Sexsim: have the tables actually turned?

[Terminal Blue]

Do not tell me you're one of those nutters who believe that gender is some kind of social construct?

'Gender' is a social construct. It's what the word actually means, if you have ever used the word 'gender' to refer to anything but a social construct, you have misused the word.

As for being a 'nutter', all I can say is that it's the 21st century. You can probably get access to an academic library, read any contemporary text in any of the social sciences and you will come face to face with the realization that many (if not most, or even all) of the things men and women do in any given society are non-essential.

Nutters are people who refuse to accept the prevailing and self-evident explanation in favour of a nonsensical fringe opinion. I really don't think I'm in that position here.

Things were never about sex, they were about class. A thing feminists fail to recognize.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Any feminist text of the last 40 years has had to deal with class, race, sexuality and numerous other variables which position people differentiality. This does not remove the effect of gender or the usefulness of gender analysis.

This is like saying that being a gay white man means you'll never suffer any discrimination for being gay because you'll never suffer misogyny or (majority) racism.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Do not tell me you're one of those nutters who believe that gender is some kind of social construct?

'Gender' is a social construct. It's what the word actually means, if you have ever used the word 'gender' to refer to anything but a social construct, you have misused the word.

As for being a 'nutter', all I can say is that it's the 21st century. You can probably get access to an academic library, read any contemporary text in any of the social sciences and you will come face to face with the realization that many (if not most, or even all) of the things men and women do in any given society are non-essential.

Nutters are people who refuse to accept the prevailing and self-evident explanation in favour of a convoluted and nonsensical one. I really don't think I'm in that position here.

I'd say you're right, but gender has always been defined by the actions of the sexes throughout history.

 

[Rufei]

I wouldn't say that the tables have turned; even though it's more politically correct to be a misandrist, it seems that misogyny is still pretty rampant. Personally I think they're both terribly neanderthal views. I'm not going to get all up-in-arms if, for example, a man opens a door for me (I live in Texas, it happens) and start accusing him of assuming I'm too weak to open a door. Though... I think this view is really just women shooting themselves in the foot.

Opening a door is common courtesy, it has nothing to do with sexism, imo women who think this come off as paranoid/obsessive.

snip

Opening a door for anyone is common courtesy. Opening a door for only women is being an asshole to men. Refusing to allow a woman to open her own door is belittling of women.

Also, people tend to take only one data point and make assumptions on one's personality. It's terribly unscientific and illogical, but we do it anyways because we hate not making judicial decisions about people.

Just my take on it.

 

[Rufei]

Do not tell me you're one of those nutters who believe that gender is some kind of social construct?

'Gender' is a social construct. It's what the word actually means, if you have ever used the word 'gender' to refer to anything but a social construct, you have misused the word.

As for being a 'nutter', all I can say is that it's the 21st century. You can probably get access to an academic library, read any contemporary text in any of the social sciences and you will come face to face with the realization that many (if not most, or even all) of the things men and women do in any given society are non-essential.

Nutters are people who refuse to accept the prevailing and self-evident explanation in favour of a nonsensical fringe opinion. I really don't think I'm in that position here.

Please define essentiality. Do you mean by the utility in a given action, or are you taking into account irrational factors?

 

[2xDouble]

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

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

Yep. She must've gotten it just for being a woman. There's no way she could've done anything impressive like invent a new field of study, because:

While she did make advances in her field (Like plenty of women are doing), she didn't "invent" anything per se. Like I said before, women are good at adapting to the world men create.

Spoiler: Oh wait...

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

Credit is given where it's due. Always has been.

From that very article:

Her achievements include a theory of radioactivity (a term that she coined), techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two elements, polonium and radium. Under her direction, the world's first studies were conducted into the treatment of neoplasms, using radioactive isotopes.

According to this evidence, Marie Curie created Radiology, the study of radioactivity.

Some people just refuse to listen to the truth.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'd say you're right, but gender has always been defined by the actions of the sexes throughout history.

Which change, are still changing all the time, and are often unrecognisable from one place to another. I don't see you proving your manhood by ejaculating into the mouth of an adolescent boy, yet in some places that's what being a man means (passing on your seed or vital essence to younger men).

So why pretend to be protecting a natural order in which roles are segregated along specific axes which only really made sense in the 1950s?

 

[Illyasviel]

snip

Ohgodohgod why are you going into the theory of education? This is dangerous territory in which I only have light empirical data on (and not actual analysis).

I am aware of most of these things. I also did include a disclaimer that I was skipping entire connecting ideas so I could keep the length down.

