Ten Things Men Can Do To End Sexism and Male Violence Against Women

[nola]

1. Understand how your own attitudes and actions perpetuate sexism and violence and work towards changing them. Examples: pressuring a woman to have sex, taunting or whistling at women, embarrassing women in public, controlling women by using threatening gestures, outshouting women, blocking doorways, intimidation, name-calling, mocking, ridiculing, accusing, trivializing.

2. Confront sexist, racist, homophobic and other bigoted remarks and jokes.

3. Recognize and speak out against homophobia and gay-bashing. Discrimination against gays is wrong and it directly linked to sexism. Men who speak out against sexism are often subject to homophobic abuse- one reason why so few men do.

4. Fight for increased funding for battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers. Volunteer where men are needed, in public schools, youth outreach programs and political lobby groups. Contact local shelters and crisis centers to inquire about volunteer opportunities.

5. Don't fund sexism. Don't purchse any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media.

6. Support candidates for political office who are committed to the full social, economic and political equality of women. Actively oppose candidates who are not.

7. Read about yourself. Read about masculinity, gender inequality and the root causes of sexual violence. Educate yourself and others about the connections between larger social forces and the conflicts between individual women and men. Suggested readings: Boys Will Be Boys by M. Miedzian, Men's Work: How to Stop the Violence that Tears Our Lives Apart, Manhood in the Making by D. Gilmore, Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity, Refusing to be a Man by John Stoltenberg.

8. Propose curriculum changes which mandate courses and programs dealing with sexism and sexual violence. Urge coaches of boys and men's teams to require their players to attend workshops and seminars on sexism and male violence against women.

9. Organize or join a group of men to work against sexism and violence. Contact local anti-sexist men's organizations for resources and support.

10. Support feminists who are at the forefront in working to end all forms of violence against children, women and men. Commit yourself to ending oppression in all its forms.

[TB4000]

See, these things are suggested under the impression that we as guys don't care what other guys think. I'm not saying it's not an idiotic way to live, as many of us don't care, but too many of us do.

[nola]

If you do these things, the coolest girls in school will want to date you. Wouldn't that impress the guys?

Is it just me or are the hottest guys the ones who do the things on this list?

[kasia]

1. Understand how your own attitudes and actions perpetuate sexism and violence and work towards changing them. Examples: pressuring a woman to have sex, taunting or whistling at women, embarrassing women in public, controlling women by using threatening gestures, outshouting women, blocking doorways, intimidation, name-calling, mocking, ridiculing, accusing, trivializing.

2. Confront sexist, racist, homophobic and other bigoted remarks and jokes.

3. Recognize and speak out against homophobia and gay-bashing. Discrimination against gays is wrong and it directly linked to sexism. Men who speak out against sexism are often subject to homophobic abuse- one reason why so few men do.

4. Fight for increased funding for battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers. Volunteer where men are needed, in public schools, youth outreach programs and political lobby groups. Contact local shelters and crisis centers to inquire about volunteer opportunities.

5. Don't fund sexism. Don't purchse any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media.

6. Support candidates for political office who are committed to the full social, economic and political equality of women. Actively oppose candidates who are not.

7. Read about yourself. Read about masculinity, gender inequality and the root causes of sexual violence. Educate yourself and others about the connections between larger social forces and the conflicts between individual women and men. Suggested readings: Boys Will Be Boys by M. Miedzian, Men's Work: How to Stop the Violence that Tears Our Lives Apart, Manhood in the Making by D. Gilmore, Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity, Refusing to be a Man by John Stoltenberg.

8. Propose curriculum changes which mandate courses and programs dealing with sexism and sexual violence. Urge coaches of boys and men's teams to require their players to attend workshops and seminars on sexism and male violence against women.

9. Organize or join a group of men to work against sexism and violence. Contact local anti-sexist men's organizations for resources and support.

10. Support feminists who are at the forefront in working to end all forms of violence against children, women and men. Commit yourself to ending oppression in all its forms.

you know what's hilarious? your list is somewhat long, but it can really be summarized into four words: be a decent person.

[BeTheReds]

5. Don't fund sexism. Don't purchse any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media.


HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA!

I'm sorry, but that's never ever going to happen. For that to happen, you'd have an easier time convincing women not to take part in the creation of such materials.

[Mr.Lum]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA!

I'm sorry, but that's never ever going to happen. For that to happen, you'd have an easier time convincing women not to take part in the creation of such materials.

true. very true.

If you do these things, the coolest girls in school will want to date you. Wouldn't that impress the guys?

I notice that assholes get lots of "cool" girls. I prefer not so 'cool" girls to date, as they are usualy not so hoified and used up. "cool" girls are sheep. they like assholes. not so cool is where its at. :wink:

[Hiroshi2]

[QUOTE=nola]If you do these things, the coolest girls in school will want to date you. Wouldn't that impress the guys?[QUOTE]




Yeah but since the guys that girls want the most are the ones who *don't* do things on this list and as a matter of fact, often do the exact opposite, most guys aren't going to listen to stuff like this. Believe me, if dudes thought they could get more chicks by doing this stuff, all of the feminist organizations would have male members joining left and right, guys would be holding doors all day for women, etc.

[kitty]

5. Don't fund sexism. Don't purchse any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media.

This one is impossible to do. Unless you want to live under a pop culture rock.

Personally, I think it misses the crucial take-home message -- remember that men and women are equal. The list seems a little bent on the 'women are superior' idea.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I notice that assholes get lots of "cool" girls. I prefer not so 'cool" girls to date, as they are usualy not so hoified and used up. "cool" girls are sheep. they like assholes. not so cool is where its at. :wink:

The problem here is that society deems loud macho farting musclehead bad boys as desirable and attractive despite the fact that obviously it would be beneficial for the masses to act like a decent person. As people mature, their outlook and preferences undoubtedly change, of course. But anyways, good-looking or rich guys who have no problem getting girls in such a superficial society also tend to become overconfident and often assholish, or they become overprotective of their assets (looks or money) and become insecure and once again, often assholish. It doesn't really have much to do with the fact that being a decent person is undesirable to women. The traits of decency and selflessness should still be aspired towards nonethless in my opinion.

[kitty]

true. very true.



I notice that assholes get lots of "cool" girls. I prefer not so 'cool" girls to date, as they are usualy not so hoified and used up. "cool" girls are sheep. they like assholes. not so cool is where its at. :wink:


"used up"?

[kasia]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA!

I'm sorry, but that's never ever going to happen. For that to happen, you'd have an easier time convincing women not to take part in the creation of such materials.

i see your point. however, can't you liken that to saying that we shouldn't ask whites not to watch racially insensitive films and should rather focus our time convincing fellow asians not to take roles in them? why can't we do both? and why is it funny? i don't find the idea that it is acceptable to treat women in a violent or sexually degrading manner particularly funny.

This one is impossible to do. Unless you want to live under a pop culture rock.

Personally, I think it misses the crucial take-home message -- remember that men and women are equal. The list seems a little bent on the 'women are superior' idea.

can you please explain? i seriously don't believe that we would be missing much if we weren't exposed to porn in which women are being abused and raped.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Sorry, but that's never ever going to happen. For that to happen, you'd have an easier time convincing women not to take part in the creation of such materials.

Many women are willing to partake in the creation of such materials simply because that is how society teaches women to be of any worth - to ooze sexuality and be desired by all men. Whereas men can latch onto a variety of other things and what is measured as success is a lot more broad, such as money, music, attitude, etc. I'm not gonna lie, I appreciate hot women just as much as any other guy, but there's a reason why us guys don't have to live up to the same extend of standards at least in the area of physical sex appeal.

[kitty]

can you please explain? i seriously don't believe that we would be missing much if we weren't exposed to porn in which women are being abused and raped.

of course not, but think about if we don't "purchse any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media".

Sexism in the media includes hip hop and many pop videos on MTV. That includes most if not all magazines geared mainly towards fashion, cosmetics, Hollywood stars, etc. Many movies portray hyper-feminized 'princess' female characters. A lot of commercials use beautiful women to sell their products.

Basically, I see pop culture practically inundated with sexism. Boycotting porn is all well and good, but sexism in the media sure as hell doesn't end there. If you're gonna boycott porn, you might as well boycott them all (since I would argue that having magazines like cosmo and teen people which all feature impossibly unhealthy role models and latest fad diets are just as if not more harmful towards women than porn).

Is the movie 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' less sexist than porn -- or simply less shocking?

I'm not saying give up and don't protest. I'm saying boycotting sexist media is impossible.

I'm sorry, but that's never ever going to happen. For that to happen, you'd have an easier time convincing women not to take part in the creation of such materials.

I have to argue with this. This seems to imply that it's the women's fault that sexist material is out there in the media.

[kasia]

of course not, but think about if we don't "purchse any magazine, rent any video or buy any piece of music that portrays women in a sexually degrading or violent manner. Protest sexism in the media".

Sexism in the media includes hip hop and many pop videos on MTV. That includes most if not all magazines geared mainly towards fashion, cosmetics, Hollywood stars, etc. Many movies portray hyper-feminized 'princess' female characters. A lot of commercials use beautiful women to sell their products.

Basically, I see pop culture practically inundated with sexism. Boycotting porn is all well and good, but sexism in the media sure as hell doesn't end there. If you're gonna boycott porn, you might as well boycott them all (since I would argue that having magazines like cosmo and teen people which all feature impossibly unhealthy role models and latest fad diets are just as if not more harmful towards women than porn).

Is the movie 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' less sexist than porn -- or simply less shocking?

I'm not saying give up and don't protest. I'm saying boycotting sexist media is impossible.

interesting points. i think, then, that we differ because you are defining sexism much more broadly here - which i can admire. my only response would be that we should boycott all of those things that you mentioned - teen mags, cosmo, movies such as confessions of the teenage drama queen, etc. is it really your belief, however, that such movies are just as sexist as violent porn videos? i can see how they're both sexist - i'm just not convinced that they are equally sexist or that the violent porn videos wouldn't lead to more harmful consequences.

