is hardly uncommon in other areas.

Putting aside the idea of women receiving less money for now, you'd agree that it's in the interest of the business/whomever to have the most qualified person for the position, right?

And yet, industry/politics/military of the Western world tends to be dominated by heterosexual white men. You could say they are the majority, but they sre still over-represented.

Or, to take a more concrete example, the US military has only recently allowed openly gay personnel to serve within its ranks. Is this because up until recently, gay people weren't good enough for the military? That they still aren't, and allowing them in is a mistake? Or was there a bias against them that had nothing to do with their actual ability.

Yes, it'd make rational sense for businesses to ignore gender, but prejudice isn't based on rationality. Few people are going to consciously reject a woman on the basis of her gender, they are going to assume that a woman isn't as good as a man (in some sense) and react accordingly.

"Putting aside the idea of women receiving less money for now, you'd agree that it's in the interest of the business/whomever to have the most qualified person for the position, right?"

Yes.... to a certain degree.

"Or, to take a more concrete example, the US military has only recently allowed openly gay personnel to serve within its ranks. Is this because up until recently, gay people weren't good enough for the military? That they still aren't, and allowing them in is a mistake? Or was there a bias against them that had nothing to do with their actual ability."

While I personally do not have much of an opinion in regards to DADT, I think it was for gays very own protection. Really, I never actually cared about it... or for homosexuals in general.

In regards to women in the workplace, I really do not give a shit about whether or not people find this opinion misogynistic, but if I was given the choice, I'd only hire males for my businesses, as women are financial timebombs. Men generally also do more hours than women.

 

[Harlief]

I wouldn't say the tables have turned by any stretch of the imagination, nor should they. Feminism has made huge changes in evening the scores but now it's time for egalitarianism and fine-tuning.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Feminism has proven to be nothing but poison for western civilization.

I highly recommend that you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkVWz0uXiEA

Wow.. The people who made that must totally know what they are talking about. Why else would they post it on Youtube, the place where the almighty Gods descend to earth to impart their immortal wisdom in the form of 5 minute videos.

At a glance..

"Before feminism, women could choose whether to work or not"

Yes, and before Obama became president, men could choose whether to wear clothes or not.

Neither of the above statements in factually untrue, yet neither carries any useful information.

Firstly, correlation (and bear in mind that no correlation actually exists in this case, statistically or experientially) does not mean causation.

Secondly, the statement is misleading to the point of negligence. The fact that something might be technically possible does not make it realistically possible for the majority of people.

...

Okay dude, I actually give up now. This shit is sick, I hope you're fucking trolling me.

 

[2xDouble]

Really, 2xDouble...Really?

Would it make you happy if I said there will always be an exception to the rule? That much is obvious, but generally, men are indeed the ones who propel the world forward.

Which is exactly my point, and the flaw in your arguments. You say Men propel the world forward, which means Women do not. Therefore men have significant advantage over women. If men have significant advantage over women, women cannot have advantage over men. If women cannot have advantage over men, then saying they do is a lie.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Men are the creators of the world. Women do not create the world, they adapt to it. They are good at adapting, so why don't they create the world? they must lack the ability.

I don't even...

You do know that up until about 30 years ago women weren't allowed to even think about doing anything intellectual or science based right.

The exceptional women that actual managed to fight through male oppression and get themselves an education should be given massive props tbh.

For example Ada Lovelace...

''Ada Lovelace wrote a scientific paper in 1843 that anticipated the development of computer software, artificial intelligence and computer music. Daughter of the poet Lord Byron, Lady Ada Lovelace was known as the "enchantress of numbers" who collaborated with Charles Babbage, the inventor of the first mechanical thinking/calculating machine. In her honor the U.S. Department of Defense named its computer language "Ada" in 1980.''

And before you said 'she just collaborated' this was 1843 do you think a woman would have gotten the backing that Babbage did?

Another quote about her
'At the time most women received a home education that was inferior to that of a man's. However, Ada's mother was able to provide her daughter with superior education that included science and math.'

You are debasing her achievements on the very thing she helped invent. Shame on you.

I suppose you think we should just ignore the complete oppression of the female sex by religion and society and just assume that men are just more intelligent and capable...

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Feminism has proven to be nothing but poison for western civilization.

I highly recommend that you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkVWz0uXiEA

Wow.. The people who made that must totally know what they are talking about. Why else would they post it on Youtube, the place where the almighty Gods descend to earth to impart their immortal wisdom in the form of 5 minute videos.

At a glance..

"Before feminism, women could choose whether to work or not"

Yes, and before Obama became president, men could choose whether to wear clothes or not.

Neither of the above statements in factually untrue, yet neither carries any useful information.

Firstly, correlation (and bear in mind that no correlation actually exists in this case, statistically or experientially) does not mean causation.