A few things I've read have boiled down to similar things you've stated, namely, women are more likely to get discouraged pursuing mathematics or sciences. As to why? Well, schools have been hiring way more female teachers than prior to help encourage female students to participate more actively. It was believed male teachers might be unconsciously discouraging or oppressing female students simply by being male. Not far fetched; when I touched on women in the military as liasons, its for the same reason: commonsense is women are more comfortable speaking to other women. As for validity? Whatever. Classes also now involve more sitting. Because evidently girls learn better in calm environments. Boys, on the other hands, are terrible, rambunctious buggers and generally believed to learn better through doing. True? Maybe, more on that later.

But even with these efforts, among many other efforts, well, we've seen an improvement but we're still a long way from 50 / 50.

And the later parts. Another thing could be just sexism so deeply entrenched that we don't even realize its there. Maybe we are unconsciously ingraining different values into our children which causes them to learn differently. Do boys learn better by doing by nature or is that we just let them dick around more frequently? Nobody knows.

Which is another thing about sexism. Its been around for so long we don't even know what is nature and what is constructed anymore.

As for why go there? Its an important question that confounds our best scientists to this date. Could just take time, like what I said about the lack of women in the upper crust. Who knows.

I'd also like to say I'm a computer scientist. High five!

 

[The_Emperor]

no sexism isn't reversed, both genders get sexism now, I feel sexism against men tends to get overlooked more often sometimes but women and men get it equal portions I find.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

@2xDouble I like how you take my quotes at face-value just to strengthen your own argument. Cute.

Anyways, it's 12 PM now, which means it's time to shower-up and head to work. Peace!

 

[lynnfire]

The problem with these questions is that both sides argue feverishly until either they get annoyed or the thread dies.

Is there really any other kind of thread?

 

[Crazycat690]

In social areas absolutely.

 

[AngloDoom]

Why do we have to put it into one camp or the other?

Society is equally sexist because there are some things men are frowned upon at doing that women can do, and vice-versa. I'm not saying both have it equally tough, because there's really no way in hell to measure this, but I hate when men say "women have it better" because a woman got a job they wanted due to some silly government plan. It's not the same in all jobs and in a lot it's the opposite way around. Just because someone got the job, doesn't mean they'll be treated equally.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Please define essentiality. Do you mean by the utility in a given action, or are you taking into account irrational factors?

Yeah.. looking back I can see how it might have come across like that.

I meant essential as in an 'essentialist' argument, which is basically what this whole crapmire is. It's the idea that there are certain behavioural or social attributes which are common to men and women everywhere and are not influenced by society. It's essential in the sense of the word 'essence', in that it posits people's sex as fundamental to who they are, and that 'who they are' never changes and cannot be socially influenced.

It's a failed argument, basically. There are always human behaviours which don't fit, and thus noone can agree on what the 'essence' actually is, which means it's not essential. If it was essential, it would be universally true and absolutely definitional and would thus be very easy to pin down.

 

[Shadeovblack]

./' ./"./
She got the goooldmine, I got the Shaft. They say they're splittin' it up the middle, then they give her the better haaalf. Well it all sounds kinda funny, but it hurts to much to laugh (hah hah hah) Oh, she got the goldmine, I got the shaft.
./' ./"./



http://youtu.be/oyqe8n-pbqQ

 

[mgirl]

Actually yesterday i was talking to a friend about why lesbianism is more accepted than homosexual males in a community. Its when i realised this: Male sexuality is taught to be disgusting and vulgar. Female sexuality is encouraged, get in touch with an inner you people cry, its ok to be open with your feelings.

Let me just take an example from my own life: the rules generally are that other women are freaked out or disgusted by lesbians, but are indifferent to, or find gay men endearing. This happened quite a lot to me, as I had a gay male friend that made lots of female friends, but the same women didnt really like me BECAUSE I was gay.

Homosexuality is sometimes viewed by men, if it is a man, to be grossm and what you say there holds true, BUT with women, an alarmingly large amount of the men I have known have been under the impression that lesbianism is ok cause it's 'hot'. This pisses me off a great amount, I mean, seriously, this IS NOT OK. I've had guys assume that I'm with a girl for their fucking benefit, so they can enjoy the 'sights'! Since when should lesbianism be a fucking spectator sport?? Because porn says so???

