User Tag List

First 122021222324 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 279

  1. #211
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Hey, I've been the mom who did everything with a baby strapped to my body and nursed them whenever they wanted it even if it had only been ten minutes since the last time. I would do it again, if I had another baby, which I doubt I will. And I am firmly against conscription for everyone-- but if we must have it, IMO it should be both sexes. I'd prefer if they did it like jury duty, though, so that you can delay it but not totally escape it if you're the primary caretaker to young children (regardless of whether you're male or female).

  2. #212
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,772

    Default

    these are the most feminist outfits eva!
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  3. #213
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I totally agree a compromise in which women can work and still care for their children is the best solution. I was kind of thinking in black and white and assuming these allowances don't exist. As I said in my previous post, I am really blaming capitalism and not women who want to work.

    Yes, I agree with this. I believe in responsibility, and I think a lot of parents are selfish and irresponsible. How parents take responsibility for raising their children in a healthy way is their choice. They just need to do it and not pretend children are another nice accessory. There are many possibilities. But we can't just reject gender/sex based roles entirely, because they exist for a reason. It's just up to the individuals involved if they want to adhere to associated behaviors, and to what extent.

    I agree that we shouldn't have fixed stereotypical notions of what is "man" behavior and what is "woman" behavior. But we have unique strengths and weakness and associated behaviors for a reason, and often, for a lot of people, they work well.
    Life is not black and white, and many more "allowances" exist than people are willing to take advantage of. It is amazing what you can do when you discard the assumption (or advice, exhortation, assurance) that you cannot. Not only can we reject the idea of gender-based roles, we must if we are to avoid placing artificial limitations on people. If there really is a good reason for some aspect of the roles, then do it for that reason, not simply because you are a woman (or man). The best arrangement is one in which both men and women are free to take responsibility for their families without being judged or considered less of a man/woman because of their choice. As long as these issues are delimited as "women's issues" they will continue to be issues for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    You are injecting a lot into my posts which isn't there, and ignoring/missing a lot of the main points. But I kind of expect this to happen whenever I say something controversial.
    That tends to happen when a member makes sweeping generalizations without much evidence to back it up. Your or my credentials aren't important. What either of us says must stand on its own merits.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #214
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Hey, I've been the mom who did everything with a baby strapped to my body and nursed them whenever they wanted it even if it had only been ten minutes since the last time. I would do it again, if I had another baby, which I doubt I will. And I am firmly against conscription for everyone-- but if we must have it, IMO it should be both sexes. I'd prefer if they did it like jury duty, though, so that you can delay it but not totally escape it if you're the primary caretaker to young children (regardless of whether you're male or female).
    That's awesome, and that sounds like a good way to do it.

  5. #215
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Life is not black and white, and many more "allowances" exist than people are willing to take advantage of. It is amazing what you can do when you discard the assumption (or advice, exhortation, assurance) that you cannot.
    Good point about the allowances, which was taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If there really is a good reason for some aspect of the roles, then do it for that reason, not simply because you are a woman (or man). The best arrangement is one in which both men and women are free to take responsibility for their families without being judged or considered less of a man/woman because of their choice. As long as these issues are delimited as "women's issues" they will continue to be issues for everyone.
    I don't believe I was arguing with this. Can you find anything in what I've said that suggests I think people should be judged and conform to gender roles simply because they are a woman or a man? Because I'm pretty sure if you read everything I said I've been saying exactly the opposite.