Secondly, the statement is misleading to the point of negligence. The fact that something might be technically possible does not make it realistically possible for the majority of people.

...

Okay dude, I actually give up now. This shit is sick, I hope you're fucking trolling me.

What - you decided to watch for a minute and decided it was not worth your time? Of course you could fault it for being a youtube video, but that'd be silly. There is indeed a lot of dumb stuff on youtube, it still however a great place if you wanna reach a massive audience.

 

[Tsunimo]

Yeah I think so, people will hire women over men to try and show that they don't discriminate, there are more scholarships for women*, and if a man beats a women it's a tragedy, but when a woman abuses a man, it's laughed at, or people say he somehow deserved it.(can't recall the details, but someone posted a video here once of some TV bitches laughing about a women that cut off a mans penis or something.)

*[sub]There are also more for being anything other than white, but that's a whole new bag of snakes.[/sub]

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

.

1981 was indeed the height of female oppression. Like back in the 1970's where women and only women were sent to fight and die in the Vietnam war. A horrible example of female oppression under patriarchy.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Breast cancer? And I doubt hernias are worse than pregnancy.
The second... I'd ask for sources but I didn't use any either (aside from Wikipedia). So I guess that's a draw?
Again, we're both talking out our asses.
I meant that women are always shown as highly sexualized in pretty much everything. You could say the same for men, but I don't think women are as ok about all their role models shown with huge boobs as men are with theirs with muscles (also, I've heard that overmuscled guys aren't that attractive to women, and that girls are attracted to asses anyways).
Special note on Don Imus: Agree that that was stupid. I think the thing was that he had said worse and "nappy headed hoes" was the straw that broke the camels back. Also, that may have been about racism as much as sexism.

[li]Biology can't be sexist and to bring that into an argument about equality is just plain idiotic.[/li]
[li]I've never seen a source to say that women earn less than men, even if I did then I'd be very skeptical of it too. There is a very good chance that the stats could be argued away with people work different hours, people work different jobs and people work to a different standard. If more men work to a better standard and a therefore paid more then it'll show up in the stats and appear as sexist.[/li]
[li]Women have been and always will be sexualized, it's in our nature to do that. Women do it all the time too and it is in no way wrong, you're allowed to look at each other and feel horny without feeling guilty for it. It isn't a sexism issue at all.[/li]

OT: In some ways. I couldn't list them right now, but men and women are both judged by gender so I guess you could say we are, in a way, equal.

 

[b3nn3tt]

This is not a competition! I don't know why we get so many threads here that incite people to argue about 'who has it worse' out of men and women. Both sides have it bad, why can't people just accept that, and stop worrying about trying to argue that their respective sexes are worse off?

Yes, there are many areas where men are at a disadvantage compared to women, but guess what, women are still at a disadvantage in other areas. Nobody is 'winning' here, and nobody will until everyone starts fighting for genuine equality, instead of trying to make sure their own sex isn't missing out on something.

 

[tyriless]

Either DGB is trolling or he is a very vocal minority. Either way, there is no changing his mind, and anyone dumb enough to buy what he is selling deserves the product they get.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

.

1981 was indeed the height of female oppression. Like back in the 1970's where women and only women were sent to fight and die in the Vietnam war. A horrible example of female oppression under patriarchy.

No offence but that hasn't got anything to do with what I said.

I was arguing the point that you can't say women inventors are rare becuase they simply weren't allowed to participate by society.

Also men were sent to Vietnam by other men not by women so I really don't get your point...

Even if women wanted to go and fight on the front lines they weren't allowed too. So that just reinforces my point about female oppression tbh.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

.

1981 was indeed the height of female oppression. Like back in the 1970's where women and only women were sent to fight and die in the Vietnam war. A horrible example of female oppression under patriarchy.

No offence but that hasn't got anything to do with what I said.

I was arguing the point that you can't say women inventors are rare becuase they simply weren't allowed to participate by society.

If you want an argument that's relevant to what you said...at least men are allowed to join the front lines if they want to. Women are not. Big shock there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

Oh man, just look at how oppressed this female Nobel Prize winner was.

Either DGB is trolling or he is a very vocal minority. Either way, there is no changing his mind, and anyone dumb enough to buy what he is selling deserves the product they get.

Vocal minority? I guess so. I'm just saying what needs to be said... Some people just refuse to listen to the truth.

 

[Johann610]

Women don't CHOOSE engineering that I do, so they don't compete with me, directly. And their abilities AS engineers are about the same spectrum as the men with which I work. I don't think corporation / office rules are structured any differently either. In real life? I'd say be an adult, and the war becomes much less important. I mean: life's not fair, and it has nothing to do with your Y chromosome, so stop blaming the double-Xes and deal with it.