[DragonKnight]

Fine, stop treating *us* like the racks of meat that we are...*cough*, I mean you portray us to be! :mad:

Rich, "j/k btw, I'll think of something more meaningful to post after my online midterm" :tongue:

[Seamus]

interesting points. i think, then, that we differ because you are defining sexism much more broadly here - which i can admire. my only response would be that we should boycott all of those things that you mentioned - teen mags, cosmo, movies such as confessions of the teenage drama queen, etc. is it really your belief, however, that such movies are just as sexist as violent porn videos? i can see how they're both sexist - i'm just not convinced that they are equally sexist or that the violent porn videos wouldn't lead to more harmful consequences.

Admittedly, I haven't read this entire thread, but I do believe that both women and men are 'objectified' in our society. (I thought of this as I was at the mall yesterday, being assaulted by huge homoerotic half-naked posters at Abercrombie and Fich.) Both women and men are certainly objectified for their bodies and sexual potential (I KNOW women talk about men's body parts and not just about our personalities or moral character--though they may say otherwise). In addition, men are also objectified for things like power and earning capacity, both of which are divorced from the agency and humanness of a man.

Also, I see nothing wrong with porn as long as doesn't depict any sort of violence or other harm being done to its willing participants. It just so happens that men tend to enjoy porn more because we tend to more visual, but this doesn't make porn intrinsically "sexist."

I think most violence against women is committed by messed up men who cannot relate well to either women in general or in particular for whatever reason, and therefore take out their feelings of inadequacy and anger on specific women. I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but such violence would certainly go away if men and women learned how how to relate to each other better. And one thing that certainly does not improve things is angry sexist verbal assaults against the either sex, as is commonly practised by certain feminists of the more extreme variety. Just my 2p.

I used to have serious anger management issues, though I've gotten better as I've gotten older. I would break chairs, throw myself against walls, etc. Somehow I had enough presence of mind to not hit people, but rest assured that the temptation to batter and rape when men are frustrated with women lies dormant in many males. It doesn't make it right. It is completely wrong, but that is the sad fact. I'm really glad that I haven't done anything I regret, and that I'm dealing better with my anger issues these days.

[kitty]

well, I believe they are because they cultivate the perception that there are certainly 'womanly' behaviour, domains, and self-images. Cosmo and the like emphasize weight loss plans, fashion and cosmetics. This is all pandering to a patriarchical system and very few of these mags talk about careers and success as a self-sufficient woman.

Mostly, it is young women who are picking up these sorts of magazines, and watching movies like 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' (which is basically glorifying clothes and dreaming about boys for prepubescent girls). It cultivates a self-image that convinces young girls that there are some things they should worry about -- their weight, looking pretty, dating -- and some things they shouldn't, like education, careers, etc.

To me it is more demeaning to see the 'feminist' movies like Against the Ropes which still must have a female protagonist accomplishing a boxing first worry about dating, looking pretty, and acting coy and sexy to get by in a man's world. It helps further ideas that women *want* to be treated unequally -- well, sure they will want to be worried about dating and child-rearing if you tell them that's all their really good for.

This really came to a head for me when I stopped at a grocery store to look at the racks of magazines. (I highly suggest you guys do this if you get a chance). EVERY 'woman's magazine had a coverpage headline that involved weight loss and beauty tips. What is this telling today's women, and isn't it more subversive than porn? It's mysoginy being fed to women under the guise of harmless coffee table reading.

So, to me, to say 'let's boycott all sexist media' is ridiculous... it's impossible. Sexist media is there when you go grocery shopping, when you turn on the TV, or if you want to watch pretty much any movie or listen to any song. Instead, I think the best way for men and women to protest sexism in the media is to be able to recognize it -- and challenge it, if only in your own mind.

[Seamus]

This really came to a head for me when I stopped at a grocery store to look at the racks of magazines. (I highly suggest you guys do this if you get a chance). EVERY 'woman's magazine had a coverpage headline that involved weight loss and beauty tips. What is this telling today's women, and isn't it more subversive than porn? It's mysoginy being fed to women under the guise of harmless coffee table reading.

Just a random thought. Women are taught to make themselves beautiful. (though increasingly, men are as well. Just pick up any men's magazine). Men are taught to pursue money and power. Which is worse? Neither beauty, nor money and power, is per se evil, but any of these can become an evil if the act of pursuing them trumps everything else. Ideally, we'd all be conditioned to be responsible, kind, courageous and generous people, but they are certainly not messages that can easily be conveyed through our cultural artifacts. People have to take responsibility for the quality of their own characters and not blame the media. I'm not saying that the media do not have a huge impact on how people think, just that cleaning up the media would not automatically make us all better, happier people.

[DragonKnight]

Somehow I had enough presence of mind to not hit people, but rest assured that the temptation to batter and rape when men are frustrated with women lies dormant in many males. It doesn't make it right. It is completely wrong, but that is the sad fact.
Whoa, when is this a fact? I've had my frustrations about women but it has NEVER crossed my mind to batter and rape. Granted I've never had much access to the darker parts of my homies' subconscious and desires, but this is disturbing that you said 'many men' has this temptation lying dormant in them.

[kitty]

Basically... you have free choice so it's your fault for falling into what media wants you to perceive yourself as? Well, easier said than done if your ability for free choice is never cultivated when you're innundated constantly with definitions of who you should be and how you should act. How would you ever know to question it?

And as far as comparing what is expected of men and women -- I hardly think you can compare being expected to be successful and financially independent with being a wife, childrearer, and sex object. For women, that's pretty much what you're expected to do -- where is room for women to express herself as intelligent and independent in that kind of stereotype?

[Seamus]

Basically... you have free choice so it's your fault for falling into what media wants you to perceive yourself as? Well, easier said than done if your ability for free choice is never cultivated when you're innundated constantly with definitions of who you should be and how you should act. How would you ever know to question it?

And as far as comparing what is expected of men and women -- I hardly think you can compare being expected to be successful and financially independent with being a wife, childrearer, and sex object. For women, that's pretty much what you're expected to do -- where is room for women to express herself as intelligent and independent in that kind of stereotype?

I'll concede that the things that men and women are ostensibly conditioned to pursue ARE qualitatively different. I just wanted to emphasize that beauty, wealth and power are all GOOD THINGS, and only become evil when we go to extremes. Insofar as that beauty is put on a higher pedestal for women compared to degree to which we elevate the pursuit of wealth and power for men, then women do indeed have a bigger problem than men.

Whoa, when is this a fact? I've had my frustrations about women but it has NEVER crossed my mind to batter and rape. Granted I've never had much access to the darker parts of my homies' subconscious and desires, but this is disturbing that you said 'many men' has this temptation lying dormant in them.

No, it's not a fact. But I am referring exactly to these spooky, darker subconscious things. I don't have solid proof to back this up, but I think we all have the potential for great evil. I have never hit a female, except my much older sister up to when I was nine or ten, but the thought DOES cross your mind just as when you're standing on a subway platform, you often wonder just what it would be like to jump. It's not like I would ever act out on it. So maybe "temptation" was the wrong word for me to use.

By the way, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket are two of my favorite movies.

[kitty]

I don't think the problem with being told to pursue beauty and childrearing is bad because they are bad goals... merely that being told that should be your main goal in life is negative because they subconsciously constrict women from having more self-sufficient goals, and discourages them from being intellectually independent. It basically ties them to certain life goals that aren't empowering. There's nothing wrong with being beauitful, there's something wrong if beauty is all you're told to care about.

incidentally, has anyone seen the new nelly video?

[Seamus]

I don't think the problem with being told to pursue beauty and childrearing is bad because they are bad goals... merely that being told that should be your main goal in life is negative because they subconsciously constrict women from having more self-sufficient goals, and discourages them from being intellectually independent. It basically ties them to certain life goals that aren't empowering. There's nothing wrong with being beauitful, there's something wrong if beauty is all you're told to care about.

Yes, I agree with everything you just said. But I still stand by my assertion that people have free will. And even though every one of us is undoubtedly biassed by the messages we receive from society, it's still our own damn fault.

Anyway, I have to go do some work now, so I can't continue participating in this debate. Thank you all, for raising some important issues.

[Kuchana]

No, it's not a fact. But I am referring exactly to these spooky, darker subconscious things. I don't have solid proof to back this up, but I think we all have the potential for great evil. I have never hit a female, except my much older sister up to when I was nine or ten, but the thought DOES cross your mind just as when you're standing on a subway platform, you often wonder just what it would be like to jump. It's not like I would ever act out on it. So maybe "temptation" was the wrong word for me to use.

No I think you used the correct word to use with temptation. To tempt is the possibility to sin. I agree that all of us has the capibility to committ evil acts. We may think that we don't but it lies inherent in us, it's just left up to the individual whether to exercise those desires or not. Every man(woman) has a carnal side to them.

[BeTheReds]

and why is it funny? i don't find the idea that it is acceptable to treat women in a violent or sexually degrading manner particularly funny.


It's funny because it's basically saying that people shouldn't pay any attention to anything in the media. Every magazine you buy is gonna have sexy women in it, and ever TV show will have commericals which will try to use sex to sell stuff. Every woman's role will be considered to be sexually degrading to someone.


can you please explain? i seriously don't believe that we would be missing much if we weren't exposed to porn in which women are being abused and raped.

So, you mean only porn with rape scenarios is sexually degrading? Most people who say that porn is degrading consider any kind of porn to be such.

So basically you're saying that its okay to be a little sexist

[kitty]

Yes, I agree with everything you just said. But I still stand by my assertion that people have free will. And even though every one of us is undoubtedly biassed by the messages we receive from society, it's still our own damn fault.


Everyone has free will but not everyone is able to perceive the choice.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

People can pretty much argue that mainstream society overall is degrading towards women as a result of deeply rooted perceptions since the dawn of mankind arising from division of labor. Since natural differences between the sexes placed the woman as doing more work in the household (private work) and men as doing more work outside of the house (public work), despite the fact that all duties were equally important to the upkeep of society, because men's jobs were public, more value was attached to them and their duties were deemed as superior. Over time, this superiority and inferiority was attached to men and women themselves, establishing and reinforcing the ideologies that prevail in the environment we live in today.