Eh, and so far as the 'female sexuality is encouraged' thing, yeah, bullshit. At least in my circumstances. I hid who I was thoughout high school, because things were bad enough with bullying as it was, and I didn't want to give them more ammo. I've been taught that the things I should want are a traditional family, and that's so ingrained, it actually bothers me that I can't have that. That, on top of dealing with people who actually shout at you on the street, calling you sick, and you know what? That's proof enough for me that it's definately NOT encouraged.

Just as a disclaimer, that wasn't a personal attack on you, at all, I just needed to get the point across. Rant over.

EDIT: Just making it a bit less angry... a bit

 

[imnot]

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


So no. The tables have not turned.

Im not sure thats technically sexism, but I could be wrong. If they are abusing the woman than I see no reason why they wouldnt do the same to a man. (Dont get me wrong Im not defending the dicks)

EDIT: By dicks I mean the men not the women geting abused, just to avoid any confusion)

 

[MGlBlaze]

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.

Rights of parenthood, full stop. Especially in cases where the man has been the primary carer, and became a 'househusband' because it 1) made financial sense and 2) both agreed to it. A shocking amount of the time the woman appears to loose respect for the man and ends up in divorce. A lot of the time the man only gets to see their child only once every other weekend. One particularly lucky man I read about managed to get a 50/50 split.

 

[DaedalusIcarus]

Yes, I'd certainly say so by now.

I won't pretend that *everything* is in their favour, for example, there's still a slight gap in salaries in my country, but that may as well be attributed to the fact that men are more aggressive when negotiating the terms of their employ than their female counterparts.


But here's a fun example of "equal rights" for you guys:
In Norway, they apparently enacted a law which established a quota which meant that a minimum of 40% of the board of directors of a company should be female.

In Denmark, we are now toying with the same idea, in fact, two of the parties which just won the election would like to enact the very same law.

Around 2008, only 5% of the boardroom members were female in this country and should the legislation pass, that means a gap of 35% needs to be covered by 2015, essentially meaning a lot of males will need to be laid off or have their career derailed by some notion of "equality" while at the same time, companies need to find a lot of females to promote to leadership positions which must necessarily mean promoting a lot of inexperienced people as they haven't been at the very top.

To me, it spells disaster as well as being a clear case of government-backed gender-based discrimination.

Do I think 5% female representation is enough ? Probably not, I'd like to see more, but I'd prefer society acknowledging that certain things take time - we've essentially become an equal society, but that wasn't the case when most of the present leaders started their careers. I'm sure that, given time, the gender distribution at the company top will even itself out - I'm very much concerned at this "over night" approach to things.

 

[Vault101]

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.

judging from all your posts ...yeah you kind of are misoganistic..and I doubt you would really try and see the other point of veiw

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Actually yesterday i was talking to a friend about why lesbianism is more accepted than homosexual males in a community. Its when i realised this: Male sexuality is taught to be disgusting and vulgar. Female sexuality is encouraged, get in touch with an inner you people cry, its ok to be open with your feelings.

Please don't talk about the stuggles of lesbians and gays unless you understand them.

Let me just take an example from my own life: the rules generally are that other women are freaked out or disgusted by lesbians, but are indifferent to, or find gay men endearing. This happened quite a lot to me, as I had a gay male friend that made lots of female friends, but the same women didnt really like me BECAUSE I was gay.

Homosexuality is sometimes viewed by men, if it is a man, to be grossm and what you say there holds true, BUT with women, an alarmingly large amount of the men I have known have been under the impression that lesbianism is ok cause it's 'hot'. This pisses me off a great amount, I mean, seriously, this IS NOT OK. I've had guys assume that I'm with a girl for their fucking benefit, so they can enjoy the 'sights'! Since when should lesbianism be a fucking spectator sport?? Because porn says so???

Eh, and so far as the 'female sexuality is encouraged' thing, yeah, bullshit. At least in my circumstances. I hid who I was thoughout high school, because things were bad enough with bullying as it was, and I didn't want to give them more ammo. I've been taught that the things I should want are a traditional family, and that's so ingrained, it actually bothers me that I can't have that. That, on top of dealing with people who actually shout at you on the street, calling you sick, and you know what? That's proof enough for me that it's definately NOT encouraged.

Just as a disclaimer, that wasn't a personal attack on you, at all, I just needed to get the point across. Rant over.

My best friend is gay. I have another friend who is also a lesbian. The homophobia in my school has only ever been directed at him, ive helped him come out to his parents and the school because thats what he wanted to do, the girl also. However i only ever find myself defending him, not her. Its odd really, the girl was told what she did was brave by most people and my friend got very little support, and is infact made fun of by some who i then track down and barate. I do understand, im talking from my experiences.