    To sum up this conversation so far: if you are going to assume I'm saying something I'm not, that doesn't do either of us any good or get us closer to the truth. So far there have been only a few genuine arguments which what I have actually said, and most of it has been arguing (often irrelevant) misinterpretations. Maybe it would be helpful in the future if you're going to debate with someone to clarify the points they're making first? Say, am I correct in understanding that what you are saying is "X" and that it means "Y"? I don't know if your quote was an argument based on a misinterpretation or agreeing with me, so following my own advice I'm going to ask you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Not only can we reject the idea of gender-based roles, we must if we are to avoid placing artificial limitations on people.
    Certainly a valid point, and I've pretty much been agreeing. Maybe gender/sex based "roles" are not the correct word to use, but differences certainly exist and should be celebrated not rejected. Associated behaviors evolved because they work. No one is or should be forced to conform to these behaviors, because since people naturally behave this way, it is unnecessary. I've been saying this, and people seem to think that celebration of gender differences=pressure to conform. It doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    That tends to happen when a member makes sweeping generalizations without much evidence to back it up. Your or my credentials aren't important. What either of us says must stand on its own merits.
    I believe the generalizations I made were adequate to make my points, which were consequently missed and disregarded. Sweeping generalizations can sometimes be useful too. I mean, why are we even on a site which deals with archetypes based on four letters to make sweeping generalizations about individuals if this practice is so morally wrong and ignorant? There's just as much evidence for what I've said as there is for me testing as INTP explaining why I'm argumentative.

  6. #216
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I don't believe I was arguing with any of this. Can you find anything in what I've said that suggests I think people should be judged and conform to gender roles? Because I'm pretty sure if you read everything I said I've been saying exactly the opposite. If you are going to assume I'm saying something I'm not, that doesn't do either of us any good or get us closer to the truth. So far there have been only a few genuine arguments which what I have actually said, and most of it has been arguing (often irrelevant) misinterpretations.
    For the highlighted, consider, "But we can't just reject gender/sex based roles entirely, because they exist for a reason." That sounds like an exhortation to adhere to the roles because they have some logical basis. On the other hand, it was followed by "I agree that we shouldn't have fixed stereotypical notions of what is "man" behavior and what is "woman" behavior." So which is is? Do we conform to gender roles because they make sense, or allow each person to operate as an individual, free from stereotypes? It is contradictions like these that can lead to misinterpretations.

    Similarly, you seem to think it is OK for women to have a job or to serve in the military out of choice, but not out of necessity. This is an odd double standard. If you had combined it all into something like, "I don't think anyone should be forced into a lifestyle not of their choosing" it would be internally consistent and I might even agree with it. Presented as it was in the specific context of female gender roles and child rearing obligations, it looks both contradictory and sexist.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Maybe gender/sex based "roles" are not the right word to use, but differences certainly exist and should be celebrated not rejected. If XY and XX were exactly the same life would be really boring, and inefficient. Like cloned GMO's. All I'm sayin'.
    Biological differences between men and women certainly exist. Reading more into them than there is, however, is no more realistic and constructive than denying them. Humanity includes a broad spectrum of diversity. Sex and gender are just one aspect of this, and often not the most important one. Saying "more women do A while more men do B" may be a factual observation. Turning that into "women should do A and men should do B" is where the problem comes.

    I do agree that: (1) breastfeeding is usually best; (2) parents should take responsibility for their children; (3) society should make it easier for them to do so; and (4) parents should discharge their responsibilities and order their lives in the way that makes most sense for them, without regard to stereotypes or "traditional" gender roles.

    I disagree about conscription, though. We would benefit from universal conscription, and also by expanding national service to include humanitarian work in places like hospitals, as they do in Germany. Ivy's idea of deferment, as with jury duty, makes sense, too, as long as the wealthy and influential cannot exploit it to escape entirely. I read that in WWII, many members of congress and even the president had sons serving in the military, but in the last Gulf war, only one member of congress did. One problem of the "all-volunteer force" is that the burdens and risks are not shared across the population.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #217
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    For the highlighted, consider, "But we can't just reject gender/sex based roles entirely, because they exist for a reason." That sounds like an exhortation to adhere to the roles because they have some logical basis. On the other hand, it was followed by "I agree that we shouldn't have fixed stereotypical notions of what is "man" behavior and what is "woman" behavior." So which is is? Do we conform to gender roles because they make sense, or allow each person to operate as an individual, free from stereotypes? It is contradictions like these that can lead to misinterpretations.
    I said, what I thought was plainly but clearly wasn't, that differences and their associated behaviors are often beneficial if people choose to exhibit them. I then went on to say that "role" was not the correct word (because it implies an obligation). What I thought you were saying was rejecting differences and (chosen) associated behaviors. Was I incorrect? I don't agree with rejecting these, but I do agree with rejecting the notion of conformity and judgment.

    I can see now how the juxtaposition of my ideas could cause confusion. I'll keep that in mind in future posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Similarly, you seem to think it is OK for women to have a job or to serve in the military out of choice, but not out of necessity. This is an odd double standard. If you had combined it all into something like, "I don't think anyone should be forced into a lifestyle not of their choosing" it would be internally consistent and I might even agree with it. Presented as it was in the specific context of female gender roles and child rearing obligations, it looks both contradictory and sexist.
    I think whatever someone chooses is fine, and women should be able to choose to be in the military. But they should not be forced to either have a job (by capitalism, in my opinion) or be drafted. I don't really think it is necessary. Maybe I do have an odd double standard.

    The post about childcare versus having a career was a little unclear: as I attempted to clarify awhile back, I was only being critical toward a small minority who don't think they need to spend time with their children or breastfeed them more than a very short time. Maybe I only imagined this was prevalent, due once again to capitalism telling everyone they need to work, produce, become a commodity, etc. I cited it as an example of totally rejecting gender associated behaviors being destructive. In these few cases it might be better to embrace a more "traditional" notion of femininity, or at least give thought to there being possible benefits. Not conforming, just saying it is ok and might have advantages in some cases. It seems like there is a particular type of extreme feminist (certainly the minority, and probably mostly in past movements) who seems to reject all things feminine as being imposed by the patriarchy, and tries to essentially become a man with two X chromosomes. Which is fine if it works for them. The only problem I would have with this idea is if it causes you to be so focused on competition and production that you don't really pay attention to your child if you choose to have one. My point about gender differences is to show that it is ok to be feminine in either a modern sense or an older sense, and choosing to stay home or whatever does not mean you are not a feminist or are conforming to a role. Am I making myself any clearer, or have I just totally screwed up at expressing myself again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Biological differences between men and women certainly exist. Reading more into them than there is, however, is no more realistic and constructive than denying them. Humanity includes a broad spectrum of diversity. Sex and gender are just one aspect of this, and often not the most important one. Saying "more women do A while more men do B" may be a factual observation. Turning that into "women should do A and men should do B" is where the problem comes.
    Yes, I agree. I was citing a specific example with a "should" in it, i.e. women should breastfeed if possible and consider that they may need to spend time with their child- but that does not mean conforming to a role. (See above point.) I mean, it could be construed that that is what you are doing by behaving that way in that specific instance, but that is the wrong language to use and doesn't necessitate "conforming" in any other areas. It was just pointing out that total rejection of the concept that it is a good idea or necessary to do these things, based in an attempt to reject gender roles is a little extreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I do agree that: (1) breastfeeding is usually best; (2) parents should take responsibility for their children; (3) society should make it easier for them to do so; and (4) parents should discharge their responsibilities and order their lives in the way that makes most sense for them, without regard to stereotypes or "traditional" gender roles.
    Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I disagree about conscription, though. We would benefit from universal conscription, and also by expanding national service to include humanitarian work in places like hospitals, as they do in Germany. Ivy's idea of deferment, as with jury duty, makes sense, too, as long as the wealthy and influential cannot exploit it to escape entirely. I read that in WWII, many members of congress and even the president had sons serving in the military, but in the last Gulf war, only one member of congress did. One problem of the "all-volunteer force" is that the burdens and risks are not shared across the population.
    Yeah that is a problem. It would be interesting though to find out if more men would volunteer if they could take the place of a woman they knew who was drafted. I bet a lot of them would.

