User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 124

  1. #71
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Actually, Marmie Dearest herself wrote that theses jobs were attributed to women.
    I was pointing out that she was wrong. (not totally.. just a little bit. :3 ) Many artisan-like tasks have traditionally been left up to men. As I said from the beginning, when we started producing agriculture and staying put, the roles of men and women have changed considerably. The art world has long been dominated by men, and art is very far away from the OP's distinction of "men" and what they're 'suppose to do'.. It seemed silly to argue about these jobs, since they are ALL outside of the realm of 'naturally manly.' These are things of intellect.

    I don't see the point where all theses "women can do it" "men can do it" etc. OF COURSE they can, but that does'nt mean genders don't exist. Genders exist as global norms and natural leanings based on the sex, not as rigid structures and categories
    I never said they didn't. Sorry if I seemed rude and redundant.. I was merely pointing out that it seems futile to argue about those sorts of jobs. 99% of the things men and women do now-a-days are not the roles we 'naturally' started out with. We're talking about social constructs.. not jobs that were equally associated with men and women.

    Of course, we can, maybe, envisage that it is reversible, and we can wish every women act like men and every men act like women, or even that none of these act either like men and women and that human being become a unisex species. But it would'nt happen naturally and we would need a vast bureaucracy, police, educations programs, etc, to lead men and women to this. A social construct.
    It seems to offend you if women have manly traits? .. Our point is not that women should act like men, and men should be happy in women's roles. This is just as extreme.. We're saying people should not be punished for acting like themselves. We're saying society takes smaller differences, and has emphasized on them SO much for SO long that now people are expected to act certain ways, and to feel shame when they fall short of those social pressures. I don't think that's right. I think men are useful whether they're aggressive or not. I think women are useful whether they're nurturing or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Gender are not something which tell us what we should do, but what happens naturally.
    It doesn't happen naturally, however. No one lets it happen naturally. Look at how much the media influences the way women view themselves.. Do you know how many women have low esteems about themselves? It is all social pressure. How many men have done dumb, awful things as teenagers just to 'look manly' infront of others? It is degrading, and holding us as a society back, imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Again, Bill Gates don't represent the norm, and despite thoses few traits you quoted, he totally come as masculine.
    Bill Gates would die a horrible death at the hands of a bear if he had to act like the natural 'manly caveman man' that the OP was talking about. He is aggressive--But not in a NATURAL way. He doesn't get into bar fights, or protect women vehemothly. He is intellectually aggressive. Through business, and studying, and innovation he has created something awesome. This is not due to his gender. It is due to his intellect. In the raw, natural world, he may not be of much use.. but we're not all living in that world anymore. And thus, he's one of the most useful inventors of our time. Donald Trump, one of the examples given, is most certainly not the normal average Joe either. Is his aggressively built estate from testosterone alone? I don't think so for a moment.

    The thing is just that agressivity is not the better way for women to get power. Their power is more efficient in their sexuality and their seduction. And women's seduction don't work like men's seduction. Men need to be assertive, agressive, powerful, tough and achieve great things to be attractive. Women don't need that. They just need to be attractive, passive, and take off their clothes. Doing that they can get power toward a powerful man, and escape the necessity to work hard. Men and women intuitively know that, this is why genders differences automatically happen, and it is not an injustice, it is a natural phenomenon. Not a social construct.
    So if a woman happens to be pretty, she can get everywhere in the world? That is how it is set up now.. I'm saying it shouldn't come down to how pretty we are. The whole point of talking about the jobs Marm listed earlier was to say that women are useful in SO many other ways than "seduction" that it cheapens us as a whole to narrow it down to that. On average, most women are not on par with the looks of someone who could get their way with their seduction alone. We're not all Jessica Rabbits. (I won't even get into the whole 'purity' issue and constant barage of insults if a woman is comfortable with her sexuality.. it's a whole thread somewhere.)