This misplaced perception of one sex's superiority over the other simply due to what they are better at doing is one of my main arguments I use in saying that Christianity does not contradict feminism, but enough of that, I don't wanna get into it here since it's already been discussed in the past.

[kitty]

why are women naturally more adapted for childrearing or playing housewife? I'm sorry, I lost the logic...

[Kuchana]

why are women naturally more adapted for childrearing or playing housewife? I'm sorry, I lost the logic...

because we are the ones who possess the ability to have children?? :smile:
hmm...but on a more serious note, because we possess a nurturing side that men in general lack.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

why are women naturally more adapted for childrearing or playing housewife? I'm sorry, I lost the logic...

Man are naturally bigger, have more muscle mass, and generally have better overall athletic or physical capability excluding a few categories considered in the area of measuring fitness such as aerobic capacity and flexibility. Since women are obviously born with the innate capability to bear children and I believe also have an innate tendency towards being more nurturing and not so aggressive, ancient civilizations realized that men were more suited to go out, travel, wander, maintain relations with other tribes or groups, immerse themselves into political issues, etc. whereas women were more suited to stay at home and take care of the children. This separation of duties in itself was not a bad thing, it was basically just in my opinion a practical system of labor division. However, over time, the perception became engrained that since the duties of men were public, their duties were more valued and deemed superior, despite the fact that rearing children, housework (much of what holds up societies even though you can't attach a dollar amount to it in today's capitalist network) is just as important, if not more, than anything that men did. Since the duties of men were deemed superior to the duties of women, the idea that men were innately superior to women also flourished. Much of global society in general today is spawned and branched from this process described above, thus the prevailing of the oppression and overall unfair treatment and perception towards women today all over the world.

Just wanted to add to the post above that furthermore, the common perception that women are not suited for politics or political activity today is inextricably linked to the idea that women are not suited for public duties involving interaction. Although nowadays, physical prowess is no longer a necessary trait among those involved in such 'superior' activities, obviously you can see how this type of perpetuated ideology that women are better at home and men are better outside of the home has affected how both men and women view women in positions of political and social influence and power today.

[kitty]

because we are the ones who possess the ability to have children?? :smile:
hmm...but on a more serious note, because we possess a nurturing side that men in general lack.

but ... are you sure that that's biological or natural? or something that men say to keep women happy in being oppressed?

What came first -- the nurturing behaviour or the culture that raised the girl to believe she should be nurturing?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

but ... are you sure that that's biological or natural? or something that men say to keep women happy in being oppressed?

What came first -- the nurturing behaviour or the culture that raised the girl to believe she should be nurturing?

I do believe that women are naturally more nurturing and not as aggressive. The problem is the perception that nurturing attitudes are inferior to aggressive attitudes.

One story talks about a boy who was raised completely as a girl from birth due to a botched circumcision. It did not turn out well. The individual suffered many problems while growing up, and after coming out and revealing his story as an adult, he professed that he realized all along that he was a boy, and he couldn't help but feel that there was something wrong, even despite the fact that he had no penis, and that he was raised in an environment which taught and reinforced him with values meant to be embraced by the female sex.

[kitty]

well yeah, but does that have to do with being biologically nurturing?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

well yeah, but does that have to do with being biologically nurturing?

The point is that scientific studies show that men and women are innately and genetically different, and that such differences are undeniable, such as a man's tendency to be more aggressive and a woman's tendency to be more nurturing.

It's not that men keep telling women that women are supposed to be naturally nurturing which keeps women oppressed. It's the fact that men keep telling women (and themselves) that because a woman is more naturally nurturing and a man is more naturally aggressive, a man is superior. The genetic and innate differences between men and women are misinterpreted and perceived as proof of a male's higher place in the hierarchy. That is the cause for concern.

[Green_Circle]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA!

I'm sorry, but that's never ever going to happen. For that to happen, you'd have an easier time convincing women not to take part in the creation of such materials.

I have to say, I never bought any girlie type mags or spend any time looking at porn. But sometimes girls would think that that was sort of odd or at least different than a lot of guys.

[Mr.Lum]

"used up"?

they hoes. nasty. got if from everybody.

[PropellerheadCP]

interesting points. i think, then, that we differ because you are defining sexism much more broadly here - which i can admire. my only response would be that we should boycott all of those things that you mentioned - teen mags, cosmo, movies such as confessions of the teenage drama queen, etc. is it really your belief, however, that such movies are just as sexist as violent porn videos? i can see how they're both sexist - i'm just not convinced that they are equally sexist or that the violent porn videos wouldn't lead to more harmful consequences.

I'm not convinced that porn is the ultimate gateway to violent sexual crimes. There are too many variables that contribute to dementia and porn is more like the initial symtoms, rather than cause for the illness.

There aren't a lot of strong, confident men who commit violent sexual crimes. It's usually the ones who suffered mental abuse; be it the father, the mother or simply being rejected a few too many times by women, that lead to the development of twisted desires.
Keeping in mind, of course, that confidence and egotistical are VERY different, so don't mix them up.

A man's/boy's initial source of his sexual fantasies is a huge contributing factor. For most, in North American society, it comes from magazines, TV, films, or any other easily accessable source of media. Sometimes kids get their hands on porn, but it's not really that bad (my first exposer to porn was when I was 8... I didn't even know what I was looking at). Unless if it's like an S&M video or something like that.
Sometimes the source material sends mixed messages. For instance, how in B movies, there may be a lot of sexually provocative images, that are mixed with ultra violent events. However, that alone definitely will not lead directly to such crimes.

The greatest contributing factor is actually biological, which no one has really considered, in this thread. Everyone has chemicals in their brains that act like a conscience, which stops them from doing socially unacceptable things. So, if certain limits have been "programmed" into a person's brain, all is fine. However, for some, either the initial programming's not there, or the people are lacking certain chemicals in their heads.
Chemicals + initial source of sexual fantasy + damage to ego/pride = violent sexual crimes. Well... sometimes. There are still more factors, but I gotta go to work and can't continue this.

Actually, porn, at a certain level, isn't as bad as people think. Some "experts" (no one is really an expert when it comes to mental health) consider them to be healthy, as long as it only features basic sexual acts and doesn't stray into other extreme areas (slapping, hairpulling...etc. or worse).

[Fireblade]

Well, one of the few things that can be done is to communicate with the other sex on a regular basis. One of the few reasons why there is violent crime against women, is that guys will claim that none of them gave them the "time of day". Errm, which is basically an excuse for "i was too shy to talk to them, and when I tried, they rejected me so I labeled her a bitch". If there was more communication with both sexes, I do believe that a lot of myths would be dispelled, and a lot more people would look at either sex as human beings, rather than just simply men and women.

[nola]

I pretty much haven't purchased or watched anything with sexist content for ten years now. I know progressive men and women who don't either.

[kitty]

I pretty much haven't purchased or watched anything with sexist content for ten years now. I know progressive men and women who don't either.

What do you watch or purchase? I'm curious because I can't think of a single bra supplier that doesn't promote sexist imagery. I can't think of a TV show that doesn't have sexist characterizations. What about MTV?

Hell, even the news is sexist.

[Kuchana]

What do you watch or purchase? I'm curious because I can't think of a single bra supplier that doesn't promote sexist imagery. I can't think of a TV show that doesn't have sexist characterizations. What about MTV?

Hell, even the news is sexist.

True. Everything it seems is sexists
:tongue:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

True. Everything it seems is sexists
:tongue:

That's because virtually everything in our society is either directly or indirectly linked to ideology that was/is arguably very sexist, and this way of thinking was used as a base for the establishment and formation for societies around the globe.

[seanp]

castrate their penises

[achtungbaby]

I like many of the points raised by nola. It's too bad that sometimes we have to be reminded that even in this age of supposed advanced progressiveness, it's easy to forget or overlook just how much sexism permeates our social fabric -- that is, if you happen to define sexism as any sort of objectification of females whatsoever.

But here's where I'd like to appeal to your most militant, feminists constituencies within you: I feel like the points raised are pretty practical, reasonable ones...but honestly, if I was a female and a feminist, I'd have to ask myself: are we (women)
that helpless?

Do we really need men to continue to perform these changes amongst us? Do we deperately need men *that* much...?

[kitty]

I like many of the points raised by nola. It's too bad that sometimes we have to be reminded that even in this age of supposed advanced progressiveness, it's easy to forget or overlook just how much sexism permeates our social fabric -- that is, if you happen to define sexism as any sort of objectification of females whatsoever.

But here's where I'd like to appeal to your most militant, feminists constituencies within you: I feel like the points raised are pretty practical, reasonable ones...but honestly, if I was a female and a feminist, I'd have to ask myself: are we (women)
that helpless?

Do we really need men to continue to perform these changes amongst us? Do we deperately need men *that* much...?

i'm a little confused -- are you asking whether women are as oppressed as we claim? Or if we need men to help carry out social change?

[yoMAMA]

my contribution to gender equality:

[never bought a copy of SI swimsuit, maxim or FHM...and garbage mags such as]

[Napoleon Chynamite]

But here's where I'd like to appeal to your most militant, feminists constituencies within you: I feel like the points raised are pretty practical, reasonable ones...but honestly, if I was a female and a feminist, I'd have to ask myself: are we (women)
that helpless?

Do we really need men to continue to perform these changes amongst us? Do we deperately need men *that* much...?

Well men hold a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth (e.g. economic and political power and influence) in this world compared to women, so it would be ideal, if not crucial, that men were involved or contributed in the process and movement for further change and improvement.

Additionally, oppression of women is also linked to oppression of many other categorized peoples, many of them males. To ignore males in the equation and battle plan is foolish, although perhaps this was not the intended suggestion in your post ^^

[achtungbaby]

i'm a little confused -- are you asking whether women are as oppressed as we claim? Or if we need men to help carry out social change?

The more I consider gender issues lately, the more convinced I am that at this point in time, it'll have to be women to push themselves past any current levels of gender inequality and would probably benefit a lot from being more myopic in their viewpoint and issues. It might be too womyn-centric -- big deal, I say. Don't expect men to look out for your best interests. It's almost akin to how I feel to some extent in dealing with whites and other non-Asians in regards to Asian issues: I assume that they're coming from either a place of misunderstanding or unfamiliarity, I mean, I sure as hell know that I *don't* know some of the things that make them tick.

Well men hold a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth (e.g. economic and political power and influence) in this world compared to women, so it would be ideal, if not crucial, that men were involved or contributed in the process and movement for further change and improvement.

So basically it's up for men to decide whether women will continue to be oppressed? I understand your argument; believe me, if you're around self-professed feminists much, you'll become more familiar with their rationale.

Personally, I wonder if it's possible to conceptually approach these types of issues from a perspective that doesn't chain the fate of women to the benevolence of men...

[nola]

I've avoided sexist movies, books, television shows for ten years, quit reading (sexist) women's magazines a year ago, turn off the TV or the audio when ads are on and pretty much avoid anything toxic. I don't dwell on ads that made me feel inadequate.

Women have to lead women's movement. But men can stop perpetuating sexism the same way whites don't have to perpetuate racism. There's no need to be an activist but there are ways to not perpetutate sexism/racism.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

There's no need to be an activist but there are ways to not perpetutate sexism/racism.

Hmm, well maybe that depends on your definition of 'activist'. There are some who strongly believe that if you aren't actively a part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I'm still sorting out where I stand on that debate.

[tapestrybabe]

Well men hold a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth (e.g. economic and political power and influence) in this world compared to women, so it would be ideal, if not crucial, that men were involved or contributed in the process and movement for further change and improvement.

really?? why does it seem THAT crucial for us women...
to be dependant on men once again... when it comes to our movement...
when it comes to seeking what we want... i say, men are *NOT* that necessary when it comes to working out issues that our important to us women...

i mean, as an asian... i dont consider white ppl that important of a role in helping to define our identity, our movement as an asian group... so as a female, why should i be looking towards males... when it comes to helping define us females... our roles... our movement, what we want, etc...

[Napoleon Chynamite]

really?? why does it seem THAT crucial for us women...
to be dependant on men once again... when it comes to our movement...
when it comes to seeking what we want... i say, men are *NOT* that necessary when it comes to working out issues that our important to us women...

i mean, as an asian... i dont consider white ppl that important of a role in helping to define our identity, our movement as an asian group... so as a female, why should i be looking towards males... when it comes to helping define us females... our roles... our movement, what we want, etc...

I don't think females NEED males, but just like how Asian Americans don't NEED whites to become aware of what the heck is going on, it sure friggin' does help, and I still feel that although mutual understanding would not be a must for some type of improvement or leveling of the playing field, I do believe that there has to be definitely some of that going on if the end goal of equality between the sexes or racial groups is even remotely neared. We'd be lying our asses off if most of us here said they didn't give a shit whether or not most whites were completely ignorant to the existence and process/mechanics of oppression in our society.

Yes, women alone, if provided with the proper awareness and education and motivation, can easily bring about change in our society. However, complete intended change in my opinion without the advocacy and awareness and motivation of men (especially men in power) would be near impossible, if not impossible. Not unlike the Civil Rights Movement, I doubt the fruits reaped from such an era would not be what they are today had there been absolutely no awareness or support among whites, despite the fact that a vast room for improvement still exists.

[nola]

QUOTE (Gumby):I don't think females NEED males, but just like how Asian Americans don't NEED whites to become aware of what the heck is going on, it sure friggin' does help, and I still feel that although mutual understanding would not be a must for some type of improvement or leveling of the playing field, I do believe that there has to be definitely some of that going on if the end goal of equality between the sexes or racial groups is even remotely neared. We'd be lying our asses off if most of us here didn't give a shit whether or not most whites were completely ignorant to the existence and process/mechanics of oppression in our society.



Hey, I agree that it friggin' does help tho women need to do most of the organizing.

[nameless]

Don't mean to bring up old points but...


One story talks about a boy who was raised completely as a girl from birth due to a botched circumcision. It did not turn out well. The individual suffered many problems while growing up, and after coming out and revealing his story as an adult, he professed that he realized all along that he was a boy, and he couldn't help but feel that there was something wrong, even despite the fact that he had no penis, and that he was raised in an environment which taught and reinforced him with values meant to be embraced by the female sex.

I also read about this situation for a class recently. While this one case seems to support biological determinism of gender roles (specifically women as nurturers), there are a lot of others that contradict it...for example, girls that grow up as tomboys or lesbians...or cases of hermaphrodism and Turner's Syndrome which, though genetically asexual or having dual sexuality, can result in the person turning out to act either male or female (when they 'should be' neither / both). There may be a tendency for males and females to generally act the way they do, but I don't think either sex possesses attributes that the other can't learn given the chance.

It's not that men keep telling women that women are supposed to be naturally nurturing which keeps women oppressed.

I disagree. Telling women that they are naturally nurturers is in fact oppressive, because it implys that they should not (or rather can not) do otherwise, causing their places in society to be limited to mothers in the home. And, since our capitalistic society puts more bearing on one's economic ability, women are fated to be seen as either 'just homemakers' or some manly independent feminist. I don't even have to get into how this thinking hurts women in the job market...

[kitty]

I've avoided sexist movies, books, television shows for ten years, quit reading (sexist) women's magazines a year ago, turn off the TV or the audio when ads are on and pretty much avoid anything toxic. I don't dwell on ads that made me feel inadequate.

Women have to lead women's movement. But men can stop perpetuating sexism the same way whites don't have to perpetuate racism. There's no need to be an activist but there are ways to not perpetutate sexism/racism.

my question is what TV and movies do you watch?

[Kuchana]

my question is what TV and movies do you watch?

yeah seriously. i'm curious to know as well.

[kitty]

The more I consider gender issues lately, the more convinced I am that at this point in time, it'll have to be women to push themselves past any current levels of gender inequality and would probably benefit a lot from being more myopic in their viewpoint and issues. It might be too womyn-centric -- big deal, I say. Don't expect men to look out for your best interests. It's almost akin to how I feel to some extent in dealing with whites and other non-Asians in regards to Asian issues: I assume that they're coming from either a place of misunderstanding or unfamiliarity, I mean, I sure as hell know that I *don't* know some of the things that make them tick.



oh... then I agree with you :) Although I don't think men should then use this excuse to say that women are doing it to themselves.

[Tao]

stopping male sexism is easy...cut off our balls. no testosterone = mild mannered bruce banner instead of incredible hulk

[Kuchana]

stopping male sexism is easy...cut off our balls. no testosterone = mild mannered bruce banner instead of incredible hulk

yeah but what does that say about a man who can't perform sexually yet still has his package intact?

does having that package really define a man's masculinity???

[Tao]

yeah but what does that say about a man who can't perform sexually yet still has his package intact?

does having that package really define a man's masculinity???
yes, yes it does.

you can always use a vibrator...i don't know, i'm just thinking out loud here

hey, world peace comes with a price :wink:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I disagree. Telling women that they are naturally nurturers is in fact oppressive, because it implys that they should not (or rather can not) do otherwise, causing their places in society to be limited to mothers in the home. And, since our capitalistic society puts more bearing on one's economic ability, women are fated to be seen as either 'just homemakers' or some manly independent feminist. I don't even have to get into how this thinking hurts women in the job market...

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear...^^

1) Ok first of all, telling women that they are naturally nurturers may reinforce gender roles, yes, and in essence keep women down, but that is because society already has this perception that the role of the nurturer is inferior to the role of what has been traditionally assigned to men, which is often the initiator, aggressor, and the maintainer of social relations between tribes, groups, and nations in the past and present.

2) Second of all, regardless of objections, I actually do believe that innate genetic differences in men and women make most women naturally better nurturers and also cause men to have a tendency to be more aggressive, so therefore telling women that on the whole, women are more nurturing is pretty much true in my eyes and not a lie meant to translate into 'let's tell women they are naturally nurturing so that they won't want to make as much money as us men'. It is however, spouting off what society has engrained in people all throughout their upbringing. Nevertheless, scientific studies indicate undeniable differences between men and women, and to me this is pretty obvious, even if you can argue that you know plenty of 'aggressive' women or 'nurturing' men. However, the problem here is that since the dawn of mankind and the first relegation of duties to both men and women, men were assigned public responsibilities while women's duties were more private, leading to the misconception that public duties were more important, revered, rewarding, challenging, and therefore, superior. Over time, people began to accept the idea that since women's duties were inferior to the duties of men, women in turn were also naturally inferior to men period, despite the fact that entire societies would collapse without female contribution in the area of child-raising, nurturing, and providing overall stability to the family unit.

3) Third of all, undoubtedly the reinforcement and association of certain traits to men and women is 'damaging', but not because they are necessarily false or groundless, but simply because entire nations and societies have developed and maintained an infrastructure and entire industries which greatly reward those who achieve and excel in areas much more accessible naturally for men than for women. Revenue and large dollar amounts are not attached to achievements related to successful child upbringing or the education of young generations for the sake of preparing them for becoming the fathers and mothers of their respective future societies (heck, I would friggin love if we paid our teachers enough to give a shit, since I basically think our public education system is complete garbage), whereas entertainers and athletes (roles requiring physical strength, stamina, aggressiveness, and other male-related traits proven by science) are paid ridiculous 6-figure+ salaries. Societies around the globe have been trained to value success achievable by men, have been trained to demand to be entertained by watching people perform, participate, and win in events requiring aggression, physical strength, and machoness. Where there is demand, there is money. The only way many women are able to receive salaries remotely comparable to that of men is to enter or break into industries largely run by men in the first place like the sex industry or the modeling industry, since every straight man has a penchant for nice ass.

Ultimately, entire systems and structures are built with the idea of male=superior female=inferior in mind, and it is because of this which is the direct cause of female oppression, not the reinforcement of gender roles or not because guys feel that women are more nurturing or sensitive and men are more prone to aggression or violence. The innate variation present is pretty obvious, and most active feminists I have met do not deny these differences and believe that the ignoring or denial of such differences is detrimental towards their overall battle plan towards equality of the sexes. Women have specific needs and natural predispositions on the whole, as do men. Such is life :smile:

Not sure if I got my point across ^^ More on this later if necessary.

[kitty]

well, I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that's really practically applicable to society. I disagree that men and women are biologically more adaptable to one role over another... but if that were the case, how would this do anything but simply say that oppression of women is okay?

and, in light of what nameless submitted, do you have any other scientific studies that you allude to in the above post?

stopping male sexism is easy...cut off our balls. no testosterone = mild mannered bruce banner instead of incredible hulk

that implies that only aggressive men can be sexist. or that only men can be sexist.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

well, I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure how that's really practically applicable to society. I disagree that men and women are biologically more adaptable to one role over another... but if that were the case, how would this do anything but simply say that oppression of women is okay?

and, in light of what nameless submitted, do you have any other scientific studies that you allude to in the above post?



that implies that only aggressive men can be sexist. or that only men can be sexist.

So basically you think that biological differences have basically no merit or effect on how men and women behave, act, and what the ease or difficulty in which they tackle certain challenges or accomplish certain goals? So basically, every man can be raised as a girl from birth and nothing would be different and nothing would matter, and vice versa? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Additionally, my argument never suggests that oppressing women is okay. I said that it is okay for people to assume that women as a whole are naturally more nurturing and men as a whole are naturally more aggressive. It is, however, wrong to say that because women are more nurturing that they are inferior. That is my point.

Regarding scientific studies, I'm sure that the evidence is enormous, but I don't have the links. I will come back with research and evidence to support my argument when I have the time ^^

Edit: Personally if you ask me, my argument might even suggest that the duties traditionally allocated to women (and the excelling of such duties and responsibilities) are superior or at the very least more important than those given to men. IMHO it's more important that our children are molded effectively and correctly so that when they go out into the real world they aren't all messed up, than the responsibility of..say...developing or maintaining public relations with other countries or business entities for the sake of profit. That might be an overgeneralization of how the world works, but hey, businesses and large-ass multibillion dollar corporations dominated by men only exist for a single purpose and that is to make money.

[Tao]

that implies that only aggressive men can be sexist. or that only men can be sexist.
hey stop that! i thought we were man bashing here! :mad:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

that implies that only aggressive men can be sexist. or that only men can be sexist.

Depends on your opinion of 'sexist', much like your opinion of 'racist'. If you think that subordinate groups, since they are the ones getting shafted in society, can't be technically racist, then only white people in America can be racist. Thus in this case, only men could be labeled sexist. However, if you consider being 'racist' or 'sexist' as harboring groundless feelings of contempt, superiority, hatred, or disgust and dislike towards the opposite sex or other races or ethnic groups based on generalizations and lack of effort to actually get to know people and ultimately failing to realize that hate gets you nowhere and basically fucks over society as a whole, then everyone can be either racist or sexist.

[kitty]

So basically you think that biological differences have basically no merit or effect on how men and women behave, act, and what the ease or difficulty in which they tackle certain challenges or accomplish certain goals? So basically, every man can be raised as a girl from birth and nothing would be different and nothing would matter, and vice versa? I find that extremely hard to believe.



No I don't, or at least not as much so as nurture. In a nature vs. nurture argument, I believe that childhood raising has a greater impact on behaviour than genetics.

what is 'a man being raised as a girl'? It's basically gender roles... and i don't think those are genetically programmed, but are instilled upon us as we are children. There is a small society in (I believe) South Asia which is traditionally a matriarchy, and I believe in that society, what we would call 'male' characteristics are actually more pronounced in the females of the culture.

However, since I don't know where to find the information on that culture, I will use it as an anecdote.


Additionally, my argument never suggests that oppressing women is okay. I said that it is okay for people to assume that women as a whole are naturally more nurturing and men as a whole are naturally more aggressive. It is, however, wrong to say that because women are more nurturing that they are inferior. That is my point.


No you don't, but your argument could be used, in this society, to rationalize oppression, give that being limited to childrearing roles *is* in this society oppressive. How does your scenario suggest social change?


Edit: Personally if you ask me, my argument might even suggest that the duties traditionally allocated to women (and the excelling of such duties and responsibilities) are superior or at the very least more important to those of men. I think it's more important that our children are molded effectively and correctly so that when they go out into the real world they aren't all messed up, than the responsibility of..say...developing or maintaining public relations with other countries or business entities for the sake of profit or self-gain.

That's all well and good, but I hardly think it's fair to either men or women to be told that they are biologically suited for certain tasks over another. that just breeds inequality and oppression. There is no way we could make 'women's work' a separate but wholly equal life goal -- and why should we? This isn't 1984, where we are bred for certain tasks.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

No I don't, or at least not as much so as nurture. In a nature vs. nurture argument, I believe that childhood raising has a greater impact on behaviour than genetics.

what is 'a man being raised as a girl'? It's basically gender roles... and i don't think those are genetically programmed, but are instilled upon us as we are children.

With all due respect, I think that is a very ideal but wrong way to look at things, although I don't doubt the potential powerful influence of nurture and the way someone is brought up. Nevertheless I think it is counterproductive to deny obvious and significant biological and innate differences, as indicated by that one example (the one where a boy was brought up as a girl in American society due to the fact that his penis had to be cut off at birth and they thought it would be better for him because he would be completely humiliated throughout his life if he were raised as a boy) that I will have to look up in order to give an exact citation. As noted earlier, even my women's studies professor who is extremely active in the feminist community so to speak emphasized the importance of not overlooking such differences for the sake of blindly striving for the feminist cause. In either case, if you refuse to agree on the importance and significance of the importance of nature (even though nurture is also important), we'll just have to agree to disagree ^^


No you don't, but your argument could be used, in this society, to rationalize oppression, give that being limited to childrearing roles *is* in this society oppressive. How does your scenario suggest social change?

My scenario suggests that what needs to be done is not necessarily telling everyone that women can do anything just as well as men, and men can do anything just as well as men. What should be done in my opinion is telling the world that what women are better at doing is just as important (if not more important dependent upon perspective or outlook) as men, and therefore in a capitalist society should be rewarded just as equally, once again, if not more. P.S. regarding rationalizing oppression, my argument simply explains why oppression exists and once again ultimately does not justify it in any way.


That's all well and good, but I hardly think it's fair to either men or women to be told that they are biologically suited for certain tasks over another. that just breeds inequality and oppression. There is no way we could make 'women's work' a separate but wholly equal life goal -- and why should we? This isn't 1984, where we are bred for certain tasks.

Not to come across as assholish, no really, hehe. But...regarding fair or unfair, do you think it's unfair that we tell elephants that they will never become gymnasts or mice that they will never be able to beat the shit out of dinosaurs? Ok that was ridiculous, and I know that the biological differences between men and women are not that exaggerated, but nevertheless it all comes back to the idea that men and women ARE in fact suited more for certain things than the opposite sex. Recognition of such natural tendencies breeds oppression, yes, but so does recognition of ANY difference. Whenever we acknowledge difference, we automatically tend to rank them and wonder which one is more superior. So basically, the recognition of differences between the sexes is not why oppression exists. It's the interpretion of such differences and the valuing of one group's traits over the other. The ignoring of obvious difference is foolish. That's why we promote diversity. Why don't we all just say that all cultures are the same so that we won't have a chance to compare and see one culture as better than the other? Once again, perhaps we just have to agree to disagree :smile:

[BeTheReds]

Wow, both of you are writing novels here, but I'm going to have to say that I agree with Gumby.

There isn't anything wrong with saying that biologically men and women are different, and that because of those differences, women are more suited for certain tasks, while men are suited for others.

Both of you are arguing basically this argument. Did the genetic differences create gender roles and eventually sexism in our society, or did sexism in our society create the gender roles and then the roles made us believe that there is a biological difference.

I think the first argument carries a little more weight.

In the modern era, things have changed. These days, it is the power of the mind, or technical skills which divides the haves from the have nots, with the exception of professional athletes and models. Basically people from both genders can excell in the highest-earning professions because they are no longer based on physical strength, agility, agressiveness, or things that biologically favor men.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Wow, both of you are writing novels here, but I'm going to have to say that I agree with Gumby.

There isn't anything wrong with saying that biologically men and women are different, and that because of those differences, women are more suited for certain tasks, while men are suited for others.

Both of you are arguing basically this argument. Did the genetic differences create gender roles and eventually sexism in our society, or did sexism in our society create the gender roles and then the roles made us believe that there is a biological difference.

I think the first argument carries a little more weight.

In the modern era, things have changed. These days, it is the power of the mind, or technical skills which divides the haves from the have nots, with the exception of professional athletes and models. Basically people from both genders can excell in the highest-earning professions because they are no longer based on physical strength, agility, agressiveness, or things that biologically favor men.

Yes, in current times women are just as capable of doing the same things as men in many different roles traditionally assigned to men, such as serving as individuals with great political and economic influence. It does not take physical strength to be a successful hotshot CEO or to be president or leader of a nation these days, yet the thing is that the underlying deeply rooted ideology that women are inferior to men has carried over throughout the centuries as a result of misinterpretation and inference from innate male/female differences and tendencies, that people don't even take into consideration anymore the fact that yeah, today, for much of the time at least in the area of politics or business, women CAN do just as well as men because we are engrained with this mentality that women are naturally just not as good or competent.

[coagulated fat]

I think that there are inherent behavioral differences between men and women, but the "women as underappreciated nurturers" argument doesn't go far with me because this "nurturing" more often than not entails the glorification of self-sacrifice, self-negation, and generally priming your family for success at the expense of your own desires and goals in life - a very misogynistic, ancient idea of women's place in society.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think that there are inherent behavioral differences between men and women, but the "women as underappreciated nurturers" argument doesn't go far with me because this "nurturing" more often than not entails the glorification of self-sacrifice, self-negation, and generally priming your family for success at the expense of your own desires and goals in life - a very misogynistic, ancient idea of women's place in society.

But then this glorification of self-sacrifice, self-negation, and general priming for one's family is the fault inherent in the interpretation of how a woman's so called strengths should be perceived. No one ever said that just because men are naturally physically stronger that therefore they should be individualistic and naturally accept their superiority over women. Likewise, women as nurturers were never meant to be underappreciated, such a flaw in thinking obviously was the result of the embedding of mistaken ideology onto future generations.

[coagulated fat]

But then this glorification of self-sacrifice, self-negation, and general priming for one's family is the fault inherent in the interpretation of how a woman's so called strengths should be perceived. No one ever said that just because men are naturally physically stronger that therefore they should be individualistic and naturally accept their superiority over women. Likewise, women as nurturers were never meant to be underappreciated, such a flaw in thinking obviously was the result of the embedding of mistaken ideology onto future generations.
Doesn't the word "nurturing" imply the caring of others? To me, saying women are nurturers is equivalent to saying women's function in society, their importance, lies in taking care of others - a task that naturally involves some degree of self-effacement.

[BaiginLong]

I mostly agree with Gumby in this case. However, by bringing up the biological argument (which is wholly correct), he risks causing a great deal of social unrest. I can mention two examples. There was a genetic study done that proved that Asians had the highest number of superiorities in their genetic code. However, the results of that study were never published. I will not quote my source because for one I cannot remember it and because I believe I promised not to reveal the details. However, the reason that the study on the racial genetic differences was nuked was because of the directive to keep whites in power (though the official motive was to prevent violence and hate against the Chinese). The reasons for suppressing the results of the genetic study of the differences between men and women are different, however, because if the results were published it was believed that feminists would have a hard time accepting it and rally for the study to be discarded and redone. In addition, it would cause their movement to weaken and be stalled by the hard line supporters of male dominance through use of this study.

My guess is that hard line feminists well continue to reject the argument that biological differences between males and females have defined their roles and suitability for job in society until this proof is released and staring them in the face, and even then they probably will not accept it.

However, as an argument in their favor, genetics do not determine everything, it is life experiences that truly shape a person.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I mostly agree with Gumby in this case. However, by bringing up the biological argument (which is wholly correct), he risks causing a great deal of social unrest.
Again, it is commonplace to hear of people who blindly latch onto what they perceive as liberal or open-minded propaganda to the point that they refuse to believe that men and women are different at all. Seriously, not pointing any fingers here ^^;; But that also begs a question leading off onto a tangent: Why is there such a push among so-called bleeding heart liberals to accept and embrace diversity between various cultures, ethnicities, and groups of people with different sexual orientation or preferences (e.g. celebrating differences while acknowledging that there is a need to fight discrimination cause everyone deserves equal chance at fulfillment in life), while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the inherent differences between men and women?

Once again, it is just my opinion that men and women ARE in fact different, and that these differences are definitely significant. Possibility of the emergence of social unrest does not contradict or discredit scientific findings of such differences. As mentioned earlier, I know plenty of feminists (actually all of the serious feminists I've met) who acknowledge and completely accept the validity of such findings. Devoted feminists have always been wrongly stereotyped as butch man-hating and irrational pigheaded fanatics, which is probably why many who support feminist-related values and have potential for contributing to any type of progress avoid exploration into the realm of feminist activism to avoid stigma attached to the term.


Doesn't the word "nurturing" imply the caring of others? To me, saying women are nurturers is equivalent to saying women's function in society, their importance, lies in taking care of others - a task that naturally involves some degree of self-effacement.
I actually do believe that women are naturally more nurturing and have an innate tendency to harbor feelings of care towards upbringing and raising of children, although you may not agree. Yes, I do agree that such a duty involves some degree of self-effacement, but then again, all duties involve sacrifice of one's time and energy for the good of reaping results, ideally for the sake of others and for the good of those around you and society in general (cause that's kinda the original point but since people are bastards, things go wrong). Unfortunately, the traditional role as a caretaker may not leave as much room for...say...personal exploration or realization of personal interests and gain as say, a man who is traditionally accepted as one who goes out and becomes involved in public activity and interaction under the justification of performing one's role for the good of society, but that in no way means that women (or the jobs that many women do) should be perceived as any less important or inferior.

History of the feminist movement even shows that many feminists actually supported the traditional roles assigned to both men and women, and in fact were against the neglecting and devaluation of the importance of female contribution as opposed to the roles themselves. Citations may be presented if necessary, probably from my Gender Politics textbook, but anyways moving right along........^^My point after like the 3 volumes of jibberish that I've written today is that society basically has created a system in which the contributions and natural strengths of women are as you said 'underappreciated' and the contributions and natural strengths of men are perhaps overrated or 'overappreciated', creating clear and blatant inequalities between the sexes.

But...if after all this, you're still not convinced...I'm willing to admit defeat, or at least, admit my lack of ability to convince or find the right words to generate proper and sufficient persuasiveness. I don't think I wanna type the words 'tendency, society, interpretation or inferior/superior' ever again T-T x_x, but yea okay, I lose...cause of the favor you agreed to do for me ^^ :tongue:

Going to bed now, I have a test to fail tomorrow morning.

[nameless]

Ultimately, entire systems and structures are built with the idea of male=superior female=inferior in mind, and it is because of this which is the direct cause of female oppression, not the reinforcement of gender roles or not because guys feel that women are more nurturing or sensitive and men are more prone to aggression or violence. The innate variation present is pretty obvious, and most active feminists I have met do not deny these differences and believe that the ignoring or denial of such differences is detrimental towards their overall battle plan towards equality of the sexes. Women have specific needs and natural predispositions on the whole, as do men. Such is life :smile:


Hrm...after reading this, I think we ultimately agree on the same points. I probably didn't make it clear earlier that I do actually think that innate differences and abilities exist - considering the whole pregnancy and birthing process, it just goes without saying I think (in both humans and non-humans). However, I still think the differences are overly emphasized by society and, unfortunately, strenthened by gender socialization. I figure the innate differences between men and women are like 40:60 and society has since developed it to be 10:90. And I'm not to trying to deemphasize the difficulty of women's current roles, but I think with counter-education (for lack of a better term) to gender roles, the ratio can get down to about 55:45 (give or take). That being said, I think gender roles could be interchangable for the most part.

After reading your points, I no longer see belief in biological differences as inherently oppressive, but I still think such thinking can (and is) being used to deter the feminists cause. Sorry, if you already said this, but I'm tired hehe.
And I'll just end by saying that I also agree that the most prevalent problem is society's deeming of what's superior and inferior, but hey that's human nature for you. Shit, now I gotta get an hours sleep before class...

[kitty]

I think I should clarify and say that obviously there are biological differences between men and women, but that I don't think they are as gender-based behavioural as you would think. Like, I don't think there is a 'nurturing' gene, and I haven't seen much evidence to indicate that there is more biological influence than rearing influence on behaviour.

I would be convinced if there was... say... a study in which two twins of identical genders were raised, one as a male and one as a female, and then there were some objective way to test for 'nurturing' attitudes.

Gumby, in the example you cite, there is no control. There is no way to know how the person would've felt had he actually been raised a boy, and if there had been any differences in his behaviour. Also, you base your conclusion mostly on 'how he felt', which could have been a product of perception of how he felt growing up after the fact of being told that he was actually biologically male.

Is it also possible that what is a nurturing attitude isn't only displayed, but an interpretation? Like, if you see women acting a certain way, you think it is nurturing (as a product of their gender), but if it's men, you don't? How does one codify a nurturing attitude?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think I should clarify and say that obviously there are biological differences between men and women, but that I don't think they are as gender-based behavioural as you would think. Like, I don't think there is a 'nurturing' gene, and I haven't seen much evidence to indicate that there is more biological influence than rearing influence on behaviour.

Sure, of course we can both agree that both nature and nurture have influence on how we turn out as adults. However, if we were to assume for the sake of argument and compromise that biological influence and rearing influence both share 50% of influence potential, the biological factor would still be very much significant enough to warrant not necessarily the justification, but acceptance that present day societies arose at least partially due to an already existing divide between men and women, and it is not simply society or socially-constructed ideologies which created this illusion of a divide. Your argument is that the divide of inequality between the sexes was completely created out of social processes whereas I'm saying that there was already a divide before, which lead society to formulate systems of inequality.

I would be convinced if there was... say... a study in which two twins of identical genders were raised, one as a male and one as a female, and then there were some objective way to test for 'nurturing' attitudes.

I am not sure regarding whether or not such a study exists, but there are definitely studies of identical twins (of the same sex) separated at birth, obviously with the same genetic makeup yet with vastly different upbringing, reunited after decades, realizing that they hold many of the same interests and personality traits, and have even arrived at the same choice of career and occupation. One example I think was with two male twins who were reunited at the age of 30 and realized that they were both firemen. Admittedly, one could also argue that looking at other cases in which similar careers were not the case after the reuniting of separated twin babies prove otherwise or potentially point to coincidence. However, the fact that cases pointing out such similarity exist period strongly indicate that biological and genetic factors once again play a very significant role in the determination of how we turn out, and at the same time such a fact does not contradict the notion that nurture also plays an important part in the process.

Gumby, in the example you cite, there is no control. There is no way to know how the person would've felt had he actually been raised a boy, and if there had been any differences in his behaviour. Also, you base your conclusion mostly on 'how he felt', which could have been a product of perception of how he felt growing up after the fact of being told that he was actually biologically male.

I'm not sure what you mean. He was having problems way before he even was told of the unfortunate circumstances his parenst were forced to face, all throughout his childhood and teen years. He didn't even know he was biologically male until like his 20's. In an interview in a documentary I viewed in class (which can be cited if you wish), he remembers desiring to play with tanks and action figures as a 6 year old when his parents bought him dolls instead, telling him that all little girls play with dolls. His entire childhood basically sucked for him because everything society was telling him to embrace and attach himself to seemed unnatural. Many things that we felt partial or inclined towards were taboo, because, after all, in the eyes of everyone else, he was a girl and they treated him as such.

Is it also possible that what is a nurturing attitude isn't only displayed, but an interpretation? Like, if you see women acting a certain way, you think it is nurturing (as a product of their gender), but if it's men, you don't? How does one codify a nurturing attitude?

Well, it is just from my observations and perhaps your observations have been different, but even in nature when observing animals, it is most often the female sex which naturally has the inclination to tend to duties related to taking care of children, whereas it is the male who is often concerned with aggression and territorial dispute. In humans, once again, from my lifelong observations, this is no different. There are a select few species in which this is not the case. My observations lead me to believe that there is definitely more of a natural biological aspect to this division of labor inferring that such a divide is not simply illusion and furthermore, such a divide has very significant implications.

Edit: Regardless, I feel that the existing biological or genetic divide and the great significance of such a divide is undeniable, simply because if you logically take a step back to view the general overall timeline tracing from the dawn of human civilization to the present, you come to the conclusion that somehow there had to be some reason for this huge gap in equality to result. From such a huge gap in equality to become entrenched over time, you have to conclude that it's most likely due to ideology reinforcing the perception that men and women are indeed inherently and significantly different, for one cannot be perceived inferior or superior to the other if they are regarded as the same. Additionally, the division of labor resulting from such differences is engrained in fact, in that it is pretty much proven that ancient societies deemed men to be the ones responsible for work involving physical exertion and for women to be the ones involved with child-rearing and caretaking activities. The results involving discrimination and oppression of women we see today come from sexist and ignorant reasoning, yes, but they are still reasoning nonetheless, and I feel that this is indicative of how incredibly obvious and influential the apparent differences between males and females were especially in past ancient cultures, where primitive duties of men and women were definitely more tailored to their physical and mental predispositions (i.e. hunter/gatherer societies).

[kitty]

Sure, of course we can both agree that both nature and nurture have influence on how we turn out as adults. However, if we were to assume for the sake of argument and compromise that biological influence and rearing influence both share 50% of influence potential, the biological factor would still be very much significant enough to warrant not necessarily the justification, but acceptance that present day societies arose at least partially due to an already existing divide between men and women, and it is not simply society or socially-constructed ideologies which created this illusion of a divide. Your argument is that the divide of inequality between the sexes was completely created out of social processes whereas I'm saying that there was already a divide before, which lead society to formulate systems of inequality.


I'm not saying that the divide is complely created out of social processes, but I am saying that gender roles are more heavily impressed upon us by our rearing than our biology. I'm certain that women were given child-rearing roles out of convenience... hell, if they're gonna be laid up giving birth and have to be around for breastfeeding, might as well keep in the house, right?

Well, that's all domestic work that kind of makes sense if you need to send the men out to hunt -- but that does NOT mean that the women who were relegated to domestic roles had the biological *behavioural* characteristics that suited them to this role. I don't believe that women, on a whole, are more 'nurturing' because they happen to have vaginas instead of dicks... I think that behaviour is a spectrum that, genetically, is not gender specific.


I am not sure regarding whether or not such a study exists, but there are definitely studies of identical twins (of the same sex) separated at birth, obviously with the same genetic makeup yet with vastly different upbringing, reunited after decades, realizing that they hold many of the same interests and personality traits, and have even arrived at the same choice of career and occupation. One example I think was with two male twins who were reunited at the age of 30 and realized that they were both firemen. Admittedly, one could also argue that looking at other cases in which similar careers were not the case after the reuniting of separated twin babies prove otherwise. However, the fact that cases pointing out such similarity exist period strongly indicate that biological and genetic factors once again play a very significant role in the determination of how we turn out, and at the same time such a fact does not contradict the notion that nurture also plays an important part in the process.


True, but they weren't raised with different gender roles imposed upon them. And I wonder how many twins who are separated at birth do not share similar qualities -- I mean, it could just be highly publicized coincidences. I'm not sure that two twins both marrying women named 'Candy' is really an indicator of genetic behavioural similarity.


I'm not sure what you mean. He was having problems way before he even was told of the unfortunate circumstances his parenst were forced to face, all throughout his childhood and teen years. He didn't even know he was biologically male until like his 20's. In an interview in a documentary I viewed in class (which can be cited if you wish), he remembers desiring to play with tanks and action figures as a 6 year old when his parents bought him dolls instead, telling him that all little girls play with dolls.


I'm not sure I'm convinced that there is a 'tank-playing' gene. My main point is that there isn't any proof that, had he been raised a boy, there wouldn't have been any different behaviour. Perhaps the parents unconsciously treated him differently because they knew the truth -- I'm not sure how plausibly he could've been raised a girl if his parents knew that he biologically wasn't a girl. And all of this evidence is based on his later recollections of how he felt, and memory alone isn't a very concrete indicator, since it can be easily (and unconsciously) modified based on later life experiences.



Well, it is just from my observations and perhaps your observations have been different, but even in nature when observing animals, it is most often the female sex which naturally has the inclination to tend to duties related to taking care of children, whereas it is the male who is often concerned with aggression and territorial dispute. In humans, once again, from my lifelong observations, this is no different. There are a select few species in which this is not the case. My observations lead me to believe that there is definitely more of a natural biological aspect to this division of labor inferring that such a divide is not simply illusion and furthermore, such a divide has very significant implications.

Well, this may be due to the fact of childbirth, but there are many instances in the animal kingdom where the females of the species give birth, and it is the male who perform child-rearing activities. It's certainly not a 50-50 division of labour, but the fact that the female may be relegated to childrearing activities may be out of convenience rather than some genetically programmed behavioural traits.

Nuturing implies a connection with offspring that is really anthropomorphizing when you come to animals -- there is not necessarily an 'emotional' connection that can be proven, so much as behaviour which ensures greater survival rates of one's own genes.

I think we should only discuss 'nuturing' behaviour in relation to humans, and even then, I wonder what is 'nurturing' and what is a product of circumstances. Like -- is a woman considered more nurturing if she is in a single-parent home and must take on child-rearing duties than a man who is in a similar situation?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

True, but they weren't raised with different gender roles imposed upon them. And I wonder how many twins who are separated at birth do not share similar qualities -- I mean, it could just be highly publicized coincidences. I'm not sure that two twins both marrying women named 'Candy' is really an indicator of genetic behavioural similarity.

Uh, ok well first off marrying two women of the same name isn't really the same as arriving at the same choice of career, but...we digress :biggrin: Regardless, my point was simply to demonstrate the clear significance of genetics and biology. Sure, they weren't raised with different gender roles imposed upon them, but how many men grow up thinking they have to be firemen? Especially in this day and age where men hold more privilege than women, they can be anyone they want, firemen, policemen, lawyers, judges, accountants, comedians, athletes, they are encouraged to be a variety of different things, and last time I checked, being a fireman isn't really a popular choice among men or women.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that there is a 'tank-playing' gene. My main point is that there isn't any proof that, had he been raised a boy, there wouldn't have been any different behaviour. Perhaps the parents unconsciously treated him differently because they knew the truth -- I'm not sure how plausibly he could've been raised a girl if his parents knew that he biologically wasn't a girl. And all of this evidence is based on his later recollections of how he felt, and memory alone isn't a very concrete indicator, since it can be easily (and unconsciously) modified based on later life experiences.

Of course there is no 'tank-playing' gene. However, males in general I would imagine due to what I believe would in fact have a natural affinity towards interacting with toys that promote aggression or violence rather than playing with dolls. I'm not sure exactly what type of 'proof' or 'control' you are looking for. Chances are if he was raised as a boy (since he IS male), I would be willing to bet that he wouldn't have gone through nearly as much crap, seeing as how he would actually be allowed to play with tanks, and actually be accepted into society as someone who is allowed to be macho and display aggressiveness and the like. I don't remember having my mom tell me that boys play with tanks and girls play with dolls. But I naturally preferred playing with tanks anyway. And whenever I played with dolls, they were always ripping off the heads and arms of my he-man figures and not having sunday tea or doing otherwise productive things like building houses.

Well, this may be due to the fact of childbirth, but there are many instances in the animal kingdom where the females of the species give birth, and it is the male who perform child-rearing activities. It's certainly not a 50-50 division of labour, but the fact that the female may be relegated to childrearing activities may be out of convenience rather than some genetically programmed behavioural traits.

This point I can understand, as it has gone through my mind several times as well. However, the fact that men are scientifically proven to be, on average, taller, possessing larger bone mass, possessing larger overall muscle mass to begin with as well as potential for further muscle growth, as well as the significant extra amount of testosterone (and estrogen in females), all these variations alone indicate that men and women are biologically different enough for things to matter. Contrarily, women are proven to be physically advantageous to men (once again in general) in the area of aerobic capacity and flexibility/range of motion in the joints (especially in the lower body area where a woman's pelvic structure is different for the sake of childbirth). Bottom line is this: Whether or not you believe in God or a Creator or in natural selection, it's obvious that men and women are different, and more importantly, they are clearly different for a reason and purpose. Even if women are different simply due to the pressures of childbirth, isn't that significant enough? Furthermore, doesn't a woman's innate burden associated with childbirth strongly indicate, once again, regardless of whether you believe in an all-powerful creator or evolution or both, that perhaps a woman was meant to partake in childrearing activies and play the primary role in a child's upbringing and preparation for adulthood?

I think we should only discuss 'nurturing' behaviour in relation to humans, and even then, I wonder what is 'nurturing' and what is a product of circumstances. Like -- is a woman considered more nurturing if she is in a single-parent home and must take on child-rearing duties than a man who is in a similar situation?

Why is that? Not to bring religion into this once again, but from your perspective as someone who was baptized but technically is not one who embraces the beliefs of Christianity (i.e. you would be more inclined to trust evolution rather than the idea that man has dominion over nature and is made in the unique image of God), I would have thought you would be more willing to accept science which continues to liken the human being to many other species of animals, especially mammals.

Edit: I just realized how much my perspective corresponds with my beliefs as a Christian...in that I don't necessarily object to the assignment or support of gender roles, but I do object to the ranking of men or women (or their contributions to society) as either inferior or superior.

[SunWuKong]

If you do these things, the coolest girls in school will want to date you. Wouldn't that impress the guys?

Is it just me or are the hottest guys the ones who do the things on this list?

i think your definition of "coolest girls" and "hottest guys" may be a whole lot different from the majority of the population if you define them in reference to the list you posted.

whether it be with the "coolest girls" or not, being a male feminist isn't going to get you laid anytime soon.

[nola]

QUOTE(nameless): Hrm...after reading this, I think we ultimately agree on the same points. I probably didn't make it clear earlier that I do actually think that innate differences and abilities exist - considering the whole pregnancy and birthing process, it just goes without saying I think (in both humans and non-humans). However, I still think the differences are overly emphasized by society and, unfortunately, strenthened by gender socialization. I figure the innate differences between men and women are like 40:60 and society has since developed it to be 10:90. And I'm not to trying to deemphasize the difficulty of women's current roles, but I think with counter-education (for lack of a better term) to gender roles, the ratio can get down to about 55:45 (give or take). That being said, I think gender roles could be interchangable for the most part.



As usual, kittygirl makes great points.

How children are raised (nurture) determines gender roles more than genetics (nature).

It's usually men who like to say that women are naturally nurturing because this keeps women in their place.

The whole public-private nuclear family setup came after the Industrial Revolution so women staying inside the home is a relatively new.


QUOTE (Gumby): Regardless, I feel that the existing biological or genetic divide and the great significance of such a divide is undeniable, simply because if you logically take a step back to view the general overall timeline tracing from the dawn of human civilization to the present, you come to the conclusion that somehow there had to be some reason for this huge gap in equality to result. From such a huge gap in equality to become entrenched over time, you have to conclude that it's most likely due to ideology reinforcing the perception that men and women are indeed inherently and significantly different, for one cannot be perceived inferior or superior to the other if they are regarded as the same.



Women's nurturing tendencies are a biological adaptation over time to the ideology that men and women were different. So women are not intrinsically more nurturing than men and men are not more intrinsically more aggressive than women, although over time, we've biologically adapted to these roles so it's time to reeducate to make men more nurturing and women more assertive.


my question is what TV and movies do you watch?


In the last ten years, I've only watched female-positive shows and movies such as Felicity, Real World/Road Rules, My So-Called Life, Sex and the City, Queer Eye, The Daily Show, CSPAN (not the conservative programs), good indie movies such as Ghost World, Frida, Like Water for Chocolate, La Femme Nikita, Thirteen, etc. I read reviews before seeing movies and don't watch any that have gratuitous sexist content. I get depressed when I happen to see sexist material.

i think your definition of "coolest girls" and "hottest guys" may be a whole lot different from the majority of the population if you define them in reference to the list you posted.

whether it be with the "coolest girls" or not, being a male feminist isn't going to get you laid anytime soon.


Cmon, guys who speak up against sexism are hot! They may not call themselves feminists, but they are in fact feminists because they are speaking up for the women in their lives! :cool: :tongue:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Women's nurturing tendencies are a biological adaptation over time to the ideology that men and women were different. So women are not intrinsically more nurturing than men and men are not more intrinsically more aggressive than women, although over time, we've biologically adapted to these roles so it's time to reeducate to make men more nurturing and women more assertive.

This I believe is false. They are not biological adaptations over time because technically there have been no so-called biological or evolutionary changes (besides the fact that we seem to be a lot taller and fatter now) ever since the dawn of the human species. I do believe that women are in fact more nurturing, and I definitely believe that men are more prone towards aggression. It is obvious to me that men are naturally more assertive and women are naturally not so assertive, even feminists who embrace many of the ideas you embrace have tendencies to take non-aggressive stances on issues dealing with foreign affairs such as whether or not to go to war when compared with the stances and opinions of men, according to public polls. Once again, if men and women were meant to be the same, regardless of belief in evolution or God, they would have ended up the same way. Otherwise, the existing psychological and physical differences between men and women that are proven scientific fact would never have come to be in the first place. If men and women were meant to be the same, the obviously higher levels of testosterone (scientifically correlated with proneness to aggressive acts) and muscle growth potential and overall larger body frame in comparison to the much softer and smaller frame engineered to a tee for childbirth, among many many other differences, cannot be explained otherwise. Additionally, many feminists already accept the notion that men and women actually indeed were more predisposed and adapted to certain tasks, and that such a division of labor in ancient civilization was NEVER intended to be sexist in itself until people started making value judgments over time over whether or not men or women were better. I would be happy to send you citations of some recent text, written by women.

Once again, people say that by reinforcing the notion that women are more nurturing keeps women oppressed, and once again I disagree. It's the reinforcement of the fact that aggressive go-getter people are superior to people who are more nurturing which is the reason as to why people are oppressed.

I can see this is getting nowhere even though I enjoy good debate (to kittygirl and nola), we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, in that you guys think that women and men are too similar for their differences to make any type of deep impact in terms of being responsible for any type of oppression, whereas I feel that the differences are very important and very significant, and social constructs played upon that in order to cause inequality. And we'll just leave it at that. In any case, we all agree that the hardening of social constructs over time in various shapes and forms contribute to the discrimination we see today. I simply place value on the innate biological aspect as well. With all due respect, I feel you guys are overemphasizing the power of social influence, even though society is an undeniable key player in the molding of who we become.

[coagulated fat]

Cmon, guys who speak up against sexism are hot! They may not call themselves feminists, but they are in fact feminists because they are speaking up for the women in their lives! :cool: :tongue:
Agreed... very much agreed

It's usually men who like to say that women are naturally nurturing because this keeps women in their place.

I also agree with this, however I think that women ARE more naturally nurturing of their young. However, this has been grossly exaggerated to include caring for the husband, the house, and everything in the domestic sphere, while ignoring a women's own desires for her life, and instead making her life focused on the care and betterment of others'.

[SunWuKong]

Cmon, guys who speak up against sexism are hot! They may not call themselves feminists, but they are in fact feminists because they are speaking up for the women in their lives! :cool: :tongue:

well i honestly wish most women in real life would think this, but i don't think they do. in the end, looks is still what matters the most. an average looking guy that speaks up against sexism isn't going to get as much play as a great looking guy that doesn't give a shit.

(but yes, i do know that men are about 10 times more fixated on how good a woman looks.)

[Napoleon Chynamite]

(but yes, i do know that men are about 10 times more fixated on how good a woman looks.)

This will probably cause many people to bring up the question regarding whether the tendency for guys to focus more on physical qualities is inherent in males or is it taught by society that hot women should be desirable as well as rich men even though they are fat and hairy, since I know many people (I've suspected it myself) who argue that women are just as shallow about looks as men and want sex just as badly. However, biology dictates otherwise. But I don't wanna get into that anymore.

It's usually men who like to say that women are naturally nurturing because this keeps women in their place.

Actually, from my experiences, most men who say this say it because they actually believe it, regardless if they have sufficient reasons for believing so or only if they are following what society tells them. It's not like men such as myself like to say that women are naturally nurturing cause along with that sentence we secretly know that if women buy into this, we can continue to keep women down and screw them over with wage disparities and discrimination. Elaboration can be presented in the form of an analogy with white privilege. Many white people actually say shit that pisses minority groups off simply because their words are results of following the status quo and they seriously don't know any better. But as they say it, they aren't thinking, 'hmm, i should say this in order to further confuse and oppress the colored people'.

however I think that women ARE more naturally nurturing of their young. However, this has been grossly exaggerated to include caring for the husband, the house, and everything in the domestic sphere, while ignoring a women's own desires for her life, and instead making her life focused on the care and betterment of others'.

I agree with this point. In fact, I had to write about something very much related to this on my gender politics essay exam earlier this morning. I finished first, which is either very good or extremely bad ^^ However, despite exaggeration of what a woman should do and what a man can do, the ridiculous expectations of women over the decades in history are for the very last time, a result of the neglecting of the interests of women based on the assumption that men are better and more important, and therefore so are the interests of men. In any case, this is probably my last post in this thread.

YOU WIN ^^

[tapestrybabe]

Well men hold a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth (e.g. economic and political power and influence) in this world compared to women, so it would be ideal, if not crucial, that men were involved or contributed in the process and movement for further change and improvement.really?? why does it seem THAT crucial for us women...
to be dependant on men once again... when it comes to our movement...
when it comes to seeking what we want... i say, men are *NOT* that necessary when it comes to working out issues that our important to us women...

i mean, as an asian... i dont consider white ppl that important of a role in helping to define our identity, our movement as an asian group... so as a female, why should i be looking towards males... when it comes to helping define us females... our roles... our movement, what we want, etc...

I don't think females NEED males, but just like how Asian Americans don't NEED whites to become aware of what the heck is going on, it sure friggin' does help, and I still feel that although mutual understanding would not be a must for some type of improvement or leveling of the playing field, I do believe that there has to be definitely some of that going on if the end goal of equality between the sexes or racial groups is even remotely neared. We'd be lying our asses off if most of us here said they didn't give a shit whether or not most whites were completely ignorant to the existence and process/mechanics of oppression in our society.

Yes, women alone, if provided with the proper awareness and education and motivation, can easily bring about change in our society. However, complete intended change in my opinion without the advocacy and awareness and motivation of men (especially men in power) would be near impossible, if not impossible. Not unlike the Civil Rights Movement, I doubt the fruits reaped from such an era would not be what they are today had there been absolutely no awareness or support among whites, despite the fact that a vast room for improvement still exists.

yes, i understand where your coming from...
i mean, when it comes to awareness and support...
the ideal, is that it should come from all sides...

but i think this is what i'm trying to say...
when it comes to women issues...
whatever it is... whatever it is that we want...
how we define ourselves... what we seek...
the thoughts of having to be dependant on mens support...
to get anywhere doesnt sit well with me...

i mean, when i think of all the yw campaignes...
who did we seek when it came to support...
yeah, thats right... other asians... other asian organizations...
and did we get things done, yes...
asians-- we are not that helpless...
we can get things done by coming together...

and thats the way i kinda compare it to us females...
we females arent that helpless either...

[nola]

However, despite exaggeration of what a woman should do and what a man can do, the ridiculous expectations of women over the decades in history are for the very last time, a result of the neglecting of the interests of women based on the assumption that men are better and more important, and therefore so are the interests of men.


No, I agree with you, Gumby, that women's nurturance is partly natural and social constructs devalue what women do and value wha