  8. #218
    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 Ivy View Post
    Hey, I've been the mom who did everything with a baby strapped to my body and nursed them whenever they wanted it even if it had only been ten minutes since the last time. I would do it again, if I had another baby, which I doubt I will. And I am firmly against conscription for everyone-- but if we must have it, IMO it should be both sexes. I'd prefer if they did it like jury duty, though, so that you can delay it but not totally escape it if you're the primary caretaker to young children (regardless of whether you're male or female).
    my thoughts exactly. conscription is evil, pure and simple
    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

  9. #219
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,518

    Default

    Thank you for the clarifications. I think we agree on much, though not everything. It has just taken me a few posts to understand your meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    What I thought you were saying was rejecting differences and (chosen) associated behaviors. Was I incorrect? I don't agree with rejecting these, but I do agree with rejecting the notion of conformity and judgment.
    I do not reject anything that is a demonstrated fact: e.g. biological differences between the sexes. I also favor individual choice in how people live their lives, whether that choice looks traditional or the opposite. I reject making more of differences than is really there, or using them to restrict choices artificially. I also have no patience for people who do something "just because" they are female/male. They should make their choice, whatever it is, based on what makes sense in the situation. The problem is that many people don't think through important life choices, and just fall into what "everyone does" or what their parents or their partner wants. They accept misguided advice rather than think for themselves. (No wonder they also make poor choices for their children.)

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I think whatever someone chooses is fine, and women should be able to choose to be in the military. But they should not be forced to either have a job (by capitalism, in my opinion) or be drafted. I don't really think it is necessary. Maybe I do have an odd double standard.
    Would you extend the same consideration to men? If so, I would consider it consistent and unbiased, but if neither parent can be expected to have a job, who will support the family?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    It seems like there is a particular type of extreme feminist (certainly the minority, and probably mostly in past movements) who seems to reject all things feminine as being imposed by the patriarchy, and tries to essentially become a man with two X chromosomes. Which is fine if it works for them. The only problem I would have with this idea is if it causes you to be so focused on competition and production that you don't really pay attention to your child if you choose to have one.
    Do you consider such behavior acceptable for men? Many men behave this way, but are not criticised for it the way a woman would be. You have made some good points, especially about what it takes to be a responsible parent, I would just apply them to both men and women.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    . It was just pointing out that total rejection of the concept that it is a good idea or necessary to do these things, based in an attempt to reject gender roles is a little extreme.
    When I say we should completely reject the notion of gender roles, I do not mean we should reject all associated behaviors. We should simply do them when and if they make sense. If they make sense and are the best approach, it doesn't matter whether they fit into an existing gender role or not. The whole gender role construct is thus superfluous.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #220
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Would you extend the same consideration to men? If so, I would consider it consistent and unbiased, but if neither parent can be expected to have a job, who will support the family?
    Um...good question. I would ultimately say the primary caregiver, but women at least at first because in the beginning they are doing more caregiving (with breastfeeding and all). If they are not, then it is not really an issue and maybe there is not a primary caregiver. It might be worthwhile to consider striving to make it easier to have situations in which both parents only work part time and are still able to comfortably support the family (if they are together). And if one parent is single, then perhaps adjusting the child support situation so that the burden is not entirely on either the father or the mother.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Do you consider such behavior acceptable for men? Many men behave this way, but are not criticised for it the way a woman would be. You have made some good points, especially about what it takes to be a responsible parent, I would just apply them to both men and women.
    I don't like it in men either. Children need to have a strong bond with at least one parent, and preferably both. It just seems more fundamental in the early stage that it comes from women given the above points. Certainly gender roles need to be equally rejected on both sides, as well as pressure to conform. Women have a masculine side and men have a feminine side, and these should be celebrated as well and nurtured.

    Well I'm glad we've cleared up all the misunderstandings! They were on both sides, and I think we agree on everything except conscription. I'm glad I succeeded in making some good points, and I hope this conversation was worthwhile and I haven't killed the thread by being confusing.

    Thanks for the civil discussion. I learned a few things.

Similar Threads

  1. What is more important protest or voluntary work?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-21-2017, 01:36 PM
  2. What's more important? Duty, Honor or Love?
    By highlander in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 01-02-2017, 04:01 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-19-2016, 06:55 AM
  4. Who Is More the Buffoon: Obama or Bush II?
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 12:42 PM
  5. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 07:53 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