    And we do need that. Do you think I'd be rude, and aggressive, if I didn't have to be? If I had people who DIDN'T try to assume I was stupid, or take advantage of my kindness and mistake my passive traits as weakness.. I wouldn't need to be nearly as forthright as I am. But alas, I don't get that sort of respect much of the time. Many don't. You don't want women to act aggressive? Stop treating us like we didn't grow up right next to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I think social constructs proceed from biological necessity.
    Until society takes the small stuff and sweats it until it is a huge, unnecessary problem that will probably, philosophically, never end.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  2. #72
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,028

    Default

    "This is my box. You must fit into my box. Everything outside of my box is...WRONG or unnatural."

  3. #73
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    "This is my box. You must fit into my box. Everything outside of my box is...WRONG or unnatural."

  4. #74
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I think social constructs proceed from biological necessity. (We need to create them in order to survive).
    Sure, but what proceeds is not the necessary result of biological necessity. I think that's a mistake many folks in this thread are making.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #75
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Seymour pretty much has it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #76
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Sure, but what proceeds is not the necessary result of biological necessity. I think that's a mistake many folks in this thread are making.
    Yup!

  7. #77
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    It is not the WOMAN'S responsibility to care for the child. It is the PARENTS responsibility. How narrowminded must one be to talk this way? Women usually get stuck with the task, and admittably most do not mind that.. but both parents have a responsibility to the child of EQUAL value. "almost" supporting an arbitrary law like this completely neglects the father's responsibility. "Preventing a woman from leaving to her job for the sake of the child"? It's narrow minded bullshit.

    The military allows for that child to have health care, dental care, money to live on and be clothed with, etc. Parents give to their children in all sorts of ways. Just because she's not at home does NOT mean she is neglecting her child. Making that assumption is... just.. cruel.



    The point of this discussion is whether those differences biologically have any influence on what men and women are and are capable of.. To which, many are replying No. That this is all socially nurtured, not something nature intended necessarily.



    Testosterone is to thank for that, for sure.. But really, how much weight needs to be lifted now a days? I bench press 100lbs.. not even my own body weight's worth. And yet, I've worked construction, cleared land, built buildings, manned guns bigger than I am tall with accuracy, and done my job just as well as the big guy next to me. What is the point of this? How much weight do you think needs to be lifted in one go anymore?? We're smart, with a billion tools to help us.. We dont NEED the strength. Hence all the men that have killer keyboard-forearms and computer tans.



    Generally, aggression of humans in general is still there, just expressed differently, as I said before. Also, I don't see how 'aggression' is very useful now-a-days. I think I'm more aggressive than the average female I come across, and usually.. 80% of the time, it just ends up with me needing to bite my tongue lest I get myself in a heap of trouble.



    I believe it is too, except socially speaking this is the norm. It is a "social construct". The entire point of this discussion. We're making the point that gender should not equal what happens or doesn't happen on its own merit. NO ONE should hit another person without expecting the consequences of that action. No one. But the fact women get away with this more frequently is only because men and women have created this 'rule' socially allowing it.



    I think the fact that 90% of men and women are not married to those type of people proves otherwise. People are naturally attracted to those things... men can be attracted to power (just not power in the woman necessarily..) and women can be attracted to child-bearing properties (i.e. the money and power).. This is instinct. But intelligence says otherwise. "Power and physique usually lead to assholes" is learned, and we steer away towards people that actually might make us happy. It is not just biology. It goes far beyond biology. This is mentalities, and education.



    And do you think women are not encouraged to act like men? Women are repeatedly rewarded (or punished, depending on the setting. Philosophy being a great example of this) for acting like men. Socially speaking, depending on where women are social pressures encourage them to 'act' one way or another. Feminists do not 'act like men'.. There ARE extreme feminazis out there, but overall feminists are just normal people. It is sexist to think just because I happen to act 'manly', that I must be sexist because I MUST be trying to act 'like a man' instead of like... say.. myself.



    I beg to differ. I've lived most of my adult life in a male-dominated career.. Men do not act so different to women at all. Of this, I am convinced. Even if the more shallow things are different.



    Bill Gates is not a particularly powerful, domineering man. He's a nerdy dude that has, like, say, a bazillion dollars of worth just being reserved. Submissive, insecure PEOPLE are not going to be as successful. But it is not limited to men. Women have to be MORE aggressive many times just to try earning the same wages and pay. If anything, I argue that women need to be more aggressive than men to survive now-a-days.

    The gay society should not be ashamed of feminine-acting men, nor should anyone else. Again.. Why would someone be ashamed of acting like who they are? I know there is some social constructing in this aspect. But this is what the thread is about. Socially speaking, gay men are encouraged to act like one way or the other.. Just. Like. Everyone. Else.



    If anything, it should continue to discourage these behaviors. It should only encourage people to act as they are. I don't want anyone else trying to 'encourage' me to wear a dress everyday. I don't want anyone else trying to push my nephews into 'acting' like gorillas.. when they should be free to act like themselves.



    For the record. Basket weavers, pottery makers, artisans, etc... These are all ALSO jobs men can and have had. You're assuming because those jobs are not "GO HUNT FOR GOOD NAO! FOOTBAAAWWWLL!!" that they are not manly tasks. Many artisans, artists, creators and inventors were men as well.
    we really agree on more than you think we do
    1) as I've stated, the correlations I've listed are general, I know a few women who could kick my ass, I just know about 3X that many guys
    2) I'm not advocating that all women should be feminine, I'm saying that overall, more women are naturally feminine. obviously, as an enneatype 8, you're going to have a masculine side, and that's wonderful, but I see so many women around trying to act so manly when it's obviously not natural for them. not all women are Princess Leia ENTJ 8w7 commander types, those women do exist, but they are the exception.
    3) you're right, women are being rewarded for being overtly masculine. the difference between us is I don't like this trend. feminine people, male and female are just as important to society as masculine people. life in a completely masculine society would friggin suck. there would be no one around to comfort each other and everything would be this intense competition with no rest. it's not necessarily that I am opposed to masculine behavior being rewarded as much as I am opposed to feminine behavior in women getting the short end of the stick
    4) I am 100% for people being encouraged to be themselves. that's why I think both masculine and feminine qualities should be encouraged because everyone has a masculine side and a feminine side.
    5) it's true, we don't live in times where men have to be violent hunters to survive, and thank God we don't. as an N dom, I would die off extremely quickly
    6) Bill Gates is not an aggressive man, but he is dominant, powerful and passionate (there is a big difference). no one who was a wimp mentally would be able to do what he does.
    7) masculine and feminine have nothing to do with physical strength, in case I hadn't said that already
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  8. #78
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    This exaggeration then artificially constrains people's ability to use their talents and to feel validated for their real strengths. That's a waste and an injustice.
    I agree with the point about overlap of characteristics between individuals of different classes (not limited to sex classifications).
    But I'd also like to point out that the statistics in such meta reviews are most likely bullshit when they are assuming Gaussian distributions.

  9. #79
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    It seems to offend you if women have manly traits? .. Our point is not that women should act like men, and men should be happy in women's roles. This is just as extreme.. We're saying people should not be punished for acting like themselves. We're saying society takes smaller differences, and has emphasized on them SO much for SO long that now people are expected to act certain ways, and to feel shame when they fall short of those social pressures. I don't think that's right. I think men are useful whether they're aggressive or not. I think women are useful whether they're nurturing or not.
    Yeah, no shit. Women have plenty to contribute even if they aren't nurturing or pretty or whatever warped shit these people are yapping about. Women can have intelligence and other skills. Same with men....one of the smartest men on the planet is a fucking quadrapalegic, he's not exactly a muscular macho man.

    Some of the greatest contributors to the world are women who weren't traditionally feminine and men who weren't traditionally "macho."

    Measuring people by mere physical capabilities is retarded on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. And as many people have already pointed out, all women aren't dainty and all men aren't muscular.

    So if a woman happens to be pretty, she can get everywhere in the world? That is how it is set up now.. I'm saying it shouldn't come down to how pretty we are. The whole point of talking about the jobs Marm listed earlier was to say that women are useful in SO many other ways than "seduction" that it cheapens us as a whole to narrow it down to that. On average, most women are not on par with the looks of someone who could get their way with their seduction alone. We're not all Jessica Rabbits. (I won't even get into the whole 'purity' issue and constant barage of insults if a woman is comfortable with her sexuality.. it's a whole thread somewhere.)
    This is a glaring example of how strong the patriarchy still is, to even suggest that women can get anywhere by pleasing heterosexual men. What about other women? And homosexual men? If all people equally had power in the world, it would be far less likely that a woman could get through life on looks and sexuality alone.

    I mean, I've done this. I've used my looks and sexuality to maneuver through certain periods of my life. But the fact that this is so standard for women to do is strongly telling of just how much heterosexual men are still running things.

  10. #80
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Ported from the other thread...I could not help myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    Except, as far as I know, there's nothing innate about black people than lends them to Bass playing. Biology and chemistry (hormones) do lend women into a more "nurturing" role.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Oh get a clue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    None of those even comes close to providing conclusive evidence for the proposed behavioral differences between the sexes. All they've done is describe physical differences in brains; the link between those differences and (what happen to be conveniently ideological notions of) behavioral differences is not clear.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...boys-and-girls
    http://academic.udayton.edu/PeggyDes...l_sex_diff.pdf
    http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gend.../dp/0393068382 (This is a good one, I suggest you read it sometime.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    What exactly would constitute "conclusive evidence" for you? Your own links are nothing more than caveats that any worthy scientist understands quite well, and one of them was even to a book full of deconstructionist and postmodern feminist tripe. ("Neurosexism." Hah!)

    Yes, you have done quite well and proved (or is it disproved?) much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    So many words, so little substance. Merely sneering at a genre of literature on the subject does not suffice as an argument. Your ignorance is palpable.

    Sorry, Jennifer. This will be my last post on the subject. Chastise me as you will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    What exactly would constitute "conclusive evidence" for you?
    Well, it would have to include more than just brain scan studies showing physical differences and then speculating about what that might mean behaviorally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Your own links are nothing more than caveats that any worthy scientist understands quite well
    I'm not sure what to say to this. The "caveats" in the articles I linked say nothing less than that there is no proof that physical differences between male and female brains result in the stereotypical behavioral differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    and one of them was even to a book full of deconstructionist and postmodern feminist tripe. ("Neurosexism." Hah!)
    Your dismissal of this subject area says a lot about your ability to discuss this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Yes, you have done quite well and proved (or is it disproved?) much.
    I've shown that the kind of shitty research reportings that Perch linked should not be taken uncritically to mean that "women are naturally more nurturing because of...um, like, their brains and their hormones and stuff." Because that's not what they mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    I did not attempt to construct a proper argument. My response was merely to draw attention to the lack of your own.
    You make no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    no he's actually right on this one. it's only one factor among several, but overall women are more biologically designed to be nurturing than men are, as I say this as a very nurturing man
    No.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Squirtle is an intuitive just eater of keys.
    By TruthDestroyFFMew479 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-21-2016, 07:19 PM
  2. Gender: Social Constructs in the Animal Kingdom?
    By Cloudpatrol in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 06:41 AM
  3. [ESFJ] ESFJs and social constructs
    By Annaifiwas in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 06:54 PM
  4. Species-ism is a social construction.
    By jixmixfix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 06:23 PM
  5. The Ultimatum: Race as social construct
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 05:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO